First, read the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures. Then, from your reading, answer the following:

1. What do you think would constitute an effective alternative dispute resolution system?
2. What benefits would you expect from such a system?
3. If you were asked to rule on a discharge (firing) case, what facts would you analyze in deciding whether to uphold or reverse the employer's action?

P.D: iF YOU CITATE ANYTHING FROM THE Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures please add the reference at the end

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

In unionized workplaces, grievance procedures are stated in virtually all labor agreements. In nonunion organizations, however, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods are often used. ADR methods address employee discharges and complaints outside of court, which is generally faster and cheaper for both parties. Employers often ask workers to sign ADR agreements when they receive their offer letters or sign their employee handbooks.

Although the right to require employees to sign ADR agreements is supported by court decisions, to be enforceable, these agreements must be fair and equitable to both employees and employers. Employers can't "stack the deck" against employees by imposing rules on employees that clearly favor the employer. As one legal expert has noted, "As much as possible, the agreement should provide employees with the same rights and remedies that they would have enjoyed had their day in court been available to them." Next we will look at some of the different types of alternative dispute resolution methods organizations use.

Step-Review Systems

A step-review system is based on a preestablished set of stepsnormally fourfor thereview of an employee's complaint by successively higher levels of management. These procedures are patterned after the union grievance systems we will discuss in Chapter14. For example, they usually require that the employee's complaint be formalized as a written statement. Managers at each step are required to provide a full response to the complaint within a specified time period, perhaps 3 to 5 working days.

An employee is sometimes allowed to bypass meeting with their immediate supervisor if the employee fears reprisal from this person. Unlike appeal systems in unionized organizations, however, nonunion appeal procedures ordinarily do not provide for a neutral third partysuch as an arbitratorto serve as the judge of last resort. In most step-review systems, the president, chief executive officer, vice president, or HR director acts as the final authority, and this person's decision cannot be appealed. Some organizations give employees assistance in preparing their complaint cases. For example, an employee who desires it may be able to get advice and counsel from a designated person in the HR department before discussing the issue with management.

Peer-Review Systems

A peer-review system, also called a complaint committee, is composed of equal numbers of employee and management representatives. The employees on the committee are normally elected by secret ballot by their coworkers for a rotating term, whereas the managers are assigned, also on a rotating basis. A peer-review system functions as a jury because its members weigh evidence, consider arguments, and, after deliberation, vote independently to render a final decision. The peer-review system can be used as the sole method for resolving employee complaints, or it can be used in conjunction with a step-review system. For example, if 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. A benefit of the peer-review system is the sense of justice that it creates among employees.

Open-Door Policy

The idea behind an open-door policy is that to facilitate communication and the free exchange of ideas, every manager's office door should be open to every employee. Such a policy is also an old standby method for settling employee complaints. In an organization that has such a policy, an employee is allowed to contact various managers above their immediate supervisor for various reasons, including grievances; these levels may extend as high as a vice president, president, or chief executive officer. The person who acts as "the court of last resort" is the HR director or a senior staff official.

Open-door policies can lead to some problems, however. For example, some managers do not like to listen honestly to employee complaints. As an employee once told the authors of this text, "My manager has an open-door policy, but the door is only open one inch." Because of this, employees are often reluctant to approach managers with their problems. One way to make an open-door policy work better is to ensure employees with grievances first try to work out their problems with their immediate supervisors before contacting higher-up managers. This way, the chain of command isn't violated, and the supervisor of the employee who aired the grievance does not feel as if they were not given a chance to resolve the issue.

Ombud System

An ombud is a designated individual from whom employees may seek counsel for the resolution of their complaints. The ombud listens to an employee's complaint and attempts to resolve it by seeking an equitable solution between the employee and the supervisor. Because the ombud has no authority to finalize a solution to the problem, compromises are highly possible, and all parties concerned tend to feel satisfied with the outcome.

To function successfully, the ombud must be able to operate in an atmosphere of confidentiality that does not threaten the security of the managers or subordinates who are involved in a complaint. It is recommended that these personnel have access to high levels of management to ensure that employee complaints receive fair treatment.

Mediation

Along with arbitration, mediation is fast becoming a popular way to resolve employee complaints. During mediation, which is also discussed in Chapter 14 in conjunction with labor agreements, a neutral person (mediator) helps employees and managers negotiate and reach a voluntary agreement that is acceptable to both parties. The essence of mediation is compromise. The mediator holds a meeting with the employee and management, listens to the position of each side, gathers facts, and then through discussion, suggestions, and persuasion obtains an agreement that satisfies the needs and requirements of both sides.

A mediator serves primarily as a fact finder and as an open channel of communication between the parties. Unlike arbitrators, mediators have no power or authority to force either side toward an agreement. In consequence, they must use their communication skills and the power of persuasion to help the parties resolve their differences. A cornerstone of mediation is that the parties maintain control over the settlement outcome.

Arbitration

Private employers may require that employees settle their disputes through arbitration.81 Arbitration, which is fully explained in Chapter 14, works like this: The employee and employer present their cases, or arguments, to an arbiter, who is typically a retired judge. The arbiter then makes a decision that the parties have agreed to be bound by. Arbitration is used primarily to resolve discrimination suits related to age, gender, sexual harassment, and race. Other workplace issues, such as promotions, compensation, discipline, and application of company policies, can also be arbitrated if an employer's arbitration program allows it.

While arbitration agreements normally mandate that employees arbitrate their discrimination claims and may prevent workers from suing their employers in court, they cannot prohibit employees from filing discrimination charges with the EEOC and other government agencies in an effort to pursue their statutory rights. In EEOC v. Waffle House Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even when an employee has signed a mandatory arbitration agreement, if it chooses to, the EEOC can file a suit in its own name and recover monetary damages for the individual.

Reference

Snell, S., & Morris, S. (2022). Managing Human Resources. 19th ed. Cengage Learning.