WIN-LOSS RATES IN PUBLIC SECTOR GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION CASES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SELECTION OF ARBITRATORS

DAVID A. DILTS AND EDWIN C. LEONARD, JR.

---

DOI: 10.2190/3PCX-FKLX-Q68L-QKEK

Abstract

In grievance arbitration the burden of proof resides with the party asking for the affirmative action. In disciplinary matters the burden of proof is management's and in contract interpretation matters the union bears the burden of proof. The data used in this study are from the American Arbitration Association's award publication service for the public sector. This study demonstrated that the party bearing the initial burden of proof loses more than half of the cases brought to arbitration. This "burden of proof" effect may be attributable to the fact that it is more difficult to prove something occurred than to defend against an allegation. The implications of the study for arbitrator selection is that a fifty-fifty split in arbitrator's decisions over a career may not be consistent with impartiality. An arbitrator who has heard more disciplinary matters should be expected to have ruled in favor of the union more than fifty percent of the time, and an arbitrator who has heard more contract interpretation matters should be expected to have ruled in favor of management more than fifty percent of the time.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.