Hello everyone, During week 3, I chose to write about a dispute involving a coworker. We both run different departments and have other interests concerning accomplishing our goals. The issue was his approving leave days for people I must fly during critical training periods. In short, he was approving leave for some individuals, which made it impossible for me to support the tasks I needed to. Although neither binding nor incentive arbitration would be possible for this dispute since it takes place in the military, I would suggest binding arbitration would be best. The arbitrator would understand that my interests in the matter are of greater importance than those of my coworkers. After all, if I can't properly support the flight schedule, the entire unit fails to maintain proficiency and can become ineffective at the end of the day. The arbitrator's decision would be legally binding, ensuring we don't run into the same problem again. Although my responsibilities are much more complex than those of my peers, I prefer that mutual limits be adhered to during the arbitration. He has a job to do as well, and even though our duties are different, there are still many similarities in mission accomplishment. We both share successes and failures. The mutual limits set beforehand ensure that we both get a fair shake at the process and that arbitration is unbiased. He could argue that his leave approvals are a right of his personnel, while I say that they can't take the le