Download Free The Challenges To The Concept Of Compulsory Interest Arbitration As A Means Of Settlement Of Disputes Between Public Sector Employers And Public Sector Employees Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Challenges To The Concept Of Compulsory Interest Arbitration As A Means Of Settlement Of Disputes Between Public Sector Employers And Public Sector Employees and write the review.

Resolution of impasse disputes in public sector education has emerged as a growing concern in recent years. The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of compulsory final offer interest arbitration has served as a viable means of resolving conflicts between boards of education and teacher associations in Connecticut. Statistical examination of the ways in which contracts were settled, the types of issues arbitrated and the decisions of the arbitrator(s) was conducted on the 182 arbitration awards made between 1979-80 and 1984-85 in Connecticut. Additionally, interviews were conducted with members of the Department of Education's arbitration panel and other individuals involved in the process in Connecticut. Of the 23 areas of issues for arbitration it was found that salary, workday/year, medical insurance, and leaves of absence were the most frequently arbitrated issues when comparisons were done between areas. Also, in the area of arbitral decisions it was found that arbitrators tend to be more favorable toward the association when deciding issues pertaining to salary and more favorable toward the board when deciding issues pertaining to workday/year. No other significant differences were found. Additionally, the results of arbitrator interviews show that for the most part the process has worked well in Connecticut and that parties are generally in acceptance of compulsory arbitration for the resolution of contract disputes.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
Over the years, international organisations' workforce has evolved and is now composed, in a large part, of individuals who do not hold the status of staff member but are de facto part of a contractual relationship of employment nature with these organisations. As a result, this category of individuals is barred from raising a claim against the organisation because they don't have access to remedies in place for staff members nor do they have access to national courts because of the principles of immunity of jurisdiction. This paper argues that creating an arbitration forum based on the concept of compulsory arbitration for the specific purpose of addressing claims of employment nature involving international organisations will afford a greater protection of the rights of this category of individuals and enable their access to justice.
Richard A. Bales explains that the advantages of arbitration are clear. Much faster and less expensive than litigation, arbitration provides a forum for the many employees who are shut out of the current litigative system by the cost and by the tremendous backlog of cases. On the other hand, employers could use arbitration abusively. Bales views the current situation as an ongoing experiment. As long as the courts continue to enforce agreements that are fundamentally fair to employees, the experiment will continue.
This paper comes from a February 2012 Symposium, "The Role of ADR Mechanisms in Public Sector Labor Disputes: What Is at Stake, Where We Can Improve & How We Can Learn from the Private Sector." It discusses the history of an important form of alternative dispute resolution: the use of what is called “interest arbitration” to resolve bargaining impasses in public-sector labor relations. This process is used in many states as an alternative to strikes. While interest arbitration has been a crucial part of public-sector labor law and labor relations for decades, it has come under increased scrutiny recently. Indeed, in the wave of laws passed in 2011 restricting the rights of public-sector unions to bargain collectively, interest arbitration was repeatedly attacked, and in several states it was eliminated or restricted. This paper gives a historical overview of the development of interest arbitration, discussing how and why it developed as it did. This development was neither inevitable nor “natural” in that many other western democracies generally allow public workers to strike. But only a few states in the U.S. allows any public workers to strike. Thus, the question is: why did U.S. law and policy develop the way it did? This paper traces the relevant history from 1919 through to the new, restrictive laws of 2011. It starts with the Boston Police strike of 1919 -- a seminal event in the history of public-sector labor law, that had a profound and lasting impact on how U.S. policymakers felt about dispute resolution in public sector labor law. It then turns to the first public-sector labor law permitting collective bargaining -- passed, ironically in view of recent events, in Wisconsin in 1959 -- and describes how concerns about dispute resolution were central to debates over that law. The paper continues by explaining how interest arbitration in public-sector labor relations has evolved and how it has worked from the 1960s into the 21st century. Finally, the paper explores the very recent developments in this area in the laws of 2011.