Legal Question in Employment Law in California

Re: Arbitration

In a non-binding arbitration, the arbitrator has a duty to render a decision. That is unlike mediation, where the mediator's primary goal is to facilitate resolution between the parties. In a non-binding arbitration, the idea is that the parties might agree to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator after they hear it, rather than agreeing to be bound prior to hearing the decision (i.e., binding arbitration) in an effort to resolve the dispute without litigation.

However, in the event one or both parties is unhappy with the arbitrator's decision in a non-binding arbitration, either has the right to file a lawsuit in a court of law to seek a more favorable decision. No one "imposes" the decision in a non-binding arbitration; after all, it is non-binding. The only recourse if you are unhappy with the result of non-binding arbitration is to sue.

Good luck.

Re: Arbitration

You are correct that in a non-binding arbitration case the arbitrator can recommend but not impose a decision. As to who might impose a decision, it will depend on the context in which the issue arises. For example, many union contracts in the public sector have provisions for non-binding arbitration of employee allegations that the employer has breached the agreement. Once the non-binding arbitrator has ruled, there is, of course, a public "recommendation" by a neutral third-party. If the arbitrator's decision favors the employee, the union and the employee may use the decision to its political advantage to persuade the employer to remedy any violation found by the arbitrator. If the decision goes the other way, the employer may use the decision to publicly justify its position. Ultimately, however, in this example, the employer will have the legal right to impose its will.

More to your specific question, I would need to have more information about the context in which your issue arises to advise as to who might impose a final decision, and how.

Peter Lareau, Esq.