THE ARBITRATION OF FIGHTING CASES

THE ARBITRATION OF FIGHTING CASES This paper reviews published arbitration awards dealing with fighting covering 1980 to 1990 as reported in the Bureau of National Affairs BNA and Commerce Clearing House CCH. It attempts to show arbitral guidelines developed from the case sources. Where disagreement in approach to issues by arbitrators is noted, competing schools of thought are presented The majority of arbitrators define fighting as a physical encounter with the intent of offensively striking another person that must normally occur on company premises. For an employee to be considered acting in selfdefense she must have been assaulted by another employee and be of the mind that force is necessary to prevent bodily harm. Moreover, an employee acting in self defense must use only the amount of force necessary to protect himself or herself from danger. The right to discipline for offpremises fights may be accorded to an employer when the fight is related to disagreements which have had their origins in the work place or is a continuation of a dispute occurring in the plant, or is otherwise clearly workrelated Discipline may also be issued when a supervisor is attacked away from the plant premises. A major factor leading to the mitigation of discipline can occur when both parties to a fight are determined to be equally guilty i.e., there was no clear provocateur, but one is given a harsher penalty than the other. When assessing penalties imposed for fighting, arbitrators also take into account the length of service andor the work record of an involved employee. The contrition or lack of contrition by one or both employees may also lead an arbitrator to modify or sustain the degree of the penalty imposed depending on the severity of the altercation. An arbitrator may reduce the degree of discipline based on management's failure to diffuse conditions leading to a fight when these are known in advance, or for inaction to break up a fight before it becomes serious. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Conflict Management Emerald Publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-arbitration-of-fighting-cases-99nBV7dqSq
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1044-4068
DOI
10.1108/eb022699
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper reviews published arbitration awards dealing with fighting covering 1980 to 1990 as reported in the Bureau of National Affairs BNA and Commerce Clearing House CCH. It attempts to show arbitral guidelines developed from the case sources. Where disagreement in approach to issues by arbitrators is noted, competing schools of thought are presented The majority of arbitrators define fighting as a physical encounter with the intent of offensively striking another person that must normally occur on company premises. For an employee to be considered acting in selfdefense she must have been assaulted by another employee and be of the mind that force is necessary to prevent bodily harm. Moreover, an employee acting in self defense must use only the amount of force necessary to protect himself or herself from danger. The right to discipline for offpremises fights may be accorded to an employer when the fight is related to disagreements which have had their origins in the work place or is a continuation of a dispute occurring in the plant, or is otherwise clearly workrelated Discipline may also be issued when a supervisor is attacked away from the plant premises. A major factor leading to the mitigation of discipline can occur when both parties to a fight are determined to be equally guilty i.e., there was no clear provocateur, but one is given a harsher penalty than the other. When assessing penalties imposed for fighting, arbitrators also take into account the length of service andor the work record of an involved employee. The contrition or lack of contrition by one or both employees may also lead an arbitrator to modify or sustain the degree of the penalty imposed depending on the severity of the altercation. An arbitrator may reduce the degree of discipline based on management's failure to diffuse conditions leading to a fight when these are known in advance, or for inaction to break up a fight before it becomes serious.

Journal

International Journal of Conflict ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Mar 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off