Understanding the Nature and Process of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Collective Conciliation: Lessons from United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and Japan

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic investigation into previous studies, conducted among scholars on the nature and process of Alternative Dispute Resolution and collective conciliation in some selected countries. It presents an assessment of previously conducted empirical studies on the factors that shape the nature and process of ADR and collective conciliation. It examines how these factors influence the attitude and opinion of the users of the service and impact on outcomes in practice. The findings of the study illustrate the significance of the state and its machinery in the establishment and funding of ADR institutions. It demonstrate the importance of trade unions and management representatives acknowledging their inability to resolve their dispute and the extent which their request for conciliation indicate their level of trust and confidence in the process as evident in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan. In addition, the findings establish how the behaviour of the state, as reflected through its approach to the employment relationship influences the actions and perception of trade unions and management representatives. The study recommends that in order to further increase the trust and confidence of trade unions and management on the outcomes of dispute resolution, the neutrality and confidentiality of the process of conciliation is essential. The role and style of conciliators during resolution is also important because; it has the tendency to influence the assessment of trade unions and management representatives during negotiation and impact on their attitude to the process and outcomes of conciliation in practice.