Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

This article reports the results of a series of interviews with Wisconsin interest arbitrators, which was part of a larger experimental study that provides insight into how and why arbitrators apply different, and often conflicting, wage criteria when deciding public sector interest arbitration cases. The issues discussed with the arbitrators included: their overall decisionmaking policies; the relationships among various equity standards; ability-to-pay criteria; and statutory criteria.

The results show that the arbitrators' subjective and objective decisionmaking policies are rather similar, which indicates a high level of insight about their own decisions. As for comparability, the majority of arbitrators tend to lean initially toward internal comparisons based on percent increases. The arbitrators also discuss the need for ability-to-pay arguments to be specific and well-supported before granting this criterion greater weight in their decisionmaking. Finally, the desire to have information describing the historical relationship between the parties was voiced throughout the interviews. Most of the arbitrators appeared hesitant to disrupt these relationships without specific circumstances to justify such action.