Advantages And Disadvantages Of Arbitration

Arbitration is the submission of a disputed matter to an impartial person (the arbitrator) for decision. Arbitration is typically an out-of-court method for resolving a dispute. The arbitrator controls the process, will listen to both sides and make a decision. Like a trial, only one side will prevail. Unlike a trial, appeal rights are limited.

It is promoted as an avenue to resolve disputes efficiently. Arbitration avoids hostility. Parties in arbitration are more likely than not to work peacefully rather than inflate malice against each other. It is a much cheaper option to litigation, especially when the arbitrator chosen is a non-lawyer. It is conducted in a much quicker process, saving much time and stress on both parties in the long run. Scheduling for arbitration is flexible, and can be decided on by the parties rather than fitting in a schedule convenient for the courts. Rules of evidence and procedure are much more simple and lenient. Most importantly, arbitration is handled privately, with no information being released to the public unlike court

Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are all forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that are alternatives that organizations use to avoid litigation in court.  According to Valenti Law, negotiation and mediation are forms of non-binding ADR, while arbitration is a binding ADR (2011).  Since arbitration is a binding ADR, the arbitrator’s decisions are legally binding and cannot be challenged by either party in the arbitration.  “There are limited grounds for challenging the decision” (Valenti Law, 2011).

beneficial for both in some ways. Arbitration is the use of a third party for a dispute in which this

Cooley, J. W., & Lubet, S. (2003). Arbitration Advocacy (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

After carefully considering the situation in both plaintiff (Eunice) and defendant (RFYL), arbitration should be an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution in

According to Walsh (2013), “arbitration, is like a neutral third party (the arbitrator) functions more like a private judge. Arbitrators hear disputes and render decisions that are almost, always final and binding on the parties. Arbitration has, for decades, been the principal means of enforcing employee rights under collective bargaining agreements in unionized workplaces.”

Arbitration has existed in America for centuries. The Native American Indian tribes were believed to have used arbitral process to settle disputes between the tribe and those outside the tribe. “Long before the white man ever arrived in what is now the United States early Native American tribes used arbitration as not only a means to resolve disputes within the tribe but also as a means to resolve disputes between different tribes”. (laborstudies and research p.2). The concept arbitration with no doubt extended to the America from the European continent, largely from England, after she colonizing America. Arbitration among merchants were common, since it proved more efficient and effective that the courts during that period. The first US

2. Arbitration also involves the help of a neutral third party. Amid mediation, an "authority" demonstrations a bit comparable to a trial judge by listening to the gatherings' grievances. Not at all like an arbiter, is an authority, not a latent go-between facilitator. In the wake of listening to the gatherings, a mediator (regularly an expert in the gathering's subject of the question) really maintains a choice. Mediation is still less formal than an out and out trial on the grounds that numerous guidelines of proof don't make a difference to discretion. The assertion can either be tying or

Furthermore, Arbitration Agreements cannot preclude the employee from filing a claim with the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Workers’ Compensation or Unemployment Benefits. Finally, arbitration agreements do not void the employee right to seek legal counsel or request compensation for emotional distress and or punitive

This option deals with resolving disputes outside of the courtroom. They take their disputes to an arbitrator who looks over the evidence, listens to each parties’ side of the story and makes a decision. Process is not as formal as when attending a courtroom or trial and is less expensive, but more invasive than mediation or negotiation.

In this article it talks about arbitration and how it should be handled. The reasons for this argument started with the fact

Arbitration is legal technique used to resolve any disputes outside of the courts. Arbitration allows for speedy and cheap resolution of any disputes, the parties involved in a dispute agree to appoint a third person (arbitrator) who will hear their testimonies, and look into the evidence they provide. The arbitrator's decision cannot be challenged in a law court as it is considered final and the parties involved have to accept the decision (Brams & Merrill, 1986). There are only very limited circumstances where the decision of an arbitrator can be challenged, and this is mostly if there can be proof from one of the parties showing that the arbitrator was biased in their decision or ruling. The chosen arbitrator will be an experienced person in the area of the dispute.

and is a way to be as fair as possible (Fallow, n.d.) . A mediation is not always able to be settled and usually ends up in court when the two parties just can not find common ground (Fallow, n.d.) .  An arbitration is when a third party is hired to hear the sides of both parties and then makes a decision on how the matter should be handled  (Fallow, n.d.). In an arbitration one parties views are usually not considered and the arbitrator is the one that gets the say so (Fallow, n.d.) . It is not always seen as a fair way to handle things (Fallow, n.d.) . However it is the cheapest and fastest way to handle an issue outside of court  (Fallow, n.d.). An arbitration is a legal alternative to litigation (Fallow, n.d.) .  The decisions made by the arbitrator can not be challenged, so what they say is what goes (Fallow, n.d.) . This is were the unfair part came in, the other party may not have much legal experience and there is no way to make an appeal like in court, so they are stuck with the decision of the arbitrator (Fallow, n.d.) . The arbitrator is the final has the final say and most of the time they are going to favor the business in which hired them to resolve the matter (Fallow, n.d.) .

“ To avoid or reduce these problems, businesses are increasingly turning to methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and other aids to resolving disputes” (Chessman, 201 , p. 45-46). This method of dispute resolution is not costly and does not disrupt business as usual or life as usual. Arbitration is the commonly used form of ADR.