American Arbitration Association
The
following protocol is offered by the undersigned individuals, members of the
Task Force on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Employment, as a means of
providing due process in the resolution by mediation and binding arbitration of
employment disputes involving statutory rights. The signatories were designated
by their respective organizations, but the protocol reflects their personal
views and should not be construed as representing the policy of the designating
organizations.
Genesis
This
Task Force was created by individuals from diverse organizations involved in
labor and employment law to examine questions of due process arising out of the
use of mediation and arbitration for resolving employment disputes. In this protocol
we confine ourselves to statutory disputes.
The
members of the Task Force felt that mediation and arbitration of statutory
disputes conducted under proper due process safeguards should be encouraged in
order to provide expeditious, accessible, inexpensive and fair private
enforcement of statutory employment disputes for the 100,000,000 members of the
workforce who might not otherwise have ready, effective access to
administrative or judicial relief. They also hope that such a system will serve
to reduce the delays which now arise out of the huge backlog of cases pending
before administrative agencies and courts and that it will help forestall an
even greater number of such cases.
A.
Pre or Post Dispute Arbitration
The
Task Force recognizes the dilemma inherent in the timing of an agreement to
mediate and/or arbitrate statutory disputes. It did not achieve consensus on
this difficult issue. The views in this spectrum are set forth randomly, as
follows:
Employers
should be able to create mediation and/or arbitration systems to resolve
statutory claims, but any agreement to mediate and/or arbitrate disputes should
be informed, voluntary, and not a condition of initial or continued employment.
Employers
should have the right to insist on an agreement to mediate and/or arbitrate
statutory disputes as a condition of initial or continued employment.
Postponing
such an agreement until a dispute actually arises, when there will likely exist
a stronger re-disposition to litigate, will result in very few agreements to
mediate and/or arbitrate, thus negating the likelihood of effectively utilizing
alternative dispute resolution and overcoming the problems of administrative
and judicial delays which now plague the system.
Employees
should not be permitted to waive their right to judicial relief of statutory
claims arising out of the employment relationship for any reason.
Employers
should be able to create mediation and/or arbitration systems to resolve
statutory claims, but the decision to mediate and/or arbitrate individual cases
should not be made until after the dispute arises.
The
Task Force takes no position on the timing of agreements to mediate and/or
arbitrate statutory employment disputes, though it agrees that such agreements
be knowingly made. The focus of this protocol is on standards of exemplary due
process.
B.
Right of Representation
1.
Choice of Representative
Employees
considering the use of or, in fact, utilizing mediation and/or arbitration
procedures should have the right to be represented by a spokesperson of their
own choosing. The mediation and arbitration procedure should so specify and
should include reference to institutions which might offer assistance, such as
bar associations, legal service associations, civil rights organizations, trade
unions, etc.
2.
Fees for Representation
The
amount and method of payment for representation should be determined between
the claimant and the representative. We recommend, however, a number of
existing systems which provide employer reimbursement of at least a portion of
the employee's attorney fees, especially for lower paid employees. The
arbitrator should have the authority to provide for fee reimbursement, in whole
or in part, as part of the remedy in accordance with applicable law or in the
interests of justice.
3.
Access to Information
One
of the advantages of arbitration is that there is usually less time and money
spent in pre-trial discovery. Adequate but limited pre-trial discovery is to be
encouraged and employees should have access to all information reasonably
relevant to mediation and/or arbitration of their claims. The employees'
representative should also have reasonable pre-hearing and hearing access to
all such information and documentation.
Necessary
pre-hearing depositions consistent with the expedited nature of arbitration
should be available. We also recommend that prior to selection of an
arbitrator, each side should be provided with the names, addresses and phone
numbers of the representatives of the parties in that arbitrator's six most
recent cases to aid them in selection.
C.
Mediator and Arbitrator Qualification
1.
Roster Membership
Mediators
and arbitrators selected for such cases should have skill in the conduct of
hearings, knowledge of the statutory issues at stake in the dispute, and
familiarity with the workplace and employment environment. The roster of
available mediators and arbitrators should be established on a
non-discriminatory basis, diverse by gender, ethnicity, background, experience,
etc. to satisfy the parties that their interest and objectives will be
respected and fully considered.
Our
recommendation is for selection of impartial arbitrators and mediators. We
recognize the right of employers and employees to jointly select as mediator
and/or arbitrator one in whom both parties have requisite trust, even though
not possessing the qualifications here recommended, as most promising to bring
finality and to withstand judicial scrutiny. The existing cadre of labor and
employment mediators and arbitrators, some lawyers, some not, although skilled
in conducting hearings and familiar with the employment milieu is unlikely,
without special training, to consistently possess knowledge of the statutory
environment in which these disputes arise and of the characteristics of the
non-union workplace.
There
is a manifest need for mediators and arbitrators with expertise in statutory
requirements in the employment field who may, without special training, lack
experience in the employment area and in the conduct of arbitration hearings
and mediation sessions. Reexamination of rostering eligibility by designating
agencies, such as the American Arbitration Association, may permit the
expedited inclusion in the pool of this most valuable source of expertise.
The
roster of arbitrators and mediators should contain representatives with all
such skills in order to meet the diverse needs of this caseload.
Regardless
of their prior experience, mediators and arbitrators on the roster must be
independent of bias toward either party. They should reject cases if they
believe the procedure lacks requisite due process.
2.
Training
The
creation of a roster containing the foregoing qualifications dictates the
development of a training program to educate existing and potential labor and
employment mediators and arbitrators as to the statutes, including substantive,
procedural and remedial issues to be confronted and to train experts in the
statutes as to employer procedures governing the employment relationship as
well as due process and fairness in the conduct and control of arbitration
hearings and mediation sessions.
Training
in the statutory issues should be provided by the government agencies, bar
associations, academic institutions, etc., administered perhaps by the
designating agency, such as the AAA, at various locations throughout the
country. Such training should be updated periodically and be required of all
mediators and arbitrators. Training in the conduct of mediation and arbitration
could be provided by a mentoring program with experienced panelists.
Successful
completion of such training would be reflected in the resume or panel cards of
the arbitrators supplied to the parties for their selection process.
3.
Panel Selection
Upon
request of the parties, the designating agency should utilize a list procedure
such as that of the AAA or select a panel composed of an odd number of
mediators and arbitrators from its roster or pool. The panel cards for such
individuals should be submitted to the parties for their perusal prior to
alternate striking of the names on the list, resulting in the designation of
the remaining mediator and/or arbitrator.
The
selection process could empower the designating agency to appoint a mediator
and/or arbitrator if the striking procedure is unacceptable or unsuccessful. As
noted above, subject to the consent of the parties, the designating agency
should provide the names of the parties and their representatives in recent
cases decided by the listed arbitrators.
4.
Conflicts of Interest
The
mediator and arbitrator for a case has a duty to disclose any relationship
which might reasonably constitute or be perceived as a conflict of interest.
The designated mediator and/or arbitrator should be required to sign an oath
provided by the designating agency, if any, affirming the absence of such
present or preexisting ties.
5.
Authority of the Arbitrator
The
arbitrator should be bound by applicable agreements, statutes, regulations and
rules of procedure of the designating agency, including the authority to
determine the time and place of the hearing, permit reasonable discovery, issue
subpoenas, decide arbitrability issues, preserve order and privacy in the
hearings, rule on evidentiary matters, determine the close of the hearing and
procedures for post-hearing submissions, and issue an award resolving the
submitted dispute.
The
arbitrator should be empowered to award whatever relief would be available in
court under the law. The arbitrator should issue an opinion and award setting
forth a summary of the issues, including the type(s) of dispute(s), the damages
and/or other relief requested and awarded, a statement of any other issues
resolved, and a statement regarding the disposition of any statutory claim(s).
6.
Compensation of the Mediator and Arbitrator
Impartiality
is best assured by the parties sharing the fees and expenses of the mediator
and arbitrator. In cases where the economic condition of a party does not
permit equal sharing, the parties should make mutually acceptable arrangements
to achieve that goal if at all possible. In the absence of such agreement, the
arbitrator should determine allocation of fees. The designating agency, by
negotiating the parties' share of costs and collecting such fees, might be able
to reduce the bias potential of disparate contributions by forwarding payment
to the mediator and/or arbitrator without disclosing the parties' share
therein.
D.
Scope of Review
The
arbitrator's award should be final and binding and the scope of review should
be limited.
Dated:
May 9, 1995
Signatories
Christopher
A. Barreca, Co-Chair
Partner
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
Rep., Council of Labor & Employment Section, American Bar Association
Partner
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
Rep., Council of Labor & Employment Section, American Bar Association
Max
Zimny, Co-Chair
General Counsel, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union Association
Rep., Council of Labor & Employment Section, American Bar Association
General Counsel, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union Association
Rep., Council of Labor & Employment Section, American Bar Association
Arnold
Zack, Co-Chair
President, Nat. Academy of Arbitrators
President, Nat. Academy of Arbitrators
Carl
E. VerBeek
Management Co-Chair Union Co-Chair
Management Co-Chair Union Co-Chair
Partner
Varnum Riddering Schmidt & Howlett
Varnum Riddering Schmidt & Howlett
Arbitration Committee of Labor &
Employment Section, ABA
Robert
D. Manning
Angoff, Goldman, Manning, Pyle,
Wanger & Hiatt, P.C.
Union Co-Chair
Arbitration Committee of Labor & Employment Section, ABA
Union Co-Chair
Arbitration Committee of Labor & Employment Section, ABA
Charles
F. Ipavec, Arbitrator
Neutral Co-Chair
Arbitration Committee of Labor & Employment Section, ABA
Neutral Co-Chair
Arbitration Committee of Labor & Employment Section, ABA
George
H. Friedman
Senior Vice President
American Arbitration Association
Senior Vice President
American Arbitration Association
Michael
F. Hoellering
General Counsel
American Arbitration Association
General Counsel
American Arbitration Association
W.
Bruce Newman
Rep., Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
Rep., Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
Wilma
Liebman
Special Assistant to the Director Federal Mediation & Conciliation
Special Assistant to the Director Federal Mediation & Conciliation
Joseph
Garrison, President
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
Lewis
Maltby
Director - Workplace Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Director - Workplace Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union
No comments:
Post a Comment