Arbitrator Dunsford observes that there is no legal impediment to the arbitrator’s retention of jurisdiction with respect to remedies, and such retention, without time limit, serves the interests of the parties, the process and the judiciary. For example, it makes no sense to issue an award in which a remedy is prescribed in general terms …

The parties have a right to expect an arbitrator to answer the question presented, and to resolve that question with a final award when the hearing has concluded. Interim awards, retention of jurisdiction, remanding matters back to the parties, and expansive commentary generally do not serve the purpose for which the parties retained the arbitrator. …

A discussion of some of the reasons functus officio hinders rather than promotes achievement of the objective of management-labor arbitration and the power of the arbitrator to make monetary awards. The author offers some conclusions with respect to the operation of the doctrine of functus officio.

An analysis of two areas of remedies: compensatory damages and injunctions. A discussion of the author’s view in the absence of a clear-cut answer by the courts as to the legal power of the arbitrator to award remedies of either compensatory damages or injunctions.

A discussion of the basis causes of congested grievance and arbitration dockets: how widespread or relatively infrequent is the congestion; the circumstances under which overloading develops; the measures adopted to relieve congested procedures; how effective have such measures been; and the role of the arbitrator in helping to solve the problems.

The author suggests that the parties may often be in a better position than the arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy, and encourages remand. He views arbitration as being the most useful when it does not substitute for collective bargaining, and urges restraint in fashioning novel remedies: e.g., fines, injunctions, and punitive damages.The author defines …