In defense of creeping legalism in arbitration
AbstractIn recent years, labor arbitration has been subjected to the criticism that it has become the captive of practitioners who have deprived it of informality of process and speed of decision. Instead, the critics allege, arbitration proceedings have become increasingly formal, technical, and expensive. Often such criticisms fall short of facing the basic issue of the function of arbitration in labor-management relations. As the author of this discussion sees this issue, the labor relations community has much to gain in the development of arbitration as a judicial system based on a 'common law' of labor relations. Current dissatisfaction with arbitration, he argues, will diminish as orderly rules and standards of procedure develop and reliance on precedent, cautiously applied, increases. (Author's abstract courtesy EBSCO.)
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School in its journal ILR Review.
Volume (Year): 13 (1960)
Issue (Month): 4 (July)
Postal: 381 Ives East, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3901
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ILR Review).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.