Mini Case Study Pg. 2702 An Embarrassing Incident For The Ar

Mini Case Study Pg. 2702an Embarrassing Incident For The Arbitrator

Mini Case Study Pg. 2702an Embarrassing Incident For The Arbitrator

Mini Case Study Pg. 270 #2 An Embarrassing Incident for the Arbitrator Professor Grover Harrison has been jointly selected as impartial ad hoc arbitrator by a union and management, none of whose principals he has ever met. Eating his breakfast alone in a booth in the dining room of the hotel in which the hearing will shortly be held, he overhears the following words emanating from the next booth: “Well, of course, it’s not the truth, but if we’re to have any chance of winning this thing. We’d damned well better consistently stick to our claim that the supervisor on at least on occasion made lewd and suggestive remarks to Mary. She can be counted on to testify this way at the hearing, and she’s a good enough liar so that there’s no chance of her being shaken in the cross-examination.” If you were Harrison, what (if anything) would you now do?

Paper For Above instruction

In the scenario presented, Arbitrator Grover Harrison faces a delicate ethical situation upon overhearing a confidential conversation between the union and management representatives at a hotel restaurant. The overheard discussion involves planning to present misleading testimony by a witness, Mary, during the upcoming arbitration hearing. This situation raises critical questions about conflicts of interest, impartiality, and confidentiality grounded in principles outlined in Chapter 6 of the arbitration and conflict resolution literature.

Initially, Harrison must evaluate the nature of the overheard dialogue. The content reveals an intention to knowingly present false testimony, which constitutes dishonesty and undermines the integrity of the arbitration process. As an impartial arbitrator, Harrison is ethically bound to uphold the principles of fairness, neutrality, and justice. Overhearing such a discussion should trigger a professional and ethical response. According to the American Arbitration Association’s code of ethics and standards of professional conduct, arbitrators must avoid conflicts of interest and misconduct that could impair their impartiality (AAA, 2020). The deliberate planning to introduce false evidence or testimony is a clear violation of these principles.

Moreover, the confidentiality inherent in the arbitration process must be preserved. The overheard remarks are confidential communications related to the dispute, and Harrison, as an arbitrator, bears the responsibility not to disclose or act in a way that breaches confidentiality or compromises the fairness of the proceedings. In accordance with Chapter 6 readings, particularly the section on conflicts of interest and impartiality, Harrison should recognize that such information, if acted upon improperly, could taint the arbitration process and potentially jeopardize the legitimacy of the outcome.

Given these considerations, Harrison's appropriate course of action involves several steps. First, he should immediately solidify his understanding of his ethical obligations. Second, he might consider discreetly removing himself from the hearing process to prevent any bias or influence stemming from the overheard conversation, especially if he perceives a risk of bias or undue influence. Third, he should report the overheard incident to the appropriate arbitration authority or body responsible for overseeing the process, without revealing the identities or specifics that could violate confidentiality. Such reporting ensures transparency and helps safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.

Furthermore, Harrison should document his actions and the overheard incident thoroughly, maintaining a record that can be referenced if any questions arise about his impartiality. Consulting with a legal or ethical advisor connected to the arbitration process can provide additional guidance on handling the situation appropriately. The key is to prioritize ethical standards over personal convenience or discretion, ensuring the arbitration remains fair and impartial.

In conclusion, overhearing a discussion that involves plans to falsify testimony is a serious ethical breach. Harrison must respond by protecting the integrity of the arbitration process—either by recusing himself, reporting the conduct, and ensuring that the proceedings are conducted ethically and impartially. Upholding these standards aligns with the core principles of arbitration regulation, maintains public trust, and preserves the legitimacy of the dispute resolution process.

References

• American Arbitration Association. (2020). AAA Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct. Retrieved from https://www.adr.org
• Boulle, L. (2011). Mediation: Principles, Processes, and Practices. LexisNexis Butterworths.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
• Thompson, L. (2012). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson.
• Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (2010). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. McGraw-Hill.
• Weingast, B. R., & Wittman, D. (2006). The Politics of Conflict, Dispute, and Negotiation. Routledge.