Arbitration Agreements Pros And Cons

If arbitration is less confrontational than litigation, it remains contradictory. If both parties agree and think they can reach an agreement, it may be better to consider mediation, another form of dispute resolution. Mediation is a negotiation. Like arbitration, a neutral third party is chosen to facilitate the process. However, the Ombudsman does not make a final decision and there is no evidence. As a general rule, the mediator knows enough about the dispute to challenge the parties in their colonizing position and hopefully persuade them to make further compromises and resolve the matter. If mediation is not concluded, the parties simply pursue a dispute. (Of course, there is nothing to prevent the parties in the arbitration proceedings from first submitting to mediation.) Pro: The arbitrator determines the date, time and place of hearing after consultation of the parties. It is customary for arbitration to last three to six months between the original claim and the issuance of a sentence. Under AAA rules, special rapid tracking procedures apply when the counterclaim or request does not exceed $75,000.

In this case, the arbitrator is required to set a date for the hearing within thirty days of confirmation of the arbitrator`s appointment. Con: The court is required to apply the contractual terms between the parties in accordance with the simple terms of the contract. Thus, the typical provisions of construction contracts, such as pay-if-paid clauses, the absence of compensation clauses, non-liquidation clauses and clauses requiring a written termination in a timely manner, should normally be applied in accordance with their terms. By signing arbitration agreements, workers waive their right to file appeals against their employers in the event of disagreement. However, the obligation to reconcile varies according to the agreements. Some employers show arbitration is only for certain issues, while others require that all disputes go to arbitration. Most employment contracts use mandatory arbitration procedures, in which both parties acknowledge in advance that the arbitrator`s decision will be conclusive, with extremely limited power of appeal. [1] See the Wall Street Journal article, which states that the National Arbitration Forum preferred certain repeat professional customers to consumers and even instructed arbitrators to overturn consumer-friendly decisions. blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/19/did-the-national-arbitration-forum-pander-to-famous-parties/ Since then, Facebook, Airbnb and eBay have changed their policies to allow employees to bring sexual misconduct and harassment charges to court.

Twitter also announced that it had never required employees to submit work applications to an arbitration tribunal. While it is customary for contractual provisions to require arbitration, owners, general contractors and subcontractors often disagree on the benefits of this method of dispute resolution. Below are the top 10 pros and cons of mandatory arbitration. Arbitration aims to provide a faster and simpler alternative to a high-speed process. The process is informal. The ability to bypass procedural formalities saves time. For example, traditional rules of evidence do not apply. As a result, parties to arbitration proceedings do not face numerous prolonged delays related to civil proceedings. The use of deposition statements and live statements via teleconference is common in arbitration proceedings and saves time and money without sacrificing integrity. Con: A party in arbitration may be confronted with the correspondence and sworn assurance of third-party witnesses who are not available for cross-examination.

Similarly, a party may be confronted, in the course of an arbitration proceeding, with testimony that is not aware of the purpose of its testimony.

Share Button