THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ARBITRATION IN RESOLVING EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES

ABSTRACT

Arbitration has evolved as a new stream of employment dispute resolution due to its efficiency, confidentiality, and cost-effectiveness compared to normal litigation. This article considers the evolution and effectiveness of the arbitration process on employment-related conflicts. It tries to present historical development in the United States and India, analysing key legal precedents that have shaped its current application. While arbitration offers key advantages in terms of speed, lower costs, and the preservation of professional relationships, some of its notable criticisms surrounded possible biases, lack of transparency, and the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses. This article will critically evaluate these issues with empirical data and case studies to provide an all-rounded review on the role of arbitration in employment disputes. Finally, some recommendations necessary in ensuring fairness and transparency in the processes of arbitration, so that it remains a practical as well as fair forum for the resolution of employment conflicts in the future, are made.

Keywords

Arbitration, employment dispute resolution, litigation, employment-related conflicts, fairness, transparency.

INTRODUCTION

Arbitration has become one of the major techniques in the resolution of employment disputes and cases of employment-related disputes, proving much cheaper and faster than most court cases. Employers and employees have been entering arbitral proceedings to resolve conflicts from wage disputes unto wrongful termination claims in search of a more efficient and private way of achieving resolution.

But the most attractive feature of arbitration is that it can provide for swift procedures, less formality, and lower costs, which are desirable attributes of dispute resolution compared with litigation. Here, too, at the helm of the process is an independent arbitrator: the parties describe their cases and get a final verdict, all without extensive complications involved in a court trial.

Recently, however, the efficiency of arbitration in employment disputes has been highly controversial. Some see it as backing a balanced and just disposition while others react against its possible biases and the limitations it makes on workers’ rights. As arbitration remains at the forefront of moulding the employment law terrain, its place and role become the most significant issues being studied by legal practitioners and legislators alike.

OBJECTIVE

This paper examines the effectiveness of arbitration as a tool for the adjudication of employment disputes. Its usage has increased in popularity over the past couple of years because it is perceived to be efficient, confidential, and potentially cost-effective as compared to conventional litigation. Nevertheless, concerns over transparency and fairness remain, as does the enforceability of the awards. The current article, with the use of empirical data and case studies, seeks to undertake a critical review of such issues to establish whether arbitration can really provide a fair and effective forum for the adjudication of employment-related disputes. By looking at both the good and bad sides, this article tries to give a full picture of how arbitration fits into solving modern employment-related disputes.

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF ARBITRATION IN EMPLOYMENT-RELATED ISSUES

Employment arbitration has its roots in the general lines of development of arbitration, which originated since the inception of alternative dispute resolutions (ADRs). The history of arbitration itself dates back to ancient times, for it dates back to Greece and Rome, where it was applied through informal tribunals and private adjudicators who tried to settle conflicts outside of the judicial system. It was only with the 18th and 19th century Industrial Revolution, when arbitration primarily played a very important role in all matters or issues in connection with employment, that this scenario was created. With the increase in industrialization, factories were surging, and labourers were being concentrated in the city, leading to huge disputes. The traditional legal systems were never equipped to handle the volume and complexity posed by these disputes. The early function of labor arbitration was to solve cases of strikes, wage disputes, and so on, between workers and employers, in order to maintain industrial peace.

The legislative and jurisprudential developments of the 20th century had a massive impact on the evolution of arbitration of employment disputes in the United States. Of all the federal statutes, admissions to first institutionalize arbitration for the resolution of labor disputes within the railway industry—the railway industry was critical to national transportation and commerce—emanated from the Railway Labor Act, 1926[1]. It provided the platform on which, arguably, more critical legislation was to follow, that gave workers the right to collective bargaining and created the National Labor Relations Board to govern labor relations. Arbitration became a favoured technique for the resolution of grievances arising under CBAs, providing a forum prompter and more specialized than the courts.

Following the Second World War, with the enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act, 1947[2], the expansion in arbitration in employment contexts occurred. The FAA, though mainly aimed at solving business disputes under its present form, presently infiltrates into employment contracts. In this period of time, workforce unionization in the private sectors also multiplied, which further entrenched the pursuit of arbitration as another means for the resolution of labor disputes. Landmark decisions by the Supreme Court, like the Steelworkers Trilogy in 1960, established that arbitration clauses in CBAs are not only enforceable but also that the courts should give some deference to the decisions of an arbitrator. The trilogy largely reaffirmed that, above all, it should be arbitration—not the courts—which constitutes the principal forum for interpreting and applying CBAs.

In India, arbitration in employment-related issues emerged from her colonial heritage and legal framework, and the socio-economic context. The most comprehensive mechanism sought to be adopted for the resolution of labor disputes through arbitration was entrusted in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947[3]. The Act aimed at preventing and resolving industrial conflict, advancing industrial harmony, and ensuring that the workers’ rights were protected. It introduced voluntary arbitration, whereby the parties to a dispute could, by agreement, appoint an arbitrator to resolve their issues. However, since the Indian labor market at that time was dominated by a strong trade-union movement which believed more in adjudication through labor courts and tribunals, arbitration in employment matters picked up very slowly. It can be said that, in years to come and after economic liberalization and globalization, the trend shifts towards alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, including arbitration, for the effective resolution of employment disputes at the continental level. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[4], based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, ultimately strengthened the infrastructure for arbitration in India and encouraged its adoption in all fields, including employment. Notwithstanding these welcome developments, there are yet issues of neutrality on the part of arbitrators, power imbalance, and general acceptance of the culture of arbitration by both employers and employees.

Over the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the scope of arbitration in employment disputes grew towards being applied to individual employment contracts, not just those with unions. At present, there are numerous decisions that have initiated the trend toward including mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts, which has accelerated. In view of this argument, proponents add that it is faster, cheaper, and more confidential than litigation. Critics immediately counter with arguments relating to the likely power imbalance between employers and employee waiver of judicial redress and limitations in discovery and procedural protections ensuing from an arbitration course of action.

ARBITRATION AND ITS ROLE IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES

Arbitration is very instrumental in solving employment cases since it offers an alternative to litigation. Some of its primary benefits are the speed and efficiency it achieves. In contrast to court procedures, which may be lengthy and expensive, arbitration is generally much quicker and cheaper. This is especially true for employment disputes, where both sides—the employers and the employees—usually prefer a solution that will disrupt professional lives as little as possible. Arbitration hearings, in general, are far less formal than traditional proceedings in courts and may more easily be coordinated and matched with schedule needs of the disputants. Besides, it offers a degree of privacy and confidentiality not possible in public court proceedings—something very serious for protecting highly confidential information related to job relations or company management.

One landmark case that really brings out the essence of arbitration in employment disputes is Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991)[5]. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a claim constituted a cause of action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, it was hence subjected to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. It further emphasized that agreements to arbitrate are, in general, enforceable unless Congress expressly indicates to the contrary in the statute governing the claim. Therefore, the decision further firms up the validity of the arbitration clauses distinctly housed within employment contracts and basically sets a very important precedent for the enforcement of these clauses, which goes on to alter considerably the landscape for the resolution in employment disputes.

Another important case is that of Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001)[6], which raised before the U.S. Supreme Court an issue relating to the scope of the FAA’s exemption of transportation workers’ contracts. The Court decided that it narrowly applied this meaning to those who are directly associated with the carriage of goods in interstate commerce. This decision further strengthened the enforcement of arbitral agreements in a greater swath of employment contracts, further entrenching no-new-cause arbitration as commonplace in employment dispute resolution.

Weiss Technik India Private Limited v. Ms. Bollupalli Madhalavilatha (2020)[7] is a leading case pertaining to employment arbitration in India. The dispute arose as a result of a challenge by an employee, Ms. Bollupalli Madhalavilatha, against the termination of employment by Weiss Technik India Private Limited. It was clearly an employment contract with an arbitration agreement, making arbitration the mode for resolving disputes. The main issue was whether such an arbitration clause is valid and enforceable under Indian law. While upholding the arbitration clause, the High Court of Karnataka has held categorically that an arbitration clause in an employment contract will not be declared ultra vires unless such a clause is against public policy or against statutory protection afforded to employees. Furthermore, by this judgment, the court has placed reliance on the doctrine of party autonomy regarding the choice and selecting procedure of the dispute resolution process preferred, squarely entrenching the application of domestic arbitration in Indian employment disputes.

In the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr. (2003)[8], the Supreme Court of India fleshed out the scope of what comprises ‘arbitrable’ issues. Though it was, more or less, a commercial dispute, the judgement has made a huge difference in shaping the course of arbitration in employment disputes. While referring the disputes to arbitration, it held that only those disputes which parties agreed to arbitrate can be referred to arbitration, and further elucidated the position that not all disputes are arbitrable under Indian law. This case has shaped the definition of what constitutes an arbitrable dispute, including employment-related disputes.

Overall, arbitration assumes a very important role in the resolution of employment disputes. In fact, the use of arbitration in resolving employment-related disputes has been influenced much by many legal precedents, which completely strengthened its enforceability and application. The approach of the courts has generally been supportive of the position where enforcement would normally be given to arbitration agreements at the exact time as making sure that no arbitration agreement undermines statutory protection accorded to employees. While it confers various advantages in terms of efficiency and expertise, the fairness and rights of the employees’ debate has been going on ever since its inception, more so now in relation to the future of employment arbitration.

ADVANTAGES OF ARBITRATION IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES

i. Speed and Effectiveness

Arbitration is faster than going to court. Traditional court processes can take years to reach verdicts due to backlog of cases and procedural delays. In sharp contrast, arbitration can be scheduled at the convenience of the parties and the arbitrator, very often resulting in quicker resolution.

ii. Cost-Effectiveness

Even though it is not free, fees which is paid to the arbitrators and the administrative fees is pretty cheap as compared to litigation. This could be attributed to the fact that the procedure for conducting these arbitrations is much less formal, not to mention the pace at which the case gets resolved and settled.

iii. Confidentiality

Arbitration proceedings are confidential, and the awards are usually not filed as public records. This confidentiality is very helpful in employment disputes, within which employers and employees alike would prefer to keep sensitive things out of the eye of the public.

iv. Process Flexibility

While court litigation is a tightly structured process, arbitration allows for procedural flexibility. Rules of evidence, procedures, and timelines can be agreed upon that are suitable to the parties’ particular needs and circumstances under the case, hence more adapted and tailored to the dispute.

v. Finality and Enforceability

The awards made through arbitration are final and cannot be appealed, except on very limited grounds. The finality also introduces the element of certainty as well as closure for both parties by avoiding main stream uncertainty often linked with the appeal process in litigation.

vi. Preservation of Relationships

Disputes connected with employment are often very sensitive, given the continuous relationship between the employer and the employee. In this respect, as arbitration represents a less adversarial procedure, it could preserve the relationship by including provisions for cooperative and respectful resolution procedures compared to the rather combative elements of litigation.

vii. Less Formality and Stress

The process of arbitration is likely to be far less formal than that recorded in the courts. This somewhat lessens the tension and pressure that one usually experiences during litigation and hence is a more comfortable environment for both parties. This also provides an opportunity for more direct and personal contact between the disputants and the arbitrator.

viii. Control over the Process

Compared with litigation, in arbitration parties have more control over the actual selection of arbitrators, the procedures that will be followed, and the time schedule for hearings. Theorists posit that this control leads to heightened feelings of participation and therefore increased satisfaction with the conduct of the dispute resolution process.

CRITICISMS OF ARBITRATION IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES

i. Perceived Bias and Non-Neutrality

One of the most serious criticisms is that bias can occur. Very often, the arbitrators are picked from a panel of people chosen either by employers or arbitration organizations that may work with the employers—sometimes ongoing; therefore, this presents the real problem of an arbitrator being biased toward the party that would mostly provide him with business in the future.

ii. Inadequate Transparency

In most cases, arbitration proceedings and awards are conducted in private, and there will not be any public record of a dispute or how it was resolved. More importantly, it may preclude workers from knowing about employer practices and patterns of misconduct and may hamper the development of case law, which may otherwise benefit future claimants.

iii. Enforceability and Finality of Decisions

The decisions of the arbitrators are generally finally binding and resist appeals. While this finality may, therefore, constitute an advantage, it does also imply that there will be little opportunity to correct mistakes or wrongs. Courts will generally not lightly reverse arbitration awards, even in cases of what might appear to be substantial grounds for so doing.

iv. Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Many employment contracts include compulsory arbitration clauses, which require resolution of disputes through arbitration rather than in court. Critics note that, for forcing employees into what might well prove to be a less desirable forum and waiving their rights to jury trial, fairness can be undermined toward employees by such clauses. This, in turn, is controversial where the arbitration clauses are part of contracts of adhesion—that is, when employees have little or no bargaining power.

v. Inconsistent Results

Among the linked disadvantages is inconsistent outcomes because of the lack of formal procedure and huge discrepancy in arbitrator competence. Unlike court rulings, that are largely based on existing rule of law and appealable, arbitration decisions differ greatly according to the interpretation, not to mention discretion, of the arbitrator.

vi. Impact on Public Policy.

Another issue with the confidentiality of arbitration is that systemic problems of workplaces are also not brought to light, thereby hampering the process by which regulatory agencies are supposed to identify and take action against widespread problems. Public policy or legal standards are also not advanced in this course, as there are no published decisions like court decisions.

FUTURE TRENDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

Several significant trends are emerging in the reshaping of the future as arbitration in employment evolves. One major trend resulting from this relationship is the use of technology in order to facilitate remote arbitrations. Improvements in the area of video conferencing, when combined with digital document management, make the process of arbitration easier and more convenient; this is quite particularly so now during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has brought about the collapsing of physical hearings. The growing concern, however, is diversity and inclusion in the pool of arbitrators. Companies recognize that it is part of their interests to have arbitrators who also have equally diverse backgrounds and experiences with workers, lending perceived fairness and impartiality to the process.

Concerns about fairness and transparency are the most important problems that need to be worked on to make the process of employment arbitration more effective. One such recommendation may be that prior safeguards incorporate standardized procedures to make sure there is a level playing field for both parties. This could include unequivocal directions about the revelation of applicable documents and evidence, including good access to legal counsel for employees who otherwise would not have resources to enlist an attorney. Moreover, the increase in transparency of the processes of selection and appointment of arbitrators can favourably impact the trust vested in the process of arbitration. Only such activities as publicity on the criteria of selection of the arbitrators, or detailed explanations of the decisions, enhance the accountability and decrease perceptions of bias.

Another area of critical improvement concerns the enforcement and enforcement supervision over arbitration agreements and awards. Improvement in the regulatory framework is therefore much needed to curb the abuse of clauses of mandatory arbitration. To this regard, policymakers should look into legislation that restrictively allows the use of such clauses into employment contracts, ensuring an employee’s right to voluntarily seek arbitration is still safeguarded. Independent bodies, like monitoring the process of arbitration and entertaining employee complaints, may be an added security measure for employees. Such bodies may be mandated to compliances with set ethics, investigating malpractices, and seeing that the arbitration awards are enforced efficiently and effectively. By doing so, these recommendations are able to make this system of employment arbitration fairer and efficient in the resolution of disputes.

CONCLUSION

Arbitration has had a strong place in the alternative resolution of employment disputes by offering resultant benefits like cost effectiveness, speed, and confidentiality. Its transformation from the early industrial-era labour disputes to the present individual employment contract exhibits its adaptability and utility in modern legal frameworks. As much as this alternative dispute resolution presents a number of benefits, it is still faced with criticisms over its transparency, fairness, and decisions made are not easy to enforce. Mandatory arbitration clauses raise a debate regarding concerns for potential biases that will have to be very thoughtfully considered by the makers of the policy, legal practitioners, and stakeholders.

Looking ahead, several trends and recommendations point toward increasing the efficiency and fairness of employment arbitration. First, facilitation by technology such as videoconferencing and computer-based document management, will be used to create easier, faster procedures for arbitration. The diversification and inclusiveness of arbitrators could enhance the perceived fairness and neutrality of arbitration. Standardization of procedures and transparency, together with enhanced regulatory oversight, may go a step further toward reducing reported bias, and perhaps improve fairness perceptions and even enforceability.

Although arbitration has obvious efficiency and flexibility benefits, it is a process that requires constant scrutiny and regulatory development in order that its flaws be amended for the sake of fairness toward the respective parties in employment disputes. One of the essential challenges to play a part in the shaping of the future of arbitration is to draw the thin line between confidentiality and efficiency on one side, and fairness and transparency on the other. It is only through further research that legal practitioners and legislators will be better placed to define the role of arbitration as a balanced and fair method of dispute resolution, efficient for all employment disputes, whether benefiting employers or employees in the ever-changing landscape of employment law.

REFERENCES

[1] Railway Labor Act of 1926, 45 U.S.C. (1926), GovInfo (.gov) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1826/pdf/COMPS-1826.pdf

[2] Federal Arbitration Act of 1947, 9 U.S.C. (1947), LII/ Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9

[3] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1947 (India)

[4] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, No. 26, Acts of Parliament, 1996 (India)

[5] 500 U.S. 20 (1991)

[6] 532 U.S. 105 (2001)

[7] AIR 2021 Telangana 142, AIRONLINE 2021 Tel 50

[8] (2003) 5 SCC 531

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.