Decision‐Making about Workplace Disputes: A Policy‐Capturing Study of Employment Arbitrators, Labor Arbitrators, and Jurors

Abstract

Firms are increasingly turning to the controversial practice of employment arbitration to resolve workplace disputes. Yet little is know about how decisions are made by employment arbitrators or how their decisions compare to those made in traditional dispute-resolution forums. This study uses a policycapturing design and hierarchical linear modeling to compare how decisions about termination cases are made by employment arbitrators, labor arbitrators, and jurors. The results indicate significant differences in the overall willingness to uphold termination, with labor arbitrators being the most likely to rule in favor of the employee, followed by jurors, employment arbitrators judging statutory and for-cause claims, and employment arbitrators judging statutory-only claims. Significant differences were also observed between categories of decision makers in the weight given to procedural compliance, evidence of discrimination, employee work history, and stress-inducing personal circumstances.

Comparative Dispute Resolution in the Workplace

“…However, some key issues relating to ADR decision-making have not been examined. First, although the role of the decision-maker has been found to affect outcomes, substantial variation still exists in how decisions are made among those serving in the same decision-making role (Klaas et al 2006). For example, while arbitrators may differ systematically from peer-review decision-makers, there is still significant variation among employment arbitrators.…”

“…To examine if decision-policies varied with the type of ADR decision-maker, Klaas et al (2006) used a policy-capturing design. Employment arbitrators, labor arbitrators, and jurors were asked to respond to several different cases which were created by manipulating six different factors.…”

Employee-Employer Grievances: A Review

“…Comparisons are made between these newer systems and traditional avenues, including union‐based grievance procedures, in terms of the various measures of effectiveness. Among these, a key question concerns the extent to which the newer alternative systems provide workplace justice, especially for employees (Bingham 2002, 2004; Colvin 2003a, 2005; Klaas et al . 2006; Mahony and Klaas 2008).…”

“…To take one issue, despite propositions about managerial retribution, there is no significant body of research on what influences managers' attitudes and conduct with respect to grievance claims and their settlement. There has been work concerning the role of managers in a variety of related areas; for example, disciplinary decisions (Judge and Martocchio 1995; Klaas and Dell'omo 1997; Klaas and Wheeler 1990; Rollinson 1992, 2000), in arbitration (Bingham and Chachere 1999; Bingham and Mesch 2000), as well as in the selection and function of newer ADR procedures (Colvin 2003a; Klaas et al . 2006; Mahony and Klaas 2008).…”

Formal, Justice‐Oriented Voice in the Nonunion Firm: Who Speaks Up and When?

“…For example, while concern about possible managerial retribution for the formal use of voice is likely to be relevant across unionized and nonunion workplaces, such concern is likely to be more impactful in nonunion settings in which typically there are fewer limits on managerial discretion. The impact of concerns about possible managerial retribution in unionized settings may be further reduced by the union's role in representing the employee in the grievance process and by the dominance of labor–management conflict in determining the usage of formal voice (Klaas, Mahony, and Wheeler ; Lewin and Peterson ). As such, the distinctive nature of formal voice in the nonunion setting provides justification for this study's focus.…”