This article considers these and other selected problems dealing with hearsay evidence that are likely to be encountered in the arbitral forum. It is our thesis that arbitrators do and should credit some (but not all) forms of hearsay evidence, but that the arbitral process is not served by admitting all evidence and "taking it for what it is worth." Further, we believe when an advocate's case against a grievant consists entirely of hearsay evidence, and there is no reliable substitute for cross examination or "equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness," the grievant should prevail. Only in the rarest of cases will management prevail when its evidence consists entirely of hearsay evidence.
Marvin F. Hill, Jr. and Tammy M. Westhoff,,
I'll Take It for What It Is Worth -- The Use of Hearsay Evidence by Labor Arbitrators: A Primer and Modest Proposal,
1998 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1998/iss1/4