When it comes to resolving employment-related disputes, many companies have determined that a resolution in arbitration is desirable. Ideally, arbitration is less expensive and more final. It gives the employee an opportunity to have grievances heard by someone other than management, and it gives the company a more private resolution without the risk of negative publicity.
While there are many situations in which mediation may be a good way to resolve a complaint, some make more sense than others. For example, employment disputes are often well served by the process. This is because unlike some disputes, the relationship between the employee and employer could continue on for some time after a resolution is reached. Accordingly it is in the best interest of all involved to amicably resolve issues.
Both state and federal court systems here in Pennsylvania and across the nation have been hit hard by budget limitations caused by the poor economy. That doesn’t mean, unfortunately, that there are fewer disputes to be resolved -- only that the courts are jam-packed with cases. If there were no option but trial in those cases, the delays would be so long that there would essentially be no access to the courts, or justice.
According to a federal appellate court, the adequacy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s pre-trial settlement process is not something employers can challenge in court. Attempting this process, which the EEOC calls “conciliation,” is required by law before the agency can file a lawsuit.