Arbitration of accommodation in US workplaces: employee, stakeholder and human resources characteristics

Abstract

This research examines how arbitrators consider accommodations for employees with physical and mental illnesses. Unlike other recent research on the subject, the authors specifically and purposely draw their sample from recent US arbitration cases—2015 to 2018, n = 209. Additionally, using content analysis software, NVivo, the case characteristics were autocoded, and the case outcomes were manually coded. Using logistic regression, the following model was developed to predict the odds of case outcomes: disability, injury, discrimination, retaliation, absence and reinstatement. The Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke analysis indicates that our model accounts for approximately 15.6 to 21.5 per cent of the variance, with 33.3 per cent of the individual and split arbitration cases outcomes and 91.2 per cent for organisation arbitration cases correctly predicted. The model predicts 71.2 per cent of the cases.

The link between smoking, drinking and wages: Health, workplace social capital or discrimination?

“…Particularly, in small‐ and medium‐size organizations, wages are plausibly more sensitive to social networking and being liked by colleagues than in larger organizations, where administration and governance are less personal (Acemoglu & Angrist, 2001; Baert, 2016; Baert et al, 2016, 2018; Cornelissen & Jirjahn, 2012). Likewise, the presence of a union reduces the effects of factors unrelated to productivity on wages (Goerke & Pannenberg, 2011; Seifert & Wang, 2018; Zilic & LaVan, 2020). Accordingly, no wage premium for alcohol consumption was found among the unionized.…”

“…In pay and promotion, differentiated treatment lowers employee morale and leads to a greater turnover (Roulin & Bhatnagar, 2018, 2021). Moreover, it can also lead to costly litigations (William et al, 2019; Zilic & LaVan, 2020). While not all grounds for discrimination are prohibited by law, organizations have a moral obligation to treat their employees fairly and avoid discrimination (Demuijnck, 2009; Dundon, 2002; Greenwood, 2002, 2013; Roulin & Bhatnagar, 2018, 2021).…”

“…These initial impressions usually trigger mental processes towards rationalizing them in later interactions, leading to a prejudicial overall evaluation. Accordingly, stigmatized characteristics such as disability, minority ethnicity and sexual orientation are documented to impact employers' assessments (Derous et al, 2016; Kruse et al, 2018; Summers et al, 2018; Zilic & LaVan, 2020), including hiring decisions (Baert et al, 2016; Roulin & Bhatnagar, 2021). Currently, smoking is stigmatized (Roulin & Bhatnagar, 2018).…”

“…As such, some scholars question the ethical implications of the intense stigmatization of smokers (Chadwick, 2006; Houle & Siegel, 2009; Lecker, 2009; Morrow & Leedle, 2002). While Human Rights legislations protect employees from discrimination based on a stigmatized social identity, including past and present alcoholism, smokers are often excluded from such protections (Roulin & Bhatnagar, 2018; Zilic & LaVan, 2020). In the United States, only 29 states have legislations that prohibit employers from refusing to hire smokers (Schmidt et al, 2013).…”

To what extent is arbitration acceptable in individual labor disputes? A critique from a Jordanian law perspective

“…Within an international commercial environment, it is well known that different parties can pursue a variety of choices to settle their various disputes and this might include ordinary litigation, negotiation, mediation and arbitration among other different accessible and applicable mechanisms (Alawamleh et al , 2018). However, it is almost agreed now that arbitration is one of the most significant and practical alternative means for resolving different disputes (Zilic and LaVan, 2020). In this regard, it would be true to say that arbitration may surmount a number of limitations and problems that can be attributed to other means of disputes’ resolution including the lengthy trial, problematic issues of applicable law and jurisdiction, expensive costs and the ability to enforce final awards and settlements at both the national and the international level (Born, 2009; Aladwan and Aladwan, 2020).…”