The role of grievances and arbitration in labor dispute resolution

1 Grievances and Arbitration Introduction and Overview The grievances and arbitration process were devised for unions to facilitate the collective bargaining process. Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statue of 1977 obliges employers to work with unions in the collective bargaining process and to settle disputes in this manner. In other words, employers and employees are bound by law to settle their disputes through the collective bargaining process whenever a union represents the workers. Employees typically support the role of the union in this process because it serves as the representative of the workers’ interests. Employers have demonstrated less enthusiasm when it comes to collective bargaining, often seeing the union as an obstacle to productivity (Rantanen, 2001). This paper will discuss the issue of grievances and arbitration and show why the topic is important, what role it plays between employers and employees, what its impact on business can be, and what ethical issues apply. Why the Topic is Important The topic of grievances and arbitration is important because for the past two centuries—since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution—it has been important for employees to have recourse when it comes to asserting grievances regarding unfair hours, pay, benefits, support and so on. The Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era of work, which allowed employers to create workplaces that were often unsafe, where employees worked long hours for little pay, and where there was no recourse for the plight of the worker to be heard. Unions formed over time to give voice to the workers and help them to assert their rights. How it is Relevant Today, the grievances and arbitration process is still a vital aspect of the labor market, as it ensures that the rights of workers are maintained in the face of aggressive employer practices. The collective bargaining process, by which grievances and arbitration issues are settled, assists in resolving issues, giving workers a formal process by which to make their claims and negotiate a suitable settlement, have a decision made by a neutral-party (this is the arbitration part of the process, which occurs when the workers represented by the union and the employer cannot agree on a settlement—the case goes before a neutral third party). As the nature of work continues to change in the modern era, the topic of grievances and arbitration remains very relevant, especially as new expectations of what work is expected and how workers are to be compensated arise over time. Even the types of workers who are employed is changing—and today’s hot topic of immigration also impacts this process (Watts, 2003), which makes the legal rights of immigrant workers especially relevant for labor unions and the grievances and arbitration process. Current Research Current research on this topic includes developing a suitable approach to settling grievances and arbitration techniques so that the overall process is more effective and efficient for both sides (Grenig & Scanza, 2016). Other areas of current research include how federal policy hurts the rights of the workers when it comes to securing a fair arbitration hearing (Taylor, 2015). How Businesses are Affected Businesses are affected by the grievances and arbitration process because they have to engage in it even if they don’t think the grievances particularly worthwhile. The law requires them to do so. This means they have to set aside time and resources and have representatives for themselves who have the skill to negotiate an outcome that satisfies employers as much as it satisfies laborers. Role of Grievances and Arbitration The role of grievances and arbitration is to allow disputes between employers and employees to be settled fairly, through negotiation, with workers represented by unions, and if necessary to have disputes settled via arbitration—i.e., with the case being heard by a neutral third party. As Seitz (1984) points out, “arbitration is an ancient process for resolving conflict” (p. 514). Arbitration is not confined to labor disputes, as Seitz (1984) notes, but is also used for commercial issues, such as “transitory business transactions” (Seitz, 1984, p. 515). The purpose of arbitration is, nonetheless, no different: the arbitrator is meant to be a neutral third party, much like a judge, who hears the dispute—the grievance—and settles the matter in an impartial manner. Arbitration is only used as a last resort, according to most collective bargaining labor union contracts. Typically, grievances are first settled or attempted to be settled during the course of collective bargaining. When that course fails, arbitration is used. The Future of Grievances and Arbitration Stieber (1986) argues that “there is an underlying and fundamental relationship between the number of organized employees (i.e. the potential grievants) and the number of cases going to arbitration” (p. 371). Additionally, the more unionized labor becomes, the more of an impact this event has on arbitration. With unionized laborers presenting more grievances over time, more cases will go to arbitration, and that is exactly what is happening today: the inability of employers and employees to come to any sort of agreement over the course of collective bargaining necessitates a turn towards arbitration. Why is it so difficult for employers and employees to agree? Part of the reason is that both want to win—and a win-win situation is often difficult to achieve. Employers want to cut costs and increase their bottom line, which means they do not want to give in to every employee demand as these demands ultimately mean less money for the employers. At the same time, employees want to have all their demands met so that they can earn not just a fair wage but a good wage—and in some cases a great wage with great benefits. The costs attached to these benefits are not always substantially weighed by laborers and their union representatives. Thus, during the collective bargaining process, disputes go unresolved. For that reason, the future indicates that more grievances will go forward to arbitration as the gulf between what workers want and what employers are willing to provide widens. Right/Wrong The issue of who is right and who is wrong in the grievance/arbitration process is difficult to discern: in most cases, each side has a logical point or argument to make. At some level, a neutral party—i.e., the arbitrator—is likely to realize that there must be a little “give” on both sides in order for the matter to be settled. However, as Davey (1973) points out, the process itself is malfunctioning—and that makes the issue even more complicated. The problems are numerous: excessive delay from the time the arbitration hearing is begun to the time a decision is reached; protracted hearings; costliness; legalistic proceedings; the unfamiliarity of the arbitrator with the background of the case; the triviality of many cases that go to arbitration, which delegitimizes the custom over time; ineptitude on the part of arbitrators; a flawed process of arbitrator selection; and many more issues besides (Davey, 1973). What is right about the process is that, ideally, it is a way for a third party to come into a dispute and help to settle the matter fairly. However, as Davey (1973) shows, the actual practice of arbitration tends to be much less competent and far more wasteful in terms of time and resources primarily because arbitrators themselves are simply not up to the task required of them. Lawyer’s Role Livengood (1958) states that lawyers play an important role in the arbitration process because they are familiar with the laws, know how to represent clients, and are skilled at presenting a case before a judge. As roughly 9 out of every 10 grievance cases will end in arbitration, according to Livengood (1958), the lawyer plays a fundamental role in shaping the outcome of a grievance case. Whether the lawyer is representing the union or the employer is immaterial—both sides have a need to have their arguments represented competently, which means that having a skilled, professional lawyer working the case is crucial in today’s landscape. Supporting Cases and Current Events: Summarized and Analyzed One of the most recent and high-profile cases of arbitration to make headlines was that of the case of the NFL and Tom Brady, who was suspended from playing for the New England Patriots for allegedly tampering with footballs during the playoffs. Brady filed a grievance and the case went arbitration, with a judge acting as the arbitrator. Brady’s side won the arbitration and the suspension was deemed illegal. This is an example of how the process works: the arbitrator looks at the evidence impartially—and in this case the arbitrator saw that the NFL was unfairly and unjustly misrepresenting a case against Brady and the Patriots that violated the terms of its contract with teams and players. The decision was made without political or business-based bias, as all arbitration decisions should be. Of course, as Davey (1973) has shown—this is not always the case. Davey (1973) presents numerous examples of arbitration cases where the arbitrator was simply not up to the professional level required. Unfortunately, not every arbitrator has the skills required for the job—and that is one of the reasons why problems persist when it comes to the grievances and arbitration process. Impact on Business The overall impact on business is complex: on the one side, arbitration is necessary because there is no other recourse to dispute settlement; on the other side, arbitrators may not have the competence level to deliver a fair or just decision based on the arguments presented. Businesses may, therefore, benefit from arbitration—but arbitration can also be costly and constant arbitration can be a drain on a business’s resources. For that reason, it makes sense that businesses should strive to avoid arbitration, though not at the expense of their own well-being. Ethical and Biblical Principles Applicable to the Area The ethical and Biblical principles that apply to the topic of grievances and arbitration are rooted in two ideas: 1) justice, which stems from the concept of virtue ethics, and 2) mercy, which is rooted in Biblical principles established by Christ. Both should be pursued in the course of collective bargaining and arbitration. Justice is demanded because this is a transcendental ideal and virtue that helps to bind society together: it facilitates working partnerships and ensures that all stakeholders are treated with equitability. Mercy stems from Christ’s love and compassion for sinners and recognizes that those who have much to give should be willing to make sacrifices so that those who have less may be elevated. Implications and Recommendations Those involved in grievances and arbitration processes would do well to remember that justice and mercy must be pursued simultaneously in order to ensure a good resolution to conflicts. Thus, both sides of the arbitration process must recognize that these two qualities are incumbent upon them. A high degree of critical self-analysis is required, but if it can be achieved, a winning solution that is truly win-win for both sides of the issue can be obtained. All sides of the process must be willing to submit to these ideals. Conclusion Grievances and arbitration are part of the process of collective bargaining in today’s labor market world. Employees and employers, however, must come together in a better and more mindful way in order to facilitate the aims of one another and the aims of the collective as a whole. The more mindful that all sides can be towards respecting the values of their heritage, the better the outcome will be for all. When one side tries to subdue the other and gain an unfair advantage, the ideals of justice and mercy are displaced. Arbitrators must also be more competent in helping this process along so that both concepts are manifested. References Davey, H. W. (1973). What’s right and what’s wrong with grievance arbitration- practitioners air their views. Arbitration Journal, 28(4), 209-231. Grenig, J. E., & Scanza, R. M. (2016). Preparing for arbitration: The background investigation part I. Dispute Resolution Journal, 71(3), 139-145. Livengood Jr, C. H. (1958). The Lawyer\\\\\\\'s Role in Grievance and Arbitration. Lab. LJ, 9, 495. Rantanen, H. (2001). Internal obstacles restraining productivity improvement in small Finnish industrial enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 69(1), 85-91. Seitz, P. (1984). Intellectual Work: Strictly Arbitrary: What Do Arbitrators Do?. The American Scholar, 514-521. Stieber, J. (1986). The Future of Grievance Arbitration. Labor Law Journal, 37(6), 366. Taylor, S. E. (2015). Arbitration Whack-A-Mole: The Federal Policy Favoring Arbitration Hammers the Rights of Individual Employees. J. Disp. Resol., 239. Watts, J. (2003). # Mexico-US Migration and Labor Unions: Obstacles to Building Cross-Border Solidarity. The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, Working Paper No. 79, 1-33.