Using arbitration as a method to settle labor disputes is common among public service unions since it is usually less expensive and quickerthan other negotiation processes, experts said.
“It?s quick justice,” said Arthur Pearlstein, director of the Creighton University Werner Institute for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Omaha, Neb.
Howard County voters will decide next month whether the police and fire unions should have a system of arbitration to settle labor disputes.
In arbitration, both parties in a labor dispute bring the issue to a neutral third party, or arbitrator, according to the National Arbitration Forum, which carries out arbitrations.
The arbitrator?s decision can either be binding or nonbinding, meaning the decision is either final or advisory in the dispute.
“If the unions are fine with it and management is fine with it, then there is no reason why the public should be alarmed by this,” Pearlstein said.
However, critics of binding arbitration are wary of putting contract decisions into the hands of a third party, said Phillip Wilson, a labor attorney and labor-relations expert based in Tulsa, Okla.
The arbitrator might side with the union asking for higher pay, forcing the county to raise taxes, he said.
Both sides also assume the arbitrator has the expertise and ability to make a balanced decision, he said.
“Because of the potential impact on public safety and taxpayer money, allowing an arbitrator to step in is not a very fair trade,” he said.
