IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Who uses interest arbitration? The case of British Columbia's teachers, 1947û1981

  • Janet Currie

Several researchers have attempted to identify the circumstances under which parties subject to compulsory interest arbitration will actually push a contract dispute to arbitration. In this paper, a simple model that incorporates elements of the leading hypotheses is tested using a unique data set spanning 35 years of compulsory conventional arbitration experience among teachers in British Columbia. The strongest empirical finding is that bargaining units that used arbitration in the previous round of negotiations were at least ten percent more likely than other units to use it in the current round. On the other hand, variables intended to capture attitudes toward risk, changes in the degree of uncertainty associated with arbitral outcomes, differing beliefs about likely arbitral outcomes, and principal-agent problems were found to have little impact on the estimated probability of using arbitration. (Abstract courtesy JSTOR.)

To 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.

Article provided by ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School in its journal ILR Review.

Volume (Year): 42 (1989)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Pages: 363-379

in new window

Handle: RePEc:ilr:articl:v:42:y:1989:i:3:p:363-379
Contact details of provider: Fax: 607-255-8016
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Postal: 381 Ives East, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3901
Web: Email:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ilr:articl:v:42:y:1989:i:3:p:363-379. See general 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 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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.