Sporting Justice: An Arbitrator's Perspective

Drawing on my experience of a number of sports dispute resolution tribunals in the UK and Ireland (such as Sports Resolutions UK; Just Sport Ireland; the Football Association of Ireland’s Disciplinary Panel and the Gaelic Athletic Association’s Dispute Resolution Authority) I intend to use this paper to review the legal arguments typically made in sports-related arbitrations. These points of interest can be summarised as a series of three questions: the fairness question; the liability question; the penalty question.

In answer to the fairness question, the aim is to give a brief outline on best practice in establishing a "fair" sports disciplinary tribunal. The answer, I believe, is always twofold in nature: first, and to paraphrase Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26 at [28] "in law, context is everything" – translated into the present matter, this means that in sports disciplinary cases, the more serious the charges against the individual (in terms of reputational damage, economic impact and/or length of sanction); the more tightly wrapped the procedural safeguards surrounding any subsequent disciplinary hearing must be. A fair disciplinary system will be discussed in the context of the principles laid down in Article 8 of the World Anti-Doping Code which, in effect, acts as sport’s Article 6 of the ECHR on a right to a fair trial.

Following on from the above, in the 60 or so sports arbitrations that I have heard, there are two further points of interest. First, the claim before the arbitral panel will often be framed in an argument that, for various reasons of substantive and procedural irregularity, the sanction imposed on the appellant should be quashed ("the liability"). Second, and in alternative, that the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate ("the penalty").

The liability issue usually breaks down into two further questions. First, what is the nature of the legal duty upon a sports body in exercising its disciplinary remit? Second, to what extent does a de novo hearing on appeal cure any apparent defects in a hearing of first instance? The first issue often results in an arbitral panel debating the contra preferentum approach to the interpretation of a contested rule i.e., the sports body’s rules in question are so ambiguous that they should be interpreted in a manner to the detriment of the rule maker and in favour of the appellant. On the second matter, it now appears to be a general principle of sports law, administrative law and even human rights law that even if a violation of the principles of natural justice takes place at the first instance stage of a disciplinary process, they may be cured on de novo appeal. Authority for this approach can be found at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in particular in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v UEFA at para 87.

The question on proportionality asks what, aside from precedent found within the decisions of the sports body in question, are the general legal principles against which a sanction by a sports disciplinary body can be benchmarked in order to ascertain whether it is disproportionate in length or even irrational in nature?

On the matter of (dis)proportionality of sanction, the debate is usually guided by the authority in Bradley v the Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) and affirmed at [2005] EWCA Civ 1056. The Bradley principles on proportionality of sports-specific sanctions, recently cited with approval at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, will be examined in this presentation.

Finally, an interesting application of many of the above principles (and others such as the appropriate standard of proof in sports disciplinary procedures) can be made to recent match-fixing or corruption related hearings held by the British Horse Racing Authority, the integrity units of snooker and tennis, and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Empowering Human Services Organizations to Embrace Evidence-informed Practice: International Best Practices

Human service organizations are increasingly using knowledge as a mechanism for implementing change. Knowledge emerging from many sources that may include academic publications, grey literature, and service user and practitioner wisdom contributes toward informing best practice. The question is: how do we harness this knowledge to make practice more effective? This paper synthesizes the lessons learned from eight international organizations that have made a commitment to knowledge mobilization as an important priority in their mission and operation. The paper provides a conceptual model, tools and resources to help human services organizations create strategies for building, enhancing or sustaining their knowledge mobilization efforts. The paper describes a flexible blueprint for human service organizations to leverage knowledge mobilization efforts at all levels of service delivery.

National institutions and employers’ age management practices in Britain and Germany:‘Path dependence’and option exploration

We pursue a comparative analysis of employers’ age management practices in Britain and Germany, asking how valid ‘convergence’ and ‘Varieties of Capitalism’ theories are. After rejecting the convergence verdict, we proceed to ask how far ‘path dependence’ helps explain inter-country differences. Through 19 interviews with British and German experts, we find that firms have reacted in different ways to promptings from the EU and the two states. Change has been modest and a rhetoric-reality gap exists in firms as they seek to hedge. We point to continuities in German institutional methods of developing new initiatives, and the emerging role of British NGOs in helping firms and the state develop new options. We argue that ‘path dependence’ offers insight into the national comparison, but also advance the idea of national modes of firm optionexploration as an important way of conceptualizing the processes involved.

The Disorganized Family: Institutions, Practices and Normativity

This paper considers the value of a normative account of the relationship between agents and institutions for contemporary efforts to explain ever more complex and disorganized forms of social life. The character of social institutions, as they relate to practices, agents and norms, is explored through an engagement with the common claim that family life has been deinstitutionalized. The paper argues that a normative rather than empirical definition of institutions avoids a false distinction between institutions and practices. Drawing on ideas of social freedom and creative action from critical theory, the changes in family life are explained not as an effect of deinstitutionalization, but as a shift from an organized to a disorganized institutional type. This is understood as a response to changes in the wider normative structure, as a norm of individual freedom has undermined the legitimacy of the organized patriarchal nuclear family, with gender ascribed roles and associated duties. Contemporary motherhood is drawn on to illustrate the value of analysing the dynamic interactions between institutions, roles and practices for capturing both the complexity and the patterned quality of social experience.

Employee 'words' on high involvement work practices, value congruence and burnout

This article examined the impact of perceived high involvement work practices (HIWPs) on person-organization value congruence (P-O fit) and long term burnout. The study was conducted in a Canadian general hospital. Findings from structural equation modeling (N = 185) revealed that perceived HIWPs were significantly positively associated with P-O fit. While there was no direct effect of HIWPs on burnout, P-O fit fully mediated the relationship between perceptions of HIWPs and burnout. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of HIWPs influence on P-O fit and burnout.

The working practices of Birmingham's Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

This article offers a history of the working practices of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Based on extensive interviews with former members and on research into a new archive of the Centre, housed in the Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham, it argues that cultural studies as practised in the 1970s was always a heterogeneous subject. The CCCS was heavily influenced by the events of 1968 when it tried to develop a new type of radical and collaborative research and teaching agenda. Despite Stuart Hall's efforts to impose a focused link between politics and academic practice, the agenda soon gave way to a series of diverse and fruitful initiatives associated with the ‘sub-groups’ model of research.

Perceptions of high involvement work practices and burnout: investigating the mediating role of procedural justice and role overload and the moderating role of colleague support

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of employees’ perceptions of high involvement work practices (HIWPs) on burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation) via the mediating role of role overload and procedural justice. Further, perceived colleague support was hypothesised to moderate the effects of role overload and procedural justice on these outcomes.

Design/Methodology
The study was conducted on a random sample of unionised registered nurses (RNs) working in the Canadian public health care sector, stratified by mission and size of the institution to ensure representativeness. Of the 6546 nurses solicited, 2174 returned a completed questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 33.2%. To test our hypotheses we conducted structural equation modelling (SEM) in Mplus version 6.0 (Muthen and Muthen, 1998 – 2010) with Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation.

Results
The results showed that procedural justice and role overload fully mediated the influence of HIWPs on burnout. Moreover, colleague support moderated the effects of procedural justice and role overload on emotional exhaustion but not depersonalisation.

Limitations
The study used a cross-sectional research design and is conducted among one occupational group (i.e. nurses).

Research/Practical Implications
The findings question the dark side of HRM in the health care context. They also contribute to the lack of theoretical and empirical work dedicated to understanding the ‘black box’ problem (Castanheira and Chambel, 2010).

Originality/Value
The study employs a well-known theoretical perspective from the occupational health psychology literature to the HR field in order to contribute to the lack of theorising in the HR-well-being link.