What follows is, in form and in content, somewhat at variance from the typical law review article. It is not the result of a systematic survey of statutory enactment or of case law. Still less is it based on investigation of the place of arbitration as a part of the social order. Neither is it the product of an inquisition into the materials of the social and behavioral sciences for such light as they may shed upon the arbitral process and its achievements. It is simply an account of the author's own views of arbitration, based on his personal experience as an arbitrator, an experience which he commenced in the capacity of a public panelist under the War Labor Board for the Eighth Region in 1943. That service involved chiefly experience in arbitrating so-called "interests" disputes rather than grievance disputes.' Since the termination of the open hostilities, however, his work has been entirely confined to the latter field. It is with this sort of arbitration that these observations chiefly will be concerned. Since they are based so much upon one man's information, derived from arbitrations conducted incidentally and not as a principal vocation, necessarily they will be fragmentary in approach and in coverage. The justification for presenting them is the possible advantage to those who have occasion to conduct cases before arbitrators in knowing how one of the class views his own methods of operation. In view of the nature of the presentation, the author asks to be forgiven for a more extensive resort to the first person singular and for considerably less documentation than is customary in legal articles.
Maurice H. Merrill,
A Labor Arbitrator Views His Work,
10 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol10/iss4/11