scholarly journals Do Lawyers Affect Grievance Arbitration Outcomes? The Newfoundland Experience

2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Wm. Thornicroft
Keyword(s):  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
Legal Training

Unions and employers are no doubt aware that retaining legal counsel necessitates a more expensive and less expeditious grievance arbitration process. But if a party's prospects for success are enhanced by legal representation, the additional delay and expense may be justified. Does legal representation affect grievance outcomes? Most arbitrators are lawyers. Does an arbitrator's legal training affect the outcome of a grievance"! These, and other issues are examined in this study. The results suggest that legal representation does not affect grievance outcomes; nor do lawyer-arbitrators decide cases any differently than their lay colleagues.

Using Event History Analysis to Model Delay in Grievance Arbitration

ILR Review ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Ponak ◽  
Wilfred Zerbe ◽  
Sarah Rose ◽  
Corliss Olson
Keyword(s):  
Event History Analysis ◽  
Event History ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Board Size ◽  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Arbitration Board ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
History Analysis

Applying event history analysis to data on a sample of arbitration awards in Alberta in 1985–88, the authors investigate the factors that contribute to delay in different stages of the grievance arbitration process. The analysis shows that a different combination of factors explains delay at each stage of the process. The length of time from the filing of a grievance to referral to arbitration is a function of the complexity and type of the issue; delay in arbitrator selection is associated with the use of legal counsel and the size of the arbitration board; scheduling delay is associated with the nature of the grievance and the use of outside legal counsel; and delay in preparing the decision is linked to the complexity and type of the issue, board size, the presence of legal counsel, and the arbitrator's workload.

The Grievance-Arbitration Process

1985 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 11???16
Author(s):  
Mary S. Fay ◽  
Anne K. Morrill
Keyword(s):  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Arbitration Process

The nation of Islam's struggle for civil rights and liberties, 1930-1971

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Malachi D. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Religious Faith ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Coalition Building ◽  
Nation Of Islam ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
University Of Missouri ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Howard University

[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] Beginning in the fall of 1939, Charles Hamilton Houston, professor of law at the Howard University School of Law and the legal pioneer generally credited with mentoring Thurgood Marshall and laying the groundwork that culminated in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, requested and received permission to restructure the law school's course on civil rights to focus on religious freedom and free speech. Whereas access to professionally responsible and competent legal representation had eluded the Nation of Islam (NOI) prior to this development, the emergence and retention of competently trained lawyers such as Edward W. Jacko, Jr., a former student in Houston's revamped civil rights course, dramatically expanded the civil rights of NOI members in a series of court cases that exposed the precarious and quite conflicting landscape of freedom for African Americans at the height of America's Civil Rights Movement. This study identifies the strategic initiatives launched by the Nation of Islam to defend and advance the civil rights of its members from 1930 to 1971. Moreover, the study locates the critical period during which the Nation of Islam's struggle for civil rights emerged. I contend that the Nation of Islam's efforts to defend the rights and freedoms of its members became a self-conscious and self-determined struggle for civil rights upon its acquisition of competent and professionally responsible legal counsel, such as Edward W. Jacko Jr., and its development of Muhammad Speaks from 1957 to 1965. Anything prior to the emergence of Jacko, who became the NOI's chief legal counsel, and the establishment of Muhammad Speaks were proto determinist encounters and marked by an avoidance of coalition building with African American civil rights organizations, an avoidance or uncritical assessment of legal counsel, and individual retreats to martyrdom as personal demonstrations of religious faith.

The Impact of the Collyer Policy of Deferral: An Empirical Study

ILR Review ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin W. Wolkinson
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Unfair Labor Practice ◽  
Grievance Procedure ◽  
Regional Office ◽  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
The Impact

This study reports the results of an examination of NLRB regional office records on 50 cases deferred to arbitration under the Collyer policy, together with the results of interviews with union representatives involved in those cases. The author compares the remedies unions achieved through the grievance-arbitration process in deferred unfair labor practice cases considered meritorious by the regional office with the remedies the regional office would probably have implemented in the absence of deferral. The data indicate that deferral of 8(a)(5) cases frequently resulted in outcomes not compatible with statutory objectives, particularly in cases resolved short of arbitration. In contrast, Collyer very often produced statutorily compatible decisions in 8(a)(3) cases. Finally, in some cases unions achieved gains in the grievance procedure that they probably would not have won had they relied solely on the Board's compliance process.

scholarly journals L'arbitre de griefs, instrument efficace de contrôle des abus de pouvoirs de l'employeur ?

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-115
Author(s):  
Jean-Louis Dubé
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Collective Agreements ◽  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One

In theory, recourse to the grievance arbitration would appear to be an efficient means of controlling the abuse of powers (i.e. violations of the collective agreement) by the employer. Indeed, experience has borne out the truth of this affirmation. Mainly due to the management rights principle however, there still remain several important lacunae in this regard. On the one hand, by invoking the so-called management rights principle as a favorite means for circumscribing the arbitrator's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Canada has greatly diminished the efficacy of the arbitration process. This has occured primarily through the quashing of arbitration decisions either on the basis of error of law or else by limiting the arbitrator's discretion in disciplinary cases. On the other hand, it would be just as harmful to the efficiency of the arbitration process if arbitrators themselves were to abuse the management rights principle in interpreting and applying collective agreements. In general, arbitrators have proved to be highly conscious of this problem. By the same token, arbitrators have been faced with the problem of whether or not to discipline acts of insubordination even though employees may have been provoked by an abuse of authority on the part of the employer. All in all, arbitrators, by their attitude, appear to manifest a desire of ensuring the efficient functioning of the arbitration process, without acting to the detriment of management rights. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Canada, with the notable exception of Chief Justice Laskin, would seem to be fighting a rear-guard action by continually emphasizing management rights.

scholarly journals The Duty to Accomodate: Its Growing Impact on the Grievance Arbitration Process

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald D. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hybrid Process ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Arbitration Process

Grievance arbitrators now have a responsibility to interpret and apply human rights legislation in the course of resolving collective agreement disputes. This responsibility, however, raises the question of whether grievance arbitration is the most suitable forum for the application of human rights laws. In Canada, grievance arbitration has been a hybrid process, containing both public and private components. Recent arbitral jurisprudence, however, suggests that arbitrators see themselves as primarily private adjudicators. These cases indicate that arbitrators have been reluctant to give full scope to the duty to accommodate in order to avoid disturbing the terms of the collective agreement. This reluctance of the arbitrators to play a full role as human rights adjudicators means that, although arbitration is now a necessary forum for the resolution of human rights disputes, it is not necessarily the most ideal forum for the enforcement of Canadian human rights laws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document