Table of ContentsRelationshipsDifferences Between Conciliation and ArbitrationAssignment of BlameIncreased ControlFinancial CostsFuture ConcernsFunctions of Mediation in Industrial Relations NegotiationsFostering Better CommunicationEmphasis on compromiseDeveloping a problem-solving mindsetMediation in collective bargainingConclusionRelationshipsTraditionally, industrial relations in Australia are governed by the process of arbitration. Dispute resolution and collective bargaining arrangements were all determined by the courts and/or the Industrial Relations Tribunal. However, over the past three decades, the process of conciliation (mediation) has gained popularity as a mechanism for maintaining industrial harmony. This essay will be structured into 6 main divisions. First, the introduction will provide context on the evolution of conciliation and definitions of conciliation and its counterpart, arbitration. The second section of the essay will examine the key differences between conciliation and arbitration that have led to the former playing a more influential role in industrial relations. The third part of the essay will discuss the different functions that mediation plays in industrial relations. The fourth section of the report will examine how collective agreements can best be interpreted through conciliation. Finally, the conclusion will weigh the arguments and determine the role that conciliation plays in Australian industrial relations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayAccording to Vessenes (1996), “mediation is one of the techniques known as alternative dispute resolution ( ADR), designed to avoid costly litigation. This is a voluntary process in which a neutral third-party mediator helps the parties find common ground and negotiate a final settlement agreement.” On the other hand, Beach (1980) best describes arbitration as a process in which "the arbitrator (or arbitration committee) conducts a formal quasi-judicial hearing during which union and labor negotiators employer present witness statements, arguments and supporting documentary evidence.” of their respective positions. Some time later, the arbitrator (or panel) issues a legally binding decision. “Differences between conciliation and arbitration” Meyer (1979) argues that “mediation and arbitration have conceptually nothing in common. One [mediation] is to help people decide for themselves, the other is to help them by deciding for them.” The integrative nature of mediation, compared to arbitration, has given the former greater visibility as a means of resolving disputes in Australian industrial relations. arbitration. Fulton (1989) argues that “the mediator's efforts are not aimed at identifying which adversary is right and which is wrong. Rather, the goal of the mediator is to dissipate any private antagonism that may exist between the parties and to arrive at a solution.” On the other hand, the primary goal of arbitrators is to evaluate all evidence put forward relating to a particular dispute and render a distributive judgment in favor of one entity over another. Greater controlIt can be said that conciliation offers employees the opportunity to determine their own outcomes to which they must commit. Plant (1997) argues that “the main reason value is created through mediation is party control. Unlike contradictory processes,mediation is based on the control of the parties themselves over the resolution of their problem. The parties themselves create a solution; it is not imposed on them by a third party, that is to say a judge, a jury or an arbitrator. Thus, the opportunity to find a win-win situation is virtually unlimited.” Cohen (1999) supports Plant's assertions by stating that “the use of mediation helps the parties commit to implementing the resolution. Studies have indicated that parties are more likely to follow negotiated solutions rather than imposed solutions. » Arguably, mediation has gained greater influence as a means of maintaining industrial harmony because the parties involved can maintain control over the outcome, agreeing only if they wish and on the terms that they wish. they consider to be in their interest. Financial costs It should be noted that there is a limited amount of research that actively supports the argument that conciliation saves time and money compared to arbitration. In both cases, assumptions must be made in order to validate the argument. Vessenes (1996) supports this argument by stating that “mediation is generally less costly than arbitration and litigation. Often the parties handle the matter themselves, without legal assistance, and the quick resolution time also helps reduce expenses. These potential savings appear attractive for companies because the concern to maximize profits while seeking industrial harmony is a major prerogative of modern organizations. However, Feuille (1992), in his research, indicated that “the savings identified in the various studies are very uncertain”. Future Concerns It is safe to say that referees are primarily concerned with evaluating what has already happened. Furthermore, anything that cannot be proven by supporting evidence cannot be said to have happened. Therefore, it is likely that the conflicting decision risks tearing apart relations between workers. As a result, the future of worker cohesion is in serious question. On the other hand, conciliation is strongly concerned with the future. Fulton (1989) believes that "the role of the mediator is to get the parties to commit to respecting an agreement that emanates from their own negotiations, that is to say that the interest of the mediator is to create a structure for the future relations of the parties. rather than in personal stories.” In order to preserve future working relationships, conciliation would be the most attractive process as it is least likely to compromise future organizational harmony. Functions of Mediation in Industrial Relations Negotiations The mediation process has the capacity to perform several functions in industrial relations negotiations. Mediation is not only seen as a way to achieve compromise in a dispute, but it is also a way to facilitate greater trust and communication. Additionally, it provides a basis for conflicting parties to develop a problem-solving attitude. Fostering Greater CommunicationUSA Today (1994) argues that "the heart of mediation - and the reason it is so effective - - is that it is an open, direct, non-committal approach." an absurd approach of bringing parties together to air their grievances and advance their interests.” Heated conflicts in the workplace or industrial field often lead to a lack of communication and a subsequent lack of trust between the conflicting parties. Therefore, finding a solution withoutthe intervention of a third party is very difficult. However, conciliation provides parties with the opportunity to informally discuss and disclose their interests and views instead of emphasizing conflicting positions. Fischer and Ury (1981) support this assertion by stating that “interests motivate people; they are the silent engines behind the hubbub of positions. From Fischer and Ury's perspective, reconciling interests with a mediator has the potential to motivate individuals to increase their communication. In doing so, Plant (1997) argues that “parties will better understand each other's interests and needs if they communicate directly.” By mediating the dispute, both parties have the opportunity to raise levels of communication, which is an essential step in dispute resolution. Increased levels of effective communication also provide a means of rebuilding the level of trust and commitment in the working relationship. The mediator has the possibility, through effective and open discussion, to eliminate grudges, personal recriminations and sources of irritation during his meetings, replacing them with an atmosphere of conviviality and cooperation which will encourage him to regain the trust. Cohen (1999) believes that mediation can “improve working relationships between conflicting parties. By helping them resolve their problem, the manager can facilitate constructive management of conflict situations that can go well beyond the current problem. Through mediation, entities have the opportunity to rebuild trust that was lost throughout the conflict in order to maintain close working relationships now and in the future. Emphasis on CompromiseMediation also serves the function of emphasizing and inhibiting compromise in a dispute. . The mediator can exercise several influence strategies that will guarantee a compromise for the parties in conflict. Provis (1997) suggests several tactics to achieve this goal. For example, "making substantial suggestions for compromise, pressuring one or both parties to change their negotiating positions or settlement expectations, strongly criticizing one or both parties for their intransigent behavior” Guyatt (1999) supports this assertion by advocating that “The mediator will emphasize to both parties the importance of accepting the need for compromise in order to reach a successful agreement. The mediator is skilled at suggesting creative solutions that meet some, but not all, of each party's aspirations and which can often enable both parties to ultimately be able to proceed, or even dismantle. 'expand, their prior agreement. existing commercial relationship. The ability to compromise reinforces to the conflicting parties that the goal of the mediation process is to establish a “win-win” outcome. Developing a clean problem-solving mindset. Without mediation, it would be very difficult to develop a problem-solving mindset. In most cases, the dispute would escalate and the conflicting parties would vie for positions and develop an “attack and defense” mentality. However, through communication and negotiation, conflicting parties can easily adopt a problem-solving mentality and commit to resolving the issues causing the conflict. Wan (1999) supports this assertion by believing that "in general, mediation is therefore a cooperative problem-solving process, designed to help parties find constructive solutions to their problems rather than to enforce their legal rights." For example, a..