About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


126 Int'l Lab. Rev. 179 (1987)
Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration - An International Comparison of Australia, Great Britain and the United States

handle is hein.journals/intlr126 and id is 193 raw text is: International Labour Review, Vol. 126, No. 2, March-April 1987 Mediation, conciliation and arbitration An international comparison of Australia, Great Britain and the United States Nicholas BLAIN, John GOODMAN and Joseph LOEWENBERG * I. Introduction There are relatively few international comparative studies of mediation, conciliation and arbitration.' This article addresses three questions. What are the distinctive features of these processes in the public and private sectors in Australia, Great Britain and the United States? What are the main similarities and differences between them in the three countries? Why do such similarities and differences exist? We focus mainly on the first two questions and conclude by considering the third. These particular countries were chosen for study partly because they have a common cultural tradition and language but also because they have developed clearly diverging industrial relations practices. Since mediation, conciliation and arbitration are frequently defined and interpreted in different ways, it is important to indicate how they are used here. Broadly speaking, we use the terms mediation and conciliation interchangeably to mean the intercession of an outsider or third party to assist parties in resolving labour disputes. By arbitration we mean the hearing and deciding of issues in labour disputes by an independent third party. The meaning of the three terms will be elaborated in relation to the particular country contexts; for the moment it need only be said that all three processes may be voluntary or compulsory. Before going on to consider the practical operation of these processes and the context in which it takes place, it may be useful to sketch in very briefly some of the main features characterising the three national systems. * Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations at the University of Western Australia; Frank Thomas Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology; and Professor of Industrial Relations at Temple University, Philadelphia. We are especially grateful to Dr. Joe Isaac and David Plowman for valuable comments, to Kerry Evans for very useful research assistance, and to the Department of Industrial Relations at the University of Western Australia for financial support. This is an abridged and revised version of a paper prepared for the World Congress of the International Industrial Relations Association, Hamburg, September 1986. Copyright © International Labour Organisation 1987 179