Opinion ID: 1262578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: grievance and impasse/interest arbitration defined and distinguished.

Text: In order to understand the precise problem before us, grievance and impasse/interest arbitration must be defined and distinguished. An arbitrator is required to perform very different roles in the two situations. Grievance arbitration originates only after the parties have reached a complete agreement on the terms and conditions of employment. The arbitrator's function is to make factual findings pertaining to a specific claim that the contract has been violated, and to interpret and apply the relevant contractual provisions, reading the agreement as a whole and discerning the intent of the parties, without rewriting the agreement. [12] Grievance arbitration is a method of resolving differences, concerning the interpretation, application, or violation of an already existing contract. Grievance arbitration utilizes the expertise of the labor arbitrator in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity to interpret the voluntary agreement of the parties as expressed in their contract. A grievance arbitrator cannot add terms to the contract, the arbitrator can only interpret what is contained within the four corners of the agreement. [13] Grievance procedures are contained in most collective bargaining agreements. Generally, arbitration clauses are considered to be proper subjects of bargaining between public employers and their employees [14] as the preferred method for settling disputes. [15] Judicial review of grievance arbitration provisions in the public sector is governed by a two-tiered analysis. The first step is to determine whether the constitution, statutes, decisional law or public policy prevent a public employer from agreeing to refer a dispute to arbitration. The second step is to determine whether the grievance alleged is covered by the agreement. [16] The second part of the test is not at issue. All parties agree that if the arbitration clause is valid, the grievance falls within its ambit. Impasse or interest arbitration, on the other hand, involves the submission of a dispute concerning the terms of a new contract to an arbitrator, who selects those terms and, in effect, writes the parties' collective agreement. [17] Binding interest arbitration permits the arbitrator to substitute his/her judgment for that of a public official on matters the electorate has entrusted to its elected representatives. Interest arbitration is said to involve the delegation of legislative decision making to an unelected third party. The agency of government, a political subdivision, and its governing board have a responsibility to the public to faithfully discharge its duties under the statutes. Duties which are specifically imposed by statute upon public officials cannot be delegated to an arbitrator, because the public officials, and they alone, are charged with the control and management of their positions. [18] The Legislature's understanding of this distinction, and its public policy implications, is reflected in the statutes which make impasse/interest arbitration for public employees non-binding. [19]