Resolving workplace disputes at an early stage is obviously critical if you want to avoid considerable stress for both employer and employee, as well as save valuable time and money. But what happens when the people concerned have discussed their issues in an informal environment and still can’t come to a mutually-agreeable conclusion? Lucie Benson looks into the options available to you.

In an ideal world, every employee would be safe in the knowledge that their working environment is stress-free, conflict-free, motivational and harmonious. However, we all know that this is not always the case. It is therefore imperative that organisations ensure their staff are treated fairly and are given the opportunity to air their concerns in an informal manner to ensure issues are resolved quickly, before they escalate, with no need for formal procedures.

Yet what if this doesn’t work? What else can you do before you are forced to implement formal disciplinary and grievance procedures, or to avoid tribunal claims?

CIPD research published in January – “Managing Conflict at Work” – found that general behaviour and conduct issues are rated as the most common causes of dispute at work, followed by conflicts over performance, sickness, absence and attendance.

The statutory dispute resolution procedures, introduced in October 2004, were intended to improve dispute resolution, through minimum three-step disciplinary and grievance procedures. Yet many believe they have actually made matters worse because they have made conflict management over-complicated and bureaucratic.

The CIPD’s survey revealed that 29 percent of employers feel that disputes are less likely to be resolved informally following the introduction of these regulations.

In March, the government implemented a wide-ranging review of the procedures. The Gibbons review has prompted the Department of Trade and Industry to change the way dispute resolution works, with the possibility of abolishing the statutory procedures. A consultation process will now follow.

Relevant training

CIPD employee relations advisor Ben Willmott says that training is vital if organisations want to limit workplace disputes. “Employers must provide the relevant training for line managers and invest in mediation if they are serious about reducing the damage caused by conflict at work, in terms of wasted management time and the high costs associated with tribunal claims. Workplace disputes also generate very significant hidden costs through their negative impact on employee morale and motivation, absence levels, staff retention and employer brand.”

Ron Woods, assistant director individual conciliation at Acas, an organisation that aims to improve working life through better employment relations, says that it can be all to easy to ignore the problem. “It can be very tempting to back away from ‘difficult’ conversations with employees the first time a problem arises, in the hope it will go away of its own accord. But more often than not that just stores up trouble for the future. If tackled by line managers at the earliest possible stage, most issues can and should be resolved without having to resort to formal procedures or bring in third parties.”

If relationship problems are particularly severe and an informal approach has proved unsuccessful, it can help to consider a more structured form of mediation involving someone from outside the organisation, says Woods. “Third party mediators can bring specialised expertise to bear, and also have the advantage of being visibly independent and impartial,” he adds. “This can be crucial to success where trust levels are low.”

Mediation has always been an option for employers and employees who are in dispute. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) often helps organisations set up their own mediation schemes and train their own mediators. The CEDR maintains that one of the great strengths of mediation is its independence and its neutrality.

CEDR director and mediator Fiona Colquhoun says that an advantage to mediation is that the solution or conclusion is very much in the control of the parties involved. “It is not adjudicated, with somebody else deciding who is right or wrong,” she explains. “Other alternatives like litigation are always going to incur costs, whether that is in management time or the time it takes to settle. Mediation can be set up in a matter of days, whereas employment tribunals are long and drawn out, and that causes an awful lot of stress. It is also more difficult to go back and work with the same people again after you have taken the litigious route. Mediation, although it is a hard process, is much more informal and pragmatic.”

Mediation is certainly underused in the workplace, says Willmott. “Our research shows that just one in four employers used internal mediation and just one in five used external mediation services,” he remarks. “So it’s not used widely, but the research also showed that where mediation is used, there is less likelihood of disputes escalating to tribunal claims. If mediation is embedded and communicated well, then it is really seen as a valuable alternative to the formal procedures; although obviously it is not appropriate for all disputes.”

Disciplinary route

However, if it is a behaviour or performance issue that is causing the conflict, which is not getting better despite informal attempts to resolve the problem, then you do need to consider the formal disciplinary route.

“Unfortunately at the moment, we still have the statutory dispute resolution procedures,” says Willmott. “But the important thing about the disciplinary process is that it is about providing an opportunity for the individual to improve their performance or make adjustments to their behaviour. So it can still be viewed in a positive way and that needs to be emphasised.

“The danger is that once you are on the disciplinary route, you are more likely to have confrontation on both sides,” he adds, “but if you take positive steps, communicate that to the individual and put in place support or training that will hopefully resolve the problems, it doesn’t need to be seen as negative.”

Joanne Pitts, employment advisory service consultant at Croner, says that all companies should have formal procedures set up. “If it is an individual conflict, between an employee and employer, then it is usually advisable for a company to have in place grievance procedures, so the employee can raise the grievance and the employer can deal with that through a formal procedure,” she comments.

The CIPD survey found that, on average, there are 13 days of HR and management time taken up for each disciplinary case and eight days for each grievance case. “This really underlines the value of ensuring line managers have conflict resolution skills so you can avoid getting into that formal process as much as possible,” says Willmott.

“HR can help by putting an emphasis on the importance of training line managers in these skills, so that managers have the confidence to step in and act as an impartial third party, to resolve disputes before they escalate.”

Pitts remarks that HR plays a central role in dispute resolution. “HR can make sure that procedures are followed, and that managers are fully trained in using the correct procedures. Also HR can spot conflict at an early stage and provide support, so it may be that they get involved in facilitating meetings between the people that are having the dispute, to try and resolve it quickly.”

Willmott concludes: “Much of the time, individuals are behaving in a certain way because they are not aware how their behaviour is perceived by other people. So it is all about acting as a reasonable employer, giving the individual the opportunity to improve and providing support where possible to help them do that.”