Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify the determinants of arbitrator acceptability and investigate whether the perceived costs of arbitration moderate the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics in international commercial arbitration.

A two-stage analytic process is used to test the dimensionality, reliability and validity of each construct and then the proposed hypotheses.

The findings show that the five constructs of arbitrator characteristics – reputation, practical expertise, legal expertise, experience and procedural justice – statistically significantly explain arbitrator acceptability. Moreover, perceived cost of arbitration moderates the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics. However, the moderating effect of perceived costs of arbitration is not equal across characteristics.

Knowledge regarding potential moderators of the strength of the indicators of arbitrator acceptability will be useful to future researchers in determining which variables to study in arbitrator selection research.

Useful guidelines in the selection of an international arbitrator are proposed.

This study contributes to arbitrator acceptability literature through the suggestion of a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability with auxiliary hypothesis of reputation in international contexts. In addition, this study investigates the moderating role of perceived cost of arbitration on the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Arbitration – a binding private third-party adjudication – has been the primary legal way for resolution of consumer disputes. Consumers, however, rarely use arbitration to resolve their disputes while evidence suggests that their disputes remain unresolved. Contrary to the current prevailing emphasis on who is winning in arbitration, this study aims to establish that consumers believe that the court is more just than arbitration, regardless of the outcome. This study further establishes that consumers’ perceived poor legitimacy and lack of familiarity, not cost calculation, are what drive their justice perception.

In three experimental studies, participants were presented with scenarios in which they were to envision themselves amid a consumer dispute. The scenarios were followed by survey questions that examined individuals’ perceptions of justice. Three mediating variables of legitimacy, cost and familiarity were also examined.

The results suggest that consumers hold a high perception of justice for court as opposed to arbitration. Even though a favorable outcome increases consumers’ perception of justice, the results suggest that consumers find courts to be fairer regardless of the outcome. Familiarity and legitimacy mediate this relationship, not cost.

Current research does not provide an adequate explanation for consumers’ underutilization of arbitration nor does it focus on correct factors. Studies in psychology and law primarily focus on ex post feelings of individuals after dispute resolution, ex post favorable outcomes and ex ante cost–benefit analysis. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study for the first time analyzes ex ante consumer perception of justice.

In this article, we focus on alternative dispute resolution procedures, in particular third party procedures. We describe eight different procedures and provide examples of how these procedures are used in different cultural contexts. We then evaluate the procedures in terms of how they impact four key criteria that have been noted in the literature related to negotiation: process criteria, settlement criteria, issue-related criteria, and relationship criteria. We subsequently explore the potential impact of culture on evaluations of these criteria. We finish with a discussion of future directions for research and practice, emphasizing that procedural recommendations should be made carefully when the criteria for effectiveness and applicability are derived from US-centric research. In other words, there is not “one best choice” for third party procedures universal to the myriad cultures on our planet.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Using an institutional theory perspective (micro and macro), the authors examined employment lawsuits across case type and alternative dispute resolution methods (negotiated settlements versus trials and arbitrations).

The authors examined actual data from US federal court lawsuits (N = 98,020). The data included the type of lawsuit, the dispute resolution method used and the outcome of the lawsuit in terms of the dollar amounts awarded.

The results show that employers were more likely to win in high social context cases (civil rights) than in other cases (Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA). In arbitrations, plaintiffs won more frequently and were awarded higher amounts in arbitration than in court trials. In arbitration, plaintiffs received more in high social context cases than in other cases.

The results show that employers lose more often and in larger dollar amounts in arbitration than in litigation. However, if arbitration rulings more closely matched the likely outcomes of trials, subsequent litigation would be less likely to be overturned, and transaction costs would be reduced. If this were the case, the arbitration of employment lawsuits would more closely match the arbitration of contractual grievances under the typical labor relations system, where the arbitrator’s decision is usually final and binding. This could be a better outcome for all stakeholders in the dispute resolution process.

This is the first study of its kind to examine actual workplace conflicts that result in employment-related lawsuits from the perspective of social contextual factors.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possible use of arbitration in disputes involving claims against directors. It takes as its starting point a recent decision of the English Court of Appeal, Fulham Football Club [1987] Ltd v. Richards, in which the Court confirmed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in proceedings where one of the defendants was the company chairman, and asks how far this case is representative of a general trend.

The methodology adopted is comparative, with particular but not exclusive reference to laws in the USA, the UK, France and Germany. The paper examines case law and literature in three intersecting areas. First, it notes the existence of distinctive approaches to corporate governance which broadly correspond to those of common law and civil law (outsider and insider) jurisdictions. Second, it reviews the relative significance in different jurisdictions of public and private law mechanisms for enforcing compliance with the rules designed to ensure good governance. Finally, to the extent that private enforcement is relevant, it explores how far intra‐corporate disputes are considered arbitrable in the selected jurisdictions.

It is apparent that the function performed by claims against directors in some jurisdictions – notably the USA and to a lesser extent the UK – is performed by other mechanisms elsewhere. In Germany, for example, actions for the annulment of company resolutions are a common form of intra‐corporate dispute. A trend towards the use of arbitration to resolve intra‐corporate disputes can be observed, but this may be limited to cases where there is a desire to preserve the relationship between the parties – which is frequently not the case where claims against directors are involved. Where that relationship is already damaged beyond repair, litigation may offer greater advantages.

There is, nevertheless, a lack of empirical data as to the actual use of arbitration – as compared to litigation – in intra‐corporate disputes in the jurisdictions under consideration.

The main value of this paper is thus to clarify the parameters of a field for further investigation.

We examine how different neutral sources and third-party neutral qualification differences relate to mediation and arbitration usage at large US firms. Neutral sourcing is controversial, particularly in employment arbitration, where many have expressed concern that unregulated sourcing arrangements may bias outcomes in favor of employers. We use agency and structure theories to hypothesize that firms will be less likely to use mediation when the neutral is sourced as a result of court-annexed mediation, but that firms may be more likely to use arbitration when the neutral is sourced from a private third-party provider. Utilizing human capital theory, we also hypothesize that organizations will use both mediation and arbitration more frequently when neutrals are perceived to be more highly qualified. Empirically, we rely on data gathered from a survey of US Fortune 1000 corporations to test these hypotheses and find support for each of them. Our results suggest that, while firms uniformly value professionalization in their neutrals, employers may impose structures on themselves in high-stakes circumstances like arbitration to ensure standardized and consistent processes, but prefer agency in lower-stakes circumstances like mediation.

Disputes frequently occur on engineering and construction projects. In this paper it is argued that these disputes need to be evaluated and managed, with proper attention being paid to planning of time and money. Since the way in which dispute management is approached will depend on the perceived self‐interest of the parties, it is imperative that disputants have a sensible measure of their self‐interest. ‘Traditional’ probabilistic risk assessment techniques are shown to be of assistance and can be used to compute appropriate dispute management strategies. By way of example, a Monte Carlo simulation of a dispute is performed and discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to explore China’s labour dispute arbitration system reform through analysing the degree to which it has attained its stated objectives – notably, independence, justice, efficiency and professionalism – from the perspectives of the arbitrators, previously ignored in research on China.

This paper used a mixed research method using questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires were sent to all full-time labour dispute arbitrators in Beijing, China with a useable response rate of 71 per cent. Additionally, qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 key stakeholders involved in the arbitration process.

Instead of establishing an impartial platform, the arbitration system endeavours to promote the state’s capacity to rule over labour relations. Its recent reform excluded arbitrational independence owing to concerns about reducing the Chinese Communist Party’s arbitrary power. Arbitrational justice was perceived to improve through case resolution efficiency, which made arbitrators minimise arbitration time, partly because of high caseloads but largely because of their key performance indicators. Quality of arbitration was compromised. The arbitrators understood the spaces and boundaries of the reform, and focused on increasing professionalism to enable them to more fluidly manoeuvre between the different political economic interests, above safeguarding labour rights.

The questionnaire size was too small for regression analysis. Future research should expand the sample sizes and conduct cross-regional studies.

In 2008, China undertook an arbitrational system reform – probing its practical influence contributes to the authors understanding about the changing institutional environment of Chinese labour relations.

As a pilot study on labour dispute arbitrators, this research presents the dynamics of the Chinese labour dispute resolution mechanism.