NCJ Number
105316
Journal
Hastings Law Journal Volume: 38 Issue: 2 Dated: (January 1987) Pages: 239-304
Date Published
1987
Length
65 pages
Annotation
This article examines what courts have said and continue to say about arbitration regarding the relative capacity of nonjudicial and traditional judicial dispute resolution processes to serve public interests.
Abstract
This article examines 'interests' disputes, in contrast to 'rights' disputes, which are not amenable to judicial resolution and discusses public versus private interests in arbitration. The latter topic includes an examination of historical judicial antagonism towards arbitration and legislative encouragement of arbitration. A discussion of the resolution of conflicts between opposing public interests encompasses conflicting policies in securities cases after Wilko v. Swan (1953); public policies in antitrust arbitration; the judicial review of arbitration and the public interest; and res judicata, collateral estoppel, and admission of arbitration decisions into evidence. The article also considers how the National Labor Relations Board's deferral of cases to arbitration impacts the public interest. A review of compulsory arbitration addresses arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, compulsory medical malpractice arbitration, and judicial arbitration. Other topics considered are public sector 'interests' disputes and the meaning of the arbitration experience for public interest questions in alternative dispute resolution. Some conclusions drawn are that alternative dispute resolution responds to a felt public need, satisfies broader public interests while satisfying the interests of individual disputants, and maintains the peace by quickly resolving conflicts. 241 footnotes.