Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Exploring Voluntary Arbitration of Individual Employment Disputes
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Blumrosen, Alfred W. |
| Copyright Year | 1983 |
| Abstract | OF THE UNITED STATES (1979 & 1981). See also Angel, Professionals and Unionization, 66 MINN. L. REv. 383, 386-87 (1982) (discussing low rate of unionization among white-collar workers). 11. See, e.g., Bean v. Crocker Nat'I Bank, 600 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1979); Price v. Maryland Casualty Co., 561 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1977). 12. See Feliu, Discharge of Professional Employees: Protecting Against Dismissal for Acts Within a Professional Code of Ethics, 11 CoLUM. HuM. RTS. L. REv., 149, 175 (1979-1980); Angel, supra note 10, at 386-87. 13. See, e.g., Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136 (1977). 14. See, e.g., Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978). 252 Journal of Law Reform [VOL. 16:2 litigation. 15 This is especially true for workers over forty, covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 16 who may feel that the employer has not adequately recognized their long-term contribution to the institution. 17 It is therefore appropriate to focus the discussion of development of individual employment contract arbitration around the issue of discharge of a higher-level managerial, professional, or technical employee from a white-collar job. 18 B. Advantages of Arbitration Over the Existing Legal Process Today, employment decisions are subject to review in a wide range of federal and state courts and administrative agencies. 19 Recent changes in employment law under common law and statutorily based decisions suggest that these tribunals will face increased caseloads in the future. In addition, the general rise in litigiousness documented by the Chief Justice in his recent plea for arbitration suggests that this development will continue. This increase in litigation poses new and serious problems for employers and employees, including increased costs, delay, complexity, and uncertainty. I believe that contractual arbitration will avoid or minimize many of these problems and provide useful benefits for both employers and employees. 1. Decreasing delayThe ordinary processes of law, both in administrative agencies and courts, are slow. 21 In addition to the strain on court calendars, delay causes hardship for both employers and employees. Employers face the risk of back pay awards which may increase during the time it takes to process cases. At the same time, 15. See, e.g., Savodnik v. Korvettes, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 822 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (employee allegedly discharged to avoid vesting of pension benefits). 16. 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1976 & Supp. IV 1980). 17. See, e.g., Smith v. World Book-Childcraft Int'!, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 96 (N.D. Ill. 1980) (employee terminated after 21 years of service); Schulz v. Hickock Mfg. Co., 358 F. Supp. 1208 (N.D. Ga. 1973). 18. Both Professor Summers and Mr. Mennemeier would exclude higher-level employees from their proposed statutes for a variety of reasons. See Mennemeier, supra note 5, at 79-81; Summers, supra note 5, at 524-26. But these are precisely the employees whose propensity to litigate creates the greatest risk to the employer. 19. These include state civil rights agencies which have hearing powers, see, e.g., N.Y. EXEC. LAW§ 295(7) (McKinney 1982), the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which does not, 42 U .S.C. §§ 2000e-4(g) to e-5 (1976), federal district courts which hear cases arising under anti-discrimination statutes, and state court proceedings on "new" tort and contract claims. 20. Burger, Isn't There A Better Way?, 68 A.B.A. J. 274 (1982). 21. Id. See also Lewin, New Alternatives to Litigation, N.Y. Times, Nov. 1, 1982, at DI, col. 3, D2, col. I ("The average arbitration takes 141 days from filing to award, in contrast with the nationwide average of 20 months for a civil suit to get from filing to trial in the Federal courts."); Olson, Controlling Litigation Costs: Some Proposals for Reform, 2 LITIGATION, Summ. |
| Starting Page | 249 |
| Ending Page | 276 |
| Page Count | 28 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Volume Number | 16 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2025&context=mjlr |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
