Settlement of construction jurisdictional disputes

Thomas, H R; Heuer, D W and Filippelli, R L (1984) Settlement of construction jurisdictional disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 110(2), pp. 165-177. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry have long been a source of lost productivity. While dispute causes have been documented elsewhere, the mechanisms for resolving disputes are explored here. Two alternatives are possible, namely: (1) The National Labor Relations Board; and (2) the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board. For each approach, the organization, resolution process, appeal and injunctive relief opportunities, decision time frame, and decision criteria are documented. The two approaches are compared, and the advantages and disadvantages for each are cited. These assertions are based upon interviews and questionnaires. More than 60 industry and union officials participated. It is concluded that a voluntary procedure is highly desirable. The major barriers to developing a satisfactory procedure are: (1) Decision criteria; (2) enforcement authority; (3) contractor stipulation; and (4) scope of application. By far, the most difficult issue is that of decision criteria. The unions want the primary criterion to be past agreements of record and established trade practices. Contractors want more emphasis on efficiency and good management practices. It is concluded that unless this issue is resolved, no voluntary procedure will be satisfactory.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: management practice, questionnaire, interview, decision criteria, resolution, enforcement, construction industry, agreements, labour relation, efficiency, dispute, productivity
Subjects: contract formation, dispute resolution, data collection methods, industry analysis, conflict resolution, decision analysis, health safety and environment, management, economics, performance management
Topics: Contract Administration, Supply Chain Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here