Category: Dispute Resolution

Introduction

Arbitration is sufficiently a wide notion. However, the main concept of arbitration can be seen as the most ancient form of dispute resolution, where the mediatory functions performed by arbitrators preceded governmental authorities. Today there are many arbitration and arbitration tribunals in the world, being one of the most effective methods for dispute resolution. In that regard, this paper provides an analysis of the essence of arbitration along with its role in the alternative dispute resolution process.

Overview

Defining arbitration it can be said that it is a judicial mechanism for solving conflicts, where the dispute is submitted to “one or more impartial persons for a final and binding decision, known as an “award.” (“Arbitration”) The main principle in arbitration is its voluntary nature, where parties are the ones who decide should the conflict be solved through arbitration, where it should be solved, and where the awards should be executed. The procedures and the rules of arbitration cover wide conditions and circumstances, where there are commercial, consumer and labor rules specified in arbitration in a wide variety of industries. (“Arbitration”) Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where arbitration as other forms of ADR is a private method, where “[a]n arbitrator or panel of arbitrators conducts an information-gathering process, which may include document exchange, briefing and testimony of witnesses.” (Bennett 4-5) Although the parties have the right to appeal, the awards are usually “conclusive, final, and binding.” (Leb) Privacy was mentioned as one of the aspects of the arbitration, there are other advantageous characteristics that make parties prefer such solutions to their disputes. Usually, these characteristics include but are not limited to the following:

• Choice of decision-maker – an important factor, especially when there are disputes requires certain knowledge and expertise. In the case an agreement was not reached regarding the person who will serve as an arbitrator, there is an option for sponsoring organizations that provide a list of potential arbitrators. (Bennett 6)
• Flexible rules – the flexibility in rules allows the parties to make sure that the best resolution will be reached.
• Reduced costs and time – this factor is not proven, but nevertheless, it is believed that the streamlined procedures, which are typically employed, can “improve the efficiency of the decision-making process.” (Bennett 4)
• Recovery of costs – this factor forces the party that lost the decision to pay the system, which reduces increases the possibilities of settlement.
• Neutral territory – this factor eliminates the home court factor when resolving a dispute.

Domestic and International Arbitration

Domestic arbitration and international arbitration do not differ substantially, except for one factor. The factor is that the regulation of domestic arbitration has a distinguished enforcement mechanism, while international arbitration can be seen lacking where the implementation of the awards can be more than difficult in “cases where parties decide not to abide by the decision.” (Leb) In that regard, there is a dispute whether international arbitration can be considered as an ADR. Such a statement can be considered controversial and contradict the main characteristics of arbitration. For example, The International Chamber of Commerce Amicable Dispute Resolution system excludes arbitration, while other institutions considered both approaches as alternatives. In that regard, the difference between domestic and international arbitration can be narrowed to the fact that domestic arbitration can be related to the dissatisfaction with the current litigation system, while international arbitration resolving disputes can be related to the neutrality of the chosen arbitration, due to the difference in the rules and laws in parties’ home courts. In that sense, the attractiveness of arbitration is serious can be seriously reconsidered if taking the possibility of enforcement absence. Accordingly, the role of other methods of ADR might be reconsidered.

The Role of Arbitration in ADR

The role of arbitration in ADR can be seen through a comparison with other forms of ADR such as mediation, and accordingly with its disadvantages. In that regard, the main difference can be seen in arbitration having win-lose solutions, while mediation has win-win, and the possibility for appeal, where arbitration might have this possibility while mediation does not. (Leb) In other factors, both arbitration and mediation have similar roles, and both differ from conventional dispute resolution processes. Accordingly, if omitting the possibility of the enforcement disadvantage. Arbitration can be seen as an established aspect of ADR, both domestically and internationally. For example, in regard to the domestic ADR regulations in the United States, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act requires that every federal district court authorize “the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil actions” (Bennett), offering at least one form of ADR including arbitration.

Another opinion can be seen that arbitration is gradually increasing its formalization processes, which makes resorting to arbitration becoming more and more similar to the court jurisdictions. (Vicuna) In that regard, the role of arbitration can increase if proper mechanisms were provided in terms of enforcement, and revisions were made to the formal aspect of arbitration procedures.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that arbitration is an effective method for dispute resolution, which has distinct characteristics that make it preferable as an ADR. Arbitration has a large role as an ADR, especially in the international context, where many business contracts include an obligatory clause regarding arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution process. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the criticism regarding the enforcement process requires the establishment of a particular mechanism for that procedure. In that regard, with proper mechanism applied, the factor of the country as enforcement location will be eliminated.

Accordingly, the other side of such an approach is that institutionalizing the arbitration process will lead to losing the characteristics that distinguished arbitration from litigation, leaving only the aspect of privacy. Regarding the domestic arbitration procedures, it can be said that the US ADR act provides the necessary tools for the arbitration to be implemented and enforced in case the party that lost refused to comply with the award. In that regard, arbitration is a valuable ADR in the federal or state court systems.

Works Cited

“Arbitration”. 2009. American Arbitration Association. Web.

Bennett, Steven C. Arbitration: Essential Concepts. New York: ALM Pub., 2002.

Leb, Christina. “Arbitration”. 2003. Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado.

Vicuna, Francisco Orrego. “Arbitration in a New International Alternative Dispute Resolution System.” Dispute Resolution Journal (2002). Web.

Employees play a vital role in the operations of any organization. They are involved in various organizational duties including administration, production, sales and distribution among others. For employees to perform at optimum level, there must be a positive association between them and the management.

However, disagreements in the organizational setting are unavoidable. Industrial relations play a vital part in facilitating the process of dispute resolution in organizations. Industrial relations, which are also referred to as labor relations, deal with problems involving employment, work conditions, pay and other labor complaints within a defined structure that is fair to both employers and employees (Budd, Gomez, & Meltz, 2004).

Industrial relations involve various elements that govern the relationships inside and outside the workplace. There are four key theories of industrial relations. The unitarist paradigm focuses on the interdependency of management and staff. The Marxist theory suggests that capitalism breeds impunity, which oppresses employees while profiting the organizations.

Consequently, the Marxist theory argues that corporations should be run as noncompetitive state organizations. The radical theory is similar to the Marxist theory, though it argues that industrial relations do not provide the ideal solution for employees to protect their interests from the profit-hungry corporations (Budd, Gomez, & Meltz, 2004).

The pluralist industrial relations theory evaluates the work and the employment relationship based on the prevalence of disparities between the dealings of employers and employees in flawed labor markets. According to the pluralist paradigm, conflicts arise due to varied and competing interests between different stakeholders. Some of these include the variation between high wages against low labor costs, employment security against flexibility, and safe workplace against high output.

This implies that the employment relationship conflict is characterized by mixed motives. As such, the implications of disagreements between stakeholders are dependent on different factors that influence the bargaining power of each stakeholder. This theory best explains the relationship between the organizational setting and the achievement of the group and individual goals (Onyeonoru, 2005).

The elements of pluralist industrial relations access both the employee behavior and fair treatment of individuals, who are regarded as human agents, rather than rational agents. The competition among corporations trickles down to the employees, resulting in mediocre work standards.

Hence, the pluralist industrial relations paradigm also focuses on creating a balance between the competing interests in the employment relationship. This implies that various decision-making factors such as cultural values, emotions, habits and fairness are valued in the pluralist paradigm (Onyeonoru, 2005).

There are various assumptions that influence the pluralist theory. The first one suggests that there has to be a conflict of interest in the employment relationship. The second one argues that labor markets are competitive while the third one stresses that employees are regarded as human agents, and not economic or rational agents.

The pluralist industrial relations do not support the value of competitive markets and the rationale of neoclassical economics. Instead, it proposes a balancing paradigm between capital and labor based on their implications on the goals of workers, employers and society. The absence of a workable and equitable balance among these interests, results in reduced economic growth due to decreased consumer purchasing power, as well as reduced investments in human and physical capital (Onyeonoru, 2005).

According to the pluralist industrial relation paradigm, extreme corporate power poses a substantial burden on society through the creation of poor wages and working conditions. Consequently, the individual perception of justice and equality influences the outcomes of employee earnings and efficiency (Onyeonoru, 2005). As such, the pluralist theory holds that behavioral elements of decision-making influence the achievement of individual and group goals.

References

Budd, J. W., Gomez, R. & Meltz, N. M. (2004). Why balance is best: the pluralist industrial relations paradigm of balancing competing interests. Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Retrieved from http://jbudd.csom.umn.edu/RESEARCH/buddgomezmeltz.pdf

Onyeonoru, I. P. (2005). Industrial conflict in historical context: evolution, management and transformation. Perspectives on peace and conflict in Africa. Web.

Abstract

This essay elaborates An Alternative Dispute Resolution that I would apply among a group of learning members. For this situation, I identified mediation as the most appropriate ADR. Mediation is a framework or program specifically designed for solving disagreements between two or more people with the help of a volunteering third party, who is always an agreed choice of the conflicting members.

Because of its inherent characteristics, I found mediation to be the most appropriate for dispute resolution among learning members of the same class. The major goal of Mediation in Dispute solution is to provide a satisfactory solution to both aggrieved parties without compromising interests of any party. The rest of this essay elaborates more about mediation and gives a clause that learning members can use to resolve conflicts.

Introduction

Dispute resolution is always part of daily life among members living, learning or working together. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves solving conflicts between two or more people out of court (Totaro, 2008, p.15). Many ADRs do exist but it requires people to assess the conflict at hand before seeking the best ADR technique to use.

Clause Description

The goal of mediation is to solve a dispute between two or more parties with the help of a mediator. The process of mediation is always informal and voluntary. This ADR is subject to disagreements between members of a learning team. It ensures that at the end of the process, both members are satisfied and without any feeling of negligence to any party.

Clause Design

In its design, this clause has various requirements. First, a mediator, (one or more individuals), should be present. S/he must be neutral and is always a choice of the disagreeing class members. The mediator can talk to the parties separately or together. During the mediation process, the mediator’s role is to help the disagreeing members to adjust their demands and make an agreement that benefits both parties.

S/he listens to each party’s interests and helps them to reach a common ground. For effective working of this clause, the mediator should not impose solutions on the mediation process but should leave it to the disagreeing parties. This method is applicable for the entire course of study of such a group because no changes in learning group that can hinder its application. It only requires an agreement by both parties.

Conclusion

If people implement it properly, mediation is a good way of solving conflicts between two or more members of a learning group. The mediator should be a choice of both members in disagreement and should always maintain neutrality. At the end, no party should feel shortchanged as consensus is the final element of a mediation process.

Reference

Totaro, G. (2008). Avoid court at all costs. The Australian Financial Review, 5, 14-19.

In projects disputes are unavoidable; they need to be addressed in good time to minimize their adverse effect on the project.

In the case of Victorian Desalination Project the main disputes likely to occur is from the communities likely targeted by the project, developers, government, and those people who live within the location where the desalinating plant will be made (Lock, 2007). To resolve the problems, the following measures should be taken:

Adopt project Portfolio and Program management (PPM) plans

Portfolio and Program management (PPM) programs should be developed to ensure that activities go in line with the set condition; within the needs of the Victorian Desalination Project, there are micro projects that needs to be effectively managed to ensure they donor have conflicts that might hinder the attainment of the entire project.

The right method of preventing and handling such disputes is to ensure that there are correct documentations and the subcontract contracts are clear and precise that they can be relied upon. When adopting the PPM management approach, it acts as the blue print that will be consulted in the case there is some dispute and stand with the part that has acted within the frameworks of the blue print (Newbold, 1998).

In the event that the people where the project will be made have some conflicts, the management of the Victorian Desalination Project should explain to them the benefits whether direct or indirect they are going to get.

The management should understand the society and know the right people to approach to talk to the community; some people may include councilors, administrative bodies like county heads, or even religious leaders (Pons, 2008).

Arbitration

In the event there is some conflict that has occurred among the parties to Victorian Desalination Project there should be room for negotiation and solution to the problem observed seek; the arbitrators that can be adopted should be people who are not inclined to a particular side as this will improve the decisions and the guidelines they are to give to the conflicting parties.

When choosing the arbitrator, the person should be acceptable by both parties and neither should feel that the party has been chosen because he will side with the opposing side. Arbitration is a good method as its fast and can address the issues as other activities continues thus the period for the project completion remain.

Contract law and the courts

Victorian Desalination Project has number of contractors who have been mandated to perform certain duties with certain set levels of quality, quantity and time. For the success of the entire project, every contractor is expected to undertake his responsibility as required by the contract, thus there is need to have the laws enforced accordingly (Capital Projects Division, 2011).

In the event there is some dispute, the Australian legal dispute resolution mechanism can be of paramount use; it can offer guidelines on the right approach to an issue in hand and eventually the dispute will be solved.

Victorian Desalination Project managers should enact effective management strategies that can assist in determination of risky areas; when some risk has been established, they should work to avoid adverse effect on the project. In an event of dispute, the project managers should choose the most appropriate method to solve the dispute; the method chosen depends with the conflict encountered (Anantatmula, 2010).

References

Anantatmula, V., 2010. Project Manager Leadership Role in Improving Project Performance. Engineering Management Journal,( 22)1, PP.13-22.

Capital Projects Division., 2011. Partnerships Victoria Project Summary. Victorian Desalination Project. Victoria: CSR.

Lock, D. , 2007. Project management. New York: Gower Publishing.

Newbold, C. ,1998. Project Management in the Fast Lane; Applying the Theory of Constraints. New York: St. Lucie Publishers.

Pons, D.,2008. Project management for new product development.” Project Management Journal, (39)2 PP.82-97.

Dispute resolution procedure

Although there are different types of resolving the conflicting situations in the workplace, it is important to point out that the major patterns include adjudicative and consensual processes. The negotiations between management and unions are more typical for the later ones. In such a way, collaborative video conferencing that was conducted between the side of the Management and the side of the Union was a way to find a consensus in a particular situation.

It is also significant to underline that the two most influential factors, in this case, are strategy and interests. From the standpoint of the Management side, it is important to point out that our major interest, in the given situation, is to organize the working process of the employees in such a way that it is not only comfortable for them but also cost-efficient.

For that reason, the basis of our negotiating strategy for the dispute resolution procedure is both to show respect and interest in the side of Union, to convince them in the Management’s respect for employees. Overall, explaining how cost-efficiency will be a benefit not only for the company in general but also for its workers, in particular, as well. Thus, the strategy will be based on active listening and being supportive regarding the needs of employees, as well as convincing the visitors who represent the Union that the Management is ready to provide the best consensual option possible.

In such a way, the objective is to affirm the opposite side that our team is looking for a solution that is suitable for both sides and is acting in the interests of both the executives and company overall and employees themselves. The reason for that is that cost-efficiency incorporated daily will provide more additional benefits that the Union side is looking for in these negotiations. It is also important to point out that, the Management side is planning on reaffirming the issue that is discussed and making sure that the Union attempts to address the same problem. In the process of discussing conflicting points, especially those that are initiated by the Union team, the strategy is to listen actively to the suggestions they made.

However, the main point is that those suggestions should be accepted by both sides if they are consensual. In such a way, the management side will be able not only to employ the best suggestion and defend the idea of cost-efficiency as a priority but also to attempt to resolve the issue for a longer period.

Reflecting on the preparation and research process

The key issues for the team, its BATNA and Bargaining Zone

One of the key issues for the Management team is to make sure that our team is listening carefully to the suggestions made by the Union and tries to reaffirm all the issues with the employees. However, it is also important that the objective of our side is to preserve and extend the cost-efficiency of the working process in any circumstances. Thus, the issue is the freedom of the management to protect the aspects crucial for the company by supporting its cost-efficient approach. BATNA and bargaining zone are two variations of bargaining power that will be used in the process of negotiations.

Thus, our best alternative in the agreement that we reach during the negotiations is to provide additional benefits for the employees in terms of their vacations or sick leaves but to preserve cost-efficiency during the working process on the daily basis. In terms of the bargaining zone, our team is prepared to provide more flexibility in work hours.

The main issues for the opposing team

Overall, it is reasonable to suggest that the opposing team would be looking for a more flexible schedule for the employees and a rise in pay rates. While we can negotiate the former issue, the latter one is of great significance for our team because our strategy is based on being cost-effective.

Research for the negotiation and information sources

The basis of our team’s research will be to explore different negotiation practices and the current situation on the market. Even though there are a lot of theoretical approaches, it is also important for our team to consider a daily practice of the negotiations. For that reason, one of the major resources of our preparation is to examine the existing real-life cases of negotiating between companies and unions.

Founding the solutions

The solution was found from realizing that there is a need for a compromise because, in the modern business, environment the interests of employees are also important for the interests of the management. The job satisfaction and motivation to work also affect the performance and, therefore, enhance the cost-efficient approach.

The triggers of the negotiation

The major trigger of the negotiations, in this case, is the readiness of the Management side to listen carefully to the opposition and to reaffirm every issue with them.

The barriers to the negotiation

The biggest hindrance related to conflicting interests. In the situation, where the Union side considers the pay rates to be a crucial point of the negotiation, and the Management team’s main objective is to preserve it at the current level, finding consensus or even temporal compromise will be more difficult.

There are a lot of types of alternative dispute resolutions, such as mediation, executive tribunals, dispute review boards, engineer’s decision/determination, expert determination, statutory adjudication and dispute adjudication boards, and meetings of executives. According to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, mediation is defined as a confidentially conducted meeting held by a third party who is responsible for negotiations between two opponents.

Key issues of mediation are confidentiality and facilitative, the interests are more valued than rights. Mediation may be used at any stage of relationship development. Having many advantages, such as the possibility to identify the main issues between the parties and test the strengths of an argument, there are a number of disadvantages. One of the main disadvantages of mediation is that it does not guarantee a decision.

Executive Tribunals are one of the types of dispute resolutions when two parties present their best cases to the senior executive representatives from each of the parties. The presence of a neutral party is required. The decision is made on the basis of what is said. The main advantage of this way is that the parties focus on the most important issue. However, the solution is not guaranteed.

Dispute Review Boards are used at the beginning of any project. Usually created online, such a dispute board is visited daily, forgetting important information. Too varied variants and ideas may be presented that creates difficulties in searching for particular information defining the best solution to the problem. The engineer’s decision involves the professional idea of engineers. Having received a qualified opinion, the fault is in the fact that only the engineer’s part is reviewed. Expert determination applied to the professional opinion of an independent expert under whose point of view the decision is made. This procedure is confidential, each of the sides can present arguments for the issue, however, an expert opinion is central, and it is considered as the final one.

Speaking about adjudication, it should be stated that there are statutory adjudication, non statutory adjudication, and dispute adjudication boards. Statutory adjudication is referred to in case of cash flow problems. This type of resolution does not require any particular procedure, therefore the problems may appear. The decision making is usually made by layers depending on their interest in this case.

However, dwelling upon the general work of this type of alternative dispute resolution, it should be adjudicated by a dispute adjudication board. This organ should be turned to on the 28^th day after the parties have a conflict and decide to use the services of the dispute adjudication board. The procedure of solving a dispute with the use of a dispute adjudication board may be stated in the contract, otherwise, the specific rules applied by the Particular Conditions are to be followed.

A dispute adjudication board should give its decision within the following 84 days or within the deadline mentioned in the contract. Parties have the right to state their disagreement with the decision and sent it to the dispute adjudication board within 24 days after the decisions are taken. Otherwise, the decision is considered final. Dispute Review Boards do not give any decisions. This organ may just offer recommendations in accordance with a particular issue. This is the less formal type of alternative dispute resolution, however, it may be very effective if appropriately considered.

Introduction

In recent decades, the delivery of civil justice through traditional agreements have been attentively studied, challenged, and changed. Still, they can be not working in some situations or be costly for organizations. Therefore, there is a need for alternative processes to litigation in the resolution of disputes. One of the approaches that have the potential to manage conflicts with minimal losses for all the parties involved in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The concept of ADR does not have a unified definition and there are arguments about the application of this term. Moreover, the use of ADR methods will differ depending on a company and the region where a company operates (Munk, 2016). Still, it is commonly accepted as a complex of alternatives to litigation, which comprise diverse methods. This paper identifies the key terms related to the concept of ADR, discusses the various methods of ADR used in the practice of conflict management, and addresses the case “John at the Bureau of Reclamation” applying the ADR principles and methods.

Key Terms

It is necessary to determine and define the major terms that are important for further analysis of the concept of ADR. These terms include ADR itself, ADR continuum, negotiation, open-door policy, mediation, case evaluation, peer review, arbitration, and ombudsman. Alternative dispute resolution refers to “a host of processes that serve as alternatives to costly and adversarial litigation, including mediation, arbitration, the use of an ombudsman, and others” (Raines, 2013, p. 80). ADR continuum, in turn, is a sequence of steps or methods from the most cost-efficient to the most expensive that can be used to manage conflict.

Negotiation is a term that is applied to characterize a process that happens between two or more independent parties involved in a conflict when there is an opportunity to come to a favorable negotiated outcome that cannot be achieved unilaterally. An open-door policy is explained as openness of a manager to hearing the problems of every employee, which implies that every employee can share a problem with any manager in an organization and the existing conflict will be resolved. Mediation can be described as “a process of facilitated negotiation” that involves a mediator, whose function is to assist the parties rather than judge in their civil, productive discussion about resolving the dispute (Raines, 2013, p. 413).

Case evaluation is an ADR process in which a hired unbiased expert provides the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of every party involved in a conflict and predicts the outcomes for the court case (Raines, 2013). The peer-review technique is mainly used inside an organization to manage internal employment disputes about discrimination, demotions, improper termination, or other disciplinary actions.

Arbitration is one of the processes of ADR that involves a third-party expert hired by the parties involved in a conflict situation, who is expected to provide a neutral opinion and stimulate decision-making about the issue of dispute (Raines, 2013). Finally, an ombudsman is a specialist responsible for conflict management in an organization, who takes care of both internal disputes with employees and external ones with clients and other stakeholders.

Discussing the Various Methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Some diverse processes and techniques allow resolving disputes without resorting to the court. The ones that are considered most effective and are frequently used are included in the ADR Continuum. ADR continuum for workplace disputes includes six steps that are placed in order of increase of expenses in case of applying one of these steps. Thus, the cheapest ADR method is direct negotiation while arbitration is considered to be the most expensive. The other popular steps of the ADR continuum include open-door policy, mediation, case evaluation, and peer review.

Negotiation can be defined as communication for persuasion (Goldberg, Sander, Rogers, & Cole, 2014). It is commonly considered to be a preeminent mode of dispute resolution that precedes any other resolution procedures. According to Raines (2013), direct negotiation is the first step that should be taken to address the majority of workplace disputes. It implies direct discussions between the parties involved in a conflict.

Still, this method can be effective in case employees that have complaints possess good communication skills that allow conducting a productive discussion. For example, negotiation can be applied to resolve conflicts in family businesses when parties are interested in managing their disputes without litigation (Alderson, 2015). To empower negotiation as a leading conflict resolution method, companies should provide training of employee communicative skills.

An open-door policy is a next step in the ADR continuum if direct negotiation does not succeed. It is a method that implies that any employee can address any manager in an organization with a problem that he or she has to get assistance in its resolution (Raines, 2013). Still, the efficiency of this method greatly depends on the organizational culture. The fact that a company positions itself as the one implementing the policy of open communication does not mean that this policy works in practice. To assure the effectiveness of the open-door policy, a company should train managers and supervisors to provide them with the skills necessary for active listening and hearing the needs of employees and be ready to manage conflicts.

Mediation as a method of ADR is utilized when the open-door policy does not give the desired effect. Mediation is a process “of facilitated negotiation in which the mediator does not act as a judge but instead assists the parties as they strive to engage in a civil, productive conversation about how to resolve a dispute” (Raines, 2013, p. 82). This ADR method is aimed at rebuilding relationships between the parties involved in a conflict if there is an opportunity to preserve a continuing relationship. Usually, a mediator is expected to allow every party to present their views (Duursma, 2014). Based on these views, a mediator attempts to engage the parties in brainstorming to produce variants of conflict management. Therefore, mediation can be considered a problem-solving approach.

Case evaluation is an ADR process that involves an unbiased expert hired by an organization to evaluate the conflict situation in case other methods of ADR continuum are not effective. The task of the expert is to provide the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both conflicting parties and predicts the most probable outcomes if the case is not resolved within a company and goes to the court (Raines, 2013). This evaluation is not directive and the parties do not have to accept it as guidance (Blake, Browne, & Sime, 2016). Still, they can use the conclusions of the expert to settle their dispute. Moreover, case evaluation provides an outlook on problem resolution and its worse possible outcome.

Peer review is a process frequently utilized within organizational settings. It is common for internal employment disputes about such problems as “discrimination, wrongful termination, demotions, claims of favoritism or nepotism, or employee appeals of other disciplinary actions” (Raines, 2013, p. 84). The purpose of this method is to evaluate the fairness of employees’ treatment by an organization as a whole and its managers or supervisors in particular. However, to make this process effective, peer reviewers should have a short training about the process itself as well as the problem in focus.

Arbitration is a final step of the ADR continuum. It is a process of dispute resolution that demands hiring third-party experts to provide an unbiased decision and act as a private judge. This method is more popular within unionized organizations (Raines, 2013). Still, arbitration does not create a legal precedent and differs from court cases. Binding arbitration is a major form of arbitration. It is utilized in case all parties involved in the process agree to follow the findings of the arbitrator. Nonbinding arbitration is less common and implies the acceptance of the arbitrator’s conclusions as advisory.

Particular attention should be paid to resolving disputes within groups or teams because they usually involve more than two opponents, which searches for a solution that satisfies everyone more complicated. For example, Dodoiu (2015) suggests cooperative conflict resolution in groups as an effective approach. Jehn, Rispens, Jonsen, and Greer (2013) claim that conflict contagion can be applied to deal with the development of conflict within teams. Conflict contagion is treated as a model that involves a multi-level perspective to manage a process of intragroup conflict by revealing the mechanisms of the spread of interpersonal, dyadic conflict to other members of the team.

Finally, it is important to consider leadership styles about conflict resolution. Thus, Saeed, Almas, Anis-ul-Haq, and Niazi (2014) suggest that leadership styles predetermine the conflict management styles that managers apply. For example, one of the styles that have the potential to eliminate or at least reduce the incidence of prejudice and conflict between subgroups is constructive leaderships (Hogg, 2015).

Addressing the Case at Hand

The case under consideration involves an application for an open position in mid-level management who was not accepted. The manager who interviewed the applicants is sure he selected the best individual for the position but he had to refuse three other candidates who also had suitable qualifications and could have performed well in the same position. As a result, one of the applicants, a woman named Doris, has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

She claims that she had faced discrimination based on race and gender. Still, the organization where John works is eager to resolve this conflict in a less costly and time-consuming manner. To achieve this goal, the organizational ombudsman is involved and is expected to provide recommendations for dispute resolution.

The ombudsman can recommend the following approaches to manage the conflict with an applicant. First of all, alternative dispute resolution methods should be applied to find a satisfactory solution for this case. If the applicant was an employee of an organization, the peer review process could have been applied. Still, the woman is just an applicant, and peer-reviewing is not applicable. One of the ADR models that are commonly utilized for equal employment opportunities complaint process is mediation. It usually implies an informal meeting where the conflicting parties are invited. The peculiarity of this method is that it is conducted by a mediator who is neutral and unbiased.

A mediator is expected to have special training and be able to help people who have disagreements about some ideas talk to each other and share the accusations they have. However, the mediator does not act as a judge. The mediator is not the person who decides who is right or wrong among the parties and does not provide a direct decision. The mediator’s role is to help the parties develop their effective solutions to resolve the dispute. Thus, Dorys can be invited to a meeting with the company representative with the participation of an independent mediator. She will have an opportunity to present her claims and listen to the reasons for a company representative for not hiring her for this position. In case she is a valuable employee, the company can suggest another post.

Conclusion

On the whole, alternative dispute resolution is a complex of methods that are used to provide effective solutions that are satisfactory for all the parties involved with minimal waste of time and costs. The choice of a method depends on the nature of an issue that caused a conflict and the expected results. The scope of methods varies from negotiation to arbitration and in case one of the processes does not help, another one can be attempted. Generally, ADR is considered to be an effective approach to resolving conflict situations in different settings, which has the potential to reduce expenses and time wasted in case a problem is resolved in the court.

References

Alderson, K. (2015). Conflict management and resolution in family-owned businesses: A practitioner focused review. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(2), 140-156.

Blake, S. H., Browne, J., & Sime, S. (2016). A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution (3rd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Dodoiu, G. (2015). Intentions for cooperative conflict resolution in groups: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Team Performance Management, 21(5/6), 259-273.

Duursma, A. (2014). A current literature review of international mediation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(1), 81-98.

Goldberg, S. B., Sander, F. E. A., Rogers, N. H., & Cole, S. R. (2014). Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation and other processes (6th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Hogg, M. (2015). Constructive leadership across groups: How leaders can combat prejudice and conflict between subgroups. Advances in Group Processes, 32, 177-207.

Jehn, K., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. (2013). Conflict contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 352-373.

Munk, R. (2016). Alternative dispute resolution. In CER comparative European research 2016: Proceedings of a conference (pp. 58-61). London, Great Britain: Sciemcee Publishing.

Raines, S. (2013). Conflict management for managers, resolving workplace, client, and policy disputes. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Saeed, T., Almas, S., Anis-ul-Haq, A., & Niazi, G. (2014). Leadership styles: Relationship with conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(3), 214-225.

As a method of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR), mediation is used as a way for parties to work towards a mutually acceptable agreement. According to Lau and Johnson (2019), in mediation, authority to settle the dispute is not vested in a neutral party. Instead, the parties themselves have an ability to even terminate the mediation in cases of them believing it is not working. Mediation only suits those who wish to participate in the process and is aimed at achieving a win-win result for the parties concerned.

Therefore, mediation as a preferred ADR seems to be a perfect option to solve disputes between employees and their employers regarding, for instance, workplace conditions or promotion grievances. The reason for that is that it is in the interest of both parties to resolve the issue in such a way that the other one remains satisfied. In the case of examples mentioned above, the employer is likely to want to settle a problem without losing a valuable asset. While the employee is likely to want to have their objection addressed without either losing their job or falling out of favor with their boss.

Like all dispute resolution forms, mediation has a number of both benefits and drawbacks. In terms of advantages, the most prominent one is the ability to reach a win-win result: it is unlikely that either party in any situation would disagree with such an outcome. Moreover, for instances spoken about above, voluntary character of participation, confidentiality of the process, and the reduction of costs in comparison to litigation are all definite benefits (Boundless, 2016). However, there are disadvantages as well, the main of them being the inability of this method to work if even one of the disputants is not willing to resort to mediation. Additionally, according to Boundless (2016), even in cases of an agreement being reached, the non-binding nature of mediation leaves room for the changing of decision. For example, an employee asking for promotion or advancement of workplace conditions may ask for an alteration of the original terms on which they and their employer initially agreed. In such cases, disputes might have to be pursued through different methods of ADR or even through litigation.

References

Boundless. (2016). Boundless management. Lumen Learning.

Lau, T., Johnson, L. C. (2019). The legal and ethical environment of business. Flat World Knowledge, Incorporated.