Dispute System Design and Justice in Employment Dispute Resolution: Mediation at the Workplace
Lisa Blomgren Amsler (formerly Bingham)
Indiana University Bloomington - School of Public & Environmental Affairs (SPEA); University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Cynthia J. Hallberlin
Denise A. Walker
Office of the Indiana Attorney General - Environmental Litigation
Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs
September 1, 2009
Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 14, 2009
Control over dispute system design brings with it responsibilities. Some employers have chosen to use that control solely for the purpose of risk management, to alter the settlement value of a discrimination case and render it impossible for an employee to obtain effective recourse from the public justice system through the imposition of mandatory arbitration. Other employers, admittedly for whom unilateral imposition of binding arbitration is not a legal option, have instead pursued different objectives: improving opportunities for voice and seeking longer term change in conflict management in the workplace. Looking back over a decade after REDRESS was first implemented, while no program perfectly achieves its design, REDRESS has served and continues to serve its greater purpose, to improve the workplace climate. The institutionalization of the program, its voluntary use by employees, and the significant reduction of formal complaints, suggest that employers may achieve efficiencies through a dispute system design that is voluntary and allows employees to pursue their cases to the public justice system.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 50
Keywords: mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution, discrimination, civil rights
JEL Classification: J52, J71
Date posted: July 6, 2006 ; Last revised: May 4, 2015
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.266 seconds