Alternative Dispute Resolution Adr: Employers Experiences With Adr in the Workplace
Contains: reasons for using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); the types of ADR that have made available to employees through procedures other than those under collective bargaining agree., & the extent to which they have put these ADR processes in place; & the results achieved by using ADR. Examines a number of private companies & fed. agencies &: their experiences in planning & implementing ADR processes; the extent to which they evaluated their ADR processes & to which they reported that these processes have been successful in resolving workplace disputes; & the lessons they learned in planning, implementing, & evaluating their ADR processes.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
according acus administrative redress system adr Center adr methods adr processes adr program adr techniques agencies we studied Alternative Dispute Resolution American Arbitration Association arbitration program Associated With Redress binding arbitration board process Brown & Root collective bargaining agreements cost savings Developing ADR dispute resolution adr dispute resolution boards dispute resolution processes dispute resolution specialist Disputes and Lessening eeo counselors eeoc Equal Employment Opportunity evaluating their adr external mediation federal agencies federal employees federal sector filed fiscal grievances Hughes Electronics Illustration Interagency adr Consortium involved issues Lessons Learned mediation services mediation training North Florida ombudsman organizations we studied peer panels percent pilot Polaroid private and federal private firms private sector companies Redress and Litigation Reed Army Medical reported resolution rates resolve formal resolving officials resolving workplace disputes s/eeocr Seattle Interagency ADR settlement supervisors survey traditional process TRW Inc U. S. Department U.S. Air Force Walter Reed
Page 27 - Relations, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and to the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on International Relations.
Page 17 - ... (3) An agency may not require any person to consent to arbitration as a condition of entering into a contract or obtaining a benefit. (b) An officer or employee of an agency...
Page 34 - Member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight...
Page 76 - Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team (Feb.
Page 11 - Part 1614] which may not involve discrimination issues at all. They reflect, rather, basic communications problems in the workplace. Such issues may be brought into the EEO process as a result of a perception that there is no other forum available to air general workplace concerns.
Page 24 - In a de novo trial, a matter is tried anew as if it had not been heard before. The 'Mixed Case" Scenario As we testified in July 1996, the most frequently cited example of jurisdictional overlap in the redress system is the so-called "mixed case...
Page 19 - Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employers' Experiences With ADR in the Workplace (GAO/GGD97-157, Aug. 12, 1997), we reported that data from two federal agencies we studied indicated that ADR processes, by resolving discrimination complaints in their early stages, had reduced the number of formal complaints filed as well as the time required for seeing them through to resolution. More recent data from the Postal Service showed that during the first 10 months of fiscal year 1999, a formal complaint...
Page 12 - It may be binding on the parties, either through agreement or operation of law, or it may be non-binding in that the decision is only advisory.
Page 4 - ... such as discrimination or retaliation for whistleblowing. But the redress system — especially insofar as it affects workplace disputes involving claims of discrimination — has been criticized by federal managers, as well as by employee representatives, as adversarial, inefficient, time consuming, and costly.