IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i2p371-408..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Effective Is Private Dispute Resolution? Evidence From Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • William K Roche

Abstract

This article examines the effectiveness of private dispute resolution arrangements (PDRAs) established voluntarily by employers and unions in private- and public-sector firms and agencies in Ireland. PDRAs comprise three-person panels or sole adjudicators and combine binding or non-binding adjudication with internal mediation. PDRAs seek to rewrite the established rules and conventions governing dispute resolution within workplaces and to change the ways in which internal dispute resolution is aligned with external dispute resolution by state agencies. The majority of the eleven PDRAs examined are shown to be effective. One is described as ‘semi-dormant’ and two are shown to be less effective. Variations in the effectiveness of PDRAs are attributed to features of the internal and external contexts of the firms and agencies in which they have been established: the persistence of significant commercial and industrial relations challenges; the absence of disjunctures in organisations or industrial relations; the presence of champions; and the effects of industrial relations legacies. The paper contributes to the literature by systematically accounting for variations in the effectiveness of adjudication and arbitrations arrangements and concludes by considering whether the incidence of PDRAs is likely to continue rising.

Suggested Citation

  • William K Roche, 2023. "How Effective Is Private Dispute Resolution? Evidence From Ireland," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(2), pages 371-408.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:2:p:371-408.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:2:p:371-408.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.