Third Party Impasse Resolution

Final- Offer Arbitration

Created to try and lessen this potential chilling effect of conventional arbitration, final offer arbitration was created such that the arbitrator must choose between the union's final offer and the employer's final offer. Final offer arbitration has two variations: 1.) total package final offer arbitration, in which the arbitrator must select one party's final offer on all the disputed contract terms. 2.) issue- by- issue final offer arbitration, in which the arbitrator can choose either party's final offer on an issue-by-issue basis. The underlying logic of final offer arbitration is that because the arbitrator cannot choose a compromise value, it is riskier for a negotiator to present an extreme offer because this will increase the chances that the arbitrator chooses the other side's final offer.

Mediation

A dispute resolution process in which a neutral third party- the mediator- helps negotiators avoid or resolve an impasse by reaching an agreement. Note that unlike striking or going to arbitration, the use of mediation does not need to wait until an impasse occurs. Mediators lack the authority to force resolution by imposing a settlement on the negotiators; rather, mediation is essentially "assisted negotiation" -setting stage -problem solving -achieving a workable agreement.

Interest Arbitration

Arbitration to resolve interest disputes that results in new contractual terms governing wages and terms and conditions of employment. Interest arbitration- imposes a settlement on the parties to the dispute.

Med- Arb

A hybrid mediation-arbitration procedure, often called "med-arb" although many states that use arbitration also use mediation as a first step, med-arb is a special case in which the same neutral individual serves as both the mediator and the arbitrator. AKA once the mediation process becomes exhausted, the mediator switches hats and becomes the arbitrator. The main advantage of med-arb over other third-party dispute resolution mechanisms is that the mediator/arbitrator develops detrailed knowledge of the situation during the mediation phase that can result in a better arbitration award if arbitration becomes necessary. The threat of arbitration might also give the med/arb more leverage during the mediation phase for fear that the revealed information could be used against them during the arbitration phase.

Fact Finding

A third party dispute resolution method in which a neutral third party- a fast finder- investigates a bargaining impasse and issues nonbinding recommendations for a settlement. Fact finding is essentially non-binding arbitration. Typically hearings allow each side to make its case and then the fact finder issues a report containing specific terms of a settlement but unlike in arbitration these terms are not binding on the parties. Helps to solve the bargaining dispute in at least 3 ways. 1.) establishing a set of unbiased settlement terms. 2.) with the narcotic effect 3.) making the fact finding report public can use the glare of the public to push parties to a settlement

Chilling Effect

If arbitrators simply split the difference between the positions of labor and management, each side might hold back from making compromises during negotiations. This is a significant concern in labor relations.

Narcotic Effect

Negoiators might become addicted to or overdependent on arbitration. For example, during difficult economic times if union negotiators settle for minimal gains for the employees, they risk accusations of being ineffective or of selling out. As such, the negotiators can instead take a tough bargaining stance and force arbitration. When the arbitrator awards minimal gains (as the economic environment warrants) the union negotiators can blame the arbitrator and deflect concerns about their own bargaining ability. The narcotic effect posits that when negotiators see how they can "pass the buck" to the arbitrator, they will develop an over dependence on arbitration to settle their negotiations.