« Make Me Whole, Take 3: Minnesota Opinion Involves Yet Another Disastrous Application Of Minnesota's "Whole Person" Rationale | Main | Incomplete Ruling: Third Circuit Opinion Implies That Violations Of Rule 106 Can Never Lead To A Reversal On Appeal »
December 20, 2009
Article Of Interest: No Strict Rules Of Evidence In Labor And Employment Arbitration, By Professor Michael Z. Green
As an evidence law professor and a labor and employment arbitrator, I have examined the complexity in applying the rules of evidence in an arbitration setting. My experience and research revealed a clear need to identify the appropriate considerations when applying the rules of evidence in arbitration proceedings. Both advocates and arbitrators can benefit from this clarity.
away from some of the key reasons that parties agree to pursue resolution of their disputes through arbitration including informality, shorter time, and less costs. If the rules of evidence had to be strictly applied, this would make the arbitration process much more formalistic and it would add to the time and expense of completing the process which detracts from the purported benefits of arbitration.
it has been argued that because of the therapeutic value of arbitration as a form of workplace dispute resolution, employees should be allowed to have some voice by telling their story even if it involves some aspects of information that would be excluded under the rules of evidence.
this therapeutic value should also be balanced with the arbitrator's obligation to provide a fair and efficient hearing to all parties. The arbitrator should not allow all forms of evidence merely for its therapeutic value when this action could be perceived as acting with partiality to one side or to the arbitrator who benefits by receiving more compensation by extending the time for the hearing.
arbitrators must say more than "I'll take it for what it is worth." Instead, arbitrators should tell the parties what he or she feels about the quality of the evidence based upon the arguments presented. An arbitrator could say the following in response to a hearsay objection: "Under the circumstances, this evidence will be admitted. However, based upon the arguments presented, this evidence will have little weight given its unreliability as hearsay that appears to have no appropriate exception."
By admitting and considering the evidence for its limited value and communicating that to the parties, the arbitrator does not unnecessarily exclude evidence based upon rote application of the rules of evidence. The arbitrator also recognizes the underlying principles of various rules of evidence and informs the parties of how those principles may guide the arbitrator in assessing the evidence presented during the hearing. In adopting this approach, strict compliance with the rules of evidence would not be a component of arbitration. But, arbitrators could certainly apply the principles underlying the rules of evidence and respond to thorough evidentiary objections made by the parties' advocates by giving guidance as to how those principles will shape the arbitrator's consideration of the evidence in issue at the hearing. Then the benefits of informality, less costs, and certainty can still be adequately achieved in arbitration while recognizing that lack of judicial review, a focus on juror considerations, and the need for flexibility demands that literal application of the rules of evidence should not occur in labor and employment arbitration.
I had joined a panel for one of the private ADR service providers a couple of years ago as a labor arbitrator and the service provider held a training session where they brought in advocates who represent both employers and unions. One of their pet peeves involved concerns about arbitrators not responding to their legitimate evidentiary objections and merely saying, "I'll take it for what it is worth." That was what led me to want to write the article.
December 20, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Article Of Interest: No Strict Rules Of Evidence In Labor And Employment Arbitration, By Professor Michael Z. Green: