Arbitration in Practice: A Profile of Public Sector Arbitration Cases

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe the types of cases typically brought to arbitration in the public sector and to analyze the pattern of case resolutions—in what areas is the grievant or management more likely to win, lose, or reach some compromise. Additionally, comparisons of public versus private arbitration cases are examined. The authors analyzed 994 public sector arbitration cases from Labor Arbitration Reports: Dispute Settlements over a seven year period of time (1985–1992). Each case was coded according to the parties involved in the dispute, the type of case, and case resolution. The results of this study suggest that a wide variety of cases are brought to arbitration in the public sector and, depending on the type of grievance, the outcome is quite different. Furthermore, although more cases are found in favor of the union in the public sector rather than private sector, management in both the public and private sectors experience a higher winning percentage. Finally, the results indicate that significantly more termination and fewer suspension cases are brought to arbitration in the private than public sector.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bohlander

G.W.

(1992). Public sector grievance arbitration: Structure and administration. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector., 21, 271–286.

Coleman

C.J.

(1988). Grievance arbitration in the public sector: Status, issues, and problems. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 17, 89–103.

Coleman

C.J.

(1990). Managing labor relations in the public sector. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Dalton

D.R.

Todor

W.D.

(1981). Win. lose, draw: The grievance process in practice. Personnel Administrator, 26, 25–29.

Dilts

D.A.

Leonard

E.C.

Jr. (1989). Win-loss rates in public sector grievance arbitration cases: Implications for the selection of arbitrators. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 18, 337–344.

Dresang

D.L.

(1991). Public Personnel Management. White Plains, New York: Longman Publishing Group.

Dunn

J.K.

Overton

C.E.

(1988). Arbitrator's utilization of Private sector criteria in resolving public sector disputes. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 17, 197–206.

Extejt

M.M.

Chelius

J.R.

(1985). The behavioral impact of impasse resolution procedures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 5, 37–48.

Jennings

Wolters

(1976). Discharge cases reconsidered. The Arbitration Journal, 31, 164–180.

10.

Karim

A.R.

(1993). Arbitrator Considerations in Modifying Discharge Decisions in the Public Sector. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 22, 245–251.

11.

Katz

LaVan

(1991). Arbitrated public sector employees grievances: Analysis and implications. ]ournal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 20, 293–305.

12.

Klingner

D.E.

(1993). Public sector collective bargaining. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13, 19–28.

13.

LaVan

(1990). Arbitration in the public sector: A current perspective. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 19, 153–163.

14.

Mesch

D.J.

Dalton

D.R.

(1992). Arbitration in Practice: Win, lose, or draw? The Human Resource Professional, 44, 37–41, 45.

15.

Rahnama-Moghadam

Dilts

D.A.

Karim

(1992). The arbitration of disciplinary matters in the public sector: Does objective evidence make difference? Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 21, 151–157.

16.

Vest

J.M.

O'Brien

F.P.

Vest

J.M.

(1990). Explaining rights arbitrator's willingness to accept public sector interest arbitration cases. Public Personnel Management, 19, 331–343.

17.

Zirkel

P.A.

(1983). A profile of grievance arbitration cases. Arbitration Journal, 38, 35–38.