Arbitration Process: Union Argument Method To Solve Disputes

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.

William Fong borrowed Phillip Chang's IBM laptop computer to finish a major report he had for geography. On the way to return it to his friend, he accidentally dropped it on the pavement causing $1000 in damages. William agreed to pay him for the repairs. Two months have gone by and Phillip still has not received the money to repair it.

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

Although the arbitrator’s final awards are legally binding, an unhappy party of arbitration may still go to court under certain circumstances.  As mentioned by Fallon & McConnell, “unless one party protests that there was a gross injustice, collusion, or fraud, arbitration that is specified by a contract can be converted into a legal judgment.  This requires a petition to the appropriate court” (n.d., p. 388).  As expected, this can become costly for the person who is seeking to appeal.

On June 23, 2008, Formula One Racing Group (referred to herein as “FORG”) solicited bids for the building of a parts warehouse at its facility located at 1265 E. 20th Street in Chico, California. General Contracting Associates (referred to herein as “GCA”) entered into a contract with FORG to build the aforementioned warehouse. At the time of the signing of the contract, FORG and GCA were bound in privity. In this case GCA had asserted five claims for breaches of contract by the defendant FORG.

In this case, the employees consented to generalized medical examination and not to the detailed blood tests. Employers do maintain certain rights to invade to privacy of their employees. Safety is a prime example. In the interest of safety, it is the employer’s deontological responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Alcohol and drug use on the job would create hazards in the workplace. Testing employees for drugs is not only written in the contract, but also is in the best interest of all parties involved, including fellow employees. However, it is the employer’s responsibility to use the least obtrusive method to obtain their desired results and must also protect the worker’s best interest. During the course of their testing, Burlington Northern did not disclose the additional tests to their workers and therefore, broke this rule. Their determination to keep the results secret broke the simply rules of a employee contract by not protecting the interest of their employee. Previous established research indicated that the test they were performing was not conclusive on the pre-cursor to CTS. Though Burlington does not admit it, we can only assume that this data was to be used in determining the medical benefits payouts towards the workers that filed claims. The reduced medical benefits payouts would have been based around improper tests, which are known to be inaccurate in their

A client was asked to take a drug test for his company that he has worked at for 15 years. My client’s job entails him to inspect finished products for the company. When the client was hired he was not hired under the pretensions of drug testing. When the employee refused to take the drug test he was fired. A similar case was experienced in California. Barbara Luck sued her ex-employer, where she had worked at for six years, Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPT) for firing her over refusing to take a drug test. When it went to court Luck was awarded $485,000 in damages. The jury had to decide whether the obligations Mrs.Luck was conducting in her everyday job duties could be considered to have an effect on the safety of others, for

The requisite credentials of an arbitrator are integrity, impartiality, and a simple requirement to maintain a professional competence that conveys the appearance of violating the prohibition of ex parte communications. Ex parte communication is of primary concern to the arbitration process; as such, the arbitrator should take every precautionary measure, within reason, to abide by the general guidelines, the arbitrations proceedings, and the involved parties. It is appropriate for the arbitrator to respond accordingly to the needs of the parties and make every reasonable effort

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

The director, who is the acting arbitrator, conducted a separate meeting with the Rehabilitation Services department and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) managers. Thereafter, the director conducted his own investigation by talking to the involved employees to determine the root of the disagreement. The director’s investigation revealed that the rehab employee went to her manager when she witnessed the ICU employee of allegedly doing an inappropriate patient care while the rehab employee was looking through the glass window of the room and saw a reflection of the alleged wrongdoing from the metal paper towel dispenser. The rehab manager subsequently reported this apparent wrongdoing to the ICU manager with whom he expected to reprimand her employee

Arbitration has been one of the most effective ways to resolve a dispute between parties. Normally this process requires two attorneys representing different parties, making there case to an Arbitrator as to why there side is a better way to resolve there issues. It is then up to the Arbitrator to decide which party wins. Arbitration is found in many professions. However, one of the professions it is most popular is in Baseball.

Donna Driver unintentionally ran a red light, and caused a car accident with Vic Victim. Vic sustained severe injuries. Donna’s auto insurance policy with Gekko has liability coverage limit of $100,000.00. Vic’s medical bills alone run close to that, and there’s also his loss of work and pain & suffering to be taken into account. Vic wants to settle the entire case for $100,000.00, and Donna pleads with Gekko to do so since it is obvious that he could recover more than that based on the facts of this case. Gekko tells her that they will only offer $50,000.00, and if it’s not accepted, they will take their chances at trial.

Jack and Jill, residents of Orlando, FL, had a nasty incident involving a hill, some water and a broken crown, in which both parties got hurt. Jack and Jill ended up suing each other in Florida state court. After a few months of nasty motion practice, Jill comes to your office and tells you that she's heard of this wonderful thing called mediation, under which she and Jack could be helped to reach a settlement. She has a few questions for you about mediation, all under Florida law:

From this brief history of ADR provisions, it is easy to see the widespread acceptance of ADR in more recent times compared to the hostility that courts expressed toward it early on. The trend of acceptance spread, and in May of 1986, forty-five states had enacted statutes similar to the second Uniform Arbitration Act, enforcing agreements to arbitrate future disputes.

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.