This presentation includes notes collected from various sources from internet during my study journey with regard to the topic Dispute resolution & Grievance Handling

1. Dispute Resolution

2. Dispute resolution is the process of resolving disputes between parties.
The term dispute resolution may also be used interchangeably with conflict resolution.
A lawsuit (litigation)(judicial) is a proceeding by a party or
parties against another in the civil court of law
Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR),
is a way to resolve disputes outside the courts.
The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the
"arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), which renders
the "arbitration award".
An arbitration award is legally binding on both sides and
enforceable in the courts.
Arbitration is often used for the resolution
of commercial disputes, particularly in the context
of international commercial transactions.

3. Collaborative law, also known as collaborative practice, divorce or family law, is a legal
process enabling couples who have decided to separate or end their marriage to work with their
lawyers and, on occasion, other family professionals in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of
court and to achieve a settlement that best meets the specific needs of both parties and their
children without the underlying threat of litigation.
The process allows parties to have a fair settlement.
The voluntary process is initiated when the couple signs a contract (a "participation agreement")
binding each other to the process and disqualifying their respective lawyer's right to represent
either one in any future family-related litigation.
Mediation is a dynamic, structured, interactive process where a neutral third party assists
disputing parties in resolving conflict through the use of specialized communication and
negotiation techniques.
All participants in mediation are encouraged to actively participate in the process.
Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and
interests of the parties.

4. • Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process whereby the parties to a
dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties both separately and together in an
attempt to resolve their differences.
• They do this by lowering tensions, improving communications, interpreting issues,
encouraging parties to explore potential solutions and assisting parties in finding a mutually
acceptable outcome.
• Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has
no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call
witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award.
• Conciliation differs from mediation in that in conciliation, often the parties are in need of
restoring or repairing a relationship, either personal or business.
• A facilitator is someone who engages in facilitation—any activity that makes
a social process easy or easier.
• A facilitator often helps a group of people to understand their common objectives and
assists them to plan how to achieve these objectives; in doing so, the facilitator remains
"neutral", meaning he/she does not take a particular position in the discussion.
• Some facilitator tools will try to assist the group in achieving a consensus on any
disagreements that pre-exist or emerge in the meeting so that it has a strong basis for
future action.

5. NEGOTIATION
• Negotiation comes from the Latin neg (no) and otsia (leisure) referring to businessmen who,
unlike the patricians, had no leisure time in their industriousness.
• It held the meaning of business (le négoce in French) until the 17th century when it took on the
diplomatic connotation as a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a
beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with respect to at least one of
these issues.
• Thus, negotiation is a process of combining divergent positions into a joint agreement under a
decision rule of unanimity.
• It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to
craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is often conducted by putting forward a position
and making concessions to achieve an agreement.
• The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated
solution is a major factor in determining whether negotiations are successful.
• People negotiate daily, often without considering it a negotiation.
• Negotiation occurs in organizations, including businesses, non-profits, and within and between
governments as well as in sales and legal proceedings, and in personal situations such as
marriage, divorce, parenting, etc. Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union
negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiator, or hostage negotiators.
• They may also work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators, or brokers.

6. Distributive Negotiation:
• Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation and
attempts to distribute a "fixed pie" of benefits.
• Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions and implies that any gain one party
makes is at the expense of the other and vice versa.
• For this reason, distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the
assumption that one person's gain is another person's loss.
• Distributive negotiation examples include haggling prices on an open market, including the
negotiation of the price of a car or a home.
Integrated negotiation
• Integrated negotiation is a strategic approach to influence that maximizes value in any single
negotiation through the astute linking and sequencing of other negotiations and decisions related
to one's operating activities.
• This approach in complex settings is best executed by mapping out all potentially relevant
negotiations, conflicts and operating decisions in order to integrate helpful connections among
them, while minimizing any potentially harmful connections.
• Integrated negotiation is not to be confused with integrative negotiation, a different concept related
to a non-zero-sum approach to creating value in negotiations.
• Integrated negotiation was first identified and labeled by international negotiator and author Peter
Johnston in his book Negotiating with Giants

7. BATNA
• The best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA is the alternative option a negotiator
holds should the current negotiation fails and does not reach agreement.
• The quality of a BATNA has the potential to improve a party's negotiation outcome.
• Understanding one's BATNA can empower an individual and allow him or her to set higher
goals when moving forward.
• One of the best strategy while going into a negotiation is to ensure that you have a strong
BATNA, and if not, have tools equipped that can help you made the other side's BATNA weak.
• One of the major mistakes made by new negotiators is to disclose their BATNA at first without
having had any discussion with the other side. This can jeopardise your position in the
negotiation, as your negotiation might have been weaker than the other sides, and such
disclosure puts you at a weaker spot in the negotiation.
• The best strategy is to ask a lot of questions to develop, if not an exact, but a guess about the
other sides BATNA to know your position in the negotiation.

8. Conflict styles
• Kenneth W. Thomas identified five styles or responses to negotiation.These five strategies have
been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model.
• The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a perspective that assumes individuals' preferred
method of dealing with conflict is based on two themes or dimensions:
• A concern for self (i.e., assertiveness), and
• A concern for others (i.e., empathy).
• Based on this model, individuals balance the concern for personal needs and interests with the
needs and interests of others.
• The following five styles can be used based on individuals' preferences depending on their pro-self
or pro-social goals.
• These styles can change over time, and individuals can have strong dispositions towards
numerous styles.
1. Accommodating : Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving
personal relationships
2. Avoiding : Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted
3. Collaborating : Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in
creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and
interests of the other parties.
4. Competing : Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win
something.
5. Compromising : Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for
all parties involved in the negotiation.

9. Types of negotiators
Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project.
These types of negotiators are: soft bargainers, hard bargainers, and principled bargainers.
1. Soft : These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of bargaining.
The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and
they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators. Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their
goal is agreement. They do not separate the people from the problem, but are soft on both. They avoid
contests of wills and insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their
opinions.
2. Hard : These people use contentious strategies to influence, utilizing phrases such as "this is my final offer"
and "take it or leave it." They make threats, are distrustful of others, insist on their position, and apply
pressure to negotiate. They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory. Additionally, they
search for one single answer, and insist you agree on it. They do not separate the people from the problem
(as with soft bargainers), but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.
3. Principled : Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions, and do so by sidestepping
commitment to specific positions. They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs
of the people involved. They separate the people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and
reach results based on standards independent of personal will. They base their choices on objective criteria
rather than power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional procedure. These criteria may be drawn
from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, and tradition.

10. Tactics
• Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process.
• More often than not they are subtle, difficult to identify and used for multiple purposes.
• Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus in on
taking as much value off the table as possible.
• Many negotiation tactics exist. Below are a few commonly used tactics.
1) Auction:
The bidding process is designed to create competition. When multiple parties want the
same thing, pit them against one another. When people know that they may lose out on
something, they want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on, they
also want to win, just to win. Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can drive up
the price.
2) Brinksmanship:
One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point where the other negotiating
party must either agree or walk away. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to
bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge of what that party
is willing to accommodate. Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no
choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.

11. 3) Bogey:
Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance is
very important. Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be traded for a major concession
of actual importance.
4) Chicken:
Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluffs, to force the other party to
chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are
unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.
5) Defence in Depth:
Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each
time the agreement goes through a different level of authority. In other words, each time the
offer goes to a decision maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession to close
the deal.
6) Deadlines:
Give the other party a deadline forcing them to make a decision. This method uses
time to apply pressure to the other party. Deadlines given can be actual or artificial.

12. 7) Flinch:
Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal. Common examples
of flinching are gasping for air, or a visible expression of surprise or shock. The flinch can be done
consciously or unconsciously. The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or
proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations. Seeing a physical reaction
is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked.“
8) Good Guy/Bad Guy:
The good guy/bad guy approach is typically used in team negotiations where one member
of the team makes extreme or unreasonable demands, and the other offers a more rational
approach. This tactic is named after a police interrogation technique often portrayed in the media.
The "good guy" appears more reasonable and understanding, and therefore, easier to work with.
In essence, it is using the law of relativity to attract cooperation. The "good guy" appears more
agreeable relative than the "bad guy.“
9) Highball/Lowball:
Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or
ridiculously low opening offer that is not achievable. The theory is that the extreme offer makes
the other party re-evaluate their own opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far
as you are willing to go to reach an agreement).Another advantage is that the party giving the
extreme demand appears more flexible when they make concessions toward a more reasonable
outcome. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of
time.

13. 10) The Nibble:
Nibbling is asking for proportionally small concessions that haven't been discussed
previously just before closing the deal. This method takes advantage of the other party's desire to
close by adding "just one more thing.“
11) Snow Job:
Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that they have
difficulty determining what information is important, and what is a diversion. Negotiators may
also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-
expert.
12) Mirroring:
When people get on well, the outcome of a negotiation is likely to be more positive. To
create trust and a rapport, a negotiator may mimic or mirror the opponent's behavior and repeat
what they say. Mirroring refers to a person repeating the core content of what another person
just said, or repeating a certain expression. It indicates attention to the subject of negotiation
and acknowledges the other party's point or statement. Mirroring can help create trust and
establish a relationship.

23. Grievance Management

29. • Main aim of ADR? : To reduce the need for the parties to go to court at all.
• What is arbitration? : Where parties refer a dispute to a third party rather than go to court
• Why is arbitration preferable in a business dispute? : It is less expensive than a court case.
• If an agreement contains an arbitration clause, then: If both parties agree, they can choose to go
to court. Where one party seeks to start a court action, contrary to a valid arbitration agreement,
then the other party may request the court to stay the litigation in favour of the arbitration
agreement under ss 9–11 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Where, however, both parties agree to
ignore the arbitration agreement and seek recourse to litigation, then, following the party
consensual nature of the Act, the agreement may be ignored.
• How does the new Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007 change the existing tribunals
structure? : It creates a new, unified structure for most of the existing tribunals
• ‘Maladministration’ include : Bias, Delay, Incompetence.
• What does an Ombudsman investigate? : Complaints of maladministration.
• Area of law particularly suitable for mediation? : Family law
• Role of the third party in mediation? : To help the parties reach a resolution

30. • Role of the third party in conciliation? : To suggest appropriate solutions.
• Conciliation takes mediation a step further and gives the mediator the power to
suggest grounds for compromise and the possible basis for a conclusive agreement.
• Primary weakness of both mediation and conciliation? : They do not always lead to an
outcome.
• The essential weakness in the procedures of mediation and conciliation lies in the fact
that, although they may lead to the resolution of a dispute, they do not necessarily
achieve that end. Where they operate successfully, they are excellent methods of
dealing with problems, as essentially the parties to the dispute determine their own
solutions and therefore feel committed to the outcome. The problem is that they have
no binding power and do not always lead to an outcome.

31. Tribunals are usually made up of three members. Only one of these, the Chair, is expected to be
legally qualified. The other two members are lay representatives, providing tribunals with one of
their perceived advantages over courts.
• There is some debate as to whether tribunals are merely part of the machinery of
administration of particular projects or whether their function is the distinct one of
adjudication, like courts.
• If the precise distinction between tribunals and courts is a matter of uncertainty, what is
certain is that tribunals are inferior to the normal courts.
• The Council of Tribunals has been replaced with the Administrative Justice and Tribunals
Council (AJTC).
• This is an important new institution with responsibility not just for tribunals but with a wider
overview and input into the operation of the administrative justice system as a whole.

39. • The last stage in a grievance redressal procedure is handled by : Grievance committee
• Human relations approach of management is not associated with : Abraham Maslow
• Works Committee is not a voluntary method for prevention and settlement of disputes
• Employee morale relates to : Attitude
• MBO relates to performance appraisals