Academic literature on the topic 'Unfair dismissal arbitration'

Purpose The endless manifestation of employee misbehaviours can be classified according to Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) employee deviance typology. Using this typology, the purpose of this paper is to examine the level of “judicial” tolerance for offences committed by employees across Australian workplaces that culminated in an arbitration hearing before the country’s federal industrial tribunal. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis was performed on 565 misbehaviour related, unfair dismissal arbitration decisions made by Australia’s federal industrial tribunal between July 2000 and July 2010. Using the count data that resulted, a logistic regression model was developed to determine which unfair dismissal claim characteristics influenced whether or not a dismissal was deemed to be an appropriate course of disciplinary action. Findings The results suggest that an arbitrator’s gender, experience and background have influence on his or her decision. Significance tests also verified that personal aggression, production deviance, political deviance and property deviance were all considered unacceptable in Australian workplaces. Importantly, the results enable the ordering of the range of tolerance. From this ordering, a picture emerged as to what factor may be framing the extremities of the arbitrators’ tolerance for the misbehaviours: the target (or victim) of the behaviour. Research limitations/implications Unfair dismissal claims that are settled through private conciliation, as they occur off the public record, could not be included in the analysis. Practical implications Society’s implicit stakeholder interest in what constitutes appropriate workplace behaviour is further testament to the HRM obligation to facilitate sustainable workforces. Management should consider whether dismissing a misbehaving employee is a reactionary approach to broader organisational issues associated with employee well-being and cultural norms. In order to contribute to sustainable workforces, HRM policies and actions should focus on limiting triggers that drive misbehaviour, particularly behaviours that result in harm to individuals as a matter of priority, followed closely by triggers to behaviours that result in harm to organisational profitability. Originality/value This paper presents new insights about the degrees to which various forms of employee misbehaviour are accepted in the workplace.

People who lose their jobs as a consequence of discriminatory treatment at work face an array of options for redress. They might bring proceedings for unfair dismissal before a statutory tribunal (the Fair Work Commission), or they may pursue a claim in the Federal Court of Australia. This article contemplates the possibility that the system for dealing with discriminatory dismissal could be rationalized so that aggrieved employees might have a single, accessible pathway through an administrative process to deal with such complaints. This would involve rethinking whether discrimination complaints ought to be treated as a matter of vindicating legal rights, or as a matter of arbitrating competing interests. Abandoning the language of rights may facilitate a pathway around the Boilermakers' doctrine (which mandates that only Chapter III courts can determine legal rights), and so enable the establishment of a more accessible and effective avenue for dealing with discrimination at work.

The article explores the problems of arraignment of arbitrators, while analyzing both the legal framework for international commercial arbitration of foreign countries and the existing arbitration practice. In particular, it is emphasized that the arraignment of arbitrators is quite problematic, as there are significant omissions and gaps in the domestic arbitration laws of several states, which avoids the liability of unfair arbitrators. However, given that international commercial arbitration is a non-governmental institution, built on the principle of autonomy of the will of the parties, which allows the parties to influence positively the arbitration (by determining the right on the basis of which the dispute, languages and places of arbitration will be settled and the quantitative composition of arbitration, etc.), in this case, the role of ethical rules is growing significantly. Accordingly, unscrupulous arbitrators cannot further claim to be involved in arbitration proceedings, as they fall into the so-called «black list of arbitrators» and the parties refuse to provide their services. This «public disclosure» method can be viewed to some extent as a means of preventing arbitrators. From a practical point of view, we consider it justified to include in the regulations of international commercial arbitration tribunals the provisions on the application of sanctions for violation of the parties' consideration of their obligations. If the arbitrator makes a deliberately wrong decision, it is advisable to provide for the following sanctions: withdrawal (in particular, the grounds for dismissal should be: financial dependence, subordination and other professional relations of the arbitrator with one party; the same nationality of the arbitrator and one or both parties; or opinion; court precedents); suspension of activity, prohibition on occupation of certain positions, liability for damages, administrative and criminal liability. Key words: arbitration, international commercial arbitration, arbitrator, responsibility of arbitrators, sanctions in international commercial arbitration.

[Abstract]: This study identifies statistically significant associations between unfair dismissal arbitration decisions and inherent characteristics pertaining to the unfair dismissal claims. The inherent characteristics examined are the industry sector in which the employee worked, the occupational skill level of the employee’s position, size of the business, presence of human resource expertise within the business, the reason for dismissal, and the genders of both the employee and arbitrator. This research contributes to the body of knowledge on grievance activity within the workplace. It focuses specifically on arbitrated grievances and as such, AIRC unfair dismissal decisions are investigated as an exemplar of arbitrated grievance activity. This study is within an Australian context which may limit its world-wide generalisability but its strength is that it addresses across industry and across occupational data.Empirical analysis is undertaken using data collected from unfair dismissal arbitration decisions made by the AIRC during 2004 and 2005. Three hundred and eighty-four (384) cases are analysed, with 34.4% of the arbitration findings occurring in the grievant’s favour and 65.6% in the employer’s favour. It is noted that this figure is inflated in the employer’s favour because it includes cases lodged and later rejected by the commission for jurisdictional reasons. The split counting the 274 within jurisdiction cases is 51.8% in the employer’s favour and 48.2% in the grievant’s favour. The results of chi-square tests indicate that six characteristics have statistically significant association with the arbitration outcome. These characteristics are: occupational skill level of the grievant; the size of the business; the presence of HR expertise; the reason dismissed; the grievant’s gender; and the arbitrator’s gender. No association was found between the industry sector and arbitration decision, although there is a significant association between industry sector and jurisdictionally rejected claims.The collective finding of the hypotheses tests suggests that the type of aggrieved employee associated with a favourable arbitration outcome is one from an organisation of between 50 and 100 employees without an HR expert, working in a lower skilled occupation, having been made redundant, is female and appears before a male arbitrator. Whereas, the type of employer associated with a favourable arbitration outcome is one who has either up to 50 staff, or over 200 staff with an HR expert, who dismissed a male employee working in a higher skilled occupation for serious misconduct with the case before a female arbitrator.A major policy implication of this research relates to the Rudd government’s proposed legislative reforms of the unfair dismissal provisions. This study identifies disadvantaged groups of workers when it comes to dismissal practices of employers, namely employees from businesses of 50 to 100 workers and lower skilled workers. Identified also was the need for training for businesses to enable them to engage in procedurally fair redundancy processes and for gender bias awareness for arbitrators. In terms of further research, this study provides the foundation for predictive statistical analysis. The variables suitable for further analysis are occupational skill level, business size, reason for dismissal and gender in relation to their influence on the arbitration outcome. Additional descriptive research could also be conducted in terms of conducting international comparatives with a view to identifying the outputs that different legislation/arbitration frameworks produce for workers and employers.