Considerable debate has ensued over whether the arbitration forum is the appropriate place to determine safety disputes. The Supreme Court, in 'Gateway Coal,' has held that arbitration is appropriate for safety disputes; however, at issue is whether workers can refuse to work in conditions they perceive as dangerous to their health pending resolution of the dispute through arbitration. A safety committee, comprised of management and labor, could provide an immediate determination as to whether the work is too dangerous to risk injury to workers. This could save considerable time and expense resulting from a walkout and a subsequent pitting of the parties against one another in arbitration. Moreover, such an approach is infinitely more reasonable at the time of the dispute, because the facts are fresh, and the safety committee is presumably knowledgeable about the ramifications of the safety aspects of the particular job. Further, workers would be protected for refusing to work until a determination is made. The express contractual negation of a no-strike obligation in the safety dispute area would come into play where the workers disagreed with the committee's determination and walked off the job. If there is not a no-strike clause, workers must have evidence of the danger of the assigned job to preclude a penalty of discharge or discipline for refusing to work. If an arbitration clause exists, a grievance would be filed and the matter submitted to binding arbitration. Thirty-nine footnotes are provided.