14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett:Oppression or Opportunity for U.S. Workers; Learning from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since its seminal Steelworkers Trilogy, 1 decided in 1960, the Supreme Court has regarded arbitration under collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) as different in character from other types of arbitration.Whereas other types of arbitration serve as substitutes for litigation, arbitration under CBAs is a "substitute for industrial strife. . . .[It] is part and parcel of the collective bargaining process itself." 2 This view of labor arbitration reached its zenith in 1974 when the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Corp. 3 declared labor arbitration to be separate from and to operate independently of the public legal system.In Gardner-Denver, the Court held that employees need not resort to the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedure before bringing a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and may proceed with their lawsuits even though they have grieved and arbitrated under the CBA and lost.To the Court, the labor arbitration process was completely different from the public adjudication process.The Court observed:
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".