Between Decision and Dialogue: Ethical Limits and Practical Judgment in Labor Arbitration

This article examines the ethical and practical boundaries of an arbitrator’s role in encouraging negotiated resolution during labor arbitration. It questions the conventional U.S. assumption that an arbitrator should maintain a strict separation between adjudication and settlement facilitation, while reaffirming the importance of neutrality, party autonomy, and decisional integrity. Drawing on comparative practices and practical arbitration experience, the article identifies circumstances in which negotiation may better serve the parties, particularly where a legal victory could produce undesirable long-term consequences, contractual language restricts meaningful remedies, or an award could create significant precedential risks. At the same time, it recognizes the dangers of coercion, confidentiality concerns, role confusion, and inadequate mediation competence. The article therefore advocates a limited and carefully bounded approach in which arbitrators may neutrally identify the limitations or broader consequences of arbitration without steering the parties toward a particular outcome or assuming the role of mediator.