Latest News
Enhancing Dispute Resolution: Ombuds Office Integration
Enhancing Dispute Resolution: Ombuds Office Integration
The field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is seeing fast expansion, as seen by the proliferation of seminars, conferences, clinics, and courses. Law students are showing interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a potential professional path, and publications that are completely dedicated to ADR have been successful. ADR, on the other hand, continues to be a theoretical concept that is not very applicable to everyday life. An unknown alternative dispute resolution process, the Ombuds Office, is investigated in this article, along with its connection to mediation. According to the article, integrating mediation with the ombuds model can result in an alternative dispute resolution method that is superior to mediation while still being effective in mediation. Several university committees, such as faculty governance executive committees and a group to revamp the faculty grievance procedure, were among those that the author served on during their time at the university. Disputes frequently entailed misunderstandings, failures in communication, an inability to comprehend the process, and irritation when a problem was not addressed. The author realised that the official complaint procedure of the university was not necessarily the most efficient means of dealing with the numerous issues that are inherent in a bureaucracy such as the American institution.
The author concluded that some of the fundamental components of the traditional ombuds office may be combined with the mediation model that is currently in use inside an organization or agency, which could potentially result in not just more effective outcomes but also "better" outcomes. The ombuds office was first formed in Denmark in 1955, and since then, governments all over the world have followed the example set by Scandinavian countries. By 1973, 21 countries had established ombuds offices or variants of the office. This office, which was formed in Sweden in the 19th century, has developed over time as a result of its fast expansion and the shifting conditions that have occurred. Since the Ombudsperson is a legislative post, all political parties are responsible for appointing them, and they are accountable to the legislature. They are unbiased and politically neutral, and they do not have the authority to amend or reverse one of the official acts. It is possible for the Ombudsperson to initiate an inquiry based on a citizen complaint or to take action on her initiative. The results of the investigation will be communicated to the legislature as well as the press.
As a result of the Crichel Down case, which entailed the seizing of a citizen's land for military use without the guarantee of the possibility to reclaim it, the Ombudsman's Office was established in the United Kingdom. As soon as the Ombudsperson receives a letter from a complaint, the procedure is considered to have begun. In some instances, the Ombudsperson may initiate an inquiry solely based on information obtained from external sources. Several fundamental aspects of the Ombuds Office are still comparable to those of the original Ombuds Office in Sweden. In certain circumstances, mediation may prove to be more successful than litigation, which may not be the most suitable method for resolving disputes. The office of the Ombudsman has the authority to take action, investigate misconduct, and suggest action, either to the person who committed the wrongdoing or, in extreme circumstances, to the chief executive officer or the body that governs the organization.
By anticipating and recognizing power imbalances and dishonesty, the ombuds office, which is modelled after the classical model, strives to promote justice and integrity. Its extensive investigative capability makes it more likely than mediation to accomplish justice and to satisfy those who say that existing alternative dispute resolution methods create findings that may be qualitatively faulty owing to a lack of information that is required to provide correct conclusions. To resolve issues regarding mediation, the participation of the ombudsperson in the process of conflict resolution is essential. Having numerous ombudspersons can be beneficial in addressing the biases of decision-makers since they can arbitrate disagreements that go against the normative feeling of the public. In addition, the independence of the Ombudsperson guarantees that minority representatives will receive aid, as these individuals may be more resistant to the overwhelming attitude of the general public. The obligation of the ombudsperson is to the organization as a whole, and it is more probable that the organization's interests will be advanced if the complaints of all stakeholders are addressed rather than if the concerns of a few are allowed to fester.
It is possible, according to some who are opposed to alternative conflict resolution, that it might impede political revolution and enhance the degree to which society is dependent on informal processes. The ombuds office, on the other hand, is a more effective alternative to mediation in light of the contemporary atmosphere, which is characterized by labour unions and falling salaries. It is more probable that the ombudsperson will be able to bring about structural or organizational change for the advantage of employees because of their expertise, specialized abilities, and independence. Some individuals who are opposed to the complaint processes that companies have in place believe that the vocabulary of management and therapy is more prevalent in the reports of organizational complaint handlers. However, the traditional ombuds office has traditionally played a more active role.
References
[1] Brazil, Wayne D. "Hosting mediations as a representative of the system of civil justice." Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 22 (2006): 227.
[2] Blankley, Kristen M., et al. "ADR is not a household term: Considering the ethical and practical consequences of the public's lack of understanding of mediation and arbitration." Neb. L. Rev. 99 (2020): 797.
[3] Wiegand, Shirley A. "A just and lasting peace: Supplanting mediation with the ombuds model." Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 12 (1996): 95.
- Ombuds model facilitates organizational change and addresses power imbalances.
- Ombudsperson's independence ensures fairness and justice.
- Ombuds office integration with mediation improves dispute resolution.
