This study suggests that there is a more important reason for con cern about delay in the arbitration of discharge cases than the hardship it creates for the discharged employee or the problem presented to the employer by the potential of a large backpay award. It hypothesizes that the status quo tendency in decision making means the longer the delay between an employee's discharge and the arbitrator's decision, the less likely the grievant is to be reinstated. A test of this hypothesis using logistic regression indicates that, after controlling for other factors, a one- month increase in the delay reduces the odds of reinstatement by 8.6 percent.
Adams, G.W. (1978). Grievance Arbitration in Discharge Cases. Research and Current Issues Series No. 38. Kingston, Ontario: Industrial Relations Center, Queen's University.
2.
American Arbitration Association. (1991). Labor case distribution and fees in 1990. Study Time, No. 4. New York: American Arbitration Association, 2.
3.
Barnacle, P.J. (1991). Arbitration of Discharge Grievances in Ontario: Outcomes and Reinstatement Experiences. Research and Current Issues Series No. 62. Kingston, ON: Industrial Relations Center, Queen's University.
4.
Bemmels, B. (1988). "The Effect of Grievants' Gender on Arbitrators' Decisions." Industrial and Labor Relations Review41: 251-262.
5.
Bemmels, B. (1990). "Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitrator Decisions ." Journal of Labor Research11: 181-192.
6.
Bemmels, B. & Foley, J.R. (1996). "Grievance Procedure Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations." Journal of Management22: 359-384.
7.
Block, R.N. & Stieber, J. (1987). "The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards." Industrial and Labor Relations Review40: 543-555.
8.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1964). Major Collective Bargaining Agreements—Grievance Procedures, BLS Bulletin 1425-I, U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
9.
Bureau of National Affairs. (various dates). Cumulative Index and Digest, Labor Arbitration Reports, Various Volumes. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
10.
Bureau of National Affairs. (1986). Basic Patterns in Union Contracts (11th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
Dauten, D. (1980). Quitting: Knowing When to Leave. New York: Walker and Company.
14.
Denenberg, T.S. & Denenberg, R.V. (1991). Alcohol and Other Drugs: Issues in Arbitration. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
15.
Demaris, A. (1992). Logit Modeling: Practical Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
Elkouri, F. & Elkouri, E. (1985). How Arbitration Works (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
17.
Fairweather, O. (1983). Practice and Procedure in Labor Arbitration (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
18.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. ( 1997). Arbitration Statistics—Fiscal Year 1996. Washington, D.C.: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
19.
Gifford, C. & Hobgood, W. (1985). Directory of U.S. Labor Arbitrators. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
20.
Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley.
21.
Malinowski, A.A. (1981). "An Empirical Analysis of Discharge Cases and the Work History of Employees Reinstated by Labor Arbitrators." Arbitration Journal6: 31-46.
22.
Mesch, D.J. (1995). "Arbitration and Gender: An Analysis of Cases Taken to Arbitration in the Public Sector." Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector24: 207-218.
23.
Nelson, N.E. & Curry, E.M., Jr. (1981). "Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitral Decisions ." Industrial Relations20: 312-317.
24.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied Linear Statistical Models (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin.
25.
Ponak, A. (1987). "Discharge Arbitration and Reinstatement in the Province of Alberta." Arbitration Journal42: 39-46.
26.
Ponak, A. & Olson, C. (1992). "Time Delays in Grievance Arbitration." Relations Industrielles47: 690-708.
27.
Rodgers, R.C. & Helburn, I.B. (1985). "The Arbitrariness of Arbitrators' Decisions."Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 234-241. Madison, WI: IRRA.
28.
Ross, A.M. (1958). "The Well-Aged Arbitration Case." Industrial and Labor Relations Review11: 262-271.
29.
Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). "Status Quo Bias in Individual Decision Making." Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1: 7-49.
30.
SAS Institute. (1990). SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 6, 4th ed. Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute .
31.
Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.
32.
Shearer, J.C. (1987). "Reinstatement without Back Pay—An Appropriate Remedy?" Arbitration Journal42: 47-52.
33.
Silver, W.S. & Mitchell, T.R. (1990). "The Status Quo Tendency in Decision Making." Organizational Dynamics8: 34-46.
Stieber, J., Block, R.N., & Corbitt, L. (1984). "How Representative are Published Decisions?" Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators, pp. 128-141. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
36.
Stieber, J., Block, R.N., & Nichol, V. (1990). "Elapsed Time in Grievance Arbitration: New Perspectives on Old Problems." Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators, pp. 172-192.Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
37.
Tuchman, B. (1990). The March of Folly. New York : Ballentine.
38.
Usery, W. (1973). Daily Labor Report. No. 233 (December 4):A13. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
