Abstract

This article discusses the arbitration process in American industrial management. It attempts to find out whether there are basic defects in the American system of arbitration and whether the process should be maintained, overhauled or discarded. The origin of arbitration in the U.S. system dates back to World War II, when the War labor Board forced it on generally reluctant management. Since then it became standard equipment in collective agreements. In response to the need, there have developed corps of men, who are available for the specialized work of arbitration. A relatively small number are full-time practitioners, while a larger number combine arbitration with other careers. There has been stinging criticisms of arbitrators but little of arbitration as a process. According to some management representatives arbitrators are innovators and meddlers, who stray from the function of strict construction. Union representatives, on the other hand find arbitrators conservative and inhibited about breaking new grounds. The Author suggests that the problem is not with arbitrators but with the arbitration process itself as it is inherently faulty and it should be basically changed or replaced.