Abstracts
Abstract
In both academic and practitioner communities, there is an increased concern related to the time-consuming nature of the traditional labour arbitration system in Canada. The arbitration process was initially instituted to combat the delays and costs experienced in the courts. This study addresses the gap in the scientific literature by considering these ongoing concerns.
Many Canadian jurisdictions offer the parties an opportunity to expedite the arbitration process pursuant to applicable legislation. However, despite the opportunity to accelerate the process, there appears to be a reluctance to use the expedited arbitration system. We performed content analysis on over 550 Canadian expedited and traditional labour arbitration cases. The case sample was limited to termination cases. We studied and compared delay at multiple times during the arbitration process, including the delay to the hearing, delay to the arbitration award, and total delay. Furthermore, we studied the case outcome; specifically, whether the grievance was granted or denied and adopted an ordered analysis to investigate differences in case outcomes.
Our results support the perception that there is a difference in the expediency of expedited arbitration cases in comparison with traditional arbitration cases. The results also show that the outcomes of dismissal cases, decided in the expedited system, do not significantly differ from the traditional arbitration system. The findings suggest that there are statutorily available opportunities for the parties to accelerate the arbitration process without compromising the results.
Keywords:
- arbitration,
- expedited arbitration,
- delay,
- empirical analysis,
- dispute resolution procedures
Résumé
Dans les milieux universitaires et chez les praticiens, on se dit de plus en plus préoccupé par les délais et le temps encouru dans l’application du système d’arbitrage du travail au Canada. Pourtant, ce processus d’arbitrage a été initialement institué afin, justement, d’éviter les longs délais, ainsi que les coûts reliés aux recours aux tribunaux traditionnels. Cette étude cherche à combler le manque de connaissance, à cet égard, dans la littérature scientifique.
De nombreuses juridictions canadiennes offrent aux parties la possibilité d’accélérer le processus d’arbitrage, en conformité avec la législation applicable. Toutefois, malgré cette alternative offerte, il semble y avoir une certaine réticence à utiliser le système d’arbitrage accéléré.
Nous avons analysé le contenu de plus de 550 cas d’arbitrages accélérés et traditionnels au Canada. Cette échantillon ne porte que sur des cas où le processus d’arbitrage a été conduit à son terme. Nous avons étudié et comparé les délais encourus durant divers moments au cours du processus d’arbitrage, y compris le délai pour parvenir à l’audience, le temps pour rendre la sentence et les délais totaux encourus. En outre, nous avons étudié les décisions rendues, plus spécifiquement si le grief a été accueilli ou rejeté, et nous avons opté pour une analyse hiérarchique des cas (ordered analysis), dans le but de mieux comprendre les différences dans les décisions rendues.
Nos résultats viennent montrer que le recours à l’arbitrage accéléré, plutôt qu’à l’arbitrage conventionnel, fait une différence. Ils montrent également que, dans le cas des griefs rejetés, cette différence s’avère peu significative. Notre recherche montre enfin que, peu importe le système, les parties disposent de diverses opportunités statutaires permettant d’accélérer le processus d’arbitrage, cela sans en compromettre les résultats.
Mots-clés:
- arbitrage,
- arbitrage accéléré,
- délai,
- analyse empirique,
- procédures de règlement des différends
Resumen
Tanto en las comunidades académicas como en las profesionales, existe una preocupación creciente relacionada con la naturaleza lenta del sistema tradicional de arbitraje laboral en Canadá. El proceso de arbitraje se instituyó inicialmente para combatir los retrasos y los costos experimentados en los tribunales. Este estudio aborda la brecha en la literatura científica al considerar estas preocupaciones continuas.
Muchas jurisdicciones canadienses ofrecen a las partes la oportunidad de agilizar el proceso de arbitraje de conformidad con la legislación aplicable. Sin embargo, a pesar de la oportunidad de acelerar el proceso, parece haber una reticencia a utilizar el sistema de arbitraje acelerado. Este artículo se base en un análisis de contenido de más de 550 casos canadienses de arbitraje laboral acelerado y tradicional. La muestra se limita a los casos terminados. Estudiamos y comparamos el retraso en múltiples ocasiones durante el proceso de arbitraje, incluida la demora en la audiencia, el retraso en la adjudicación del arbitraje y la demora total. Además, estudiamos el resultado del caso, específicamente, si la queja fue otorgada o denegada, y se adoptó un análisis ordenado para investigar las diferencias en los resultados de los casos.
Nuestros resultados apoyan la percepción de que existe una diferencia en la conveniencia de los casos de arbitraje acelerado en comparación con los casos de arbitraje tradicional. Se muestra también que los resultados de los casos de despido, decididos en el sistema acelerado, no difieren significativamente del sistema de arbitraje tradicional. Esto sugiere que hay oportunidades legalmente disponibles para que las partes aceleren el proceso de arbitraje sin comprometer los resultados.
Palabras claves:
- arbitraje,
- arbitraje acelerado,
- demora,
- análisis empírico,
- procedimiento de resolución de quejas
Appendices
Appendices
References
- Adams, George W. (1978) Grievances Arbitration of Discharge Cases: A Study of the Concepts of Industrial Discipline and Their Results. Kingston: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University.
- Barnacle, Peter J. (1991) Arbitration of Discharge Grievances in Ontario: Outcomes and Reinstatement Experiences. (Vol. 62). Kingston: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University.
- Bemmels, Brian (1988) “Gender Effects in Discharge Arbitration.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42 (1), 63.
- Bemmels, Brian (1991) “Gender Effects in Grievance Arbitration.“ Industrial Relations, 30 (1), 150.
- Block, Richard N. and Jack Stieber (1987) “The Impact of Attorneys and Arbitrators on Arbitration Awards.“Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40 (4), 543-555.
- Bloom, David E. and Christopher L. Cavanagh (1986) “An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators.“ American Economic Review, 76 (3), 408.
- British Columbia Labour Relations Board (2017) Table 1: Applications and Complaints Filed and Disposed of in 2016. Retrieved from http://www.lrb.bc.ca/reports/4Q_Table%201.pdf
- Bryman, Alan (2008) Social Research Methods (3rd Ed.). New York Oxford University Press.
- Budd, John and Alex Colvin (2008) “Improved Metrics for Workplace Dispute Resolution Procedures: Efficiency, Equity, and Voice.“ Industrial Relations, 47 (3), 460.
- Carswell (1997) Canadian Law List, 1997 Edition. Toronto, ON: Carswell.
- Casper, Jonathan D., Tom Tyler and Bonnie Fisher (1988) “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases.“ Law and Society Review, 22 (3), 483-507.
- Curran, Bruce (2017) “Event History Analysis of Grievance Arbitration: Labour Justice Delayed?“ Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 72 (4), 621-657.
- Curran, Bruce (2014) Event History Analysis of Grievance Arbitration: Labour Justice Delayed? Paper presented at the Canadian Industrial Relation Association St. Catherines.
- Folger, Robert (1977) “Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of Voice and Improvement on Experienced Inequity.“ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 108-119.
- Grant, James (2008) Workplace Justice: An Examination of Employee Dismissal in the Views of the Courts and Human Resource Practitioners. Halifax, Nova Scotia: St. Mary’s University.
- Kandel, William L. (2002) “Advocacy in Arbitration: Practice Tips.“ Employee Relations Law Journal, 28 (3), 135-153.
- Kauffman, Nancy L. (1992) “Expedited Arbitration and other Innovations in Alternative Dispute Resolution.“ Labor Law Journal, 43 (6), 382.
- Knight, K. G. and Paul L. Latreille (2001) “Gender Effects in British Unfair Dismissal Tribunal Hearings.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54 (4), 816-834.
- Labour Relations Act, SO 1995, c 1, Sch A.
- Labour Relations Code, RSBC 1996, c 244.
- Marczyk, Geoffrey, David DeMatteo and David Festinger (2005) Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- Mark, Harcourt (2000) “How Attorney Representation and Adjudication Affect Canadian Arbitration and Labor Relations Board Decisions.“ Journal of Labor Research, 21 (1), 149.
- Melton, Gary B. and E. Allan Lind (1982) “Procedural Justice in Family Court: Does the Adversary Model Make Sense?“ Child and Youth Services, 5 (1-2), 65-83.
- Mesch, Deborah J. (1995) “Arbitration and Gender: An Analysis of Cases taken to Arbitration in the Public Sector.“ Journal of Collective Bargaining, 24 (3), 207-218.
- Nelson, Nels E. and Earl M. Curry (1981) “Arbitrator Characteristics and Arbitral Decision.“ Industrial Relations, 20 (3), 312-317.
- Ponak, Allen (1987) “Discharge Arbitration and Reinstatement in the Province of Alberta.“ The Arbitration Journal, 42 (2), 39.
- Ponak, Allen and Corliss Olson (1992) “Time Delays in GRIEVANCE arbitration.“ Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 47 (4), 690.
- Ponak, Allen, Wilfred Zerbe, Sarah Rose, and Corliss Olson (1996) “Using Event History Analysis to Model Delay in Grievance Arbitration.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50 (1), 105.
- Rose, Joseph B. (1986) “Statutory Expedited Grievance Arbitration: The Case of Ontario.“ The Arbitration Journal, 41 (4), 30.
- Sandver, Marcus H., Harry R. Blaine and Mark N. Woyar (1981) “Time and Cost Savings through Expedited Arbitration Procedures.“ The Arbitration Journal, 36 (4), 11-21.
- Simpson, Patricia A. and Joseph J. Martocchio (1997) “The Influence of Work History Factors on Arbitration Outcomes.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50 (2), 252-267.
- Thibault, John and Laurens Walker (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. NJ, Erlbaum: Hillsdale.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. (1993) “Accounting for Delay in Grievance Arbitration.“ Labor Law Journal, 44 (9), 543-553.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. (1995a) “Gender Effects in Grievance Arbitration... Revisited.“ Labor Studies Journal, 19 (4), 35-44.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. (1995b) “Sources of Delay in Grievance Arbitration.“ Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8 (1), 57-66.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. (2008) “The Grievance Arbitration Process and Workplace Conflict Resolution.“ In Morley Gunderson and Daphne Gottlieb Taras (Eds.), Canadian Labour and Employment Relations (6th Ed.). Toronto, Ont.: Pearson Education Inc., 361-382.
- Thornton, Robert J. and Perry A. Zirkel (1990) “The Consistency and Predictability of Grievance Arbitration Awards.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43 (2), 294.
- Tyler, Tom R. (1984) “The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendants’ Evaluations of their Courtroom Experience.“ Law and Society Review, 18 (1), 51-74.
- Tyler, Tom R. (2007) “Procedural Justice and the Courts.“ Court Review, 44 (26).
- Wagar, Terry H. (1994) “The Effect of Lawyers on Non-discipline/discharge Arbitration Decisions.“ Journal of Labor Research, 15 (3), 283-293.
- Weber v. Ontario Hydro, 929 C.F.R. (1995).
- Williams, Kelly and Daphne Gottlieb Taras (2000) “Reinstatement in Arbitration: The Grievors’ Perspective.“ Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 55 (2), 227-249.
- Winkler, Warren K. (2010) Labour Arbitration and Conflict Resolution: Back to our Roots. Paper presented at the Don Wood Lecture, Kingston, Ont.
- Zirkel, Perry and Andrey Krahmal (2001) “Creeping Legalism in Grievance Arbitration: Fact or Fiction?“ Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 16, 243.