Individual disputes at the workplace: Alternative disputes resolution
| Index | << Prev | Next >> | [ |
Attitudes of social partners and national governments to ADR
The position of the social partners and government in each country towards ADR is very much conditioned by the success, or otherwise, of the existing, sometimes long established, methods of dealing with individual worker disputes. Since there is no common starting point and a variety of approaches to ADR exist, the particular policy initiatives vary between countries. However, some general patterns are evident.
Firstly, in 17 countries there is clear, often recent, growth in the use of ADR and/or strong support for such a development by the social partners and government (Table 3).
| Country | ADR development |
|---|---|
| BE | ADR is encouraged by one political party and new legislation is adopted; social partners support ‘more humane and cheaper’ ADR |
| BG | Social partners propose obligatory conciliation and legal changes; no action taken by government |
| CY | Emphasis on workplace non-judicial ADR; government wants better workplace procedures for disputes |
| CZ | Support for ADR from social partners and government but little growth |
| ES | Emphasis on non-judicial ADR in workplace/regions; growing use of ADR |
| FI | Growing use of ADR; a joint committee of social partners was due to report on the use of ADR by the end of 2009 |
| IE | Employers are pushing for private, innovative, non-adversarial methods of ADR; trade unions are in favour of ADR, provided they have a role; the government has its own effective methods |
| IT | Government support for ADR due to lower costs and a reduction in court cases; the social partners are also in favour |
| LU | ADR is encouraged by the government and social partners; a conciliation service and mediation are developed in 2007, however implementation has been slow |
| LV | Government is in favour of mediation and legislation was adopted in 2009; however, the social partners want a specialist labour court and ADR is not used much in practice |
| MT | Non-judicial ADR at workplace is encouraged by all parties; more resources/ training are to be provided for state conciliators |
| NO | Emphasis on pre-court mediation by lawyers, although concerns have been expressed about costs |
| PT | A 2006 protocol was signed by all parties establishing a labour mediation service |
| RO | New laws were adopted in 1999 and 2008 establishing mediation endorsed by the tripartite Economic and Social Council (Consiliul Economic şi Social, CES) |
| SI | Mediation was due to start in labour courts in 2009; the social partners agree on lists of mediators |
| SK | New law adopted in 2004; the employers are in favour of ADR due to lower cost, quicker and early resolution of disputes; trade union support for ADR will help enforcement of law at the workplace |
| UK | Growing use of conciliation; new emphasis on non-judicial ADR at workplace; experiments underway in pre-claim conciliation and relational mediation; the social partners give strong support for conciliation |
Source: EIRO national centres, 2009
In contrast, in 10 countries, attitudes are neutral, or there is no pressure for change in relation to ADR (Table 4).
| Country | ADR development |
|---|---|
| AT | Employers not interested in ADR and see it as a waste of time and not enforceable; trade unions would approve of ADR growth, but government is not interested |
| DE | Non-judicial ADR is well established and social partners see no need for change; however, government wants mediation but not in relation to labour matters |
| DK | Tradition of 100 years of non-judicial workplace ADR, which is considered more efficient, leading to fewer costs, and closer to the individual; therefore, there is no pressure for change |
| EE | Non-judicial ADR at workplace but the trade unions are in favour of other types of ADR; the employers are not interested, while the government remains neutral |
| EL | Trade unions want better, faster, more comprehensive ADR; the employers want stringent legal preconditions; the government remains inactive |
| HU | Court process is seen as expensive, slow and insecure, so in theory ADR is welcomed; however, the government does not appear to be interested, and the social partners remain inactive in its promotion |
| LT | Social partners want a labour court; however, the government says it is too expensive and has no focus on ADR |
| NL | Social partners remain neutral about ADR; the government wants mediation but not, as yet, in relation to labour matters |
| PL | Low level of interest in ADR from the government and employers, but the trade unions are in favour; citizens have low trust in institutions, except in the courts |
| SE | Historical emphasis on non-judicial ADR supported by all parties; however, views differ on the future shape of the country’s labour law |
Source: EIRO national centres, 2009
A second trend is where the social partners agree on the direction of ADR in their country, although it is rare for this to be enshrined in an agreement. In most cases, the government also shares the views of the social partners, although at times such support has yet to be translated into action. This government support is often attributed to the fact that ADR, especially judicial ADR, is attractive for reasons of cost and efficiency rather than for the pursuit of social justice. Trade union support for ADR is generally universal, as it is seen as being closer to the individual worker in dispute, quicker and cheaper, and helps enforce rights at work. Where some doubts are expressed – as is the case in Ireland, Italy and the UK – these relate to whether certain types of ADR, such as relational mediation in the UK or private sector employer initiatives in Ireland, exclude trade union involvement or will do so in the future.
| Index | << Prev | Next >> |