In this third installment of Ask the Arbitrator, four arbitrators respond to the following hypothetical situation: “Due to requirements that the Department confine its operations to its core mission, we find it necessary to withdraw from the scheduled arbitration.”
Labor arbitrators are often confronted with unique situations that can stimulate useful discussion for practitioners who want insight into how arbitrators think about cases. In this column, Ask The Arbitrator, we invite labor arbitrators to share their perspectives on a single case or aspect of a case.
One of our colleagues has posed the following hypothetical situation, and we’ve invited four arbitrators to provide their viewpoints. The following case was presented to the following National Academy of Arbitrators members: Charles Feigenbaum, a labor arbitrator from Maryland; Luella Nelson, a labor arbitrator with offices in Oregon and California; Doyle O’Connor, a labor arbitrator from Michigan; and Daniel Zeiser, a labor arbitrator from Ohio.
Federal Sector Arbitration in the Current Political Moment
You receive the following email from a Federal Department one week prior to a long-scheduled hearing with the union of its employees. “Due to requirements that the Department confine its operations to its core mission, we find it necessary to withdraw from the scheduled arbitration.” What would you do?
Dan Zeiser: First, I would ask the union what its position is. Assuming the union wanted to move forward, I would...
exporters knowingly avoided U. S. duties on Asian and European flat-rolled steel products, agreeing to pay $19 million to resolve the dispute, according to a press release issued Wednesday by the U...