|
|
 |
Education & Research: Steward's Corner
by Robert
Wechsler, Education Director
Do We Really Need Arbitration?
Well, yes and no. If I seem to hedge in this answer, it is quite intentional. I don't think I have ever met anyone working in the area of grievance administration that actually likes the arbitration system.
Let's start off with some basic definitions. Grievance arbitration is the last step of the grievance procedure when an impartial individual or panel of individuals listens to the evidence of the case and makes a decision vase don what the union and employer presents at the hearing. The decision is final and binding.
The case can be disciplinary in nature such as member's appeal of a disciplinary action by the employer. Or the arbitration can be over the interpretation and application of the agreement where an individual is not a granted chance to work overtime or given a promotion because the employer has violated the seniority clause of the contract.
Witnesses are questioned and evidence is presented. The arbitrator listens to the case and then gives his/her decision in a few weeks. In an expedited process, the decision may be given right away.
The arguments made against the arbitration process are pretty well-known. Arbitration is time consuming. It may be a year or two to go through the grievance procedure and get a case heard by an arbitrator. In the meantime, the member is waiting for justice.
Arbitration is an expensive process both in actual money and staff time. These costs can quickly bankrupt a union treasury and employers know it. We also may not like what we hear. Arbitrators can come up with a decision that can hurt the union. Remember, when we take the case to arbitration, we must learn to live with the decision. The only real way to alter a bad decision is to sit down with the employer at contract time and negotiate better language, if that can even be done.
So were does that leave us?
Almost every local union we represent has a grievance procedure which ends in arbitration. Local unions should be using the grievance procedure to maximize advantage.
That means that whole procedure from beginning, middle, and, if necessary the final step, arbitration. Always aim for grievance resolution at the lowest step, not the highest one. No steward should be promising arbitration when resolution is possible with the immediate supervisor.
Locals should be using grievances as internal organizing tools to build strength at the local level. The local union can use a grievance to put pressure on management at the shop level.
I have seen members coming to work in union tee-shirts or caps and gathering around the soda machines at break time as if there was a union meeting going on right there on the property. It was enough to send a squadron of managers asking what the problem was and how it could be resolved. Some locals have circulated petitions on specific work conditions. The key is to show collective resolve to throw management off stride so that they are not calling the shots.
We spend a lot of time and money training all of our grievance representatives, from the steward on up, to try to resolve issues at the lowest level. That is the key to successful grievance resolution. This may not be possible some of the time and it is in these cases that the grievance moves up the ladder to higher stages and perhaps arbitration. The local will make the decision to appeal to arbitration in a fair and unbiased manner.
And because of the responsibility of that decision, we will continue to train our local officers to handle arbitration cases. As a policy, we feel they can give the best representation to members; even better than many attorneys. They know the job; they know the contract ;they know the employer; and they know the member.
But before anyone puts the cart before the horse, stewards and union officers should be looking at ways to resolve grievances so they don't go to arbitration.[back]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
