How can arbitration help supervisors resolve conflicts between employees?

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, recognised in most legal systems, through which parties instead of approaching the formal courts of their countries, can resolve their disputes/differences by appointing an independent arbitrator(s) whose decision/ award (based on the law chosen by the parties) is final and binding between the parties. The 3 main benefits are that arbitrations are - 1) faster, 2) cost-effective, and 3) confidential. Not all disputes are arbitrable. And there are only limited grounds to challenge an award. The arbitration agreement, in writing, should specify: a) place of arbitration, b) choice of governing law, c) process of appointing arbitrator, d) language and e) arbitral institution, if any.

Arbitration can assist supervisors in resolving employee conflicts by providing a structured and impartial process where a neutral third party, the arbitrator, helps reach a resolution. This can lead to a fair and legally binding decision, reducing the burden on supervisors and promoting effective conflict resolution in the workplace.

In any organisation, arbitrating disputes between employees can also help build an internal body of precedents and jurisprudence to aid the organisation in reframing their internal procedures/rules and minimise such fault lines and fissures from arising in the future. Typically, the company's rules should prescribe for all disputes inter se between the emoloyees to be resolved by an independent arbitral process in which the company too will be a party (to ensure that thr award/decision passed therein is also binding on the company).

The reference to interest-based arbitration sounds to me to be more like mediation. The rights-based one is clearly about a binding, neutral decision and so is about arbitration. There is a third type: arbitration ex aqueo et bono (sometimes known as 'amiable composition'). It involves arbitration using principles of fairness, not legal rules. While the law is loosely based on fairness, sometimes as judges and Arbitrators applying the law, we reach an outcome required by law, but which is unfair. If we could just apply the principles of fairness without reference to the law, we could 'do justice'. Employment disputes (having dealt with numerous) are especially well suited to such an approach, as they are often about what is fair.

In such disputes, the most important criterion for choosing an arbitrator is his or her familiarity with the sector/industry so that the arbitrator can appreciate the underlying issues between the parties.

The idea of private arbitration on employment matters is good to resolve the dispute swiftly, but all beyond reality and fairness owing to :(1) paying capacity of the employee to employ an efficient arbitrator. (2) power imbalance (3) one sided rules of arbitration (4) if single arbitrator - arbitrator puppet of employer. (5) bypassing employee's formal remedies etc. However, it may be successful, should there be compulsory arbitration and arbitration institution is amenable to the govt. In India, there is already an arbitration mechanism that exists, why the corporate sector shouldn't rely on existing institution and wanted to switch to private arbitration, the reason is obvious, nothing but to take advantage of above 5 points.

International arbitration is the best solution for dispute resolution all over the world. Millions of business all over the world are taking new route of alternate dispute resolution through arbitration to solve their legal disputes.

The rule is that an arbitrator's decision is binding and final. It must be complied with. However, if a party finds that the award or decision is so perverse or egregious that it is against well-accepted notions of justice - then the award may be challenged before a court of law on such limited grounds as recognised in law (or where the company has a two-tiered arbitration process - then parties may prefer an appeal).

There could be scope for one (or all) parties applying for a review of an arbitration award, seeking a change to it or even its cancellation, where circumstances change. This could be especially useful in an employment context. Alternatively, an award could be time limited, meaning that it stops being binding after a period of time, unless the parties agree that it should remain in force. By such mechanisms, arbitration can be a flexible, not fixed, option.