faqs.org » Abstracts Index » Abstracts » Law

The debate over mandatory arbitration in employment disputes

Article Abstract:

The Supreme Court, in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. in 1991, ruled that agreements between employers and employees mandating the arbitration of statutory employment discrimination claims are enforceable. The Court thus reconciled two conflicting lines of cases and rejected the view that adjudication is preferable to arbitration for settling claims of discrimination. A review of the pros and cons on mandatory agreements shows that the federal policy of encouraging labor arbitration should not be undermined.

United States, Employment discrimination

---

Drug testing at a labor arbitration: friend or foe?

Article Abstract:

Drug testing had no effect on the outcomes of labor arbitration in a survey of 200 relevant cases. It did, however, complicate the arbitration from the perspective of management by raising more potential problems at the hearing, involving such issues as chain of custody and impairment within the just cause framework. The presence of drug testing may, however, result in only weaker cases going to arbitration, or in giving management a false sense of security.

Mandatory drug testing, Drug testing

---

Arbitration in public sector labor disputes

Article Abstract:

The author discusses the New York Court of Appeals decisions in Watertown City School District v. Watertown Education Ass'n and Indian River Central School District v. Passino, in which the court permitted arbitrators to handle public sector labor disputes, reversing years of judicial control over such disputes.

New York, Public employees, Government employees

Some parts © 2012 Advameg, Inc.