Therefore, this Binding Arbitration gives great po

Therefore, this Binding Arbitration gives great power to the Arbiter.

He/She is given the headship over the 2 parties in opposition.
He/She is given ALL power to say whatever he/she wants to say, to ask, to question, to whomever he/she wants to say it to and the 2 sides can do nothing about it. They voted to give him/her, that authority. He/she was elected to perform this work. He/she can decide to share, when to share it, who to share it with and that's all his or her choice.

But, you may ask then, is the Arbiter "above the law"?
Certainly, the Arbiter is versed in the school of law, is already an attorney and probably a judge.
Therefore, the Arbiter is constrained to the rule of law. So then, he/she is not above the law, but he/she enforces the law. He/she then is the source which pours out the law. The Arbitrator is the source of the law in BINDING ARBITRATION.

But, in BINDING ARBITRATION, because of the "series of factors" by which he/she was chosen to be Arbiter, he/she shall make the decision and it shall be BINDING.

In essence, the Arbiter, for the most part, is a monarchy in the dispute. The Arbiter has total power to execute as he/she sees fit based on the evidence presented by the parties involved.
In this forum, The Arbiter has the power to make ANY ruling he/she sees fit as per his/her series of factors by which he/she was chosen.

Craig, if I can ask, what are examples of some of those "series of factors" by which Sidley Austin would choose this Arbiter?
And what factors would Amarex choose the Arbiter?
Where are these factors the same? Where are they different?

Are there ever any backup Arbiters, that are on standby, listening to the entire arbitration in case something happens, say a Medical Leave Of Absence, to the Arbiter and the backup Arbiter needs to be put in place?

When does the Arbiter's decision take place? Is it when the Arbiter feels he/she has heard enough of the evidence or when both sides rest or is it some other time?

Do you feel the decision of this BINDING ARBITRATION waits for the result to lift the clinical hold? Do you feel / believe / know that the Arbiter's decision and size of the award is tied to whether the hold is lifted or not? This Arbiter's decision is BINDING and whatever he/she says goes. It is one and done, therefore, it had better be right.

Once the 2 parties rest, is there a time period the Arbiter is given to render his/her decision? Once the Arbiter makes his/her decision, can he/she change it within any time period or is it final, even from his/her own desire to change it? Meaning, is the decision BINDING even to him/herself who initially had the authority to issue the decision in the first place? When is he/she removed from that authority?

Thanks in advance.