This paper will discuss the benefits of using ADR within the workplace and will also address the many forms of ADR that can be chosen based on what would best fit the dispute. This paper will also provide an example of the use of ADR in the workplace and how the dispute was handled and resolved. It will also discuss how ADR avoided further litigation.
Alternative Dispute ResolutionAlternative dispute resolution ADR encourages the settlement of a dispute between parties in a less formal atmosphere than a court room with the assistance of a third party, often called a mediator.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Unlike litigation ADR is based upon the notion of an early settlement agreement, which aims at increased participation and increased control for the parties who are involved.
Given the continually increasing costs of litigation in terms of money, time and resources, organizations are increasingly showing a preference towards alternative dispute resolution. Options for ADRAlternative dispute resolution has many forms in which the parties in a case may choose to use. Arbitration involves a third party, called the arbitrator who is a neutral party to both sides. During ADR the arbitrator listens to each side and makes a decision that is known as a reward, which both parties will hopefully agree on.
The benefits of arbitration is that it is the least expensive and less time consuming then going to court. Other forms of ADR have similar benefits. Mediation and Conciliation also involves two parties and a mediator. The mediator will address the situation and try to decide on an agreement that the two parties will accept.
If they do not accept they will have to go to court. The two parties having the dispute will present their cases to the neutral party separately and meet after the presentation to settle their claims. Fact-finding occurs when a neutral party is hired to investigate the disputing claims.
They will then report to the other party about his or her findings. After reporting, the neutral party will make a recommendation of what settlement may occur. With this use of a Judicial Referee, a private trial can be conducted and the referee can make a decision.
Dispute in the OrganizationLarge organizations, such as a pharmaceutical corporation are showing a preference towards alternative dispute resolution due to the increasing litigation costs. With so many employees from all different backgrounds the chance of a major conflict is inevitable. In order to handle a situation between employees, ADR was introduced by the human resource department as a way to resolve conflict without having to take the issue any further then the mediation room.
Mediation also allows both parties to reach an amicable outcome. It encourages creativity in the resolution process. Addressing the IssueAn example of the ADR that the pharmaceutical company faced was when one employee accused another of sexual harassment.
Instead of filing charges and going to court it was decided to use mediation, to save time, money, and be less stressful for both the parties. The mediator is the neutral advisory of both parties. He or she will let the two parties know their options on settling and advises the parties on the outcome if they should choose to go to court.
In this case a woman was accused of sexual harassment against a male co-worker. They had worked in the same department, dated each other and the relationship ended on bad terms. The woman was accused of stalking and harassment both inside and outside of the workplace. They both were also logging into each others files and emails in order to gain information to use against each other.
This sometimes happens when the conflict reaches a hurting stalemate -- a situation where it becomes clear that neither side can win; yet, they are being substantially hurt by continuing the struggle. For many reasons, advocates of ADR believe that it is superior to lawsuits and litigation. First, ADR is generally faster and less expensive. It is based on more direct participation by the disputants, rather than being run by lawyers, judges, and the state. In most ADR processes, the disputants outline the process they will use and define the substance of the agreements.
This type of involvement is believed to increase people's satisfaction with the outcomes, as well as their compliance with the agreements reached. Most ADR processes are based on an integrative approach.
They are more cooperative and less competitive than adversarial court-based methods like litigation. For this reason, ADR tends to generate less escalation and ill will between parties. In fact, participating in an ADR process will often ultimately improve, rather than worsen, the relationship between the disputing parties. This is a key advantage in situations where the parties must continue to interact after settlement is reached, such as in child custody or labor management cases.
ADR does have many potential advantages, but there are also some possible drawbacks and criticisms of pursuing alternatives to court-based adjudication. As a result, these people are less likely to truly "win" a case because of the cooperative nature of ADR. Similarly, critics believe that ADR encourages compromise. Compromise can be a good way to settle some disputes, but it is not appropriate for others. In serious justice conflicts and cases of intolerable moral difference, compromise is simply not an option because the issues mean too much to the disputants.
Another concern is that ADR settlements are private and are not in the public record or exposed to public scrutiny. This could be cause for concern in some cases. For example, using ADR to settle out of court could allow a company to resolve many instances of a defective product harming consumers, without the issue getting any public exposure.
On the other hand, a court ruling could force the company to fix all problems associated with the bad product or even to remove it from the market. Goldberg and others, Dispute Resolution , 3rd ed. Little, Brown and Company, Use the following to cite this article: Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Check out our Quick Start Guide. Don't miss upcoming posts, signup for the Newsletter.
What is Alternative Dispute Resolution? "Alternative dispute resolution" (ADR) is a term generally used to refer to informal dispute resolution processes in which the parties meet with a professional third party who helps them resolve their dispute in a way that is less formal and often more consensual than is done in the courts.
- This essay will provide a detailed examination of what Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, particularly mediation, the various techniques of ADR, the advantages and .
There are variety kind of ADR can be used.6 Types And Contribution of Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employment Cases Employment cases is a case which can be consider has long used of ADR. Australia and New-Zealand. conciliation and freebtcoincoin.tkank. which are Canada. mediation. Alternative Dispute Resolution Essay There are various ways of settling disputes without using the civil courts, these are knows as Alternative Dispute Resolution, or ADR which are used mainly in construction, family, commercial and employment issues.
Alternative dispute resolution in civil disputes. In order to explore this question effectively it is necessary to establish what Alternative Dispute Resolution is, the reason for its creation and its involvement in civil disputes. One of the main disadvantages of the official legal proceedings is access to justice. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is an important part of a court’s structure in that it allows disputes to be resolved without the need for litigation or further legal action. This paper will discuss the benefits of using ADR within the workplace and will also address the many forms of ADR that can be chosen based on what would best fit the dispute.