Filling of Vacancies and Compulsory Adjudication

I feel the labor relations system as currently constituted is effective for resolving disputes as long as both parties are committed to negotiating in good faith. Although, I feel the current system is effective a further explanation of the systems strengths and weaknesses will better explain the effectiveness of resolving disputes. It is in both the companies and the labor interest to negotiate with as little third party interaction to come up with an agreement. In times when there are disputes their different course of action that start from a least costly without giving up power in the decision to the possibility of becoming more costly to either party and give up the power in the decision. As discussed in the text when an organization and labor cannot come up with an agreement a third party may be asked to come in to negotiations to resolve a dispute which includes mediation, fact-finding, and interest arbitration.

Organizations such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the International Labor Organization, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could help workers gain an edge over their employers. This advantage can increase workers’ wages and decrease the high payouts given to executives, which reduce inequality. Collective bargaining by unions can also help gain and leverage this advantage. Collective bargaining is currently under threat by a Supreme Court challenge. Janus v. AFSCME is a case in the Supreme Court that may affect union dues across the country and potentially overturn a precedent established in 1977. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, around 20% to 30% of both members and revenue from the unions will be lost as a result. This may cause some unions to collapse. If a collapse were to occur, workers would be without a voice to represent their concerns, leading to lower wages, poorer conditions, and higher inequality as a result. Moreover, arbitration clauses listed in workers’ contracts prevent workers from standing up to problems with their employer. Arbitration disproportionally benefits employers over workers, which prevents workers from remediating the injustices present in the workplace. In addition, many arbitration clauses prevent workers from joining up together, which can give them more power in legal complaints called “class-action”

The history of trade and industrial union has in the past year been very powerful and proficient when influencing members, employers and politicians. Recently, they have evolved to become less powerful and influential. This is because of the major relapse of the membership of unions and also the government disparaging trade unions in the area of workplace relations. Some governments marginalized those unions in order to significantly reduce the role played by unions by reorienting the relations among and between the employers and the employees.

Here, the labor and management members are the partisans or advocates for their respective sides, and the neutral chairperson then becomes a single arbitrator. The unique role that the panel chair plays in the arbitration process is that it’s the chairs duty to keep other arbitrators well informed of the aspects involved within the case in order to make sound decisions. When the tripartite board doesn’t decide unanimously, they turn to the collective bargaining agreement, which often stipulate that a majority award of the board is final and binding. The advantages of this board are that it provides the neutral member with valuable advice and assistance from the partisan members, which allows the parties to give a more realistic and informed picture of the issues at hand. However, the disadvantage is that it takes additional time and more expenses are incurred with a board.

Despite the harmonious nature of Japanese people, there are still conflicts that cannot be resolved within the enterprise union and the firm. Most of these unresolved conflicts occur because many firms are conducting restructuring and retrenchment during this period of economic uncertainty. When these conflicts happen, they can approach the local government mediation body to help conciliate and make a decision. Most decisions made are generally accepted; however, should the conflicts still exist, they can opt for arbitration in the Labour Tribunal System, or legislation in court. For arbitration, the judges involved are tripartite in nature: 1 professional judge, 1 union representative and 1 employer representative. All 3 judges must have professional knowledge and experience in labour issues, and there are no more than 3 hearings, verdict based on majority. If the verdict is rejected by either party, they may proceed to legislation (Elbo 2004).

Step 4: If a grievance is appealed to arbitration, the Company and the Union shall attempt to select an arbitrator. If this attempt fails, the Company and/or Union shall ask the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to submit a list of seven (7) arbitrators. Each party shall eliminate three (3) names from the list by alternately striking one name at a time, and the person whose name remains shall serve as the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall render a decision in writing that shall be final and binding upon the parties. The arbitrator to whom any grievance is submitted shall have the authority to interpret and apply the provisions of this agreement, and the arbitrator’s decision must be in accordance with and based upon the terms of this agreement or any written amendment thereto. The arbitrator shall have no jurisdiction or authority to add to, subtract from, or modify any of the terms of this agreement. The Company and local

Throughout the years organizations and unions have struggled for rights and benefits for workers. All the while the managers, supervisors and directors have counteracted such behaviors, favoring the companies, to protect them from going out of business. Through collective bargaining both parties have labored to find common ground. Collective bargaining as defined by the Cornell Law School is as follows;

According to Walsh, 2013, pg 21 & 22, using arbitration agreements can be an advantage in keeping the workplace from facing

Employment arbitration is on the rise and for good reason. Over the last twenty-to-thirty years there has been an increase in civil litigation. Unfortunately, the court system has not met the demand for increased litigation through additional judicial appointments or the hiring of additional resources to contend with the insurmountable caseloads. Today, the court system has turned to arbitration as an alternate means of resolution, if for anything else, to reduce the cumbersome caseloads traditionally associated with litigation. Moreover, companies today are requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Unlike the court system, employers look at employee arbitration agreements

In all too many instances, the promise of fair and inexpensive arbitration is not held for American consumers and employees, and companies use mandatory arbitration clauses as a creature to deflect accountability. Employers should take care to accept their counsel frequently review the enforceability of their employment agreements, and employees should take the time to learn and see the paperwork they sign when getting on to a new employer. Courts Offer More Access to Justice than does Mandatory Arbitration When companies can use arbitration to elude such lawsuits by suppressing claims they effectively render our laws toothless. I favor passage of the Arbitration Fairness Act, because I think it is the best way of protecting consumers and employees

For the selected article, it investigates the first contract arbitration’s ability to foster bargaining relationships and discourages any misconduct by analyzing the effect on decertifications (Weinberg, 2015). It has been suggested how the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) sought to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by introducing various changes which are a card-check system for union certification, first contract arbitration (FCA), and more severe consequences for violations of the Act (Weinberg, 2015). It has been suggested that by allowing access to arbitration selection first contract situations, in which both parties are unable to reach a settlement, this amendment was created to address the difficulties that newly

Ury, William, Brett, and Stephen, and Goldberg (44) argued that actors should instead focus on what they would like to do with their interests. Claims and disputes based on interests are usually easier to negotiate and are also less likely to become intractable. When the interest negotiations do not work, different parties in the dispute, i.e. the workers and management should consider using rights-based approaches such as mediation, and arbitration. Furthermore, the power-based approaches such as strikes should only be resolved for the few conflicts that cannot be resolved through either the rights-based or interest-based approaches. As such, the recommended system should resolve most of the disputes and issues at the interest level, least at the right level, and the least through the use of power options. Doing so will be considered effective for a number of reasons. Firstly, negotiating interests are usually considered to be less expensive compared to either adjudicating the rights or pursuing the power options. Secondly, depending on negotiating interests will usually increase the chances of gaining mutually satisfactory solutions, while the other two methods would lead to a win-lose situation, where not all the people involved would benefit from the resolution procedures, leading to long-term resentment. Thirdly, it is evident that relying more on the power-based approaches will lead to the losing side planning to get back on the other side, even when it is to the

The initial achievement in collective bargaining starts with proper contract composition. The bargaining team must consider past grievances and arbitration decisions, and problem areas that are often overlooked in negotiation language. The

The selected article investigates the first contract arbitration’s ability to foster bargaining relationships, in which the author discourages any misconduct by analyzing the effect on decertifications. Weinberg (2015) states how the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) sought to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by introducing various changes. The changes include a card-check system for union certifications, first contract arbitration (FCA), and more severe consequences for violations of the Act (Weinberg, 2015). The author also mentions that by permitting access to arbitration in certain first contract situations, this amendment was created to address the difficulties that new bargaining units may experience in obtaining a first

The nature of international commercial arbitration has a close connection to the party autonomy, which is also expressed in the right of the parties to choose the law that is to be applied by the arbitrators to the dispute between them. The same right is given to the parties concerning the arbitration agreement.