Given that there's no way a major corporate entity would let anyone other than an attorney in their legal department handle something in arbitration that's a boldly disingenuous statement

Don't be absurd. Why would a company pay a lawyer when they could pay a low-level manager at 1/10th the cost? Sure, the contracts, form letters, policies, and procedures are all crafted by attorneys, but once that's done it's a formulaic process that anyone can handle with a modicum of training.

Here's another example: a company I used to work for had a large unionized work force. From time to time a fired union member would challenge his termination, and the case would go before an arbitrator. The union would always send an attorney to represent the employee, but the company rarely did. (And when I say "rarely" I mean less than 5% of cases.)

You're getting into a different type of arbitration altogether here. The topic refers to commercial arbitration, in which it can be argued that the two parties are not on equal footing. Whereas a large company may execute hundreds of proceedings in a year and has excellent legal representation, the consumer is probably involved for the first time.

Labor and employment arbitration is a totally different animal. The parties have both agreed to arbitration and do so because it is quicker and cheaper than litigation, to say nothing of the fact that the courts, as opposed to experienced labor arbitrators, have little expertise in this very complicated arena.

As far as who comes to the table with an attorney in labor-management cases, it really varies, probably from state to state. In California, both parties are usually represented, and companies almost always.  

You're getting into a different type of arbitration altogether here

Yes, I know. That's why I said "here's another example." Still, my point is valid, I think, because thefadd was suggesting that no one should go up against a corporation in an arbitration because the corporation would always use an attorney. I haven't got any direct experience in financial arbitration cases, so I rebutted with what I know for sure: companies will use the most efficient means to win a dispute - that may be using an attorney and it may be using a non-attorney specialist.

The parties have both agreed to arbitration and do so because it is quicker and cheaper than litigation...

That's exactly the same reason that parties agree to arbitration in, for example, credit card contracts. (The fact that few consumers even bother to read, much less object to, the fine print of their contracts is irrelevant to this point: they choose a credit card based on price, i.e., interest rate and fees.)

As far as who comes to the table with an attorney in labor-management cases, it really varies, probably from state to state. In California, both parties are usually represented, and companies almost always

The second case I mentioned above was in California, but there was a lawyer involved only because of the large amount of money in dispute. Simple arbitrations in California were handled by local managers, usually with no specific advice from a lawyer, or even the company's senior labor relations execs. One exception was workers' compensation cases, which were handled by a California law firm that specialized in that. (I'm sure your at least passingly familiar with how screwed up California's workers' compensation system is. In most states where we operated workers comp. rates were ~ 5% of direct labor costs, but in California the rate was in excess of 25%. It was a significant impediment to doing business there.)

The parties have both agreed to arbitration and do so because it is quicker and cheaper than litigation...

That's exactly the same reason that parties agree to arbitration in, for example, credit card contracts. (The fact that few consumers even bother to read, much less object to, the fine print of their contracts is irrelevant to this point: they choose a credit card based on price, i.e., interest rate and fees.)

The parties in a commercial arbitration do not AGREE in the same way that they do in union/management disputes. Regardless of the fine print, a consumer does not usually have the same resources or knowledge as does the company.

Simple arbitrations in California were handled by local managers, usually with no specific advice from a lawyer, or even the company's senior labor relations execs. One exception was workers' compensation cases

If they're union cases, only a scant few companies come to the table without legal representation. Workers' comp is a different area altogether.

And what were the outcomes?

And what were the outcomes?

The outcomes of the union arbitrations? Mixed. Sometimes the employee was plainly wrong and we had decent documentation of fair, progressive disciplinary actions, and the company won. Sometimes the employee was treated unfairly by the company (and, perhaps more to the point, counter to the collective bargaining agreement) and the employee won. Sometimes the employee was wrong, but we failed to properly document fair, progressive disciplinary actions, and the arbitrator split the difference. (Which usually meant the company made a cash offer to make the employee go away: e.g., we'd give the guy a month's pay if he signed a release of liability covering several possible avenues for future claims.)

If you meant the outcomes when a company attorney was involved, again, the outcomes were mixed. One example was when there was a union grievance lodged over a termination that occurred just after the employee had filed an EEOC complaint. The company didn't know about the EEOC complaint at the time of termination (the employee knew she was on thin ice because of performance/misconduct, and the EEOC complaint was a preemptive move on her part), but because there can be some serious repercussions if a company is believed to have fired someone because of an EEOC complaint, lawyers were brought in to make sure we had all our ducks in a row.

Another time where an attorney was involved was a major case where nearly 40 union workers had been laid off unjustifiably, at least under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. It had been bouncing back and forth between the union and various levels of the company for over a year - by the time the CEO got involved the company was looking at the possibility of ~ $2 million in back pay. The outcome was offering most of the jobs back and settling for some lesser amount of back pay. Even though the company's general counsel was involved, the negotiation was handled mostly by the company's VP of labor relations. (The division president who hid the problem from the CEO was out the door shortly thereafter.)

Don't be absurd.

The company will be represented by an attorney or other suitably trained specialist who is experienced in the field.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

That's a far cry from "there's no way a major corporate entity would let anyone other than an attorney in their legal department handle something in arbitration." So, you know...welcome back to common sense.

That functionary who is a "suitably trained specialist who is experienced in the field" is overseen in their actions and must answer to a corporate counsel. They have that counsel to call on should any out of the ordinary questions arise. That's a far cry from trying to establish that people don't need attorneys when facing major corporations just because the person who shows up in small claims court to represent said company may or may not actually have a law degree.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Could be that it's done on a district-by-district basis. I handled two small-claims cases for my employer, and both were in Nassau county court. On both occasions the bailiff announced the policy prior to the beginning of court, and the judge asked the court clerk about arbitration as each case was called.