Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice in Workplace Resolution Procedures

Systems for resolving workplace disputes are very important to workers and firms, and have been the subject of much debate. In the United States, traditional unionized grievance procedures, emerging nonunion dispute resolution systems, and the court-based system for resolving employment law disputes have all been criticized. Much of the existing debate on workplace dispute resolution, however, has been atheoretical, with a focus on techniques of dispute resolution rather than the goals of the system. What is missing from the debate are fundamental standards for comparing and evaluating dispute resolutions systems. In this paper, we develop efficiency, equity, and voice as these standards. Unionized, nonunion, and employment law procedures are then evaluated against these three standards.

The Child's World of Imagination

n/

The Relationship Between Employment Arbitration and Workplace Dispute Resolution Procedures

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

WILLS-CONSTRUCTION-GIFT TO EXECUTOR TO BE DISPOSED OF IN HIS DISCRETION AS A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT

Testator, after bequeathing specific legacies, gave the residue of his estate to his executor to dispose of any balance after the aforementioned gifts have been paid according to his wise discretion.\u27\u27 The executor was the husband of testator\u27s niece, one of the legatees, and he was well acquainted with testator. He declared his intention of disposing of the residue to testator\u27s nieces, for whom testator had expressed concern. The trial court held the testator had attempted to create a trust by the residuary clause, which failed for indefiniteness. On appeal, held, reversed. The testator created a general power of appointment in the executor. In re Lindston\u27s Estate, (Wash. 1949) 202 P. (2d) 259

DISCOVERY-ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE-STATEMENTS BY CLIENT TO INSURER BEFORE ATTORNEY EMPLOYED

Plaintiff, suing for personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision, sought discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurer, both before and after an attorney had been employed by the insurer pursuant to its contract with defendant. Defendant contended that such statements were within the attorney-client privilege. On appeal from an order denying discovery, held, affirmed. The statements were intended as a communication by defendant to the attorney ultimately to be retained for him by his insurer, and the insurer was the agent of defendant to transmit the statements to the attorney when selected. Hollien v. Kaye, 194 Misc. 821, 87 N.Y.S. (2d) 782 (1949)

CORPORATIONS-ELECTIONS-JUDICIAL ACTIONS OF INSPECTORS OF ELECTIONS

If the modern cases are to be judged in light of what the courts say, it is probable that Judge Tilghman\u27s views are the weight of authority. While a few courts frankly admit that inspectors do act judicially at times, most of the courts continue to define the actions of the inspectors in ministerial terms. However, there are two areas within which the inspectors may exercise such unusual powers that they may be called judicial, namely, those relating to the ascertainment of (1) the validity of proxies and (2) title to stock. The scope of this comment is confined to these two areas with attention directed to the scope of the inspectors\u27 powers and the effect of their findings on the courts