IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v73y2020i2p479-497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-Maker and Context Effects in Employment Arbitration

Author

Listed:
  • Mark D. Gough
  • Alexander J. S. Colvin

Abstract

Using a novel survey of 274 employment arbitrators, this study investigates how decision-maker characteristics and the context of the arbitration proceeding affect employee outcomes. The authors analyze the predictors of settlement before an arbitrator award and, if no settlement is reached, the likelihood that an employee will receive a favorable verdict after a full hearing. Findings show that pre-arbitration dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation, have significant effects on settlement behavior and employee outcomes. The characteristics of the presiding arbitrator as well as the structure of the arbitration proceeding also influence employee outcomes at trial. This study contributes to the existing literature by describing the characteristics of employment arbitrators—an underexplored actor in industrial relations. In addition, it analyzes case outcomes, including settlements, across multiple arbitration forums and with more rigorous controls than those applied in existing data sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark D. Gough & Alexander J. S. Colvin, 2020. "Decision-Maker and Context Effects in Employment Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(2), pages 479-497, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:73:y:2020:i:2:p:479-497
    DOI: 10.1177/0019793919886578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793919886578
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0019793919886578?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard N. Block & Jack Stieber, 1987. "The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 40(4), pages 543-555, July.
    2. Laura Beth Nielsen & Robert L. Nelson & Ryon Lancaster, 2010. "Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 175-201, June.
    3. Kevin M. Clermont & Stewart J. Schwab, 2004. "How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare in Federal Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 429-458, July.
    4. Ashenfelter, Orley, 1987. "Arbitrator Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 342-346, May.
    5. Robert J. Thornton & Perry A. Zirkel, 1990. "The Consistency and Predictability of Grievance Arbitration Awards," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(2), pages 294-307, January.
    6. David B. Lipsky & J. Ryan Lamare & Abhishek Gupta, 2013. "The Effect of Gender on Awards in Employment Arbitration Cases: The Experience in the Securities Industry," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52, pages 314-342, January.
    7. Ronald L. Seeber & David B. Lipsky, 2006. "The Ascendancy of Employment Arbitrators in US Employment Relations: A New Actor in the American System?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 44(4), pages 719-756, December.
    8. Mark D. Gough, 2018. "How Do Organizational Environments and Mandatory Arbitration Shape Employment Attorney Case Selection? Evidence from an Experimental Vignette," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 541-567, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. Ryan Lamare, 2020. "The Devil Is in the Details: Attorney Effects on Employment Arbitration Outcomes," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(2), pages 456-478, March.
    2. Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 399-423, September.
    3. Orley Ashenfelter & Gordon B. Dahl, 2003. "Strategic Bargaining Behavior, Self-Serving Biases, and the Role of Expert Agents An Empirical Study of Final-Offer Arbitration," Working Papers 857, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    4. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Mark L. Egan & Gregor Matvos & Amit Seru, 2018. "Arbitration with Uninformed Consumers," NBER Working Papers 25150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Judy FUDGE & Guy MUNDLAK, 2022. "Law and gendered labour market segmentation," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 161(4), pages 657-675, December.
    7. Benson Bruce L., 2000. "Jurisdictional Choice in International Trade: Implications for Lex Cybernatoria," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 3-32, March.
    8. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    9. Ivana Zilic & Helen LaVan, 2020. "Arbitration of accommodation in US workplaces: employee, stakeholder and human resources characteristics," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 454-473, September.
    10. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    11. Alexander A. Reinert, 2023. "Asymmetric review of qualified immunity appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 4-85, March.
    12. Julian Donaubauer & Eric Neumayer & Peter Nunnenkamp, 2018. "Winning or losing in investor‐to‐state dispute resolution: The role of arbitrator bias and experience," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 892-916, September.
    13. David Dickinson, 2003. "Mediation, Walrasian Tâtonnement, and Negotiations as an Exchange Economy," Working Papers 2003-11, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2022. "How do rights revolutions occur? Free speech and the first amendment," TSE Working Papers 22-1396, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Stephen J. Choi & Jill E. Fisch & A. C. Pritchard, 2010. "Attorneys as Arbitrators," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 109-157, January.
    16. Bruce L. Benson, 1999. "Polycentric Law Versus Monopolized Law : Implications from International Trade for the Potential Success of Emerging Markets," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 15(Fall 1999), pages 36-66.
    17. Fang Cooke & Debi Saini, 2015. "From legalism to strategic HRM in India? Grievance management in transition," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 619-643, September.
    18. Jennifer Bennett Shinall, 2016. "What happens when the definition of disability changes? The case of obesity," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, December.
    19. Yannick Gabuthy & Eve-Angéline Lambert, 2013. "Freedom to bargain and disputes’ resolution," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 373-388, October.
    20. Daniel R. Marburger & Paul L. Burgess, 2004. "Can Prior Offers and Arbitration Outcomes Be Used to Predict the Winners of Subsequent Final‐Offer Arbitration Cases?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(1), pages 93-102, July.

    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:73:y:2020:i:2:p:479-497. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.