chunk1

ABSTRACT. Twenty-two years ago leaders from the Wisconsin Department of Labor Relations and leaders from the Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, saw a need to create better ways to more efficiently handle their large backlog of routine grievances. Thus they mutually crafted and adopted special arbitration procedures that they have used ever since. When the parties created these customized procedures they obviously believed that doing so would be mutually advantageous. Now, given the passage of time, it is appropriate to ask whether the parties’ original vision has been realized. To answer that question advocates, who now have substantial experience using these procedures, were polled concerning their experience with the special arbitration procedures and whether they supported their continued use. When the parties drafted these unique procedures, they agreed that a case which either side deemed precedential should remain on the conventional arbitration path. However, they also concluded that they could more efficiently resolve more routine and non-precedential cases, such as those involving minor discipline or overtime issues, in less formal ways. Thus, they designed two other resolution options: the umpire arbitration process and the expedited arbitration process. To implement these processes, which are set forth in Attachment A, the parties mutually agreed upon a panel of three arbitrators to preside over both types of proceedings. The parties share the arbitrators’ costs and the hearing expenses. pp. 92–125

Keywords: Wisconsin, labor, arbitration, process, procedure, resolution

CHRISTINE VER PLOEG
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
William Mitchell College of Law

Home | About Us | Sales | Author's Page | Journals | Abstracting & Indexing | Contributors | Books | Contact | Online Access

© 2009 Addleton Academic Publishers. All Rights Reserved.

 
Joomla templates by Joomlashine