ATTITUDES TOWARD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

JOSEPH B. ROSE AND CHRISTINE MANUEL

---

DOI: 10.2190/DNAR-4D4W-U12K-RR90

Abstract

This article examines attitudes toward collective bargaining and compulsory arbitration in Ontario, Canada. It is based on questionnaires and in-dept interviews with forty-four union and management officials (and advocates representing unions and employers) actively engaged in negotiations in four sectors governed by arbitration statutes: police, fire, health care, and provincial government employees. The results indicate most respondents are neutral or dissatisfied with arbitration, and agree arbitration inhibits genuine collective bargaining and provides a face-saving device. There are significant differences in the perceptions of union and management respondents with respect to the importance of various arbitral criteria and whether arbitrators base their awards on the replication principle and total compensation. Union and management respondents also differed in their evaluations of alternatives to compulsory arbitration. Significant sectoral differences appeared with respect to the impact of arbitration on the bargaining process, e.g., health care respondents agreed more often that arbitration had a chilling effect on negotiations. The predictability of arbitration outcomes was inversely related to arbitration usage, i.e., predictability encouraged voluntary settlements.

---

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