Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

The collective bargaining literature is replete with writings expressing the view that the prospect of compulsory arbitration of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement "chills" bargaining.' Arguments supporting this position are based, either explicitly or implicitly, on the premise that the parties to collective bargaining perceive that an arbitrator will decide the case by compromising between the positions that the parties occupy immediately prior to going to arbitration. A clear and rigorous statement of this premise and the logical consequences of its adoption has been made by Carl M. Stevens. Stevens argues that a perception by the parties that the arbitrator will adopt the decision rule of compromise between the parties' impasse positions will lead them to necessarily forgo bargaining and rely upon arbitration.