General Practice, Solo & Small Firm DivisionBest of ABA Sections
Labor & Employment Law
A Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Statutory Disputes Arising Out of the Employment Relationship
The Section of Labor and Employment Law, along with other organizations involved in employment relations, has endorsed A Due Process Protocol in order to assure some measure of fairness and due process to employer-promulgated schemes for the private resolution of statutory disputes.
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 predisposition 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 that 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. . . .
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 that 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 that 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 pretrial discovery. Adequate but limited pretrial 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 prehearing and hearing access to all such information and documentation. Necessary prehearing 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 . . . .
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 nonunion 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 . . . .
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 . . . .
4. Conflicts of Interest. The mediator and arbitrator for a case have a duty to disclose any relationship that 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 posthearing submissions, and issue an award resolving the submitted dispute . . . .
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 . . . .
D. Scope of Review
The arbitrator’s award should be final and binding and the scope of review should be limited.
This article is an abridged and edited version of one that originally appeared in Labor & Employment Law Newsletter, 24:2.