FACTFINDING AND ARBITRATION: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE FOR ALL?
AbstractThis study compares the impasse procedure acceptability ratings of public school superintendents and teacher association presidents under factfinding, issue-by-issue (final offer) arbitration and package (final offer) arbitration. The results indicate that third-party intervention is still not viewed as legitimate by superintendents, despite years of experience with the procedures. The sample superintendents conveyed a basic distrust of arbitrators and their awards. Association presidents strongly support arbitration and reject factfinding. The greatest polarization of procedural fairness ratings was observed under the factfinding and package arbitration procedures. The greatest consensus was observed under the issue arbitration procedure. In their recommendations for change, superintendents under package arbitration focused on arbitral criteria, superintendents under factfinding wanted their procedures eliminated, and superintendents under issue arbitration wanted to drop factfinding as an intermediate step. Teacher association presidents under factfinding expressed a strong desire for arbitration, whereas association presidents under arbitration sought fewer procedural delays.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.