Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Alternative dispute resolution benefits
Alternative dispute resolution benefits
Alternative dispute resolution benefits
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Alternative dispute resolution benefits
In Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the informal dispute resolution process, each involved party mutually agrees to meet with a professional third party to constructively and efficiently resolve their dispute rather than go to court. Through ADR, the parties are encouraged to engage in negotiations that promptly lead to the resolution of their dispute. The most common forms of ADR are mediation and arbitration. Although ADR is usually conducted on a voluntary basis, sometimes the courts require it before the case is taken to court.
Since the political and civil unrest in the 1960s, there has been a rapid growth of ADR in the United States. The new laws that protected individual rights and lack of tolerance for discrimination brought more people to lawsuits. The significant increase of lawsuits overloaded the court system with long delays. Mediation and arbitration became more popular as they alleviated some of the pressure on the court system. (Spangler, 2003)
Today, ADR is used in several types of disputes in the United States. One example of successful conflict resolution involved the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NIBCO, Inc. This resulted in a $750,000 settlement in 1996. The dispute lasted over two years and was close to an administrative hearing and possible litigation.
NIBCO is "a worldwide manufacturer of flow control products for residential, commercial construction, industrial, and irrigation markets." (NIBCO, Inc., 2007, 1) NIBCO's products are manufactured by pouring molten brass into sand molds. The sand is then contaminated with lead and cadmium leaching from the brass. At the facility in Nacogdoches, Texas, NIBCO added iron fillings to the sand and then disposed of it in a municipal landfill.
Using the guidelines outlined in their toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, EPA determined that the sand was hazardous waste. EPA also concluded that NIBCO was in violation of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations since the sand was not treated with a permit. NIBCO disagreed. Their position stated that the sand's treatment was part of the manufacturing process and not a waste; therefore, the treated sand was not hazardous waste.
Under authority of RCRA, EPA filed an administrative enforcement action seeking injunctive relief and a $2.2 million penalty from NIBCO. Both sides prepared their case for an administrative law judge. As the hearing date approached, NIBCO was willing to change their treatment and disposal procedures. However, both parties could not agree on a penalty amount.
NIBCO suggested mediation in order to avoid expense and the uncertainty of a hearing outcome.
the Environmental Protection Agency ordered General Electric Co. to spend $460 million to dredge PCBs it had dumped into the Hudson River in the past, perhaps the Bush administration's boldest environmental action to date. The decision was bitterly opposed by the company, but hailed by national conservation groups and many prominent and prosperous residents of the picturesque Hudson River Valley.
Meanwhile in Chapter Two, Lipsky et al. (2003) asserted that the rise of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the United States should be understood as “a phenomenon that is part of a new and emerging social contract.”(para 11). They further detailed the forces of change which seemingly led to the “reorganization of the way work is performed in U.S. companies” (Chapter 2, Forces of Change). Then they closed the chapter by summing up how the recognition of power imbalances between government and citizens, as well as employers and employees led to “developing new strategies and techniques for managing and resolving conflict” (Chapter 2, Conclusion, para 5).
Stienstra, Donna, Jared Batallion and Jared A. Catone. "Assistance to Pro Se Litigants in U.S. District Courts: A Report on Surveyrs of Clerks of Court and Chief Judges." 2011. fjc.gov. Web Document. 9 September 2013.
This report is set to outline and highlight key developments in a very important piece of law “Federal Arbitration Act” which is also commonly known as FAA. In order to look at the FAA in detail which was developed in late 1925, first let’s see what the word Arbitration mean. In simple words, Arbitration is known be to a very informal, private and isolated process in which all participating parties agree to hand in their disputes and problems in writing to one or more independent parties who are sanctioned to resolve the problem or issue. If someone ask you a question to define the act of Arbitration or what does it mean, most of us will have one of the following opinion:
These courts are often complex, involve new partnerships, new roles, and of course new players both in and outside the courthouse. It is important to understand that each problem-solving court will be shaped by local circumstances. As such, problem-solving justice remains as much an uncharted territory today as when it was first introduced.
In this paper we will review three scenarios of conflicts where I will provide my opinion on whether alternative dispute resolution would be preferable or litigation. Firstly, we must understand what Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR encompasses a number of various options for resolving disputes and conflicts of various natures. Some forms of ADR that you may be familiar with include mediation, negotiation, and arbitration (Lau & Johnson, 2011).
Journal of Dispute Resolution, 401-427.
However, in reality, from the time a grievance is filled against one party until an arbitration decision is finally issued, the process can take years to be resolved. There are many reasons for the delays in the grievance arbitration process, but the root cause of the problem is the expansion of the arbitral jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of the Weber v. Ontario Hydro case ultimately increased both the potential for litigation over the scope of arbitral jurisdiction and the complexity of legal issues with which the arbitration board must deal with (Weber v. Ontario Hydro, 1995). A study was conducted on this topic in 2010 to determine the time lapse of the arbitration process in Ontario and found that the average time had risen from 287 days to 443 days to complete an arbitration case (Banks, 2016). Delays in labour arbitration creates practical difficulties for both parties such as financial loss to the employer, inhibit the productivity of both employee and management restiveness, harm contract negotiations, and ultimately affect the quality of the arbitration hearing
An Alternative Dispute Resolution is an act that means for disagreeing parties that couldn’t solve their issues or still haven’t find the way out of the issues. It is a collective term for the ways that the parties will come to an agreement which everyone agrees on with or without the help of the third party. Usually some courts use parties to help them in some cases. Usually Alternative Dispute Resolution is the support term of the process. In which an impartial person from the Alternative Dispute Resolution which is an Alternative Dispute Resolution practitioner. That various person will assists to those who has the problem or the issues or dispute to resolve the problem or the issues between them. Alternative Dispute Resolution commonly use for abbreviation for Alternative Dispute Resolution but, it can also be used as to assist the issues which leading them to the conclusion and the decision.
Negotiation is common in the healthcare field. We as nurse leaders are negotiating with other leaders on different policies and procedures in the safety and care of the patient. The policies of the hospital must align with Centers of Medicare and Medicaid and Joint Commission. Contracts with vendors for supplies are negotiated to the lowest terms possible. Mediation has a neutral person who trust, facilitate and is not involved in the dispute. The three types of mediation are facilitative, evaluative and transformative. The last way to manage a dispute is through arbitration. Arbitration is when negotiation and mediation will not work. If a party cannot be trusted or is dishonest through negotiations or mediations, then arbitration is the next answer. This is the step before litigation. An attorney is present at a hearing with written pieces of evidence. The arbitrator is a decision maker as that of a judge. Examples of alternative dispute resolution are arbitration and mediation. These are ways to resolve disputes without involving the public court
Although ADR is an appealing alternative to litigation today, throughout the early history of the United States, courts expressed much hostility toward the idea of enforcing an agreement through any alternative dispute resolution. Throughout the 1900’s, United States courts were reluctant to enforce any agreement to arbitrate an existing or future dispute unless a specific statute...
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. There has been moves against ADR in the past by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, ADR has gained inclusive acceptance among both the broad community and the legal profession in past years. In fact, many courts now entail parties to remedy to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to be tried. The increasing attractiveness of ADR can be clarified by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to obtain larger control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
Both forms of ADR have several common characteristics. However, one must consider that a neutral side in both procedures fulfils distinct from one another duties. Mediators do not have the objective to make decision, whereas arbitrators determine an outcome of the case. Upon the termination of the procedure, an arbiter renders a binding award that cannot be later avoided by disputants. During mediation, parties are not contingent upon the third side and enjoy freedom of actions needed for dispute resolution. In contrast, in case of failure to reach an agreement, parties are not legally bound for actions afterwards. By considering the true qualities of arbitration and mediation taken individually, legislation and scientists suggest that in single arbitration, arbitrators may use mediators’ functions to promote amicable settlement and functions of both arbitrators and mediators have incongruous
Mediation is a form of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is a process which it assists disputed parties to arrive to a mutually agreed resolution without going to court. As the out of court problem solving approach, mediation is a more convenient way for parties which trying to avoid the hassle and loving some flexibility from the more rigid court procedure. Mediation can be said as an informal process of which parties during this process is encouraged to work together among the disputed parties in good faith in order to solve their problems and disputes at a lower financial cost and it consume lesser time as opposed to the court procedure. Mediation recently has become more common as one of dispute resolution process especially for disputes which have relations to divorce matter, child custody or even for child visitation especially for its privacy and confidentiality.