Improving Grievance Arbitration: The Practitioners Speak. Working Paper 1973-07.

Grievance arbitration is utilized on a nearly universal basis, but the process is malfunctioning in several ways. The study was based on a review of the literature, in field interviews, and in-depth correspondence with knowledgeable management and union practitioners; findings are limited to the arbitration step in contract administration. Twenty points of indictment of grievance arbitration and arbitrators were compiled and specific remedies were suggested, with a consensus being reached on some points and substantial disagreement ensuing from other points. Consensus included: desirability of shorter opinions stressing reasoning behind awards; urging arbitrators to take firm charge of hearings; charging of a reasonable fee if hearing is cancelled; a shortage exists of competent and experienced arbitrators; scepticism regarding the utility of submission arguments; and negative attitudes on some proposed reforms. Pre-arbitration suggestions include: that arbitrators receive pertinent information in advance, and that unreasonable delay in scheduling defeats one of the fundamental purposes of grievance arbitration. Greater arbitrator initiative, additional practitioner contributions to improving the process, and joint efforts by practitioners, arbitrators, and designating agencies toward continued improvement of the grievance arbitration process are recommended. A list of practitioner rights of expectation from the arbitrator is presented. (SC)