Sometimes workplace issues are easier to solve when an impartial person helps to create the solution. Therefore, at various points in the discipline process, the employee or organization might want to bring in someone to help with problem solving. Rather than turning to the courts every time an outsider is desired, more and more organizations are using alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A variety of ADR techniques show promise for resolving disputes in a timely, constructive, cost-effective manner.
ADR is generally classified into at least four types: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. (Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well, but for present purposes it can be regarded as a form of mediation. See conciliation for further details.) ADR can be used alongside existing legal systems such as sharia courts within common law jurisdictions such as the UK.
ADR traditions vary somewhat by country and culture
Pros of ADR
** Much cheaper than formal litigation
** More relaxed procedure
** Fast moving and efficient
** Private and confidential
** Disputing parties are more in control of the process
** Informal investigation allowed
** Parties can agree to exchange documentation beneficial to the award
** Parties may select the arbitrator
** No jury of one’s peers
In general, a system for alternative dispute resolution proceeds through the four stages shown in Figure
1. Open-door policy. On the expectation that two people in conflict should first try to arrive at a settlement together, the organization has a policy of making managers available to hear complaints. Typically, the first “open door” is that of the employee’s immediate supervisor, and if the employee does not get a resolution from that person, the employee may appeal to managers at higher levels. This policy works only to the degree that managers who hear complaints listen and are able to act.
Organizations such as Turner Brothers Trucking, Northrop-Grumman, Polaroid, and Citicorp consider one of the benefits of the peer-review svstem to be the sense of justice rhar it creates among employees. The peer-review system can be used as the sole method lor resolving employee complaints, or it can be used in conjunction with a step-review system. For example, it an employee is not satisfied with management’s action at step 1 or 2 in the step-review system, the employee can submit the complaint to the peer-review committee for final resolution.
2. Peer review. If the people in conflict cannot reach an agreement, they take their conflict to a panel composed of representatives from the organization at the same levels as the people in the dispute. The panel hears the case and tries to help the parties arrive at a settlement.
3. Mediation. If die peer review does not lead to a settlement, a neutral party from outside the organization hears the case and tries to help the people in conflict arrive at a settlement. The process is not binding, meaning the mediator cannot force a solution.
Mediation, as used in law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a way of resolving disputes between two or more parties. A third party, the mediator, assists the parties to negotiate their own settlement (facilitative mediation). In some cases, mediators may express a view on what might be a fair or reasonable settlement, generally where all the parties agree that the mediator may do so (evaluative mediation).
The process is private and confidential. The presence of a mediator is the key distinguishing feature of the process. There may be no obligation to go to mediation, but in some cases, any settlement agreement signed by the parties to a dispute will be binding on them.
4. Arbitration. If mediation fails, a professional arbitrator from outside the organization hears the case and resolves it by making a decision. Most arbitrators are experienced employment lawyers or retired judges. The employee and employer both have to accept the person’s decision.
Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the “arbitrators”, “arbiters” or “arbitral tribunal”), by whose decision (the “award”) they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides.
Follow