Illicit Drug Effects in Labor Arbitration Decision Making

• Author: James W. Logan,Lillian Y. Fok,Stephen M. Crow
• DOI: 10.1177/002204269402400309
• Published date: 01 July 1994
• Date: 01 July 1994
• Subject Matter: Article

The Journal of Drug Issues 24(3), 489-505 1994

ILLICIT

DRUG EFFECTS IN LABOR ARBITRATION

DECISION MAKING

Stephen M. Crow

James W. Logan

LillianY. Fok

Two hundred twenty-six arbitration outcomes in alcohol and drug

disciplinary cases were investigated to examine illicit drug effects on

arbitral decision making. We examined these effects on arbitrators' final

decisions and the standards or decision cues that arbitrators use to justify

their decisions. We also examined interactions

of

illicit drugs and

standards

of

proof and looked at decisions in two different time spans to

determine if changing societal attitudes about alcohol and drugs might have

an effect. In this study, arbitrators were less lenient with illicit drug users

than with legal drug users. This finding suggests that an illicit drug effect

may exist in other distributivejustice scenarios.

Introduction

Labor

arbitration provides a fertile area to study decision making. Labor

arbitration cases on a wide variety of issues have been published over the past

forty years and these document many variables important to the arbitral decision-

making process. Robert Coulson, president of the American Arbitration

Association, advocates more research in arbitral decision-making contexts:

We know very little about what goes on in the minds of arbitrators, even

though such insights would seem essential since they will determine

whether a party wins or loses. Most studies of arbitration are devoted to

discussions about the applicable law or the various procedural rules. It

seems far more important to try to analyze how and why arbitrators make

up their minds. We ought to probe as deeply as possible, applying what is

known about decisionmaking theories and undertaking more research to

understand how arbitrators actually decide cases (Coulson 1990:37).

There are three possible outcomes in labor arbitration cases involving

disciplinary action. An arbitrator may decide in favor of the company. of the

union, or may split the decision in some way. Arbitrators rely on precedent and

established doctrines when making these choices; however. it is generally assumed

that the final decision is affected in some manner by the arbitrator's personal

values and beliefs (Landis 1977).

Stephen M. Crow, Ph.D., and

James

W. Logan, Ph.D., are associate professors of management at the University

of New Orleans. Lillian Y. Fok. Ph.D., is an assistant professor of management at the University of New Orleans.

Send reprint requests to Stephen M. Crow. Ph.D., University of New Orleans, College of Business Administration,

Lake Front, BA 185, New Orleans. LA70148. .

©Journal of Drug Issues. Inc. 002-0426/94/03/489-505 $1.00

489

CROW, LOGAN, FOK

Personal values and beliefs are not rigid; instead, they tend to change over

time based on dynamics in social and psychological contexts. For example, during

the past one hundred years, national attitudes about the use and abuse of alcohol

and illicit drugs have vacillated between tolerance and intolerance (Crow and

Hartman 1992). Moreover, it appears possible that Americans are more tolerant

of alcohol use than illicit drug use. To study the effect of these changing attitudes,

we use the seven tests of just cause in alcohol- and drug-related arbitration cases to

investigate the effects of arbitrators' values on their decisions. More specifically,

we search for an illicit drug effect in arbitrators' final decisions and determine

which standards or decision cues arbitrators use to justify their final decisions.

We also examine the interaction effect of illicit drugs and standards of proof and

look at final decision outcomes over two different time frames to determine if

changing societal attitudes about alcohol and drugs have an effect on arbitrators'

decisions.

Arbitral

Decision Making

In any arbitration decision, the issues are examined in light of the collective

bargaining agreement between the union and management. This legal document

serves as the framework for the arbitrator's decisions (Cox 1959; Davey 1961;

Fuller 1962; Shulman 1955; Spohn 1947), but arbitrators may exercise

considerable discretion in applying the agreement to individual cases (Alexander

1972; Gullett and Goff 1980; Landis 1977). Decision makers are influenced by

their personal values, beliefs, and by social attitudes (e.g., Argyris 1976; Janis

and Mann 1977; McCall and Kaplan 1990; Taylor 1965; Taylor and Dunnette

1974), and scholars have documented the influence of personal values on labor

arbitration decision making (e.g., Alexander 1972; Bemmels 1988 1991; Fleming

1961; Gross 1967; Landis 1977; Thornicroft 1989).

However, there appears to be a divergence of views among scholars regarding

the effect of a labor arbitrator's personal values on case outcomes. Many scholars

discount the importance of personal values and believe that arbitrators are highly

consistent in their selection and use of decision criteria (Abrams 1981; Cain and

Stahl 1983; Peterson 1970; Prasow and Peters 1983). For example, Ashenfelter

(1987) found that arbitrators' decisions are interchangeable and are based on case

factors that are unaffected by individual or external factors. McCammon and

Cotton (1990) found support for Ashenfelter's arbitrator interchangability

hypothesis. To some extent, the expectations of arbitrators' two constituencies -

management and the union - may influence arbitral consistency. Since

arbitrators, in the long run, must remain acceptable to the parties involved, there

is pressure on them to be consistent in their decision making (Cain and Stahl

1983).

Alcohol-

and

IIlicit-Drug-Related Issues

Alcohol- and illicit-drug-related issues in labor arbitration have been discussed

extensively (e.g., Andrewson 1979; Coulson and Goldberg 1987; Koven and

Smith 1984; Lawson 1987; Levin and Denenberg 1976; Provost et al. 1979;

Wynns 1979). Some authors suggest that arbitrators may be more tolerant of

alcohol use than illicit drug use, and thus are more likely to find for the union in

cases involving alcohol than in cases involving illicit drugs (Coulson and Goldberg

1987; Denenberg and Denenberg 1983; Marmo 1984/1985; Thornicroft 1989).

However, in a recent study related to alcohol and drugs in labor arbitration

490 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES