Part 1
There are three generally known dispute settlement modes in the Philippines. These are arbitration, conciliation and mediation. Arbitration is the “referral of a dispute to an impartial person for determination on the basis of evidence and arguments of the parties, which decision is enforceable upon parties” (Azucena, 2010).
Arbitration, as a dispute settlement mode, is either compulsory or voluntary. Similar to arbitration, conciliation and mediation modes are facilitated by a third person. Unlike in arbitration, in conciliation and mediation, the third party facilitates the discussion of the conflict, assists the disputants to amicably come up with a mutually acceptable and beneficial solution to their issues, without the imposing nature of an arbitrator/arbiter.
A mediator or conciliator is expected to encourage parties to keep an open mind on the issues at hand for them to understand not only their perspective, but also that of the adverse party, with the ultimate goal of the process in mind (Caraan, 2012).
Studying styles/approaches
An interesting aspect in the dynamics of dispute settlement between labor and management which I studied, is the styles/approaches as well as their traits/qualities and ethical behavior used by conciliators-mediators-arbitrators to settle the dispute as perceived by the parties. In this regard, I would like to share with you the results of the survey I conducted among 77 purposively selected respondents representing labor and management who have experienced conciliation-mediation-arbitration in the settlement of their disputes in the past years.
My survey findings reveal that the respondents perceived that the Conciliator-Mediator-Arbitrator use four different styles/approaches in settling labor-management disputes in varying frequencies. These styles are enabling, equipping, engaging, and empowering.
Settling disagreements
The respondents claimed that they experienced more often the “enabling style” where the Conciliator-Mediator-Arbitrator shares or explains general information related to framing the issue/s and the context of the dispute. This style also involves actively providing information, as well as guidelines, and structures to facilitate the resolution of the dispute for the parties’ mutual benefit.
The second approach more often experienced by the disputing parties is “equipping” where the conciliator-mediator-arbitrator creates an atmosphere of trust for continuing open communication. This also involves giving feedback on what progress both parties have done and to think of other creative ways to arrive at the resolution of the dispute.
The third style they often experienced during the dispute settlement is “engaging.” This is where the Conciliator-Mediator-Arbitrator focuses on increasing both parties’ commitment to mutually resolve the dispute for a win-win solution, while maintaining respect and having the patience to arrive at a decision. This involves their active listening to the intrinsic motivation of the disputing parties.
The style respondents perceived to be used less often is “empowering.” In this approach, the Conciliator-Mediator-Arbitrator honors the inherent power and champions the independence of the parties, and provides inputs to facilitate the decision-making process of the disputing parties. As one labor union representative said:
“The dispute settlement style of the Conciliator-Mediator-Arbitrator is very crucial. We feel that we are always at a disadvantage position compared to management. We do not have adequate resources to prolong a labor dispute, especially when it involves the termination of an employee.”
(To be continued in next week’s column.)
A full professor, Dr. Edralin teaches Human Behavior, Strategic Human Resource Management, Labor Relations and Research. She is also a management consultant of SME’s, schools, and NGOs. She may be reached at divina.edralin@dlsu.edu.ph.
The views expressed above are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official position of De La Salle University, its faculty, and its administrators.