Mediation is defined as an intervention to settle a dispute: the intervention by a third party between two sides in a dispute in an attempt to help them reach an agreement (www.msn.com). Arbitration is defined as the process for resolution of disputes: the process of resolving disputes between people or groups by referring them to a third party, either agreed on by them or provided by law, who makes a judgment (www.msn.com). The definitions have been established and it is now time to ask a few questions. What are the advantages and disadvantages to mediation and arbitration in the effort to resolve a dispute? What are the practical consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in the Waffle House case to the implementation of arbitration in the workplace? After considering the consequences, does this mark the end of arbitration agreements as a means of keeping employment disputes out of the courts? These questions will be answered in the following paragraphs that will describe the advantages of "med-arb" in conjunction with conflict resolution.
For purposes of this case assignment, the term "med-arb" will refer to any reference combining mediation and arbitration in sequence.
ÃÂ· Resolution can be obtained within a reasonable time.
ÃÂ· Resolution can often be achieved at a reduced cost, mainly because the parties will need to educate only one neutral about the facts and legal issues involved.
ÃÂ· A med-arb proceeding allows the parties more control over the process by giving them the opportunity to pursue a consensual settlement during the mediation phase, but also promising finality by assuring an end to the dispute, if not by agreement then by binding arbitration.
ÃÂ· A combined alternative dispute resolution proceeding may enable the parties to narrow their dispute substantially during the mediation phase, often leaving only a few remaining...