"Foreign to the Competence of Courts" Versus "One Law for All": Labor Arbitrators' Powers and Judicial Review in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares and contrasts the approach to labor arbitrators' powers and judicial review of their decisions in the United States and Canada. Although the two countries have many similarities in their labor law systems, and arbitrators play a crucial role in both, the approach to the role of arbitrators is different in each. While labor arbitration is an exclusively private arrangement in the United States, Canadian law formalizes the role of the arbitrator and, in many jurisdictions, makes arbitration mandatory. The American Supreme Court has viewed arbitrators as adjudicators in a separate system from the courts, while its Canadian counterpart treats arbitrators as part of the general legal system. This has led to arbitrators being given the power to make more types of decisions in Canada, but also to more intrusive judicial review of their decisions than in the United States. The author explores possible reasons for these differences, and argues that both countries can learn from each other's approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".