Describe how arbitration compares to a typical court hearing. How is it different? How is it similar?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

An arbitration hearing is likely a courtroom hearing in that the parties make extensive preparations to present their case to the arbitrator by conducting an investigation, studying the contract, examining past practice and past cases, and preparing witnesses. Once at the hearing, the union and management make opening statements before proceeding. The party with the burden of proof will proceed first by presenting witnesses and evidence. These witnesses are cross-examined by the opposing party. Following cross-examination, the other party will present its witnesses and evidence and this is followed by cross-examination. The rules of evidentiary procedure are looser in arbitration than in the court system. In essence, the arbitrator can listen to and consider whatever information he or she deems helpful to the case. The arbitrator will, however, need to make assessment similar to those of a judge regarding issues like the credibility of witnesses, veracity of facts, and applicability of case law. As with court cases, the decision of the arbitrator is usually delivered at a later date, in a written summary of the case facts and the decision itself.