First 671 words of the document:
Dear Mr Silliband, after reading over your dispute I have decided to tell you my views on your
situation. Below is some information for you:
There are different types of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which include:
Negotiation: This is where a person is negotiating for you; this person will act for you and represent
you and what you want to happen. Negotiation is not independent. The person can also advise you
about the best course of action to move forward. Settling disputes by direct negotiation is the most
common way that disputes are settled. For any form of dispute resolution negotiation is the starting
point. Negotiation is the simplest form of alternative dispute resolution. It is only when direct
negotiation breaks down that another form of settlement is required.
Mediation: This where both parties select an independent third party or neutral to assist the parties
to reaching an agreement about an acceptable solution. The mediator will discuss the problems with
both parties together and separately in private sessions which are known as "caucuses". The job of
the mediator is to consult with each party and see how much common ground they have between
them. The mediator should act as a facilitator, taking offers between the parties.
Conciliation: If it is not possible for the parties to reach an agreement, usually it will use a process
where the conciliator will produce a recommendation as to how the dispute should be settled. Due
to the involvement of ACAS in the assistance in resolution of disputes it is well known in employment
circles. The conciliator will be expected to suggest ways in which a compromise can be reached.
Conciliation is often the first stage in the arbitration process.
Arbitration: The main process of arbitration is the process of external investigation and judgement
by a third party. Held in an attempt to avoid a court trial, it is a legal technique for the resolution of
disputes outside the court. It is conducted by a person or panel of people who are not judges. The
parties can agree the number of arbitrators who will hear their dispute. The parties will normally
appoint someone who is an expert in their particular area.
Settling a dispute using ADR rather than the court system is usually a lot quicker whereas in court
lawsuits must be bought within a specified period of time known as the Statue of Limitations. ADR is
conducted in private, which will avoid publicity from the media and public. Both parties can agree to
keep both proceedings and any solutions confidential. By using ADR the procedure will be less formal
than going to court which will mean it is more relaxed. By having a relaxed environment is will be less
stressful and less intimidating. ADR can help maintain a good relationship and understanding between
the parties without them both thinking it is a competition and one person will win and the other will
lose, in court formality can build a barrier affecting the relationships between the 2 parties. By using
ADR there are no complicated rules of evidence. If the ADR process is binding the parties normally
give up most court protections, including a decision by the judge or jury under formal rules of
evidence and procedure, and review for legal error by an appellate court. ADR usually costs less than
any court proceedings; in court the representation usually charges a fee for their services, ADR
doesn't involve any expert fees. However if the dispute isn't solved by ADR, the parties may then
have to face the usual traditional costs, such as attorneys fees and expert fees in court. ADR may not
be suitable for every dispute, for example if it takes place before the parties have sufficient
information to resolve the dispute.