Resolving Disputes Using Mediation or Arbitration

Mediation vs. Arbitration When it comes to resolving conflicts and situations that arise while engaging in business, the two common remedies that often become obvious and available are mediation and arbitration. When using those words in a normal context, they are related but mean two entirely different things due to the voluntary (or involuntary) nature of the proceedings. There is also the consideration of who (or who is not) empowered to make any resolutions or final calls as to who should win out in a dispute.

While there are upsides and downsides to each approach, both mediation and arbitration have their place and can be very useful. When it comes to mediation, the advantages are that people can come to a mutually agreed to meeting and discuss what is going on and what can be done to fix a situation without involving a judge or any other decider that will just make a decision based on the merits of each case rather than allowing a solution to come through mutual consent and agreement.

With mediation, the solution that comes to pass is typically agreed to by all parties and thus there is less acrimony and bad feelings. This does not mean that all parties will get all they want but that can actually happen if the circumstances are right and proper. However, arbitration is there for situations where an agreement cannot or will not come to pass.

If there is an impasse that needs to be fixed on a deadline and/or there is a situation where the two (or more) sides will not come to agreement, having arbitration from a disinterested third party is probably the best way to go. Further, there can be a blend between mediation and arbitration in that the moderator can try to facilitate the two parties mediating the dispute amongst the parties with a little help.

However, if there is simply no progress being made, than that same person (or another person) can be the one to make a judgment call and pick a solution that is seemingly the best (ADR, 2015; Shachar, 2011; McLean & Wilson, 2011). The two methods combined, those being mediation and arbitration, can create a synergy because of the net gain made by combining them. Synergy basically means that the sum of the parts is less than what is truly gained by combining them.

In other words, having mediation on its own may solve some issues and indeed would work for situations where the two or more parties can work out a solution without something being forced or judged. Conversely, arbitration ensures that a solution will be found but it basically precludes mediation as an option because the decision is forced based on whomever is deciding and how they see things.

A combination of the two allows for some flexibility whereby a solution can be mediated and found voluntarily if the sides involved are willing and able to come to one. However, if that possible for some reason, there will definitely be an end point that comes even if the parties will not mutually agree to a solution (ADR, 2015; Shachar, 2011; McLean & Wilson, 2011).

To offer some insight and to drill a bit deeper, having a blended mediation and arbitration approach is the way to go because not all situations are going to work out neatly and completely in short fashion. For example, some union/employer spats get very nasty and this can lead to some very unfavorable events.

While forcing arbitration and a solution is not usually possible or called for, there are situations where it must be such as when the employees involved are in the public safety sphere such as police, firefighters or air traffic controllers. On the other hand, not having mediation is not the way to go because just having someone look at the situation and making an equitable judgment actually constrains and limits the different solutions that can be found to a problem.

While arbitration may find a certain end to a problem, there are potential other solutions that could be found through mutual understanding and that can really only be found through mediation. It would be akin to a criminal offender copping to a lesser crime so as to spare the victims a trial and to take a lower sentence.

The alternative is to force a trial and open up some mental wounds, not to mention it costs everybody a lot more money and time that can be saved by finding a punishment that is lesser but more expedient and favorable to everyone involved (ADR, 2015; Shachar, 2011; McLean & Wilson, 2011). Conclusion A key condition that has to be in place for mediation and arbitration to work in concert is that the arbitration part of the.