This comparison supports the idea that arbitration can avoid some of the delays in the process system. While the average pre-trial delay is nearly two years in federal or regional court, it is barely a year under mandatory arbitration proceedings. However, the differences in the results of the studies are also glaring. One of the advantages of the traditional labour arbitration system in unionized enterprises is that the company and the union are repetitive players in the system. This means that they are both likely involved in future cases, have experience in previous cases and are invested in developing a fair and effective dispute resolution system. This balanced bilateral system, with repetitive players on both sides, means that a referee who was not a true neutral and who instead began to prefer one game, would soon become unacceptable to the other party and would not be chosen for future cases. This balance between two powerful replays is a key feature that allows private arbitration systems to function effectively. The image of arbitration as a creature of unionized employment began to shift when the Supreme Court began to submit legal labour rights in its 1991 Gilmer decision, which was discussed above. Mr. Gilmer not only gave employers the obligation to obtain legal rights, but he also gave employers the green light to require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a binding clause and condition of employment. The case and its descendants allowed employers to unilaterally introduce arbitration procedures to cover legal labour rights and to make these procedures mandatory in the sense that the employer would refuse to hire a candidate who did not sign the arbitration agreement.
While the concept of arbitration seems a little confusing, it is not necessary. You can learn by clicking a button. An experienced labour lawyer can answer your questions, advise you on the law in your state and see how it applies to your situation. A third development in the 1980s concerned the type of FAA litigation. While it had previously been established that the FAA applied only to contractual disputes, the Supreme Court in 1985, in Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985), imposed that the FAA also impose the conciliation of disputes.