IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/65967.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The conventional wisdom of discharge arbitration outcomes and remedies: fact or fiction

Author

Listed:
  • Bognanno, Mario F.
  • Booth, Jonathan E.
  • Norman, Thomas J.
  • Cooper, Laura J.
  • Befort, Stephen F.

Abstract

This study examines some of the arbitration community’s commonly accepted beliefs about arbitration outcomes and remedies in employee discharge cases, with the findings revealing that some beliefs are likely fact, while others, perhaps, are fiction. With data from 1432 Minnesota discharge awards and 74 arbitrators who decided them, eight truisms are examined pertaining to the following: the frequency that arbitrators use Daugherty’s Seven Tests rubric to analyze case evidence and whether its use affects award outcomes; the distribution of varying quanta of required proof by arbitrators and how different quanta affects award outcomes; and the effect of employee job tenure and “last chance agreement” status on award outcomes. Using a subsample of “reinstatement with back pay” awards, we additionally examine the prevalence of arbitrators ordering how back pay should be computed and “retaining jurisdiction” over back pay cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Bognanno, Mario F. & Booth, Jonathan E. & Norman, Thomas J. & Cooper, Laura J. & Befort, Stephen F., 2014. "The conventional wisdom of discharge arbitration outcomes and remedies: fact or fiction," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65967, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:65967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65967/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ehl:lserod:65967. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.