NCJ Number
94064
Date Published
1983
Length
12 pages
Annotation
The mediator-advisor model is potentially applicable to a broad range of disputes, and it is superior to the arbitration procedure in perceptions of procedural justice, time, and cost.
Abstract
The mediator-advisor third-party model for handling conflict resolution combines aspects of facilitation and adjudication. The mediator-advisor has all the tasks and skills of a facilitator plus sufficient expertise to predict the outcome of the dispute if it were adjudicated. The mediator-advisor's prediction may be made publicly to both parties or privately to one or both parties. It is nonbinding and cannot be introduced as evidence if the dispute is subsequently adjudicated. The mediator-advisor model has been used in the unionized sector of the bituminous coal industry to resolve grievances during the term of the collective bargaining agreement. The mediator-advisor primarily assists the parties in searching for a mutually satisfactory solution to the grievance. If no such solution is forthcoming, the mediator-advisor gives an oral advisory opinion as to how the grievance is likely to be decided if it is arbitrated. This opinion is intended to be a basis for further settlement discussions or for granting or withdrawing the grievance. If the grievance is not resolved in any of these fashions, the parties are free to arbitrate. Evaluation data are sufficient to compare the use of the mediator-advisor model in the coal industry with arbitration in the same industry. Grievants who had experience in both the mediator-advisor procedure and the arbitration procedure preferred the former 51 percent to 25 percent. The mediator-advisor model results in greater perceptions of procedural justice than does the arbitration model, and the mediator-advisor model was also superior to the arbitration model regarding time delay and cost. Graphic data, nine notes, and seven references are provided.