Workplace alternative dispute resolution: usage proclivity and outcomes

Hafeez, Aibak

Permalink

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/113042 Copy

Description

Title

Workplace alternative dispute resolution: usage proclivity and outcomes

Author(s)

Hafeez, Aibak

Issue Date

2021-07-16

Director of Research (if dissertation) or Advisor (if thesis)

Lamare, Ryan J

Doctoral Committee Chair(s)

Lamare, Ryan J

Committee Member(s)

• Avgar, Ariel C
• LeRoy, Michael H
• Gough, Mark D

Department of Study

School of Labor & Empl. Rel.

Discipline

Human Res & Industrial Rels

Degree Granting Institution

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Degree Name

Ph.D.

Degree Level

Dissertation

Keyword(s)

• alternative dispute resolution
• conflict
• dispute
• mediation
• arbitration

Abstract

This dissertation presents two different studies to examine factors that influence workplace Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) usage and its outcomes. The first study analyzes survey data from Fortune 1000 companies to examine how their preferences to use ADR is influenced by their perception of the third-party neutrals’ qualifications. It also explores how the hiring source of third-party neutral is associated with employers’ inclination to use ADR. Third-party neutrals, including arbitrators or mediators, are one of the most important actors in ADR – they play a vital role in resolving a conflict within an ADR system and influence dispute outcomes. Therefore, it can be inferred that firms might show a higher preference for ADR if the neutral hired is qualified. Third-party neutral sourcing preferences are also likely to vary as different sources can be expected to provide differently qualified neutrals. Finding support for these expectations, this study suggests that third-party neutral quality serves as a meaningful aspect that influences firms’ inclinations to use ADR. Neutral quality can therefore be interpreted to have an implication for expanding ADR at the macro level. The second study focuses on employment discrimination claims to study how case characteristics and outcomes vary across arbitration and litigation in the U.S. securities industry. Arbitration is compared with litigation because arbitration is a quasi-judicial process that just like litigation, is based on binding resolutions. Moreover, arbitration is also used to handle statutory allegations which makes it important to study whether arbitration is as good, better, or worse, compared to litigation. When arbitration got legally institutionalized in the nonunion setting following Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), the Supreme court clearly stated that arbitration is acceptable ‘…so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate his or her statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum’. This was a very specific condition, known as the ‘effective vindication test of arbitration’ that indicated that arbitration should be able to effectively vindicate statutory claims for its usage to be warranted.. The paper contributes to determining whether arbitration meets the ‘effective vindication’ condition by contrasting case characteristics and outcomes of arbitration and litigation. Meeting the requirement of effective vindication is important for arbitration and ADR to expand and gain acceptance amongst scholars, policymakers, and users.

Graduation Semester

2021-08

Type of Resource

Thesis

Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/2142/113042

Copyright and License Information

Copyright 2021 Aibak Hafeez

Owning Collections