How Effective Is Private Dispute Resolution? Evidence From Ireland

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Industrial Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-25 DOI:10.1093/indlaw/dwac018
W. Roche
{"title":"How Effective Is Private Dispute Resolution? Evidence From Ireland","authors":"W. Roche","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwac018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article examines the effectiveness of private dispute resolution arrangements (PDRAs) established voluntarily by employers and unions in private- and public-sector firms and agencies in Ireland. PDRAs comprise three-person panels or sole adjudicators and combine binding or non-binding adjudication with internal mediation. PDRAs seek to rewrite the established rules and conventions governing dispute resolution within workplaces and to change the ways in which internal dispute resolution is aligned with external dispute resolution by state agencies. The majority of the eleven PDRAs examined are shown to be effective. One is described as ‘semi-dormant’ and two are shown to be less effective. Variations in the effectiveness of PDRAs are attributed to features of the internal and external contexts of the firms and agencies in which they have been established: the persistence of significant commercial and industrial relations challenges; the absence of disjunctures in organisations or industrial relations; the presence of champions; and the effects of industrial relations legacies. The paper contributes to the literature by systematically accounting for variations in the effectiveness of adjudication and arbitrations arrangements and concludes by considering whether the incidence of PDRAs is likely to continue rising.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the effectiveness of private dispute resolution arrangements (PDRAs) established voluntarily by employers and unions in private- and public-sector firms and agencies in Ireland. PDRAs comprise three-person panels or sole adjudicators and combine binding or non-binding adjudication with internal mediation. PDRAs seek to rewrite the established rules and conventions governing dispute resolution within workplaces and to change the ways in which internal dispute resolution is aligned with external dispute resolution by state agencies. The majority of the eleven PDRAs examined are shown to be effective. One is described as ‘semi-dormant’ and two are shown to be less effective. Variations in the effectiveness of PDRAs are attributed to features of the internal and external contexts of the firms and agencies in which they have been established: the persistence of significant commercial and industrial relations challenges; the absence of disjunctures in organisations or industrial relations; the presence of champions; and the effects of industrial relations legacies. The paper contributes to the literature by systematically accounting for variations in the effectiveness of adjudication and arbitrations arrangements and concludes by considering whether the incidence of PDRAs is likely to continue rising.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
私人纠纷解决有多有效?来自爱尔兰的证据
本文考察了爱尔兰私营和公共部门公司和机构中雇主和工会自愿建立的私人争议解决安排(PDRAs)的有效性。审裁处由三人小组或独任审裁员组成,并将有约束力或无约束力的裁决与内部调解结合起来。PDRAs试图改写管理工作场所争议解决的既定规则和惯例,并改变国家机构内部争议解决与外部争议解决相一致的方式。11种PDRAs中的大多数被证明是有效的。一种被描述为“半休眠”,另两种被证明效果较差。方案评估的有效性的差异是由于建立方案评估的公司和机构的内部和外部环境的特点:持续存在重大的商业和工业关系挑战;组织或劳资关系中不存在脱节;冠军的出现;以及劳资关系遗留问题的影响。本文通过系统地解释裁决和仲裁安排有效性的变化,并通过考虑PDRAs的发生率是否可能继续上升来总结文献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Industrial Law Journal is established as the leading periodical in its field, providing comment and in-depth analysis on a wide range of topics relating to employment law. It is essential reading for practising lawyers, academics, and lay industrial relations experts to keep abreast of newly enacted legislation and proposals for law reform. In addition Industrial Law Journal carries commentary on relevant government publications and reviews of books relating to labour law.
期刊最新文献
Less or More Labour Law for Social Change? Procurement and the ‘London Living Wage’: Boohene v Royal Parks Ltd Domino Dancing: Mutuality of Obligation and Determining Employment Status in Ireland The Problems and Paradoxes with the EU’s Regulation of Traineeships: A Way Forward ‘Fire and Rehire’: Four Lessons from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1