IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v42y1988i1p34-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Nlrb's Deferral to Arbitration before and after OLIN: An Empirical Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia A. Greenfield

Abstract

The NLRB's 1984 decision in Olin Corporation established new guidelines making it more likely that the Board and its Regional Offices would defer, in unfair labor practice cases, to the prior decisions of arbitrators in those cases. Analyzing case file data in two NLRB Regional Offices for the January 1983-June 1985 period, the author questions the validity of some assumptions underlying the Olin decision and raises concerns about the consequences of the decision. She finds that the two offices frequently deferred to, and infrequently dissected, arbitral opinions even before Olin , and that subsequently the percentage of cases deferred rose even higher. Furthermore, following Olin , the Board's Division of Advice promulgated, and at least one of the two Regional Offices apparently adopted, an inferential form of analysis that may compromise the statutory rights of charging parties—particularly individual charging parties.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia A. Greenfield, 1988. "The Nlrb's Deferral to Arbitration before and after OLIN: An Empirical Analysis," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 42(1), pages 34-49, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:42:y:1988:i:1:p:34-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/42/1/34.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:sae:ilrrev:v:42:y:1988:i:1:p:34-49. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    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.