Third-Party Intervention in Collective Bargaining Disputes

Abstract

Changes to business models, labour laws and the weakening of unions have resulted in a significant reliance on third-party interventions such facilitation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration to avoid strikes and resolve collective bargaining disputes. Studies indicate that third-party intervention has been effective in settling bargaining disputes when:- the intensity of conflict was moderate;- there was a mutual commitment to reaching agreement; - resources were not scarce;- disputants disagreed on specific, targeted items;- parties were of relatively equal power;- disputes concerned new collective agreement language (rather than the interpretation of existing articles);- issues of disagreement concerned salary. However, lack of data from the point of view of those who are bound by the conditions of a contract settled during collective bargaining with the assistance of a third-party is worrisome. This review describes common bargaining conflict and types of third-party interventions, including triggers for effectiveness. It also analyses empirical evidence that points to some limited success with third-party intervention, but ultimately concludes that without more evidence regarding the quality of collective bargaining agreements, negotiators should be cautious in their use of third-party interventions.