This article examines the effectiveness of private dispute resolution arrangements (PDRAs) established voluntarily by employers and unions in private- and public-sector firms and agencies in Ireland. PDRAs comprise three-person panels or sole adjudicators and combine binding or non-binding adjudication with internal mediation. PDRAs seek to rewrite the established rules and conventions governing dispute resolution within workplaces and to change the ways in which internal dispute resolution is aligned with external dispute resolution by state agencies. The majority of the eleven PDRAs examined are shown to be effective. One is described as ‘semi-dormant’ and two are shown to be less effective. Variations in the effectiveness of PDRAs are attributed to features of the internal and external contexts of the firms and agencies in which they have been established: the persistence of significant commercial and industrial relations challenges; the absence of disjunctures in organisations or industrial relations; the presence of champions; and the effects of industrial relations legacies. The paper contributes to the literature by systematically accounting for variations in the effectiveness of adjudication and arbitrations arrangements and concludes by considering whether the incidence of PDRAs is likely to continue rising.

中文翻译：

---

私人纠纷解决的效果如何？来自爱尔兰的证据

本文研究了爱尔兰私营和公共部门公司和机构的雇主和工会自愿建立的私人争议解决安排 (PDRA) 的有效性。PDRA 由三人小组或单独的裁决者组成，并将具有约束力或不具有约束力的裁决与内部调解相结合。PDRA 寻求重写管理工作场所内争议解决的既定规则和公约，并改变内部争议解决与国家机构外部争议解决相一致的方式。所检查的 11 种 PDRA 中的大多数被证明是有效的。一个被描述为“半休眠”，两个被证明效果较差。PDRA 有效性的差异归因于它们所在的公司和机构的内部和外部环境特征： 持续存在重大的商业和劳资关系挑战；组织或劳资关系中没有脱节；冠军的存在；以及劳资关系遗留问题的影响。本文通过系统地解释裁决和仲裁安排的有效性变化来为文献做出贡献，并通过考虑 PDRA 的发生率是否可能继续上升而得出结论。以及劳资关系遗留问题的影响。本文通过系统地解释裁决和仲裁安排的有效性变化来为文献做出贡献，并通过考虑 PDRA 的发生率是否可能继续上升而得出结论。以及劳资关系遗留问题的影响。本文通过系统地解释裁决和仲裁安排的有效性变化来为文献做出贡献，并通过考虑 PDRA 的发生率是否可能继续上升而得出结论。