Martin H. Malin


Commentators have rightly criticized Pyett for its complete disregard of decades of established precedent. In this article, however, I situate the Pyett decision in the context of an ongoing evolution in labor arbitration as that institution has tried to accommodate the intrusion of public law claims into a private system of workplace self-governance. I suggest that labor arbitration has developed a kind of schizophrenic existence, preserving its role as a substitute for strikes and other workplace strife in a private system of self-governance while accommodating an additional role as a substitute for litigation of public law claims. Nevertheless, I find the decision in Pyett misguided and assess its implications for the institution of labor arbitration's ability to cope with its evolving schizophrenia.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.