<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE Publisher PUBLIC "-//MetaPress//DTD MetaPress 2.0//EN" "http://public.metapress.com/dtd/MPRESS/MetaPressv2.dtd">
<Publisher>
	<PublisherInfo>
		<PublisherName>Baywood Publishing Company</PublisherName>
	</PublisherInfo>
	<Journal>
		<JournalInfo JournalType="Journals">
			<JournalPrintISSN>2167-7816</JournalPrintISSN>
			<JournalElectronicISSN>2167-7824</JournalElectronicISSN>
			<JournalTitle>Journal of Collective Negotiations (formerly Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector)</JournalTitle>
			<JournalCode>BWCN</JournalCode>
			<JournalID>300318</JournalID>
			<JournalURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&amp;id=300318</JournalURL>
		</JournalInfo>
		<Volume>
			<VolumeInfo>
				<VolumeNumber>13</VolumeNumber>
			</VolumeInfo>
			<Issue>
				<IssueInfo IssueType="Regular">
					<IssueNumberBegin>4</IssueNumberBegin>
					<IssueNumberEnd>4</IssueNumberEnd>
					<IssueSupplement>0</IssueSupplement>
					<IssuePartStart>0</IssuePartStart>
					<IssuePartEnd>0</IssuePartEnd>
					<IssueSequence>000013000419841201</IssueSequence>
					<IssuePublicationDate>
						<CoverDate Year="1984" Month="12" Day="1"/>
						<CoverDisplay>Number 4/1984</CoverDisplay>
					</IssuePublicationDate>
					<IssueID>GGV93120DY3T</IssueID>
					<IssueURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=issue&amp;id=GGV93120DY3T</IssueURL>
				</IssueInfo>
				<Article ArticleType="Original">
					<ArticleInfo Free="No" ESM="No">
						<ArticleDOI>10.2190/JH8X-MLV2-PBAG-H2GN</ArticleDOI>
						<ArticlePII>JH8XMLV2PBAGH2GN</ArticlePII>
						<ArticleSequenceNumber>0</ArticleSequenceNumber>
						<ArticleTitle Language="En">PROCEDURAL ARBITRABILITY OF GRIEVANCE CASES</ArticleTitle>
						<ArticleFirstPage/>
						<ArticleLastPage/>
						<ArticleHistory>
							<RegistrationDate>20020509</RegistrationDate>
							<ReceivedDate>20020509</ReceivedDate>
							<Accepted>20020509</Accepted>
							<OnlineDate>20020509</OnlineDate>
						</ArticleHistory>
						<FullTextURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&amp;id=JH8XMLV2PBAGH2GN</FullTextURL>
						<Composite>4</Composite>
					</ArticleInfo>
					<ArticleHeader>
						<AuthorGroup>
							<Author>
								<GivenName>PERRY A. ZIRKEL</GivenName>
								<Initials/>
								<FamilyName/>
								<Degrees/>
								<Roles/>
							</Author>
						</AuthorGroup>
						<Abstract Language="En">A systematic analysis of a sample of 100 published arbitration awards dealing with procedural arbitrability revealed that timeliness was the predominant issue. In 85 percent of the cases, the arbitrator rejected claims of procedural nonarbitrability, employing a flexible array of rationales. Of the 15 percent of the cases that were dismissed on procedural grounds, two-thirds appeared to be accounted for by special circumstances or strict contracts. The duty of fair representation did not play a readily detectable role in the nonabitrability and pro-arbitrability rulings. Court decisions prior and subsequent to arbitration have tended to reinforce the pro-arbitrability trend with respect to procedural issues.</Abstract>
					</ArticleHeader>
				</Article>
			</Issue>
		</Volume>
	</Journal>
</Publisher>
