Résumés
Summary
A number of empirical studies from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s indicated that delay in Canadian grievance arbitration was becoming an increasing problem. There have been no further scientific studies on delay since then, despite developments that may exacerbate the issue like increased legalism and expanded arbitral jurisdiction. Academics and practitioners have recently voiced renewed concerns about the threat that delay poses to the viability of the grievance arbitration system.
To address this gap in the scientific literature, the present study examines delay and its determinants in Ontario over the last two decades. Content analysis was conducted on a random sample of almost 400 Ontario grievance arbitrations from three reference years (1994, 2004, and 2012). I then performed event history analysis on the data to determine the various factors that were associated with delay. Consistent with common perception, my empirical results suggest that delay has become worse over the past two decades. I find that certain legalistic factors are indeed associated with delay, including the use of lawyers, the use of preliminary objections, the number of witnesses testifying, and attacks on credibility. In terms of expanded arbitral jurisdiction, I find that while delay has increased for grievances involving alleged Employment Standards Act violations, for all other non-traditional issues (including human rights complaints) there are no significant increases. The results also show that certain dispute resolution procedures, such as expedited arbitration and the use of sole arbitrators are related to shorter grievance durations, and this, combined with the other findings, suggests practical solutions to the issue of delay. However, the findings also suggest that the use of certain procedures involving additional steps, like settlement and mediation-arbitration, can also serve to increase grievance duration when used unsuccessfully.
Keywords:
- grievance duration,
- determinants,
- legalism,
- dispute resolution procedures,
- empirical analysis
Résumé
Du début des années 1970 jusqu’au milieu des années 1990, plusieurs études empiriques ont mis en exergue un problème croissant de délais dans l’arbitrage de griefs au Canada. Pourtant, depuis, peu de nouvelles études scientifiques ont été menées sur cette problématique, malgré certains développements survenus susceptibles d’exacerber le problème, tels que l’élargissement de la compétence arbitrale et une judiciarisation accrue du processus. Chercheurs et praticiens ont récemment réitéré leurs inquiétudes face à la menace posée par de tels délais sur la viabilité du système d’arbitrage des griefs.
Pour combler cette lacune dans le débat scientifique, la présente étude examine les délais et leurs déterminants en Ontario au cours des vingt dernières années. Une analyse de contenu portant sur trois années de référence (1994, 2004 et 2012) a été menée auprès d’un échantillon aléatoire de près de 400 arbitrages des griefs tenus en Ontario en appliquant l’analyse de données événementielles afin de déterminer quels facteurs peuvent être associés à ces délais. En conformité avec l’opinion communément admise, les résultats empiriques suggèrent un net accroissement des délais au fil des vingt dernières années. En effet, nous démontrons que des facteurs de judiciarisation sont associés à la hausse des délais, comme le recours à des avocats, l’utilisation des objections préliminaires, l’augmentation du nombre de témoins assignés, ainsi que la mise en cause fréquente de leur crédibilité. En ce qui concerne l’étendue accrue de la compétence arbitrale, si nous observons bien une hausse des délais pour les arbitrages relatifs aux violations de la Loi sur les normes du travail de l’Ontario, il n’y a cependant pas d’augmentation significative en ce qui concerne les autres matières non traditionnelles (incluant les plaintes relatives aux droits de la personne). Les résultats démontrent aussi que certaines procédures de règlement des différends, comme l’arbitrage accéléré ou le recours à un arbitre unique, sont associées à de plus courts délais, une observation qui, combinée à nos autres résultats, permet d’entrevoir des solutions pratiques au problème des délais trop longs. Toutefois, nos résultats indiquent également que l’ajout d’étapes aux procédures existantes, tels les règlements hors cour et la médiation-arbitrage, peuvent prolonger la durée du traitement des griefs lorsqu’utilisées sans résultat.
Mots-clés:
- grief,
- durée de l’arbitrage,
- déterminants,
- judiciarisation,
- procédure de règlement,
- analyse empirique
Resumen
Desde los años 1970 hasta mediados de los años 1990, numerosos estudios empíricos habían puesto en evidencia el problema creciente de la demora en el arbitraje de reclamos en Canadá. Desde entonces, no ha habido más estudios científicos sobre el sujeto, a pesar que dicha demora puede ser exacerbada por el aumento del legalismo y la ampliación de la jurisdicción arbitral. Recientemente, investigadores y profesionales han expresado sus preocupaciones sobre la amenaza que representa el retraso para la viabilidad del sistema de arbitraje de reclamos.
Para abordar esta laguna en la literatura científica, el presente estudio examina la demora y sus determinantes en Ontario en la últimas dos décadas. El estudio fue realizado con una muestra de aproximativamente 400 reclamaciones en Ontario del total de reclamaciones de tres años de referencia (1994, 2004 y 2012). Dichos datos fueron el objeto de un análisis de supervivencia a fin de determinar los diversos factores asociados con la demora. De acuerdo con la percepción común, los resultados empíricos sugieren que la demora ha empeorado en las últimas dos décadas. Se observó que ciertos factores legalistas son efectivamente asociados con la demora, incluyendo el uso de abogados, el uso de objeciones preliminares, el número de testigos que testifican y los ataques a la credibilidad. Respecto a la ampliación de la jurisdicción arbitral, se observó que la demora aumentaba en los casos de reclamos implicando violaciones a la ley de normas laborales (Employment Standards Act) mientras que por los otros reclamos no tradicionales (incluyendo las quejas por derechos humanos) no se constata aumento de demoras. Los resultados muestran tambien que ciertos procedemientos de resolución de litigio, como el arbitraje acelerado y el uso de árbitros únicos, están relacionados con duraciones mas cortas. Esto, combinado con los otros resultados, sugiere soluciones prácticas al problema de la demora. Sin embargo, los resultados sugieren también que el uso de ciertos procedimientos que implican etapas adicionales, como el acuerdo y la mediación-arbitraje, pueden también conducir al aumento de la duración del trámite del reclamo cuando sus resultados son infructuosos.
Palabras claves:
- reclamo laboral,
- duración del arbitraje de reclamos,
- determinantes,
- legalismo,
- procedimiento de resolución de litigios,
- análisis empíricos
Parties annexes
References
- Adams, George. 1978. “Grievance Arbitration of Discharge Cases.” Research and Current Issues Series, no. 38. Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University Industrial Relations Centre.
- Bacharach, Samuel and Peter Bamberger. 2004. “The Power of Labor to Grieve: The Impact of the Workplace, Labor Market, and Power-dependence on Employee Grievance Filing.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57 (4), 518-539.
- Bartel, Barry C. 1991. “Med-Arb as a Distinct Method of Dispute Resolution: History, Analysis, and Potential.” Willamette Law Review, 27 (3), 661-692.
- Bryman, Alan. 2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Budd, John W. and Alexander J. S. Colvin. 2008. “Improved Metrics for Workplace Dispute Resolution Procedures: Efficiency, Equity, and Voice.” Industrial Relations, 47 (3), 460-479.
- Campolieti, Michele, Chris Riddell, and Sara Slinn. 2007. “Certification Delay under Elections and Card-Check Procedures: Empirical Evidence from Canada.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61 (1), 32-58.
- Cappelli, Peter and Keith Chauvin.1991. “A test of an efficiency model of grievance activity.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45 (1), 3-14.
- Dassios, Christopher M. 2010. “Innovative Approaches to Public Sector Dispute Resolution: Over a Decade of Expedited Arbitration in the Ontario Electricity Industry.” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 63, 237-260.
- Foisy, Claude. 2002. “Cost and Delay in Arbitration: The Quebec Experience.” Labour Arbitration Yearbook, 2001-2002, 137-158.
- Freeman, Richard B. and James L. Medoff. 1984. What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.
- Fricke, John G. 1976. An Empirical Study of the Grievance Arbitration Process in Alberta. Edmonton: Alberta Labour.
- Goldblatt, Howard. 1974. Justice Delayed… the Arbitration Process. Toronto: Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto.
- Hebdon, Robert and Sung Chul Noh. 2013. “A Theory of Workplace Conflict Development: From Grievances to Strikes”. New Forms and Expressions of Conflict at Work. G. Gall, ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 26-47.
- Kauffman, Nancy L. 1992. “Expedited Arbitration and Other Innovations in Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Labor Law Journal, 43 (6), 382-387.
- Krippendorff, Klaus. 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
- Lewin, David. 1999. “Theoretical and Empirical Research on the Grievance Procedure and Arbitration: A Critical Review.” Employment Dispute Resolution and Worker Rights in the Changing Workplace. A. Eaton and J. Keefe, eds. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association, 137-186.
- Nadeau, Denis. 2012. “Supreme Court of Canada and the Evolution of a Pro-Arbitration Judicial Policy.” Labour Arbitration Yearbook, 2012-2013, 325-348.
- Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
- Olson, Corliss. 1990. Time Delays in Grievance Arbitration in Alberta. Calgary: University of Calgary.
- Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2006 CanLII 14236 (ON CA).
- Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, [2003] 2 SCR 157.
- Picher, Michel. 2012. “The Arbitrator as Grievance Mediator: A Growing Trend.” Labour Arbitration Yearbook, 2012-2013, 9-16.
- Ponak, Allen and Corliss Olson (1992). “Time Delays in Grievance Arbitration.” Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 47 (4), 690-708.
- Ponak, Allen, Wilfred Zerbe, Sarah Rose, and Corliss Olson. 1996. “Using Event History Analysis to Model Delay in Grievance Arbitration.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50 (1), 105-121.
- Prasow, Paul and Edward Peters. 1970. Arbitration and Collective Bargaining: Conflict Resolution in Labor Relations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Rose, Joseph B. 1986. “Statutory Expedited Grievance Arbitration: The Case of Ontario.” The Arbitration Journal, 41 (4), 30-45.
- Ross, Arthur. M. 1958. “The Well-Aged Arbitration Case.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 11 (2), 262-271.
- Rubin, Barry M. and Richard S. Rubin. 2003. “Creeping Legalism in Public Sector Grievance Arbitration: A National Perspective.” Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 30 (1), 3-14.
- Singer, Judith D. and John B. Willett. 2003. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Sloane, Arthur and Fred Whitney. 1985. Labor Relations. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
- Stanton, John. 1983. Labour Arbitrations, Boon or Bane for Unions? Vancouver: Butterworths.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. 1993. “Accounting for Delay in Grievance Arbitration.” Labor Law Journal, 44 (9), 543-553.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. 1994. “Lawyers and Grievance Arbitration: Delay and Outcome Effects.” Labor Studies Journal, 18 (4), 39-51.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. 1995. “Sources of Delay in Grievance Arbitration.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8 (1), 57-66.
- Thornicroft, Kenneth W. 2009. “The Grievance Arbitration Process and Workplace Conflict Resolution.” Canadian Labour and Employment Relations. 6th ed. Morley Gunderson and Daphne G. Taras, eds. Toronto: Pearson Addison Wesley, ch. 13.
- Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995], 2, Supreme Court Reports, 929.
- Weiler, Paul C. 1980. Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law. Agincourt, Ont: Carswell.
- Whitaker, Kevin. 2009. “The Development and Use of Mediation/Arbitration in Ontario.” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 62, 209-214.
- Winkler, Warren K. 2010. “Labour Arbitration and Conflict Resolution: Back to our Roots.” Speech presented as the Donald Wood Lecture, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada. Accessed at http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/2010-labour-arbitration-conflict-resolution.htm (March 20, 2016).
- Winkler, Warren K. 2011. “Arbitration as a Cornerstone of Industrial Justice.” Accessed at http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/2011-arbitration-cornerstone-industrial-justice.htm (March 20, 2016).
- Winter, Catherine. 1983. Grievance Arbitration Cost and Time. Toronto, Ontario: Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Labour.