1. Mrs. W.'s grievance obviously deals with a matter of great concern to the public because it touches on the public policy of achieving racially integrated school systems. Do you think private arbitration was the proper forum for a decision on her grievance? Would it have been better to take this case to court or to some other public agency?
2. One of the questions before the arbitrator was whether the building seniority system was contrary to law. It happens that the arbitrator in this case was not only a lawyer, but also a retired judge. Nevertheless, labor-management arbitrators do not have to be trained in the law, and in any event, their decisions are not usually subject to reversals, even if they err on matters of law. Does this circumstance make arbitration an inappropriate place to decide Mrs. W.'s grievance?
3. The arbitrator's own observation and the testimony of a witness led him to the conclusion that there was parking space available to Mrs. W. on the street. If this were not the case, that is, if parking was hard to find, do you think he might have decided the case differently?
4. Mrs. W. had turned down a suggestion that she poll the teachers to find out whether they would like to change the procedures for assigning parking spaces. Do you think it would have been wise for the arbitrator to order such a poll to be taken? If he did that, do you think he would be bound by the majority opinion?
5. The arbitrator said the issues were whether the building seniority system violated either the law or Board of Education rules, and he answered both questions in the negative. Assuming he believed that it wasn't contrary to law, but that it should be contrary to law, could he uphold the grievance?
6. This case had many unusual aspects, one of which is that although the proceeding took place under a collective bargaining agreement, the union was not a party to it. Do you think that individuals should be permitted to invoke arbitration without the support of the union in all instances?