Beyond Repeat Players: Experience and Employment Arbitration Outcomes in the Securities Industry

Abstract

Purpose

This chapter analyzes the extent to which more experienced employers, arbitrators, and attorneys fare better in securities industry arbitration. Although studies into experience have identified a so-called repeat-player effect on outcomes, I argue that more nuanced considerations of experience are required.

Methodology/approach

I empirically analyze all employment arbitration awards from the securities system’s inception through 2008. I separate experience into two categories (between- and within-group effects) and run hybrid random- and fixed-effects regressions modeling increasing employer, attorney, and arbitrator experience on arbitration outcomes.

Findings

I find that between-group experience affects awards but that within-group experience is nonsignificant, except in civil rights cases. This implies that so-called repeat players gain an advantage over inexperienced players due to their entity-specific characteristics, not necessarily by learning to use the system to their advantage. I conclude that, although the securities arbitration system suffers from power imbalances, there is little evidence of systemic exploitation by firms.

Originality/value

Prior studies into employment arbitration are limited both by their definitions of experience and by their methodological approaches. I overcome these issues by employing a novel methodological approach to measure between- and within-entity experience, which adds a more multifaceted and nuanced framework to the literature than the common repeat-player versus single-player dichotomy.

Citation

Lamare, J.R. (2016), "Beyond Repeat Players: Experience and Employment Arbitration Outcomes in the Securities Industry", Managing and Resolving Workplace Conflict (Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, Vol. 22), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 135-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-618620160000022006