Capturing Arbitrator Decision Policies Under a Public Sector Interest Arbitration Statute

Date01 April 1990
DOI10.1177/0734371X9001000202
AuthorGregory G. Dell'Omo
Published date01 April 1990
Subject MatterArticles
19
Capturing
Arbitrator
Decision
Policies
Under
a
Public
Sector
Interest
Arbitration
Statute
Gregory
G.
Dell’Omo
Canisius
College
Twenty-two
arbitrators
experienced
in
deciding
wage
disputes
under
the
Wisconsin
Police
and
Firefighter
Arbitration
Act
participated
in
an
experimental
study
designed
to
capture
the
relative
weights
they
apply
to
various
statutory
criteria.
The
nine
criteria
examined
represent-
ed
the
broad
categories
of
wage
comparability,
employer
ability
to
pay,
and
cost
of
living.
Different
equity
standards
(anchor
equity,
absolute
equity,
and
parity)
were
also
studied
to
give
a
broader
perspective
to
the
historically
important
wage
comparability.
Objective
and
subjec-
tive
relative
weights
were
compared
as
well,
allowing
for
an
analysis
of
arbitrator
self-insight
into
their
decision
policies.
n
recent
years,
there
has
been
a
renewed
interest
in
researching
the
~
decision-making
processes
used
by
arbitrators
when
settling
new
I
contract
disputes
between
labor
and
management
(Ashenfelter
and
Bloom,
1984;
Bazerman,
1985;
Bazerman
and
Farber,
1985;
Bloom,
1986
and
1987;
Farber
and
Bazerman,
1986;
Schwochau
and
Feuille,
1988).
The
majority
of
these
studies
focuses
primarily
on
how
arbitrators
combine
the
&dquo;facts
of
the
case&dquo;
and
the
parties’
offers
when
developing
their
notions
of
a
&dquo;fair
award.&dquo;
Although
the
results
are
somewhat
mixed,
we
do
know
that
the
facts
of
the
case
do
play a
role
in
arbitrator
decision-making.
A
more
specific
issue
that
still
remains,
however,
deals
with
the
weight
arbitrators
give
to
the
different
&dquo;facts.&dquo;
In
other
words,
how
do
arbitrators
apply
different
and
often
conflicting
decision
criteria
that
make
up
the
facts
of
the
case
when
reaching
an
interest
arbitration
decision?
The
relevance
of
this
issue
can
be
reflected
in
large
part
by
the
debates
that
take
place
in
various
cities
and
states
regarding
arbitrator
decision-making
in
the
public
sector.
With
many
interest
arbitration
laws
listing
statutory
criteria
or
standards
that
must
be
considered
by
arbitrators
when
formulating
their
awards,l
much
of
the
debate
centers
on
the
application
of
these
criteria;
espe-
cially
since
most
of
the
laws
do
not
specify
the
weight
arbitrators
must
apply
to
individual
criteria.
More
specifically,
these
debates
have
traditionally
been
directed
towards
the
relative
emphasis
placed
on
three
categories
of
criteria:
(1)
comparisons
with
other
employee
groups
(comparability);
(2)
the
ability
of
the
public
employer
to
pay;
and
(3)
changes
in
the
cost
of
living.
The
con-
cern
has
been
that
because
different
applications
of
these
criteria
may
reflect
conflicting
views
regarding
the
allocation
of
public
resources
between
public
employers
and
their
employees,
choosing
between
them
poses
a
problem
for
Spring
1990
(Vol.
10/No
2)
19-38
20
arbitrators
and
for
the
integrity
and
usefulness
of
such
procedures
(Fox,
1981).
Prior
Research
On
Arbitrator
Application
Of
Decision
Criteria
Prior
research
in
this
area
consists
predominantly
of
case
analyses
and
sur-
vey
questionnaire
studies.
In
the
case
analyses
actual
arbitration
awards
are
examined
to
identify
and
weight
the
criteria
arbitrators
apply
in
reaching
their
decisions.
These
studies
investigate
both
private
sector
(Bernstein,
1954;
Miller,
1967)
and
public
sector
(Benjamin,
1978;
Sweeney,
1983;
Schwochau
and
Feuille,
1988)
interest
arbitration
cases.
The
survey
questionnaire
studies
consist
of
having
arbitrators
or
advocates
answer
a
series
of
questions
designed
to
yield
information
about
their
perceptions
on
the
criteria
used
by
arbitrators
and
the
relative
importance
assigned
to
such
criteria
(Kochan
et
al.,
1979;
Weitzman
and
Stochaj,
1980;
Fembach
and
Jarley,
1985).
The
overall
results
obtained
from
both
groups
of
studies
are
fairly
consis-
tent.
First,
the
studies
conclude
that
comparability
is
clearly
the
most
impor-
tant
criterion
considered
by
arbitrators.
Secondly,
cost
of
living
and
ability
of
the
employer
to
pay,
while
important
criteria,
rarely
are
controlling
on
their
own.
They
usually
act
either
as
supporting
factors
of
outcomes
determined
under
comparability
or
as
offsetting
factors
to
such
outcomes.
One
other
study
in
this
area
involves
an
experimental
exercise
conducted
by
Bazerman
(1985).
By
having
practicing
arbitrators
grant
wage
awards
to
a
set
of
experimentally
created
private
sector
wage
disputes
(involving
conven-
tional
arbitration),
Bazerman
attempts
to
capture
the
weights
arbitrators
apply
to
seven
criteria
using
the
basic
linear
multiple
regression
model.
He
finds
that
three
criteria
account
for
72
percent
of
the
explainable
variation
in
award
determination.
Two
of
these
three
(the
present
wage
of
the
employees
and
the
average
collective
bargaining
increase
in
the
industry)
are
labeled
by
Bazerman
as
&dquo;anchored
equity&dquo;
criteria
since
they
anchor
judgments
near
the
terms
of
the
previous
labor
agreement.
The
third
criterion
(financial
health
of
the
firm)
is
described
as
an
&dquo;absolute
equity&dquo;
standard
because
it
takes
into
account
what
the
appropriate
wage
should
be
independent
of
current
wages.
These
&dquo;norms
of
distributive
justice&dquo;
offer
a
basis
upon
which
to
interpret
the
weights
that
arbitrators
apply
to
groups
of
criteria.
Purpose
And Form
Of
Research
Using
a
research
methodology
similar
to
that
used
by
Bazerman,
this
study
examines
the
issue
of
arbitrator
application
of
decision
criteria
in
the
context
of
a
public
sector
interest
arbitration
statute
that
incorporates
a
final
offer
arbitration
procedure.
An
experimental
study
was
conducted
using
arbitrators
from
Wisconsin
as
subjects.
The
arbitrators
were
asked
to
select
final
offers for
a
set
of
hypothet-

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT