NCJ Number
94696
Date Published
1984
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This paper focuses on the promise and performance of State and local interest arbitration, considering growth and types of coverage in existence; examining constitutional and legislative challenges to interest arbitration; evaluating interest arbitration with concentration on chill and narcotic effects, outcomes, and the strike record; and offering suggestions designed to make the interest arbitration system in State and local bargaining more effective.
Abstract
Between 1968 and 1983 interest arbitration exhibited marked growth. Most observers agree that the presence of interest arbitration has been effective in the prevention of strikes in the fields, notably public security, covered by these laws. Parties to interest arbitration should be given an opportunity to pick the type of interest arbitration which they believe will best meet their needs. A tripartite board, with each member having one vote, is the conventional form of interest arbitration and has proven to be a very useful device. It provides the neutral with a greater understanding of the possible impact of suggested changes than can be gleaned at the hearing. It is desirable to provide the neutral with the reserve voting power to make a determination unilaterally when no majority can be mustered on an issue. Allowing permissive topics in the arbitration forum is recommended. Experience in Massachusetts and New York City supports the desirability of a tripartite supervisory/review board. For those States which prefer to use final-offer-by-package or package final offer on economic items, it is suggested that the arbitrator/arbitration board be empowered to remove one item from the package.