Final answer:
Arbitration is generally considered to have advantages over mediation in grievance procedures by providing a binding and definitive resolution. Arbitrators are neutral, competent, and reflect the communities they serve, while ensuring timely justice.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that arbitration has several advantages over grievance mediation in the resolution of grievances is, in a general context, considered to be true. Arbitration is a formal step in the grievance procedure and is often binding, designed to resolve disputes definitively. It can be seen as advantageous because it provides a definitive resolution, often binding, whereas mediation is typically non-binding and involves a mediator helping the parties reach a voluntary agreement. Arbitration tends to be faster and more efficient than court proceedings and serves as an accessible and impartial dispute resolution method as justice is delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, and independent representatives.
Arbitrators are neutral decision-makers who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the communities they serve. They issue a ruling after hearing the evidence and arguments from both parties. Unlike mediation, where the mediator facilitates negotiation without issuing a decision, in arbitration, the arbitrator's decision is usually final and enforceable in court unless both parties agree otherwise.