Why might nonunion arbitration of grievances be inferior to arbitration under a union contract and how might these deficiencies be addressed?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Nonunion arbitration suffers from three key flaws. First, there are often limitations placed on discovery (i.e., the amount of information the grievant is given by the employer to make its case). Second, depending on how the costs are shared, the employee may not have the ability to pay for an attorney while the employer is likely to have greater access to legal counsel. Thus, the employee is at a disadvantage merely due to his or her limited ability to afford good counsel. Finally, since the arbitrators are often paid by the company, it is always a question as to whether they can remain unbiased in their decisions. In addition to these reasons, more employers are asking employees to sign mandatory arbitration clauses that require employees to agree to submit disputes to arbitration as a condition of employment. The key problem here is that the employees are being asked to waive their legal rights before they even know the facts of the case. To address these deficiencies, some states have proposed legislation that would include quality standards for nonunion arbitration such as ensuring employees have full access to information, expense sharing, remedies reflecting those found under the court system, judicial review of awards, and waivers on a case by case basis only.