National Academy of Arbitrator President William McKee recently sent an letter to The Seattle Times Editorial Board in reference to an article they ran on December 8, 2023 and an editorial written on December 17, 2023, both concerning a police discharge arbitration. In the letter, Mr. McKee addressed errors in the reporting and expressed his concern about the misrepresentations of arbitration.
His letter outlining the inaccuracies is below.
December 20, 2023
Dear Mr. Carter and The Seattle Times Editorial Board:
I am the President of the National Academy of Arbitrators, the principal organization for labor arbitrators in the United States and Canada. We set the standards of ethical behavior for labor arbitrators. I am writing because your recent reporting on a police discharge arbitration contained several factual errors, which should be corrected.
You state as a fact that the officer was awarded $600,000 in backpay and benefits. That amount is almost impossible. The arbitrator did not specify an amount – he simply advised the parties how to calculate the amount. In all cases, a discharged employee has a duty to mitigate damages by seeking equivalent employment. Earnings from that employment are deducted from the award. Thus, it is fairly certain that the actual amount involved is substantially lower than $600,000. I once had a case where the discharged employee earned more after termination than before. She went to arbitration to remove the termination from her work record.
Your reporting also quotes a District Judge for the proposition that arbitrators are likely to be biased because their livelihoods depend on being selected. There are two problems with this, one general and the other specific to Washington. Arbitrators do generally depend upon mutual selections. But the important word is “mutual.” Any arbitrator wanting to curry favor would have to do so with both management and the union. True professionals understand that their reputation for even-handedness and impartiality is the driving force in continued selections.
The more specific problem with your selection argument is that, since the passage of RCW 41.58.070 by the Washington legislature, arbitrators of law enforcement discipline grievances are independent and randomly selected. They are experienced professionals who go through additional vetting by the State in order to be listed on the roster of arbitrators. They then receive case appointments by the Director of the Public Employment Relations Board, using an alphabetical rotation through the panel. The parties have no say about which arbitrator hears a specific case.
I look forward to the misrepresentations being corrected. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further if you would like more information about the arbitration process.
Sincerely,
William McKee, President
National Academy of Arbitrators