The existence of different disputes and misunderstandings in the modern world is impossible to avoid and coming out of the civilized society and ethical rules, which exist, the conflicts should be decided amicably. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy is provided in every governmental institution with the aim to improve the technique of the dispute decisions and to make the procedure clear and predictable. There is no universal and ideal system of decision making, and in order to give some evidence of the mentioned fact, the investigation of several Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies should be evaluated and compared in the following paper.
The distinctive feature of the Alternative Dispute Resolution is that it is “not a trial”, it may be defined as the “resolution to a dispute” (Atlas, Huber, & Trachte-Huber, 2000, p. 2). The main aim of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy is to make the participants of the dispute come to any agreement, and the policy is necessary in the cases of the governmental affair when all solutions should be evaluated and all the decisions weighted. The concrete procedure of dispute resolution is put in strict frames with the aim to give similar opportunities for all members of the conflict and to provide the decision-making according to the fixed structure.
Providing the comparison of some USA Government sites, the similarities and differences within these sites are going to be discussed and the analysis of these policies is going to be represented according to the consideration of Goldberg (2007). The Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies cannot be equal and similar in their issues as there are no similar governmental departments where similar opinions are provided (Dauer, 2004). The decision-making is based on the principles and the specifics of the governmental institution which provides the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy.
The official sites of the following government establishments were researched and the analysis of their Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies was provided: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Federal Service Impasses Panel, and U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies of these sites are rather different, what is created by the different organization purposes.
Starring with U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007), it should be mentioned that the main form of the Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is used while deciding the contestable questions is the mediation, which means the “facilitative negotiation” (Stitt, 2004, p. 1). The process of dispute solution is provided with the help of the third neutral part, which aim is to solve the conflict. This third neutral party helps the employer and employee to resolve the existing problem and to reduce the costs for both.
The Federal Service Impasses Panel (2006) introduces their vision of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy, where the main device in the conflict decision is also mediation with the arbitration part or with the panel representative. In the case of the impossibility of the decision making the break is provided with the two days off and the conversation is continued within the closed doors. The very details of the discussion may vary and the decision about the details is left to the arbitrator of the case.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel (2008) introduces the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy on its site with the description of the meaning of mediation, the procedure of how this mediation works in general and the information about advantages of the mediation as the form of dispute resolution with the answers to the most frequent questions.
To the point, mediation is not the only type of the alternative dispute resolutions and different sources introduce different information about the theme, but the main types are as follows, open door policies, ombudsperson, peer review programs, step grievance procedures, mediation and arbitration (DelPo & Guerin, 2007). The types may be introduced separately, as it is in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007) and U.S. Office of Special Counsel (2008) institutions, and may be mingled, as it is in the Federal Service Impasses Panel (2006) government institution. The difference is in the instruments, which are used to maintain the problem, but the responsibility for the fair decision providing is the same.
Analyzing the mediation in the Goldberg’s book (2007) the first part attracts attention as the timing, which should be present in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy of every governmental institution is not stated on the mentioned sites. The clients’ desires to take up the third party in the decision making are taken into account on all the sites. The sites do not contain the information about the ways how the cases can be distributed to the mediation and on what stage of case decision. The sites give free access to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy and do not limit it.
The information on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (2008) is offered in the most advanced value, and visiting the site, all peculiarities of the procedure may be checked and developed. The most frequent questions are answered and the viewer should not search for the additional information and spare his/her free time. The discussed sites about the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies are similar as the main form of the dispute decision is taken for the base, but at the same time the informative fullness is different. The less information is introduced on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007) site and the fullest information about the procedure may be found on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (2008). The conclusion may be provided about the care and the attentive attitude to the clients and employees of the organization, which interests are usually advocated by means of the mentioned policies and the mediation method.
On the other hand, all the information cannot be provided on the site as mediation is creative process, which deals with the humanities, and the human factor is the most unpredictable (Fritz, 2007, p. 85). The main idea, which is presented on the discussed sites, fits the very definition of the mediation. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies do not introduce the very decisions to the eventual problems, as the main idea of the mediation is to give the opportunity for the compromising negotiations, to give the parties the opportunity to solve their problems and to be able to communicate on the equal terms (Breger, Schatz & Laufer, 2000, p. 436).
According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003), the sites of the official institutions should give the available information online about the cases which are on the discussion now, with the aim for the third party, OECD members in the case, to intrude in the discussion and to help to provide the right decision (p. 17). The measure should be provided as the mediation, as the form of Alternative Dispute Resolution, should be supported by the third part, which is not involved in the discussion and none of the parties is supported.
Two of the discussed sites are related to the employment area, and it is not surprising as the most frequent cases in the governmental administration are related to the labor theme, as the employer and the dismissed employee are unable to find the agreement without the third party intrusion (Estreicher, S. & Sherwyn, 2004). The disputes are based on the very reasons for dismiss, and the parties have absolutely different opinions about the discussed theme.
So, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies are very important issues in the conflicts decisions and become the guides and the supervisors in the process in order to provide the parties with the equal opportunities and fair decision. Mediation is the form of the alternative dispute resolution, which may be frequently used as the basic form of the dispute decision and the most reliable one. The sites of the governmental institutions in the obligatory form should possess the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies and give all the necessary information, which may be required in this or that case. The Policy is not the guide to the decision making in particular, it is the scheme, the schedule, according to which the decisions should be provided.
Reference List
Atlas, Nancy F., Huber, Stephen K., & Trachte-Huber, Wendy E. (2000). Alternative dispute resolution: the litigator’s handbook. American Bar Association, New York.
Breger, M. J., Schatz, G. S., & Laufer, D. S. (2000). Federal administrative dispute resolution desk book. American Bar Association, New York.
Dauer, E. A. (2004). Alternative dispute resolution: law and practice. Juris Publishing, Inc., Huntington.
DelPo, A. & Guerin, L. (2007). Dealing with problem employees: a legal guide. Nolo, California.
Estreicher, S. & Sherwyn, D. (2004). Alternative dispute resolution in the employment arena. Kluwer Law International, New York.
Fritz, J. M. (2007). International Clinical Sociology. Springer, New York.
Goldberg, S. B. (2007). Dispute resolution: negotiation, mediation, and other processes. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003) Privacy online: OECD guidance on policy and practice. OECD Publishing, New York.
Stitt, A. (2004). Mediation: a practical guide. Routledge, Oxford.
The Federal Service Impasses Panel. (2006). A guide: To Dispute Resolution Procedures Used by the Federal Service Impasses Panel. Web.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2007). Federal Sector Alternative Dispute Resolution. Web.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel. (2008). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Web.