Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
- Solutions to improve cost and Time lags in arbitration
According to Sloanne and Whitney (2010), time lags and cost have attracted much criticism to the arbitration process. Making a decision takes time, even when the arbitrator has received enough evidence. Such delays culminate into higher costs that may otherwise outweigh the benefits accrued. One party may opt to employ dilatory tactics to increase the time lags further.
According to Sloanne and Whitney, “One way to handle the time lag problem is for the parties to look for comparatively new arbitrators rather than veterans” (Sloanne& Whitney, 2010). Although some people may argue that new arbitrators do not have the necessary experience, they have a smaller caseload to allow them offer more immediate case hearing dates. Veteran arbitrators on the other hand have a greater share of the market and consequently, a bigger caseload that could drag for months.
Parties can circumvent time lags by selecting arbitrators by themselves instead of relying on FMCS and AAA. Obtaining arbitrators from an agency is time- consuming because the agency will have to inform the arbitrators, who will then write to the parties to schedule a hearing date. Doing away with stenographic transcripts of the proceedings and post-hearing briefs will save on cost and reduce time lags. The arbitrator should take their notes at the hearing and give the parties a chance for oral argument (Sloanne & Whitney, 2010).
- Structural arrangements in Harold Swift Vs Ecumenical Bagel Company
After the dismissal, Swift contacted his union steward at the company to explain his predicament. This was the first stage of the arrangement. The second step in the structural arrangement was to present the grievance, signed by Swift and his union steward, to the foreman. The role of the steward was to sign the grievance form and accompany Swift to the foreman’s office. The foreman was supposed to view the grievance and give his verdict in 48 hours.
The third step involved the appeal of the foreman’s verdict to the superintendent of the department in which Swift worked (Sloanne & Whitney, 2010). The steward acts as the representative of the union. He argues the merits of Swift’s case to no avail. The superintendent’s role was to communicate the management’s decision to Swift.
Lastly, a meeting was set between the superintendent and his representatives and the organization’s plant grievance committee to represent the union. Each group of employees was arguing the position of their bosses. The superintendent’s team insisted that the dismissal was justified while the grievance team negated the claim. Both teams agreed that Swift was unfairly discharged, but then disciplinary action was inevitable.
- Why the arbitrator’s decision may not be final and binding
An arbitrator’s decision is usually enforced by the courts. Very rarely do courts alter the decision. However, in some instances, the courts may find the decision wanting and pronounce it null. In such instances, the arbitrator’s decision is not final and binding because they violated some rules stated below. The arbitration of any labor dispute requires careful preparation (Sloanne & Whitney, 2010). Both parties have the responsibility of preparing before meeting the arbitrator. Preparation involves collecting evidence, facts, and documents. The parties should also procure relevant witnesses to help their case. The reason behind this level of preparation is to ensure that the process looks serious in the eyes of the court.
The exercise should conform to all rules of fairness as stipulated in the constitution. The arbitrator should allow enough time for each party to present their findings. The arbitrator will then make a decision based on the evidence, facts and testimonies before him. A court may quash or overturn a decision if it establishes that the proceedings were not fair. One party might be tempted to leave out witnesses or evidence under the impression that the arbitrator is already familiar with the facts. However, the law clearly states that in such a setting, the arbitrator should act like they know nothing else apart from the facts and evidence presented. If later on one party cries foul, the courts will not find it as reason enough to quash the decision.
- The various facets of the job of an arbitrator
Arbitrators should adhere to a strict code of ethics (Sloanne & Whitney, 2010). Examples of ethical considerations include making a decision based on the evidence presented and not personal knowledge. The arbitrator bears the responsibility of applying the language of the contract as they find it in a particular case. It is unethical for an arbitrator to disrespect the final collective bargaining contract. Sometimes the ambiguous clauses of a contract can be interpreted to mean different things. If a certain interpretation is likely to disadvantage one party, it is prudent that the arbitrator looks at past interpretations of the clause. The current interpretation of the ambiguous clause should the same as it was in the past.
A decision is fair if the arbitrator makes the ruling based on the tabled facts, evidence and witness accounts. An arbitrator that deliberately decides to compromise the grievance is not fair. During the process, the arbitrator’s main responsibilities include treating the parties with dignity and keep the hearing moving. The arbitrator has no obligation of the witnesses giving their testimonies. Other responsibilities include being fair to the participants, being incorruptible, and being aware of guiding arbitration principles.
Reference
Sloane, A. A., & Witney, F. (2010). Labor relations (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.