**Alternative Dispute Resolution\
A Resource Guide**

**Table of Contents**

[Introduction 5](#introduction)

[Section I: Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques and Agency
Practices
7](#section-i-alternative-dispute-resolution-techniques-and-agency-practices)

[ADR Techniques or Methods 7](#adr-techniques-or-methods)

[Agriculture 13](#agriculture)

[Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
14](#agriculture-animal-and-plant-health-inspection-service)

[Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service
15](#agriculture-food-safety-and-inspection-service)

[Agriculture Forest Service 16](#agriculture-forest-service)

[Agriculture National Finance Center
17](#agriculture-national-finance-center)

[Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
19](#agriculture-natural-resources-conservation-service)

[Agriculture Research, Education, and Economics
20](#agriculture-research-education-and-economics)

[Air Force 22](#air-force)

[Air Force Charleston Air Force Base
22](#air-force-charleston-air-force-base)

[Air Force Kirtland Air Force Base
23](#air-force-kirtland-air-force-base)

[Air Force Lackland Air Force Base
24](#air-force-lackland-air-force-base)

[Air Force McClellan Air Force Base
25](#air-force-mcclellan-air-force-base)

[Air Force Tinker Air Force Base 26](#air-force-tinker-air-force-base)

[Army Anniston Army Depot 28](#army-anniston-army-depot)

[Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, KY 29](#army-armor-center-ft.-knox-ky)

[Army Corps of Engineers 30](#army-corps-of-engineers)

[Army U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Detrick, MD
31](#army-u.s.-army-garrison-fort-detrick-md)

[Army Fort Monmouth, NJ 32](#army-fort-monmouth-nj)

[Army Army Materiel Command (AMC) 33](#army-army-materiel-command-amc)

[Army Army Research Laboratory 34](#army-army-research-laboratory)

[Army Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC)
35](#army-walter-reed-army-medical-center-wramc)

[Army White Sands Missile Range 36](#army-white-sands-missile-range)

[Broadcasting Board of Governors 38](#broadcasting-board-of-governors)

[Central Intelligence Agency 39](#central-intelligence-agency)

[Commodity Futures Trading Commission
40](#commodity-futures-trading-commission)

[Corporation for National and Community Service
41](#corporation-for-national-and-community-service)

[Defense Contract Audit Agency 42](#defense-contract-audit-agency)

[Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 43](#defense-logistics-agency-dla)

[Defense Logistics Agency Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
43](#defense-logistics-agency-defense-reutilization-and-marketing-service)

[Defense Threat Reduction Agency 44](#defense-threat-reduction-agency)

[Education 45](#education)

[Energy Office of Dispute Resolution
47](#energy-office-of-dispute-resolution)

[Energy Employee Concerns Program 48](#energy-employee-concerns-program)

[Energy Albuquerque Operations Office
49](#energy-albuquerque-operations-office)

[Energy Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
50](#energy-bonneville-power-administration-bpa)

[Energy Environment, Safety and Health, Office of Oversight
51](#energy-environment-safety-and-health-office-of-oversight)

[Energy Idaho Operations Office 52](#energy-idaho-operations-office)

[Energy Nevada Operations Office 53](#energy-nevada-operations-office)

[Energy Richland Operations Office
54](#energy-richland-operations-office)

[Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
56](#federal-deposit-insurance-corporation)

[Federal Election Commission 57](#federal-election-commission)

[General Accounting Office 58](#general-accounting-office)

[General Services Administration 58](#general-services-administration)

[General Services Administration Greater Southwest Region
59](#general-services-administration-greater-southwest-region)

[Health and Human Services 60](#health-and-human-services)

[Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Agency for
Toxic Substances Disease Registry
61](#health-and-human-services-centers-for-disease-control-and-agency-for-toxic-substances-disease-registry)

[Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
62](#health-and-human-services-centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services)

[Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration
64](#health-and-human-services-food-and-drug-administration)

[Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration
64](#health-and-human-services-food-and-drug-administration-1)

[Health and Human Services National Institutes Of Health
65](#health-and-human-services-national-institutes-of-health)

[Health and Human Services Phoenix Area Indian Health Services
67](#health-and-human-services-phoenix-area-indian-health-services)

[Interior 68](#interior)

[Interior DOI Human Resources Management
69](#interior-doi-human-resources-management)

[Justice 70](#justice)

[Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys
71](#justice-executive-office-for-united-states-attorneys)

[Justice Federal Bureau Of Investigation
72](#justice-federal-bureau-of-investigation)

[Justice Federal Bureau Of Investigation
73](#justice-federal-bureau-of-investigation-1)

[Justice Federal Bureau Of Prisons
74](#justice-federal-bureau-of-prisons)

[Justice United States Marshals Service
74](#justice-united-states-marshals-service)

[Labor 75](#labor)

[Library of Congress 76](#library-of-congress)

[National Aeronautics and Space Administration
77](#national-aeronautics-and-space-administration)

[National Imagery and Mapping Agency
78](#national-imagery-and-mapping-agency)

[National Security Agency 79](#national-security-agency)

[Navy 80](#navy)

[Navy Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW), San Diego
81](#navy-commander-navy-region-southwest-cnrsw-san-diego)

[Navy Human Resources Service Center, Norfolk
82](#navy-human-resources-service-center-norfolk)

[Navy Human Resources Service Center, Pacific
83](#navy-human-resources-service-center-pacific)

[Navy Human Resources Service Center, East
84](#navy-human-resources-service-center-east)

[Navy Human Resources Service Center, Southeast
85](#navy-human-resources-service-center-southeast)

[Navy Human Resources Service Center, Northwest
86](#navy-human-resources-service-center-northwest)

[Office of Personnel Management 87](#office-of-personnel-management)

[Postal Service 88](#postal-service)

[REDRESS 88](#redress)

[REDRESS II 89](#redress-ii)

[Smithsonian Institution 90](#smithsonian-institution)

[Social Security Administration 91](#social-security-administration)

[Western Program Service Center 92](#western-program-service-center)

[State 92](#state)

[Tennessee Valley Authority 93](#tennessee-valley-authority)

[Transportation Federal Aviation Administration
94](#transportation-federal-aviation-administration)

[Transportation Federal Aviation Administration - Great Lakes Region
95](#transportation-federal-aviation-administration---great-lakes-region)

[Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain
Region
96](#transportation-federal-aviation-administration-northwest-mountain-region)

[Treasury Bureau Of Engraving and Printing
97](#treasury-bureau-of-engraving-and-printing)

[Treasury Bureau Of the Public Debt
98](#treasury-bureau-of-the-public-debt)

[Treasury Customs Service 99](#treasury-customs-service)

[Treasury Internal Revenue Service
100](#treasury-internal-revenue-service)

[Treasury IRS - Kansas City Service Center
101](#treasury-irs---kansas-city-service-center)

[Treasury IRS - North-South Carolina District
102](#treasury-irs---north-south-carolina-district)

[Treasury U.S. Mint 103](#treasury-u.s.-mint)

[Treasury Secret Service 104](#treasury-secret-service)

[U.S.Congress Office of Compliance
106](#u.s.congress-office-of-compliance)

[Veterans Affairs 106](#veterans-affairs)

[Veterans Affairs Alexandria, Louisiana VA Medical Center
108](#veterans-affairs-alexandria-louisiana-va-medical-center)

[Veterans Affairs Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System
109](#veterans-affairs-central-texas-veterans-healthcare-system)

[Veterans Affairs Desert Pacific Healthcare Network
111](#veterans-affairs-desert-pacific-healthcare-network)

[Veterans Affairs Iowa City VA Medical Center
112](#veterans-affairs-iowa-city-va-medical-center)

[Veterans Affairs Martinsburg VA Medical Center
113](#veterans-affairs-martinsburg-va-medical-center)

[Department of Veterans Affairs St. Louis, MO VA Medical Center
114](#department-of-veterans-affairs-st.-louis-mo-va-medical-center)

[Veterans Affairs Salem VA Medical Center
115](#veterans-affairs-salem-va-medical-center)

[VA Healthcare Network Upstate New York
116](#va-healthcare-network-upstate-new-york)

[Section II: Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques and Agency
Practices
118](#section-ii-alternative-dispute-resolution-techniques-and-agency-practices)

[Alternative Discipline Agency Practices
118](#alternative-discipline-agency-practices)

[Administrative Office Of The U.S. Courts Alternative Discipline
119](#administrative-office-of-the-u.s.-courts-alternative-discipline)

[Agriculture 120](#agriculture-1)

[Air Force Keesler Air Force Base
121](#air-force-keesler-air-force-base)

[Army Letterkenny Army Depot 122](#army-letterkenny-army-depot)

[Defense Logistics Agency 123](#defense-logistics-agency)

[General Accounting Office 123](#general-accounting-office-1)

[Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration
124](#health-and-human-services-food-and-drug-administration-2)

[Interior National Park Service 125](#interior-national-park-service)

[NASA 126](#nasa)

[National Security Agency 127](#national-security-agency-1)

[Navy Fleet & Industrial Center, San Diego
128](#navy-fleet-industrial-center-san-diego)

[Navy Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme
129](#navy-naval-surface-warfare-center-port-hueneme)

[Postal Service 130](#postal-service-1)

[U.S. Soldiers\' and Airmen\'s Home
131](#u.s.-soldiers-and-airmens-home)

[Section III: Shared Neutrals Programs
133](#section-iii-shared-neutrals-programs)

[Atlanta Federal Executive Board 133](#atlanta-federal-executive-board)

[Chicago Federal Executive Board 134](#chicago-federal-executive-board)

[Dallas-Ft. Worth Federal Executive Board
136](#dallas-ft.-worth-federal-executive-board)

[Denver Federal Executive Board DFEB-ADR Consortium
137](#__RefHeading___Toc22691302)

[Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board
138](#greater-los-angeles-federal-executive-board)

[Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board
139](#honolulu-pacific-federal-executive-board)

[Oklahoma Federal Executive Board
140](#oklahoma-federal-executive-board)

[Oregon Federal Executive Board 141](#__RefHeading___Toc22691306)

[Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board 144](#__RefHeading___Toc22691307)

[Portland Federal Executive Board
145](#portland-federal-executive-board)

[Seattle Federal Executive Board Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution
Consortium
146](#seattle-federal-executive-board-intergovernmental-dispute-resolution-consortium)

[Washington, DC - Sharing Neutrals Program
147](#__RefHeading___Toc22691310)

[Section IV: Administrative Appeals Agencies
148](#section-iv-administrative-appeals-agencies)

[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
148](#equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeoc)

[Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
149](#federal-labor-relations-authority-flra)

[Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)
150](#federal-mediation-and-conciliation-service-fmcs)

[Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
151](#merit-systems-protection-board-mspb)

[Office Of Special Counsel (OSC) 153](#office-of-special-counsel-osc)

[Section V: ADR Training and Assistance Sources
155](#section-v-adr-training-and-assistance-sources)

[PART I. Federal Sources For ADR Training and Assistance
155](#part-i.-federal-sources-for-adr-training-and-assistance)

[Department Of Defense 155](#department-of-defense)

[Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)
156](#federal-mediation-and-conciliation-service-fmcs-1)

[Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
157](#federal-labor-relations-authority-flra-1)

[Graduate School USDA 157](#graduate-school-usda)

[U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
161](#u.s.-merit-systems-protection-board-mspb)

[U.S. Office Of Personnel Management (OPM)
161](#u.s.-office-of-personnel-management-opm)

[Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
161](#pension-benefit-guaranty-corporation-pbgc)

[PART II. Non-Federal Sources For ADR Training and Assistance
162](#part-ii.-non-federal-sources-for-adr-training-and-assistance)

[Colleges and Universities 162](#colleges-and-universities)

[Associations and Consulting Organizations
167](#associations-and-consulting-organizations)

[PART III. ADR Videotapes 173](#__RefHeading___Toc22691329)

[PART IV. Periodicals & Newsletters
174](#part-iv.-periodicals-newsletters)

[Section VI: ADR Web Sites 175](#section-vi-adr-web-sites)

[GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 175](#government-agencies)

[Federal Executive Board (FEB) Web Sites:
177](#federal-executive-board-feb-web-sites)

[ASSOCIATIONS,NON-PROFITS, AND OTHERS
178](#associationsnon-profits-and-others)

[SECTION VII Bibliography 179](#section-vii-bibliography)

[ARTICLES 179](#articles)

[BOOKS AND REPORTS 184](#books-and-reports)

[APPENDIX 191](#appendix)

[Part I. Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996
191](#part-i.-administrative-dispute-resolution-act-of-1996)

[SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 191](#section-1.-short-title.)

[SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITIONS.
191](#sec.-2.-amendment-to-definitions.)

[SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS T0 CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS
191](#sec.-3.-amendments-t0-confidentiality-provisions)

[SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE CLOSURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONFERENCE.
192](#sec.-4.-amendment-to-reflect-the-closure-of-the-administrative-conference.)

[SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT SERVICES PROVISION.
192](#sec.-5.-amendments-to-support-services-provision.)

[SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT.
193](#sec.-6.-amendments-to-the-contract-disputes-act.)

[SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS ON ACQUIRING NEUTRALS.
193](#sec.-7.-amendments-on-acquiring-neutrals.)

[SEC. 8. ARBITRATION AWARDS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
193](#sec.-8.-arbitration-awards-and-judicial-review.)

[SEC. 9. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION;
PROVISIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.
194](#sec.-9.-permanent-authorization-of-the-alternative-dispute-resolution-provisions-of-title-5-united-states-code.)

[SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
194](#sec.-10.-authorization-of-appropriations.)

[SEC. 11. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ACT OF 1990.
194](#sec.-11.-reauthorization-of-negotiated-rulemaking-act-of-1990.)

[SEC. 12. JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS AND
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES: BID PROTESTS.
196](#sec.-12.-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states-court-of-federal-claims-and-the-district-courts-of-the-united-states-bid-protests.)

[Part II. How to Evaluate the *Guide\'s* Usefulness
198](#part-ii.-how-to-evaluate-the-guides-usefulness)

[Part III. How to Provide Update Information
199](#part-iii.-how-to-provide-update-information)

# Introduction

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) consists of a variety of approaches
to early intervention and dispute resolution. Many of these approaches
include the use of a neutral individual such as a mediator who can
assist disputing parties in resolving their disagreements. ADR increases
the parties\' opportunities to resolve disputes prior to or during the
use of formal administrative procedures and litigation (which can be
very costly and time-consuming). It typically is not intended to replace
the more traditional approaches and it can provide long term solutions
to employee-employer conflicts through stakeholders\' participation and
buy-in. In contrast, traditional dispute resolution procedures often
impose a \"solution\" handed down by a third party (e.g., a judge),
where neither party walks away satisfied, and the disputing parties\'
conflict continues or increases.

In employee and labor relations and equal employment opportunity
disputes, ADR has most commonly taken the form of mediation. However,
there are many other options available including conciliation,
cooperative problem-solving, dispute panels, facilitation, fact finding,
interest-based problem solving and bargaining, settlement conferences,
ombudsing, peer review, and alternative discipline. Alternative
discipline as an ADR technique involves taking some type of action in
lieu of traditional discipline to correct misconduct without resorting
to more costly formal procedures and litigation. Parties can use any of
these ADR techniques, combinations of them, or others not discussed in
the *Guide*. In short, parties can design and implement virtually any
form of ADR which suits their needs.

A number of initiatives by Congress and the Government have encouraged
the use of alternative methods of workplace dispute resolution
throughout the Executive Branch. These initiatives include the
*Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996*; the *Civil Rights Act
of 1991*; the *National Performance Review*; Executive Order 12871,
*Labor Management Partnerships*; and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission\'s regulations.

The *Guide* provides an overall picture of how the most common forms of
ADR are being implemented in Federal agencies. It summarizes a number of
current ADR programs (including alternative discipline programs), and it
includes descriptions of shared neutrals programs where agencies have
collaborated to reduce the costs of ADR. It provides a listing of
training and resources available from Federal and non-Federal sources.
It also provides selected ADR-related web sites. The information in the
*Guide* will be helpful to you as you explore the feasibility and
appropriateness of implementing alternative dispute resolution programs
in your organization or enhancing the one you may have now. As you
review the agency programs and other information in the *Guide*, bear in
mind that there is no one correct technique or process. The success of
any ADR program is dependent upon designing a system which reflects the
unique needs of the organization and its employees.

# Section I: Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques and Agency Practices

This section of the *Resource Guide* provides information on agency ADR
programs. The section begins with summary descriptions of seventeen
existing ADR techniques or methods arranged in alphabetical order. This
is not an all-inclusive list of techniques, but rather describes those
that are most common in the Federal Government.

The descriptions of techniques are followed by summaries of agency ADR
programs. The summaries are arranged in alphabetical order according to
the name of the agency involved (as noted at the top of the summary
page). The type of ADR technique(s) used in that program is noted in the
upper left-hand corner of the summary page. Specific techniques or
agencies can be located by referring to the
[Index](http://www5.opm.gov/er/adrguide/index.asp).

## ADR Techniques or Methods

**Binding arbitration** involves the presentation of a dispute to an
impartial or neutral individual (arbitrator) or panel (arbitration
panel) for issuance of a binding decision. Unless arranged otherwise,
the parties usually have the ability to decide who the individuals are
that serve as arbitrators. In some cases, the parties may retain a
particular arbitrator (often from a list of arbitrators) to decide a
number of cases or to serve the parties for a specified length of time
(this is common when a panel is involved). Parties often select a
different arbitrator for each new dispute. A common understanding by the
parties in all cases, however, is that they will be bound by the opinion
of the decision maker rather than simply be obligated to \"consider\" an
opinion or recommendation. Under this method, the third party\'s
decision generally has the force of law but does not set a legal
precedent. It is usually not reviewable by the courts.

Binding arbitration is a statutorily-mandated feature of Federal labor
management agreements. Consistent with statute, the parties to such
agreements are free to negotiate the terms and conditions under which
arbitrators are used to resolve disputes, including the procedures for
their selection. Some agreements may provide for \"permanent\"
arbitrators and some may provide for arbitration panels.

**Conciliation** involves building a positive relationship between the
parties to a dispute. A third party or conciliator (who may or may not
be totally neutral to the interests of the parties) may be used by the
parties to help build such relationships.

A conciliator may assist parties by helping to establish communication,
clarifying misperceptions, dealing with strong emotions, and building
the trust necessary for cooperative problem-solving. Some of the
techniques used by conciliators include providing for a neutral meeting
place, carrying initial messages between/among the parties, reality
testing regarding perceptions or misperceptions, and affirming the
parties\' abilities to work together. Since a general objective of
conciliation is often to promote openness by the parties (to take the
risk to begin negotiations), this method allows parties to begin
dialogues, get to know each other better, build positive perceptions,
and enhance trust. The conciliation method is often used in conjunction
with other methods such as facilitation or mediation.

**Cooperative problem-solving** is one of the most basic methods of
dispute resolution. This informal process usually does not use the
services of a third party and typically takes place when the concerned
parties agree to resolve a question or issue of mutual concern. It is a
positive effort by the parties to collaborate rather than compete to
resolve a dispute.

Cooperative problem-solving may be the procedure of first resort when
the parties recognize that a problem or dispute exists and that they may
be affected negatively if the matter is not resolved. It is most
commonly used when a conflict is not highly polarized and prior to the
parties forming \"hard line\" positions. This method is a key element of
labor-management cooperation programs.

**Dispute panels** use one or more neutral or impartial individuals who
are available to the parties as a means to clarify misperceptions, fill
in information gaps, or resolve differences over data or facts. The
panel reviews conflicting data or facts and suggests ways for the
parties to reconcile their differences. These recommendations may be
procedural in nature or they may involve specific substantive
recommendations, depending on the authority of the panel and the needs
or desires of the parties. Information analyses and suggestions made by
the panel may be used by the parties in other processes such as
negotiations.

This method is generally an informal process and the parties have
considerable latitude about how the panel is used. It is particularly
useful in those organizations where the panel is non-threatening and has
established a reputation for helping parties work through and resolve
their own disputes short of using some formal dispute resolution
process.

**Early neutral evaluation** uses a neutral or impartial third party to
provide a non-binding evaluation, sometimes in writing, which gives the
parties to a dispute an objective perspective on the strengths and
weaknesses of their cases. Under this method, the parties will usually
make informal presentations to the neutral to highlight the parties\'
cases or positions. The process is used in a number of courts across the
country, including U.S. District Courts.

Early neutral evaluation is appropriate when the dispute involves
technical or factual issues that lend themselves to expert evaluation.
It is also used when the parties disagree significantly about the value
of their cases and when the top decision makers of one or more of the
parties could be better informed about the real strengths and weaknesses
of their cases. Finally, it is used when the parties are seeking an
alternative to the expensive and time-consuming process of following
discovery procedures.

**Facilitation** involves the use of techniques to improve the flow of
information in a meeting between parties to a dispute. The techniques
may also be applied to decision-making meetings where a specific outcome
is desired (e.g., resolution of a conflict or dispute). The term
\"facilitator\" is often used interchangeably with the term
\"mediator,\" but a facilitator does not typically become as involved in
the substantive issues as does a mediator. The facilitator focuses more
on the process involved in resolving a matter.

The facilitator generally works with all of the meeting\'s participants
at once and provides procedural directions as to how the group can move
efficiently through the problem-solving steps of the meeting and arrive
at the jointly agreed upon goal. The facilitator may be a member of one
of the parties to the dispute or may be an external consultant.
Facilitators focus on procedural assistance and remain impartial to the
topics or issues under discussion.

The method of facilitating is most appropriate when: (1) the intensity
of the parties\' emotions about the issues in dispute are low to
moderate; (2) the parties or issues are not extremely polarized; (3) the
parties have enough trust in each other that they can work together to
develop a mutually acceptable solution; or (4) the parties are in a
common predicament and they need or will benefit from a
jointly-acceptable outcome.

**Factfinding** is the use of an impartial expert (or group) selected by
the parties, an agency, or by an individual with the authority to
appoint a factfinder in order to determine what the \"facts\" are in a
dispute. The rationale behind the efficacy of factfinding is the
expectation that the opinion of a trusted and impartial neutral will
carry weight with the parties. Factfinding was originally used in the
attempt to resolve labor disputes, but variations of the procedure have
been applied to a wide variety of problems in other areas as well.

Factfinders generally are not permitted to resolve or decide policy
issues. The factfinder may be authorized only to investigate or evaluate
the matter presented and file a report establishing the facts in the
matter. In some cases, he or she may be authorized to issue either a
situation assessment or a specific non-binding procedural or substantive
recommendation as to how a dispute might be resolved. In cases where
such recommendations are not accepted, the data (or facts) will have
been collected and organized in a fashion that will facilitate further
negotiations or be available for use in later adversarial procedures.

**Interest-based problem-solving** is a technique that creates effective
solutions while improving the relationship between the parties. The
process separates the person from the problem, explores all interests to
define issues clearly, brainstorms possibilities and opportunities, and
uses some mutually agreed upon standard to reach a solution. Trust in
the process is a common theme in successful interest-based
problem-solving.

Interest-based problem-solving is often used in collective bargaining
between labor and management in place of traditional, position-based
bargaining. However, as a technique, it can be effectively applied in
many contexts where two or more parties are seeking to reach agreement.

**Mediated arbitration**, commonly known as \"med-arb,\" is a variation
of the arbitration procedure in which an impartial or neutral third
party is authorized by the disputing parties to mediate their dispute
until such time as they reach an impasse. As part of the process, when
impasse is reached, the third party is authorized by the parties to
issue a binding opinion on the cause of the impasse or the remaining
issue(s) in dispute.

In some cases, med-arb utilizes two outside parties\--one to mediate the
dispute and another to arbitrate any remaining issues after the
mediation process is completed. This is done to address some parties\'
concerns that the process, if handled by one third party, mixes and
confuses procedural assistance (a characteristic of mediation) with
binding decision making (a characteristic of arbitration). The concern
is that parties might be less likely to disclose necessary information
for a settlement or are more likely to present extreme arguments during
the mediation stage if they know that the same third party will
ultimately make a decision on the dispute.

Mediated arbitration is useful in narrowing issues more quickly than
under arbitration alone and helps parties focus their resources on the
truly difficult issues involved in a dispute in a more efficient and
effective manner.

**Mediation** is the intervention into a dispute or negotiation of an
acceptable, impartial and neutral third party who has no decision-making
authority. The objective of this intervention is to assist the parties
in voluntarily reaching an acceptable resolution of issues in dispute.
Mediation is useful in highly-polarized disputes where the parties have
either been unable to initiate a productive dialogue, or where the
parties have been talking and have reached a seemingly insurmountable
impasse.

A mediator, like a facilitator, makes primarily procedural suggestions
regarding how parties can reach agreement. Occasionally, a mediator may
suggest some substantive options as a means of encouraging the parties
to expand the range of possible resolutions under consideration. A
mediator often works with the parties individually, in caucuses, to
explore acceptable resolution options or to develop proposals that might
move the parties closer to resolution.

Mediators differ in their degree of directiveness or control while
assisting disputing parties. Some mediators set the stage for
bargaining, make minimal procedural suggestions, and intervene in the
negotiations only to avoid or overcome a deadlock. Other mediators are
much more involved in forging the details of a resolution. Regardless of
how directive the mediator is, the mediator performs the role of
catalyst that enables the parties to initiate progress toward their own
resolution of issues in dispute.

**Minitrials** involve a structured settlement process in which each
side to a dispute presents abbreviated summaries of its cases before the
major decision makers for the parties who have authority to settle the
dispute. The summaries contain explicit data about the legal basis and
the merits of a case. The rationale behind a minitrial is that if the
decision makers are fully informed as to the merits of their cases and
that of the opposing parties, they will be better prepared to
successfully engage in settlement discussions. The process generally
follows more relaxed rules for discovery and case presentation than
might be found in the court or other proceeding and usually the parties
agree on specific limited periods of time for presentations and
arguments.

A third party who is often a former judge or individual versed in the
relevant law is the individual who oversees a minitrial. That individual
is responsible for explaining and maintaining an orderly process of case
presentation and usually makes an advisory ruling regarding a settlement
range, rather than offering a specific solution for the parties to
consider. The parties can use such an advisory opinion to narrow the
range of their discussions and to focus in on acceptable settlement
options\--settlement being the ultimate objective of a minitrial.

The minitrial method is a particularly efficient and cost effective
means for settling contract disputes and can be used in other cases
where some or all of the following characteristics are present: (1) it
is important to get facts and positions before high-level decision
makers; (2) the parties are looking for a substantial level of control
over the resolution of the dispute; (3) some or all of the issues are of
a technical nature; and (4) a trial on the merits of the case would be
very long and/or complex.

**Negotiated rulemaking**, commonly known as \"reg-neg,\" brings
together representatives of various interest groups and a Federal agency
to negotiate the text of a proposed rule. The method is used before a
proposed rule is published in the *Federal Register* under the
*Administrative Procedures Act* (APA). The first step is to set up a
well-balanced group representing the regulated public, public interest
groups, and state and local governments, and join them with a
representative of the Federal agency in a Federally chartered advisory
committee to negotiate the text of the rule. If the committee reaches
consensus on the rule, then the Federal agency can use this consensus as
a basis for its proposed rule.

While reg-neg may result in agreement on composition of a particular
rule an agency may wish to propose, when the rule is proposed it is
still subject to public review under the APA. This is the last step in
the process. Federal agency experience is that the process shortens
considerably the amount of time and reduces the resources needed to
promulgate sensitive, complex, and far-reaching regulations\--often
regulations mandated by statute.

**Settlement conferences** involve a pre-trial conference conducted by a
settlement judge or referee and attended by representatives for the
opposing parties (and sometimes attended by the parties themselves) in
order to reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the matter in
dispute. The method is used in the judicial system and is a common
practice in some jurisdictions. Courts that use this method may mandate
settlement conferences in certain circumstances.

The role of a settlement judge is similar to that of a mediator in that
he or she assists the parties procedurally in negotiating an agreement.
Such judges play much stronger authoritative roles than mediators, since
they also provide the parties with specific substantive and legal
information about what the disposition of the case might be if it were
to go to court. They also provide the parties with possible settlement
ranges that could be considered.

**Non-binding arbitration** involves presenting a dispute to an
impartial or neutral individual (arbitrator) or panel (arbitration
panel) for issuance of an advisory or non-binding decision. This method
is generally one of the most common quasi-judicial means for resolving
disputes and has been used for a long period of time to resolve
labor/management and commercial disputes. Under the process, the parties
have input into the selection process, giving them the ability to select
an individual or panel with some expertise and knowledge of the disputed
issues, although this is not a prerequisite for an individual to
function as an arbitrator. Generally, the individuals chosen are those
known to be impartial, objective, fair, and to have the ability to
evaluate and make judgments about data or facts. The opinions issued by
the third party in such cases are non-binding; however, parties do have
the flexibility to determine, by mutual agreement, that an opinion will
be binding in a particular case.

Non-binding arbitration is appropriate for use when some or all of the
following characteristics are present in a dispute: (1) the parties are
looking for a quick resolution to the dispute; (2) the parties prefer a
third party decision maker, but want to ensure they have a role in
selecting the decision maker; and (3) the parties would like more
control over the decision making process than might be possible under
more formal adjudication of the dispute.

**Ombudsmen** are individuals who rely on a number of techniques to
resolve disputes. These techniques include counseling, mediating,
conciliating, and factfinding. Usually, when an ombudsman receives a
complaint, he or she interviews parties, reviews files, and makes
recommendations to the disputants. Typically, ombudsmen do not impose
solutions. The power of the ombudsman lies in his or her ability to
persuade the parties involved to accept his or her recommendations.
Generally, an individual not accepting the proposed solution of the
ombudsman is free to pursue a remedy in other forums for dispute
resolution.

Ombudsmen may be used to handle employee workplace complaints and
disputes or complaints and disputes from outside of the place of
employment, such as those from customers or clients. Ombudsmen are often
able to identify and track systemic problems and suggest ways of dealing
with those problems.

**Partnering** is used to improve a variety of working relationships,
primarily between the Federal Government and contractors, by seeking to
prevent disputes before they occur. The method relies on an agreement in
principle to share the risks involved in completing a project and to
establish and promote a nurturing environment. This is done through the
use of team-building activities to help define common goals, improve
communication, and foster a problem-solving attitude among the group of
individuals who must work together throughout a contract\'s term.

Partnering in the contract setting typically involves an initial
partnering workshop after the contract award and before the work begins.
This is a facilitated workshop involving the key stakeholders in the
project. The purpose of the workshop is to develop a team approach to
the project. This generally results in a partnership agreement that
includes dispute prevention and resolution procedures.

**Peer review** is a problem-solving process where an employee takes a
dispute to a group or panel of fellow employees and managers for a
decision. The decision may or may not be binding on the employee and/or
the employer, depending on the conditions of the particular process. If
it is not binding on the employee, he or she would be able to seek
relief in traditional forums for dispute resolution if dissatisfied with
the decision under peer review. The principle objective of the method is
to resolve disputes early before they become formal complaints or
grievances.

Typically, the panel is made up of employees and managers who volunteer
for this duty and who are trained in listening, questioning, and
problem-solving skills as well as the specific policies and guidelines
of the panel. Peer review panels may be standing groups of individuals
who are available to address whatever disputes employees might bring to
the panel at any given time. Other panels may be formed on an ad hoc
basis through some selection process initiated by the employee, e.g.,
blind selection of a certain number of names from a pool of qualified
employees and managers.

### Agriculture

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Department of Agriculture\'s Conflict Prevention and Resolution
Center was established in 1998, and has a two-part focus. First, it
spearheads efforts to ensure that supervisors and managers throughout
the Department receive appropriate training and other assistance to
improve their skills in conflict resolution. Second, it develops policy
and programs to ensure that a full range of ADR techniques are available
for resolving workplace and program conflicts. The primary ADR approach
currently in use in the Department is mediation, although current
efforts are looking to utilize other ADR techniques.

***Background/Objective***\
In February, 1997 a report looking at civil rights issues throughout the
Department described an unsatisfactory and overloaded EEO complaint
system, and cited inadequate progress in making ADR available to resolve
workplace conflicts of all kinds. The report found that a coordinated
Departmental ADR and conflict management effort was needed. It cited the
need to address conflicts at the earliest stages, before the formal
dispute resolution systems become involved. The team implementing the
report recommended the creation of a centralized conflict resolution
office, and that it not be attached to civil rights or human resources
\-- the offices traditionally responsible for workplace dispute
resolution \-- to ensure neutrality. The Center is part of the Office of
Planning and Coordination under the Assistant Secretary for
Administration.

In January 1999, the Secretary established an ADR Working Group. The
working group is comprised of senior level officials from each
agency/mission area and national union representatives, and is
subdivided into smaller groups focusing on such issues as qualifications
of neutrals, marketing of ADR, education, evaluation and tracking,
agricultural mediation, and ADR in other program disputes. The senior
level officials on the working group have become USDA\'s ADR champions.
Products created out of the working group include: an ADR awareness
video, which is also available through video streaming; an ADR
Factsheet, soon to be distributed to all USDA employees; standards for
neutrals; evaluation and tracking criteria; and procedures for use of
ADR in contract disputes and other program disputes. All USDA agencies
are scheduled to have ADR programs in place for their employees by June
2000.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Center issued policy and is laying the groundwork for a
Department-wide shared neutrals program, finalizing Department-wide
training guidance and modules, providing some direct ADR services and
developing ADR regulations. The Center is actively involved in providing
guidance and assistance to agencies with implementation and operation of
their ADR programs.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The current policy, issued March 23, 2000, expands parameters and
guidance for the use of ADR in workplace and program disputes, and
offers general guidelines governing the use of ADR within the
Department. The policy outlines the roles and responsibilities of
Subcabinet Officials and Agency Administrators, the General Counsel and
the Center.

***Contact***\
Jeffrey Knishkowy, Director, USDA Conflict Prevention and Resolution
Center 1400 Independence Avenue, Mail Stop 9407, Washington, D.C.
20250-9407, or visit us at: 501 School Street, SW, Room 300; Phone:
(202) 720-7664; Fax: (202) 720-8848; E-mail: jeff.knishkowy@usda.gov and
website: <http://www.usda.gov/cprc/>

### Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

#### ADR Techique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Program provides mediation,
conflict management and resolution services on a worldwide basis to all
agency employees. It provides participants an alternative to more formal
avenues of redress available. Referrals to mediation are accepted from a
party to a conflict or from a third party. A mediator is selected from
among the 6 staff mediators, the few collateral duty mediators in the
agency, or from one of the many international Shared Neutrals programs.
All costs associated with CPR services are born by the CPR Program. The
agency assures adequate annual funding for services provided upon
request. Mediation sessions are conducted offsite, when possible, and
minimal records are maintained. In addition to one-on-one mediation
services, the CPR staff provides multi-party mediations, consultation
and on-point training. This Program also provides specially designed
conflict management and communication skills workshops for agency
employees, team leaders, intact work teams and supervisors and are
included in agency training workshops.

***Background/Objective***\
The CPR Program was developed in 1996 in response to employee surveys
that identified the willingness of employees to use alternative dispute
resolution and identified the types of disputes occurring in the APHIS
workforce. The Program goals include: (1) create an environment of open
communication, (2) resolve concerns informally within shortened time
frames, (3) build the capacity for employees to take responsibility for
and learn from the resolution of conflicts, (4) provide opportunities
for a wider range of creative solutions in the resolution of disputes,
and (5) strengthen the ability of the agency to carry out its mission.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Resolution during the last 18 months is at 100%, about 1500 people are
trained in conflict management and communication skills and interviews
indicate a significant number of complaints and grievances were avoided
as a result of mediation. When the parties are available, the CPR
Program provides services within 2 weeks of initial contact. The CPR
Program aids other USDA agencies as they establish ADR programs.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The CPR staff works closely with the Labor Relations, Employee
Relations, Internal Investigations, Prevention of Violence in the
Workplace, and Employee Assistance Programs before providing mediation
services. Participation in CPR mediations is voluntary and no agreement
is entered into unless both parties agree to the terms. Agreeing to
mediation, an employee does not give up his/her right to file a formal
complaint or grievance within the appropriate time frames. However, both
administrative and negotiated grievance time-frames may be tolled with
agreement by appropriate parties.

***Contact***\
Juanda Rogers, Director, Conflict Prevention and Resolution Program,
APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 25, Riverdale, MD 20737;Telephone: (301)
734-4950; FAX: (301) 734-4938; Email: <juanda.b.rogers@usda.gov>.

### Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service

#### ADR Technique: Ombuds/Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
Most employees who work for the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) work as Federal Inspectors in privately owned meat and poultry
slaughter and processing plants with limited telephone access.
Therefore, the Voluntary= Dispute Intervention Program (VDIP)
established two toll free lines that employees can use from any
telephone to raise any kind of workplace complaint or concern. Program
staff serve as ombuds for many types of problems raised, explaining
policies and procedures, or referring the issue to the right office.
Trained, collateral-duty mediators are available to assist in resolving
disputes. After each mediation, the parties receive follow-up calls to
assess the success of the resolution and assist with any problems.

***Background/Objective***\
An agency task force was formed in 1996 to explore the use of mediation
in dealing with workplace conflict. The task force involved union and
management, and headquarters and field employees, to involve the
broadest possible mix of stakeholders.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Currently, the program accomplishes about one formal mediation every two
weeks, with 18 collateral duty mediators in the field, and 8 in
headquarters. Feedback is received from participants through follow-up
calls and postcard evaluation questionnaires they send to the policy
office. Reviews have been positive. The staff is developing criteria for
mediator selection, and has developed a one-day course in conflict
management.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Mediators are currently chosen from training, EEO, and labor and
employee relations staffs. Additionally, all union Council presidents
have been trained and have the option to serve as mediators, as do
presidents of other employee organizations. All mediators receive
training from a single provider. Cases involving allegations of serious
misconduct or criminal activity are not accepted for mediation. If the
union is involved in any way in a dispute, the appropriate council
president has veto power over proposed mediation (though most view the
program favorably).

***Contacts***\
Milo Christianson, Butler Square West, 4th Floor, 100 N. 6th Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55403; Telephone: (612) 370-2010, ext. 2539; FAX: (612)
370-2070. Kathy Welsh, Washington, DC; Telephone: (202) 720-2683; FAX:
(202) 690-3938.

### Agriculture Forest Service

#### ADR Technique:- Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Forest Service\'s Early Intervention Program (EIP) provides
mediation and facilitation services on a nationwide basis to all agency
employees. The Forest Service\'s 35,000 employees are responsible for
managing 192 million acres of forest, grassland, and aquatic ecosystems.
As the largest agency within the Department of Agriculture, the Forest
Service also has the greatest number of discrimination complaints, which
number in the hundreds yearly. The EIP was developed as an alternative
method for employees to address working relationship problems, some of
which lead to the filing of discrimination complaints. There are both
internal and external mediators available. Presently, about 70 Forest
Service employees have been trained and have experience in helping
resolve a variety of workplace conflicts. Externally, mediators can be
obtained from other USDA agencies, Federal Executive Boards, or from
private mediation services.

***Background/Objective***\
The EIP grew out of increasing dissatisfaction with the other, more
formal systems for resolving workplace disputes, primarily the grievance
and complaint processes. These processes can be slow, adversarial, and
often do not address the underlying causes of the conflict. EIP, on the
other hand, is relatively fast and non-adversarial, and the parties
directly involved in the conflict are instrumental in its resolution. A
mediator assists the parties in crafting an agreement that specifically
addresses their problems in working together. Conceived originally as a
process for dealing with any type of workplace dispute, EIP has an
expanded role as the ADR resource for mediations of discrimination
complaints.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The EIP has been fully implemented nationwide. The resolution rate for
the EIP has consistently been over 80%, and the time elapsed from intake
to mediation has averaged 21 days. The average cost for a mediation that
lasts from 4-6 hours is about \$1,000 when an internal mediator is used,
and about \$1,500 for an external mediator. In Fiscal Year 1999, 459
contacts were made to the EIP. Of that number, 183 mediations were held.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Participation is voluntary for all parties, although management is
normally expected to participate. By agreeing to mediation, the employee
does not relinquish the right to file a complaint or grievance, and the
manager does not give up any authorities. Cases involving serious
misconduct or criminal activity may not be appropriate for mediation
through the EIP.

***Contact***\
Dale Gentry, Manager, National Early Intervention Program, Forest
Service, 201 14th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20250; Telephone: (703)
605-4576; Fax: (703) 605-1566; email: <dgentry@fs.fed.us>

### Agriculture National Finance Center

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
Through the National Finance Center\'s (NFC) Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Program (CPRP), disputing parties can quickly and informally
resolve their conflicts using a variety of alternative dispute
resolution approaches. Any employee, supervisor, manager or the NFC
Director can initiate a request for alternative dispute resolution
assistance when he/she feels that there is an issue/concern where a
neutral third party would be of assistance or upon referral by NFC\'s
EEO Counselor in lieu of the traditional counseling activities during
the pre-complaint processing stage of the EEO Complaint Process. The
program offers a combination of conciliation and/or mediation: (a)
Internal Conciliation: using Conflict Management Specialists (CMS) who
are members of the Workforce Services Staff (WSS). The staff serves as
an independent extended arm of the NFC Director, with the staff\'s Chief
serving as an ombudsman and chief administrator of the agency\'s CPRP.
The staff\'s primary role is to work closely with managers, supervisors,
and employees to resolve disputes at their earliest stages and to assist
in the development of a variety of programs and activities designed to
prevent and/or manage conflict. The program also uses Conciliators, a
group of trained NFC managers with proven resolution skills, who serve
as internal conciliators under a collateral assignment. They are
assigned to work with disputing parties to clarify issues and assist in
identifying interest-based solutions. They provide additional assistance
by participating in the formal mediation process as an objective
third-party on unresolved cases, to continuously encourage resolution
and ensure that solutions meet the interest and needs of both parties.
(b) Mediation: as a voluntary process, which typically occurs after
unsuccessful efforts at resolving conflict using conciliation. The
disputing parties may choose internal or external mediators to assist in
resolving the dispute.

***Background/Objective***\
In October 1997, the NFC instituted a \"Morale Improvement Program\" by
establishing the Workforce Service Staff (WSS) whose core functions
entail eliminating the causes of low morale by putting in place an
effective, expeditious process for informally resolving any type of
conflict that may arise in the workplace, and instituting new programs
or improving existing programs to significantly improve morale. The WSS
Chief is charged with not only providing an informal arena to resolve
formal employee grievances, appeals and complaints, but to
simultaneously eliminate the source of the problems at the root cause,
by using a wide variety of conflict prevention and resolution
approaches, including ADR, to make the agency\'s resolution efforts more
efficient and effective.

While some components of the CPRP offer dispute resolution through
corrective action or remedial measures, other programs focus on
prevention through re-education processes, and recognizing and awarding
employees who accept the challenge to improve employer-employee
relationships. Some early intervention and prevention programs are: The
NFC-Inclusion University whose primary purpose is to increase diversity
awareness through a semester based self-education program which
incorporates facilitated dialogue sessions, which in turn, increase
management and employee communication competencies. Participants receive
credit for their studies which count towards a special agency degree at
either the Associate, Bachelor, Master, or Doctorate level. The Work
Environment Analysis Program can prevent multiple complaints in a work
area from occurring. The process may be invoked by employee, supervisor,
manager, or by the NFC director requesting assistance from the WSS to
initiate a review of an entire organization in order to resolve group
issues of concern that may be negatively affecting morale and
productivity before they become (multiple) complaints. The Work Unit
Appreciation Program recognizes work units as they steadily progress as
a motivated team and improve the morale and productivity of their
organization. The employees conduct self-evaluations of their respective
work units and recognition is based on their collective assessment.
Other programs such as the Discipline Prevention Program and the Mentor
Program are developed and awaiting implementation. All of these programs
are innovative in scope and they challenge and expand the very
definition of alternative dispute resolution.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Since the WSS was established in October 1997, approximately 82% of all
cases that were processed through the CPRP were either resolved through
conciliation, mediation, or withdrawn without further action. As a
result of the WSS conciliation, all previous ULPs were resolved, and
only 4 have been filed since the establishment of WSS; of those filed, 3
were resolved in the conciliatory stage by the WSS. Only one ULP remains
unresolved. Additionally, the NFC experienced a 31 percent reduction of
the number of EEO complaints over a period of 15 months.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The election to use conciliation and/or mediation is voluntary on the
part of the aggrieved employee. However, agency supervisors and managers
have a duty to cooperate in the ADR process once it has been determined
that it is a matter appropriate for ADR. The American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 2341 has entered into a labor/management
partnership agreement wherein the parties jointly agree to initially
offer and use the NFC\'s CPRP, namely internal conciliation, external
mediation, and the services of the CMS to settle concerns/conflicts of
bargaining unit employees. The program is governed by policies and
procedures set by the agency.

***Contact***\
Donald R. Lewis, Chief, Workforce Service Staff, National Finance
Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, United States Department
of Agriculture, P.O. Box 60,000, New Orleans, LA 70160; Telephone (504)
255-5624; Fax (504) 255-5089; Email: <donald.lewis@usda.gov>

### Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ADR Program serves as
the focal point for early intervention/resolution of workplace and
program disputes. The program also works closely with the Office of
Civil Rights and Human Resource Management and provides ADR services in
support of the EEO complaint and grievance processes. In an effort to
provide educational opportunities, the program developed and offers
conflict management training designed to help supervisory and
non-supervisory employees enhance their current ability to manage
conflict.

The ADR program was established through the support of National
Leadership and program design was developed and recommended by a design
committee comprised of members from labor, management, and employees
from various disciplines throughout the country.

***Background/Objective***\
The purpose of the ADR Program is to resolve workplace and program
disputes early; improve working relationships with and among employees,
customers and partners; save time and resources; and create mutual
agreements.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The NRCS ADR Program was implemented agency-wide in June 2000. The
diverse staff of 5 is complemented by 20 collateral duty mediators
located at headquarters and in field locations throughout the U.S. The
program uses both internal and external mediators. Policy is in place, a
web-site has been established, briefings are ongoing, and conflict
management training workshops complement the program.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
There are few rules. Participation in ADR is completely voluntary. By
participating in ADR, employees do not give up the right to file a
formal complaint or grievance.

***Contact***\
Elly D. Cleaver, Director, NRCS ADR Program, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue,
1-2134,\
Beltsville, MD 20705-5471; Telephone: (301) 504-2287; Fax: (301)
504-2176; Email: <elly.cleaver@usda.gov>.

### Agriculture Research, Education, and Economics

#### ADR Techniques: Mediation 

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Cooperative Resolution Program (CRP) is an ADR Program that has been
implemented in the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission
area. The CRP is a voluntary, non-adversarial approach for employees,
supervisors, and managers to handle conflict in the workplace. Disputes
that arise in the workplace often are the result of miscommunication or
a difference in perception. Through the assistance of a mediator, who
serves as a neutral, the parties have an opportunity to be heard and to
create their own resolution to the situation. CRP seeks to find a
workable solution to the dispute and promotes a positive working
relationship between the parties. The CRP is preventive \-- resolving
differences in a cooperative approach by working together to craft
mutually agreed upon solutions to resolve the differences.

***Background/Objective***\
Passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and publication of
Vice President Gore\'s Report of the National Performance Review were
the two catalysts for creation of the program. Emphasis is on building
communication and improving working relationships, which will prevent
future conflict. The CRP focuses not on blame, but looking at the
future.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Emphasis is being placed on conflict management training for all
employees. The Program Manager developed and presents a conflict
management class to REE employees nationwide. The training is an
opportunity to provide an understanding of the sources of conflict,
identify ways of settling conflict, and develop communication techniques
to prevent conflict. The training also discusses the Cooperative
Resolution Program and how it can help in building communication and
prevent conflict from escalating.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Department of
Agriculture\'s policy on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution, on
March 23, 2000, to resolve workplace and program disputes within USDA.
Any employee in the REE mission area may request a mediation. Employees
may have a union representative or an attorney present during mediation
if requested.

***Contacts***\
Patricia Frick, Program Manager, REE Mission Area Cooperative Resolution
Program, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705-5102; Telephone:
(301) 504-1450; FAX: (301) 504-1375; Email: <pfrick@ars.usda.gov>; Tracy
Cohen, Program Specialist; Telephone: (301) 504-1352; FAX: (301)
504-1375; Email: <tcohen@ars.usda.gov> or Debra Griffin, Program
Assistant; Telephone: (301) 504-1460; FAX: (301) 504-1375; Email:
<dgriffin@ars.usda.gov>; Web site address:
[www.ars.usda.gov/afm2/coopres/](http://www.ars.usda.gov/afm2/coopres/)

### Air Force

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Air Force uses mediation as a technique to resolve all types of
employment disputes. Emphasis is placed on early intervention, generally
during the informal stages of processing. However, mediation is offered
at any stage.

***Background/Objectives***\
The Air Force was one of the first Federal agencies to use ADR beginning
in 1989 with EEO complaints. Use has since been expanded to all types of
disputes including negotiated and administrative grievances, unfair
labor practice charges, and Merit System Protection Board appeals. Over
1,500 mediators have been trained including EEO counselors, personnel
specialists, and management and union officials.

***Duration/CurrentActivity***\
In Fiscal Year 96, of the total 2,269 civilian disputes mediated, 1,690
(74%) were resolved. The Air Force\'s Military Equal Opportunity Office,
which handles military equal opportunity and treatment complaints, uses
mediation to resolve these disputes. Air Force participates in the
Department of Defense shared neutrals project which is administered by
the Department of Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Participation in mediation is voluntary. Agreements are mutually
acceptable to the parties. If no agreement is reached, the original
dispute process continues. Discussions and settlement proposals are
confidential and are not used to influence a decision if the process
goes forward. Settlement agreements are reviewed by civilian personnel
and legal staffs to assure regulatory and legal sufficiency.

***Contact***\
Diane Wakeham, Lead Personnel Management Specialist, EEO, AFPOA/DPW,
Work Force Appeals and Relations Division, 1040 Air Force Pentagon,
Washington DC 20330-1040; Telephone: (703) 693-2700; FAX: (703)
693-2696; Email: <diane.wakeham@dp.hq.af.mil> or Vincent Johnson,
Personnel Management Specialist, same address, telephone and FAX as
above; Email: <vincent.johnson@dp.hq.af.mil>.

### Air Force Charleston Air Force Base

#### ADR Technique: Mediation/Arbitration

***How the ADR System Works***\
The ADR program was developed to settle grievances, both the Negotiated
Grievance Procedure (NGP) and the Administrative Grievance Procedure
(AGP), Unfair Labor Practices and any other mutually agreed upon issue.
Eight members of the bargaining unit and eight members of management
were selected by their respective leadership. The sixteen-member team
received training in dispute resolution. Team members serve for a
minimum of two years. Each ADR request is heard by a four-member panel
(2 management/2 labor) from members of the ADR team. Mediation is the
primary goal of ADR, however if that fails arbitration through consensus
settles the issue. Mediation/arbitration decisions of the panel are
binding on all parties.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was designed to implement a problem-solving process that
would prevent and resolve typical workplace disputes before they
escalate. The goal is to reduce conflict and channel it into
constructive action, where positive change can be made thus enhancing
mission readiness. The objectives are as follows: Develop a creative
process to resolve conflict; build a foundation of trust on both sides;
focus on the issues, not people or personalities; be open to
alternatives and compromise; explore all interests, and render a fair
and equitable decision. A significant unanticipated benefit arose
between the parties during program development - trust and
communication. The parties working together towards a common goal\--a
better way to resolve disputes\--actually prevented disputes from
arising in the first place.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Dispute resolution time has been reduced dramatically. No third party
actions have been required since program inception. With disputes being
resolved in-house, the process is not dependent on the availability and
timeliness of third parties or outside agencies.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
When used to settle a grievance under the NGP, steps one and two must be
completed. At that time the employee elects either step 3 or ADR. For
the AGP the employee chooses either the grievance procedures or ADR at
the initial outset. If ADR is chosen the employee signs a memorandum of
agreement acknowledging that ADR is final and binding on both the
employee and management. If an employee under the NGP choose to stop the
ADR process once elected, then the decision handed down by the step 2
official will prevail. This process was codified in the recently
negotiated MOA with the local union (AFGE)

***Contact***\
Nancy Corbin, 437 SVS/SV, 207 S. Davis Drive, Charleston AFB, SC 29404-
Telephone (843) 963-4314, DSN 673-4314; e-mail
<Nancy.Corbin@charleston.af.mil>

### Air Force Kirtland Air Force Base

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The mediation process is available through the Kirtland Air Force Base
Mediation Office to help resolve any workplace conflict. It is a
voluntary and confidential process which may be initiated by either an
employee or a management official. The office staff serves as mediators.
The goal is to facilitate resolution of conflict before it reaches a
formal dispute process such as a grievance or an EEO complaint. However,
mediation is also available at any stage of a formal process and in no
way impedes an employee\'s grievance or complaint rights. The time
requirements for those processes are either held in abeyance or extended
pending the outcome of the mediation. If necessary, mediation may
encompass more than one meeting to achieve resolution.

***Background/Objective***\
The goal is to provide the Kirtland Air Force Base community with an
alternative to traditional methods of resolving disputes and to provide
a forum for those workplace conflicts that would not normally be
addressed by a formal process. After a process action team evaluated the
grievances and EEO complaints being handled on the base, a pilot program
was established that has evolved into a Mediation Office which reports
to the base Chief EEO Counselor. The staff has received mediation skills
training through the Albuquerque Mediation Alliance, the Justice Center
of Atlanta, CDR Associates (Boulder, CO), and previous job training and
education.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Office opened on 1 December 1993. In addition to 2-party mediations,
the Office conducts workgroup interventions, offers advisory services to
individuals, and provides outreach education in style differences,
communication skills and conflict resolution.

***Rules governing the Activity***\
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was negotiated with the local union
(AFGE) allowing the staff to mediate grievances. The MOU provides that
the union will receive a copy of the resolution agreement with the
employee\'s written consent. Otherwise, all agreements derived through
the mediation process are confidential. Settlements of pending EEO
complaints and grievances are reviewed by a panel comprised of a
representative from the Judge Advocate General, EEO, and personnel
offices to ensure legal compliance.

***Contacts***\
Barbara A. Powelson and G.M. \"Rav\" Nicholson, Kirtland AFB Mediation
Office, 377 ABW/CCM, 2000 Wyoming Blvd., SE, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117;
Telephone: (505) 846-7552; FAX: (505) 846-0985.

### Air Force Lackland Air Force Base

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Program provides for mediation of
disputes between management and employees and designated employee
representatives. The ADR Program staff identifies the relevant parties
to a dispute and provides a pre-mediation briefing at which all
participants are introduced to the mediation process. At the subsequent
mediation conference, trained in-house mediators guide the parties
through the mediation process, assisting them to reach a mutually
acceptable resolution, if at all possible. A substantial number of
collateral duty mediators compose the mediator staff. When resolution is
achieved, the parties are encouraged to prepare a brief, specific
agreement. When resolution is not achieved, the parties are informed of
their rights in continuing the processing of a grievance or EEO
complaint should they so choose.

***Background/Objective***\
The program is the outgrowth of efforts to resolve an impasse between
management and labor contract negotiating teams. ADR, particularly
mediation, was seen as a way to effectively resolve both this impasse
and a variety of workplace disputes in general. The goals of the program
include: (1) providing a simpler, friendlier, less costly, less
adversarial and more timely avenue for resolving workplace disputes; (2)
reducing the number of EEO complaints, and grievances; and (3) fostering
improved labor-management relations through increased communication
between employees and supervisors and between management staff and labor
representatives.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Almost 200 mediations have been conducted since the program was
instituted toward the end of Fiscal Year 1996 with a resolution rate of
70% or better.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Cases referred to mediation may involve EEO issues, grievances submitted
either through the Negotiated Grievance Procedure as provided by the
labor agreement or through the agency grievance procedure, or other
workplace issues and disagreements which have not been resolved. All
mediators are agency employees and receive extensive training in ADR and
mediation techniques.

***Contact***\
Romeo R. Garcia, Manager, 37 TRW/CV-M, 1871 Gentile St., Lackland AFB,
TX, 78236-5523; Telephone: (210) 671-0801; FAX: (210) 671-0804; Email:
<romeo.garciar@lackland.af.mil>.

### Air Force McClellan Air Force Base

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The McClellan ADR Program was originally designed to offer mediation
during the informal stage of the EEO complaint process. The program has
expanded to include union grievances, military interpersonal disputes,
and conflicts between managers. Employees access mediation through their
union, EEO, or the Organizational Health Center. To ensure process
continuity and continuing in-house training, McClellan practices
co-mediation. An experienced mediator is teamed up with a novice to
offer coaching, share lessons learned, and provide hands on experience.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR program is an informal, voluntary, conflict resolution process
that allows parties to reach an agreement of their own design. If
resolution is not reached, the complaint continues through formal
channels.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
To date, McClellan has over 20 trained mediators. A partnership with the
Bureau of Land Management allows for both agencies to share neutrals.
McClellan will continue to offer mediation throughout the time needed to
achieve a scheduled base closure.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program is designed after the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program
Plan provided by Air Force Mediation Center and the Department of the
Air Force ADR Program. The program is endorsed by the commander, senior
staff, unions, and the Partnership Council.

***Contact***\
Dan Beach, Organizational Development Consultant, AM-ALC/CCX-1, 5634
Price Avenue, McClellan AFB, CA 95652-1245; Telephone: (916) 643-5374;
FAX: (916) 643-0045; DSN: 633-5374; Email:
<danbeach@email.mcclellan.af.mil>.

### Air Force Tinker Air Force Base

#### ADR Technique: Mediation/Facilitation

***How the ADR System Works***\
ADR at Tinker Air Force Base is considered an umbrella spanning all
complaint processes, accessible by referral. The employee or management
official identifies a workplace problem. The employee/manager is
encouraged to raise the problem through the chain of
command/supervision. The employee/manager may contact his/her
supervisor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Office, Civilian Personnel,
Inspector General, Local Union, Chaplain, Employee Assistance Program
Office or the Alternative Dispute Program Office about the Tinker ADR
process. The official contacted refers the issue either to the
appropriate office or the ADR office. The ADR Office discusses the
matter with the employee/manager to determine the feasibility of using
ADR to resolve the matter. The ADR Office determines whether to offer
one of the methods of ADR for dispute resolution (mediation or
facilitation). The parties agree to use the method offered or to use
traditional dispute resolution procedures. If the parties choose ADR,
they are briefed on their roles, responsibilities, what to expect, and
how to be best prepared for ADR. The parties then attempt to resolve the
disputed issue(s) in good faith and by full and open communication,
respecting the rights of each party to present his/her perspective.

***Background/Objective***\
The Tinker AFB ADR program began in 1998 with a design process outlined
in the Air Force Materiel Command ADR Program Design Workshop at
Wright-Patterson AFB OH. The Secretary of the Air Force General Counsel
gave a presentation on the uses and benefits of ADR in workplace
disputes. From that presentation, the Tinker AFB Chief Labor Law Officer
presented the concept of ADR to the Tinker Commander and senior staff.
The commander decided the benefits of ADR could enhance the working
environment at Tinker, thus the Tinker ADR Program Office was
established to handle employee and agency grievances. After the
successes of the first year, the program was expanded to cover all
complaint processes. The goals of the Tinker ADR program are to help
manage conflict effectively by using ADR, when appropriate, to resolve
military and civilian workplace disputes; promote consensual and
non-adversarial resolution of workplace disputes; resolve problems
giving rise to disputes, as well as resolving the disputes themselves;
provide additional tools to resolve disputes at the earliest possible
time and at the lowest possible organizational level; and avoid dispute
processing costs whenever possible.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
At Tinker AFB, mediation was used successfully in the EEO process
beginning in 1994. In this setting, trained mediators working in the EEO
office sat down with the complainant and respondent and, in many
instances, reached a satisfactory conclusion that resulted in the EEO
complaint being withdrawn by the complainant. In 1999, the Tinker ADR
Program Office was established and mediation, as one form of ADR, was
used in grievances along with other disputes such as those between
coworkers. In 2000, the Tinker ADR Program Office became responsible for
all ADR requests concerning workplace disputes. Additional Tinker ADR
Program responsibilities are training of collateral mediators, workforce
education on ADR, outsourcing of mediators, and various other program
development concepts.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was negotiated with the local union in
accordance with the Air Force Materiel Command Master Labor Agreement
allowing mediation of union grievances at the informal stage. The MOA
established a partnership between management and union officers in the
area of ADR. All agreements derived through the ADR process are
confidential and reviewed by a representative from the Staff Judge
Advocate Office, Equal Employment Office, and the Civilian Personnel
Office before implementation to ensure legal and technical compliance.

***Contacts***\
John Bilbury, Program Manager; Leigh Ann Bryson, ADR Assistant; Tinker
ADR Program Office, OC-ALC/CCX (ADR), 3001 Staff Drive Suite 1AD83,
Tinker AFB OK 73145-3001; Telephone: (405) 736-2151; FAX: (405)
734-8304.

### Army Anniston Army Depot

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The ADR Program at Anniston Army Depot encompasses three specific
programs, Alternative to Traditional Discipline (ATD), the Joint Dispute
Resolution (JDR) Program, and Mediation.

The ATD Program uses a form of factual discovery in which the employee,
his/her representative, the proposing management official, and a
Personnel Management Specialist meet prior to initiating the traditional
discipline process. They discuss the facts in the case, define the
traditional disciplinary penalty, and then negotiate a possible
alternative to the traditional disciplinary penalty. Agreements are
reduced to writing and include a waiver of any appeal, grievance, or
complaint rights. The JDR Program is a process that allows management
and the union to resolve and/or prevent their own disputes without
outside assistance. It is formalized as a step in the negotiated
grievance procedure that allows the employer or union to refer an
unfavorable grievance decision to a JDR Committee. This JDR Committee is
a peer review panel comprised of two union-selected employees and two
management-selected employees from a list of trained panel members. In
grievances involving formal disciplinary actions, the panel renders a
recommendation for acceptance/rejection to the appropriate director. In
all other grievances, the panel renders a written binding decision.
Mediation is available to resolve any workplace dispute.

***Background/Objective***\
Both ATD and JDR were established in an effort to reduce nonproductive
time and to streamline the disciplinary and grievance processes. The
mediation program was initiated to reduce processing time for EEO
complaints and to provide an alternative means of solving other
workplace problems that were not already in established grievance or
disciplinary channels.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The ATD program was initiated in 1992. Through FY 1999, it has been
offered in 251 cases with 174 cases being resolved with an ATD
agreement. The JDR program was instituted in 1996. Twenty-three cases
have been referred with 14 cases being resolved. Mediation has been in
use since January 1, 1998, and has been offered in ten cases of which
five were resolved. Without a doubt, ATD has produced the benefit of
swifter resolution of disputes with a very low recidivism rate. The JDR
Program has yielded similar results for non-disciplinary grievances.
Mediation has proven very successful in those cases where the parties
have agreed to use the process.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
ATD must be offered in all cases involving formal discipline. Agreements
are reduced to writing and must include a waiver of rights. The panel
members for JDR must be from a different work unit than that involved in
the dispute. The use of mediation is voluntary on the part of the
employee, but if elected, the appropriate management official must
participate.

***Contact***\
Mary Mullen, Personnel Management Specialist, Civilian Personnel
Advisory Center, Anniston Army Depot, 7 Frankford Avenue, ATTN:
AMSTA-AN-RCP, Anniston, AL 36201-4199; Telephone: (256) 235-4840; FAX:
(256) 235-4162; Email:
[mullenm@anad.army.mil](mailto: mullenm@anad.army.mil).

### Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, KY

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Grievance Panel at the U.S. Army Armor Center is used for
performance management issues. It is composed of one union member, one
management member, and the Civilian Personnel Officer (CPO). The CPO
serves as the impartial Chairperson who casts the deciding vote if the
two other members cannot reach consensus.

The Partnership Council is used for labor-management matters involving
policy. The Council analyzes issues during the policy formulation stage
and develops implementing plans that include both labor and management
points of view.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the ADR program is to improve working relationships by
resolving disputes in the most effective, cost-efficient manner.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Grievance Panel has worked effectively and very few grievances have
been elevated to a higher level. The Partnership Council has been
successful at addressing issues and developing or recommending policy
for efficient and effective accomplishment of missions.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The agency\'s ADR program is governed by its collective bargaining
agreement.

***Contact***\
Mike Brown, Labor Relations Specialist, Civilian Personnel Advisory
Center, Ft. Knox, KY 40121-5000; Telephone: (502) 624-7688; Email:
<brownm@ftknox2-emh3.army.mil>.

### Army Corps of Engineers

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Corps of Engineers Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program method of ADR is mediation to resolve
employment related disputes. The EEO office or counselor, whoever is
first contacted by the aggrieved, completes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) initial contact sheet as required. If counseling is
requested, the EEO Counselor undertakes the counseling inquiry,
providing initial information on the USACE EEO ADR programs along with
rights and responsibilities. The EEO Officer notifies the ADR Team (EEO
Officer, Labor Counselor and Civilian Personnel Advisory Center, and/or
Human Resources representatives) of the precomplaint not later than the
9th day. The ADR Team meets not later than the 14th day and the EEO
Officer advises the EEO Counselor to offer/not offer USACE EEO ADR. The
EEO Counselor informs the aggrieved not later than the 21st day of the
counseling he/she will be given the written Election Options to choose,
USACE EEO ADR, or EEO Counseling. If the aggrieved elects USACE EEO ADR,
the ADR Team meets the EEO Officer and assigns the mediator not later
than the 28th day. Mediation is processed within 90 days. The EEO
Officer informs the EEO Counselor of the outcome. The EEO Counselor
provides final interview and issues notice of right to file not later
than the 90th day.

***Background/Objective***\
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) revised its
regulation effective November 1999 on federal sector complaints
processing, found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1614. The revised
regulations contained a number of changes to include the requirements
for agencies to have an ADR program. Based upon the revised regulations,
the Corps\' former ADR program referred to as Corps of Engineers Early
Resolution Program (CEERP) was revised to reflect EEOC new guidance. On
January 2000, USACE implemented a task force of individuals from the
EEO, Counsel and HR professionals to revise USACE EEO complaints program
to include the ADR program. The new complaints and ADR guidance were
issued to the field for implementation on March 2000.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
USACE is monitoring the newly revised ADR program and resolution rate.
From the timeframe October 99 through June 00, there were 255
pre-complaints, of those complaints, 183 opted traditional counseling,
which 83 were settled; 72 opted ADR mediation, which 20 were settled.
During this period, there were 82 formal complaints filed, which
resulted in a 68% resolution rate, well above the Department of the
Army\'s resolution rate of 51%.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The USACE EEO ADR Program is in accordance with the EEOC regulations, 29
C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(2).

***Contact***\
Wanda G. Raiford, Equal Employment Specialist, 441 \"G\" Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20314. Telephone: (202) 761-8706; FAX (202) 761-0872:
Email: <wanda.g.raiford@usace.army.mil> .

### Army U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Detrick, MD

#### ADR Techniques: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC) at U.S. Army
Garrison uses ADR techniques to resolve any and all types of disputes
and conflict. The CPRC offers a variety of customized ADR services to
fit the individual and particular situation including conciliation,
cooperative problem-solving, dispute panels, early neutral evaluation,
facilitation, fact finding, interest-based problem solving, mediation,
ombudsmen, and peer review.

***Background/Objective***\
The CPRC has been in operation since January 1998. The Center uses ADR
techniques other than litigation to resolve any and all types of
disputes and conflict. The CPRC offers a variety of customized ADR
services to fit the individual and particular situation including
conciliation, cooperative problem-solving, dispute panels, early neutral
evaluation, facilitation, fact finding, interest-based problem solving,
mediation, ombudsmen and peer review.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
More than 75 complaints have been filed through the CPRC. Most of the
complaints have been successfully resolved either through mediation or
through the ombuds approach. The remaining are ongoing and involve a
departmentwide effort to address workplace issues. Current process
involves sensing sessions, mediation, and team-building exercises. In
addition, The U.S. Army Garrison purchased an Alpine Tower II to be used
for team building, conflict prevention, and training.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
This program is governed by a stand-alone Fort Detrick policy that has
been approved by all of the unions operating at that installation.

***Contact***\
Mrs. Beverly Smith, Director, CPRC, CDR, USAG, ATTN: MCHD-CR (Mrs.
Smith), 568 Dalton Street, Rm. 130A, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5000;
Telephone:(301) 619-2636; FAX: (301) 619-3382; Email:
<bev.smith@det.ameoo.army.mil>.

### Army Fort Monmouth, NJ

#### ADR Technique: Peer Review

***How the ADR System Works***\
In May 1994, the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM)
instituted the Peer Review Panel as a form of ADR. CECOM and AFGE Local
1904 jointly developed this procedure for handling grievances involving
both performance and discipline. The burden of proof lies with
management on disciplinary issues and with the employee on performance
issues. The procedure uses a Peer Review Panel, which allows the
employee\'s peers to act as an arbitrator of the dispute. The panel
hears both sides of the issues and decides by majority vote.

Under the CECOM ADR procedure, it takes approximately three weeks from
the date the grievance is submitted to the date of the hearing. The
hearings are limited to one workday. An oral decision is announced on
the spot and is final and binding. There is no direct cost.

***Background/Objective***\
Peer panels are used for handling grievances involving performance
appraisal ratings of Fully Successful (Successful Level 3) or higher,
and disciplinary actions taken against an employee causing anything
critical of the employee to be placed in the official personnel folder
(this process does not apply to adverse actions, removals, or
downgrades).

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The process has been very successful. To date, 17 issues have been
decided by the Peer Panel Review\--13 performance and 4 discipline. The
benefit of using this ADR mechanism is that it encourages employees to
resolve problems they have within the organization, rather than resort
to an outside forum such as an arbitrator. It controls costs and
provides a timely decision.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
If the employee or the union wishes to grieve the decision on a
disciplinary action, he/she (or representative) does so by preparing a
written statement of the grievance with the relief requested and a
request for a panel review of the decision. The grievant/representative
has 10 working days from receipt of the decision letter to present the
grievance to the servicing Personnel Management Specialist (PMS) or
his/her designee. After determining that the grievance is appropriate
for processing, the PMS has 10 days to set up the panel. All decisions
made by the panel will be final and binding on both parties.

***Contacts***\
Ruth Sharp, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. Army
Communications-Electronics Command, Personnel and Training Directorate,
ATTN: AMSEL-PT, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000; Telephone: (732) 532-2513.
John Poitras, AFGE, Local 1904, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics
Command, ATTN: AMSEL-PT, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000; Telephone: (732)
532-4345.

### Army Army Materiel Command (AMC)

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Army Materiel Command (AMC) implemented Resolving Employee Disputes
Swiftly (REDS) as part of its ADR program. An employee or manager who
identifies a workplace problem or dispute raises the matter through the
chain of command or supervision. He or she may contact officials in the
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office, Civilian Personnel Advisory
Center, Inspector General, union, Chaplain, or the Employee Assistance
Office. The official contacted then refers the matter to either an ADR
Point of Contact (POC) or a member of the ADR team. The ADR team
determines whether ADR should be offered to the parties or whether
traditional dispute resolution procedures would be more appropriate in
the specific situation identified. If the ADR team decides to offer ADR,
it will identify which type of ADR technique is appropriate\--mediation
(a mediator assisting the parties themselves to reach settlement), peer
review (a panel consisting of varying numbers of the parties\' peers and
neutral, non-involved agency officials rendering a decision on the
dispute), or factual discovery (a structured negotiation procedure with
the parties making informal, highly-abbreviated presentations to
representatives of each party who have authority to settle the matter).
Parties using ADR are expected to engage in full and open communications
and respect the right of each party to present his or her perspective.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of REDS is to resolve quickly any employment law issue in
employee-management relations, labor-management relations, and EEO.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
A REDS pamphlet explaining the process was developed and published for
employees. AMC unions are very receptive to the idea of ADR, and have
supported REDS. An action plan has been developed for using
REDS\--describing procedures and processes, and giving answers to
frequently asked questions. A model \"Commander\'s Guidance Statement\"
has been published providing top-level support for institutionalizing
REDS and ADR to raise and resolve workplace disputes.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
After a one-year pilot program, REDS has been adopted throughout AMC as
an ADR Model for Workplace Disputes. A 2-day training program was
conducted for 28 AMC REDS teams. A member of the EEO staff, with Legal
and Civilian Personnel representatives, chair each REDS team.
Additionally, the REDS Program has been accepted by the Headquarters, DA
EEO Office, as meeting EEOC ADR requirements.

***Contact***\
Stephen A. Klatsky, Assistant Command Counsel, HQ, Army Materiel
Command, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-0001; Telephone:
(703) 617-2304; FAX: (703) 617-5680; Email: sklatsky@hqamc.army.mil.

### Army Army Research Laboratory

#### ADR Techniques: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The agency\'s Resolving Employment Disputes Swiftly (REDS) program uses
the ADR techniques of peer review and mediation. REDS extends coverage
to all types of workplace disputes including Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) complaints and grievances (incidents involving
violations of criminal law or severe cases of sexual harassment are not
covered). An employee can bring any workplace dispute before the REDS
Program Administrator in the EEO office. If the dispute is brought up at
another office, such as Human Resources or the Inspector General, the
matter may be referred to the Program Administrator for intake. An ADR
team composed of the REDS Program Administrator and representatives from
the legal office, Human Resources, and EEO decide whether to offer ADR.
If the employee chooses to use peer review or mediation, management is
required to participate. If mediation is used, the agency tolls
processing times for grievances or EEO complaints until the process is
completed. If mediation fails, the employee may proceed through a
traditional process. If peer review is used, the decision of the review
panel is final and resolves the matter. Panel decisions and mediated
agreements are reviewed by the legal office to ensure that they are
enforceable before they become final.

***Background/Objective***\
Resolving Employment Disputes Swiftly (REDS) was established for a
number of reasons. First, due to downsizing, closing of facilities and
Reduction-In-Force, there was a decrease in morale and an increase in
workplace disputes. Second, traditional Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) complaints, grievance and litigation procedures to resolve
workplace disputes were too long and drawn out, costly and sometimes
ineffective. Third, Federal EEO complaint procedures are changing and
now mandate that agencies establish alternative means for handling
workplace disputes. Finally, ARL wanted to develop a new, creative and
more efficient method of handling workplace disputes. The creation of an
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program using a team approach,
involving representatives from the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO),
Human Resource Management and Legal offices as well as command leaders
and representatives from labor unions greatly enhanced program
development. Although there were few obstacles encountered at the Army
Research Laboratory, using the team approach allowed the agency to
address any concerns early on, and ensured total command support in
implementing the final product. The emphasis placed on the program by
the Director and other command leaders overcame some initial management
resistance. REDS was implemented in January 1998 at the ARL Adelphi
Laboratory Center.

The goals and objectives of the REDS program are to create a voluntary,
non-adversarial process whereby involved parties can consensually
resolve workplace disputes; reach a solution fairly and quickly, so
everyone feels like a winner; promote a work environment of open
communication where employees can present issues in a non-threatening
forum; forge better relations among disputing parties; allow for the
intervention of an impartial third party to assist in identifying the
causes of work-related concerns/issues and assist parties in obtaining a
mutually acceptable resolution; and reduce costs in terms of money,
time, and lost productivity.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Under REDS, the processing time for EEO complaints and grievances has
been reduced from an average of 381 days to an average of 52 days.
Matters going through the REDS process have a resolution rate of 94%.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Army Research Laboratory Memorandum 690-37 prescribes policies and
procedures, and establishes responsibilities for the implementation of
the REDS program.

***Contact***\
Jose Torres, REDS Program Administrator, EEO Office, Army Research
Laboratory, 2800 Powder Mill Rd., Adelphi, MD 20783-1197; Telephone:
(301) 394-4937; FAX: (301) 394-5816; Email:
[torres@arl.mil](mailto:jtorres@arl.mil).

### Army Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC)

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The WRAMC ADR Center uses the ADR techniques of early neutral evaluation
and mediation, facilitation, factfinding, problem solving and dispute
panel techniques as needed to resolve Equal Employment Opportunity(EEO)
complaints, grievances and appeals. Subjects excluded from coverage are
waste, fraud, and abuse. Staff members at the Center are trained
facilitators. Disputes are brought to the attention of the Center which
provides intake services and processes matters with a three-day
turnaround time. Included in this processing is a determination of what
ADR techniques, if any, should be used in a particular dispute. The
agency maintains a list of approximately 10 early neutral
evaluators/mediators with diverse backgrounds and uses Department of
Defense neutrals, Federal Executive Boards\' certified mediators, and
neutrals from the U.S. Army Audit Agency and various other Federal
agencies. The referral of cases to the personnel office, EEO office, or
employee assistance program is normally accomplished within one to five
days. ADR procedures are incorporated in WRAMC\'s Administrative
Grievance Process.

***Background/Objective***\
The WRAMC ADR Center was developed in October 1994 when EEO cases and
grievances were extremely high, workplace tensions were increasing, and
the agency\'s image was suffering. The objectives of the program were to
reduce the cost associated with third party review of grievances,
complaints, and appeals; offer employees a process they consider fair
and helpful; encourage employee and management participation in a
process that focuses on real issues at an early stage; encourage open
communication; and identify trends and contributing factors that
adversely impact work environment. The major goal during the
developmental process was to obtain buy-in from management, employee(s)
and union(s). Part of this goal was the signing of a Partnership
Agreement between the agency and all three of its unions to ensure open
communication, mutual respect and trust among all in resolving issues.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has an overall success rate of 72% in resolving
disciplinary, EEO, performance, promotion, training, communication, and
personnel issues. A new evaluation of the program is scheduled to be
conducted by the agency\'s Internal Review and Audit Compliance Office
in July 1999.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The ADR program operates under policies and procedures set by the agency
and the WRAMC ADR Center.

***Contact***\
Lawrence Nelson, EEO Office, 6900 Georgia Ave., NW, Room 222, Building
10, Washington, DC 20307-5001; Telephone: (202) 782-7335; FAX: (202)
782-6297; Email: <lawrence.nelson@na.amedd.army.mil>

### Army White Sands Missile Range

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The White Sands Missile Range Conflict Resolution Program (CRP)
primarily uses the ADR technique of mediation but uses facilitation or
peer review in some cases. Under the program, managers and employees are
encouraged to contact the Conflict Resolution Center (CRC) to discuss
possible referrals to ADR. The Director of the CRC, operating out of the
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office, does the initial information
intake with each party to the dispute having an opportunity to present
their perspective on the situation. The Director may discuss the matter
with the labor counselor and a personnel specialist. If facilitation or
mediation is appropriate, the Director will contact the parties and
mediators and make arrangements for the ADR session. If the dispute
involves an EEO matter and it is not resolved, the EEO process continues
under regulatory guidelines for complaints processing. All types of
workplace disputes are covered under the program.

***Background/Objective***\
In 1995, White Sands began exploring a variety of methods for addressing
complaints/disputes before they reached a formal stage. At that time,
formal complaints had been escalating along with the inherent costs of
processing them. A team of individuals from various work units in the
agency developed an ADR program and worked to establish the Conflict
Resolution Center in 1996. The objectives of the program are to provide
a venue to address conflicts before they become so serious they go to
formal redress procedures; to provide quick resolution; to provide for
coaching/mentoring managers and complainants on basic communications
skills; to provide for improved communication and understanding; and to
resolve complaints at any stage.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Since the program was set up in December 1996, processing time for
disputes has been reduced from months to weeks or days, with the number
of EEO complaints dropping from 21 in Fiscal Year 97 to 2 in Fiscal Year
99 and the number of grievances during this time dropping from 11 to 1.
Resolution rates when cases go to mediation exceeds 96%. Through Fiscal
Year 99, cost avoidance savings under the program has been \$1,019,000.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
A Commander\'s Guidance issuance states that it is the policy of White
Sands to offer voluntary mediation to address any conflict, dispute,
complaint, grievance, or other dissatisfaction arising in the workplace.
The Commander\'s Guidance also states that the White Sands Mediation
Center provides program guidance and coordinates the voluntary mediation
program.

***Contact***\
Sylvia Durcholz-Wilhelm, Equal Employment Manager, STEWS-GS-EEO, White
Sands Missile Range, NM 88002; Telephone: (505) 678-1291; FAX: (505)
678-1578; Email: <barcaks@cg2.wsmr.army.mil>.

### Broadcasting Board of Governors

#### ADR Technique: Ombusman

***How the ADR System Works***\
The responsibility for the ombudsman program rests with a two person
office that reports to the Director of the International Broadcasting
Bureau. The ombuds has the authority to deal with matters that come up
anywhere within the Bureau. These matters may involve individuals or
they may involve systemic or policy issues not necessarily related to
specific individuals. The ombuds works to ensure that systems or policy
issues are addressed by the appropriate agency officials and that
individuals are fully informed about their rights concerning the
appropriate forum for resolving workplace disputes in given
circumstances. While not taking the place of the formal processes, e.g.,
discrimination complaint process, the ombuds works as a \"neutral,
impartial, and informal channel available to assist employees, managers
and supervisors . . . in resolving any work-related problem or issue
that cannot be easily resolved through normal channels.\" The ombuds
works closely with other officials in the agency, such as those in the
employee assistance program, in resolving workplace issues. Critical
elements of the success of the program have been the consistent
maintenance of confidentiality concerning any matter brought to the
attention of the ombuds and the maintenance of strict neutrality on the
part of the ombuds.

***Background/Objective***\
The process for setting up the current ombudsman program at the agency
began in 1988 in response to employee perceptions that the formal
processes were not adequately addressing workplace problems and in
response to an increase in the numbers of workplace disputes. In
addition, the program was set up to function as an \"early warning
system\" to alert agency management of potential problems.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has been in effect since 1988 and has decreased the numbers
of potential discrimination complaints. The ombuds spends about 80
percent of his time addressing individual matters and about 5% of his
time addressing systemic or policy issues.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing the activity have not been codified; however,
information about the program is contained in a brochure used by the
ombuds.

***Contact***\
Bob Henry, Ombudsman, International Broadcasting Bureau, Broadcasting
Board of Governors, 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20237;
Telephone: (202) 619-2012; FAX: (202) 619-0085; Email: <rhenry@ibb.gov>.

### Central Intelligence Agency

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
Employees who believe they have a workplace issue that might be amenable
to mediation may contact the ADR Program Manager. The ADR Program
Manager will ascertain whether the issue falls within the scope of the
Agency\'s ADR mediation criteria. Employees may self-refer, or enter the
program through referral.

***Background/Objective***\
An ADR Working Group was created in 1995 to evaluate the experiences of
both public and private sector ADR programs and to explore the
availability of training. In addition, the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act of 1990 required federal agencies to use co-mediation
with teams consisting of an Agency mediator and a professional mediator
from the private sector. Employee-mediators received training in general
mediation skills and techniques with the ultimate goal of creating a
trained cadre of employee mediators.

The ADR Program was established as part of the Agency Ombudsman\'s
Office to convey to employees the neutrality of the Program and to
remove any perceived stigma associated with contacting the ADR Program
Office. The primary goals of the Program have been to make employees
aware of an alternative to the traditional/formal processes for setting
workplace disputes and to encourage employees to become active
participants in resolving their own disputes.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Based upon the successful conclusion of an 18-month pilot ADR Program,
the Agency approved a permanent ADR Program in February 1997. Initially,
all Agency mediation were conducted in conjunction with mediators
provided by the Northern Virginia Mediation Service (NVMS). However, the
Agency now has a cadre of trained and certified mediators who may
mediate cases without the assistance of NVMS mediators. The Agency
ensures that its employee-mediators remain neutral by selecting
mediators who do not work in the same directorate or report to the
parties involved in the dispute.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Agency opened its ADR Program to all employees, including those with
EEO and grievance issues. However, several areas are not subject to ADR.
These include, but are not limited to, security adjudications, exercises
of the Director\'s statutory termination authority, Department of Labor
compensation claim decisions, and decisions of various disciplinary and
administrative payments boards.

*Contact*\
The Central Intelligence Agency\'s Alternative Dispute Resolution
Program Manager, (703) 482-0782, fax (703) 482-1715.

### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Commission\'s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program was
established in May 1999. Employees experiencing a workplace dispute may
contact the Commission\'s Mediation Coordinator who is responsible for
providing guidance on appropriate ADR methods. While the Commission
employs various ADR techniques to resolve disputes including cooperative
problem solving, conciliation, facilitation and fact-finding, mediation
is the key focus of the program. Mediation is voluntary, confidential,
available to all employees for most types of workplace disputes and can
be terminated at any time. Mediators cannot impose any outcome on the
parties and resolutions are binding. Mediation is available at any stage
of any administrative dispute process. Mediators are selected from the
Department of Health and Human Service\'s Shared Neutrals Program.

***Background/Objective***\
Historically, formal dispute resolution at the Commission was time
consuming, expensive and in many cases counter productive to our
mission. In 1997 the Commission established a pilot program. At the
conclusion of the pilot program the Commission conducted a comprehensive
review and established a permanent ADR Program. The primary objective of
the permanent ADR program is to give managers and employees a structured
and positive environment to resolve workplace disputes expeditiously.
The ADR Program is an integral part of the administrative and negotiated
grievance procedures, and the Commission\'s EEO complaint process.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In the fifteen months since the program was established, the Commission
has been involved in nineteen dispute-related matters. All matters have
been successfully resolved, with one exception. In the matter that was
not resolved, a settlement agreement was reached regarding some of the
issues, and mediation enabled the parties to identify, and clarify other
issues in the dispute. Mediation successes have translated to additional
requests for mediation. Employees and managers depend on the ADR program
to help them create remedies for resolving disputes.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing the ADR program are found in the Commission\'s
Alternative Dispute Resolution and Grievance Procedure policy directive
and in negotiated agreements with labor organizations.

***Contact***\
Daryl Stephens, Employee Relations Specialist, CFTC, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20581; Telephone: (202)
418-5017; FAX: (202) 418-5530; Email: <dstephens@cftc.gov>.

### Corporation for National and Community Service

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Corporation for National and Community Service (\"Corporation\") ADR
program is available to all its employees and managers. The ADR program
is intended to assist employees and managers to resolve most workplace
and equal employment opportunity disputes informally, without having to
resort to formal litigious processes. The Corporation uses an outside
contractor, ADR Vantage, Inc., for the day-to-day coordination of the
program. Although mediation is the primary ADR technique used, the
program coordinator may suggest other approaches such as conciliation,
facilitation, fact-finding, and the use of an ombudsperson, depending
upon the nature of the dispute. Once the ADR process is complete,
participants in the process are asked to fill out a \"Participant
Survey,\" evaluating the process and its outcomes. The Corporation
evaluates the ADR program annually.

***Background/Objective***\
Recognizing the potential value of alternative dispute resolution in the
Corporation, the Director of Human Resources, the Director of Equal
Opportunity, and the General Counsel convened a workgroup to address all
aspects of implementing an alternative dispute resolution process for
the Corporation. Representatives of several Corporation units and the
union served on this workgroup, and the workgroup solicited the input of
other employees. The Corporation implemented a pilot program in January
2000, and the current ADR program in April 2001.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Corporation\'s ADR program began with a pilot program on January 1,
2000. The Corporation firmly established ADR as part of the
Corporation\'s culture with the implementation of a revised ADR policy
in April 2001. In 2000, the first year of the pilot program, 36
employees contacted the Program Coordinator to learn more about the ADR
process. A total of 23 employees chose to use the ADR process as a tool
for resolving workplace disputes. Of the 23 cases in which employees
chose to pursue ADR, 10 were resolved at intake, 8 were resolved
successfully using an ADR approach, primarily mediation, 4 were not
resolved, and 1 was still pending at the end of the year \--
representing an 82% resolution rate when considering both those cases
resolved at intake, and those resolved successfully through the use of
an ADR process.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Corporation has implemented a comprehensive ADR program policy.
Participation in the program is voluntary for employees and managers,
but the Corporation expects its managers to participate when so
requested by an employee seeking to resolve a dispute. The employee
retains the right to file a formal complaint or grievance.

***Contact***\
Nicola Goren, Dispute Resolution Specialist, Corporation for National
and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. 8th floor, Washington,
DC 20525; Telephone: (202) 606-5000 ext. 259; FAX: (202) 565-2796;
email: <ngoren@cns.gov>

### Defense Contract Audit Agency

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
It is the Defense Contract Audit Agency\'s (DCAA) policy to consider the
use of ADR in all EEO cases in the informal stage when deemed
appropriate by management. The stage of any individual case at which ADR
is used and the ADR procedure to be followed is also subject to the
discretion of management.

While any form of ADR may be considered and used, if appropriate,
special consideration is given to the use of mediation. DCAA\'s policy
is that government mediators be used whenever possible but permits use
of someone outside the government.

***Background/Objective***\
DCAA\'s program is limited to EEO cases. DCAA\'s experience has been
that the use of ADR for resolving EEO cases results in faster, less
expensive, and less contentious resolution of issues in controversy.
Accordingly managers are encouraged to use ADR as an alternative to
litigation or formal administrative procedures to the maximum extent
possible.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Initial ADR activity began with a pilot program in two of DCAA\'s
regions. Based on the results obtained during the pilot program, DCAA
developed procedures to implement ADR agency-wide and assigned a program
manager to manage that program as a collateral duty. The program became
fully operational in April 1999.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing this program are in DCAA Regulation 5145.1
\"Alternative Dispute Resolution for Equal Employment Opportunity
Cases.\"

***Contact***\
John M. Farenish, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Office of General
Counsel, 8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 2135, Fort Belvoir, VA
22060-6219; Telephone: (703) 767-3219; DSN 427-3219; E-mail:
[john.farenish@dcaa.mil.](mailto:john.farenish@dcaa.mil)

### Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

#### ADR Techniques: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
It is DLA\'s policy to consider the use of ADR in every situation where
unassisted negotiations do not resolve the issues in controversy. A
management decision not to use ADR, where unassisted negotiations have
not been effective, is made only after its possible use has been fully
evaluated and discussed.

While all forms of ADR are considered, DLA\'s technique of choice is
mediation. A cadre of DLA employees serve as neutrals in a collateral
duty capacity. Additional sources of neutrals include other federal
agencies and the private sector.

***Background/Objective***\
DLA has a broad based program that encourages the use of ADR techniques
as an alternative to formal procedures in all matters of dispute
including personnel, EEO, labor, procurement, sales, and environmental
concerns. Parties are encouraged to resolve disputes at the earliest
possible stage, although ADR techniques are available during the later
stages as well.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Initial ADR activity began in 1992. Parts of the program became
operational in 1993 and in 1995. The program became fully operational in
1997.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Principal rules governing this program are in DLA Directive 5145.1.

***Contact***\
Beth Broidy Lagana, Defense Logistics Agency Office of Counsel Columbus
Region, P. O. Box 3990, Columbus, Ohio 43216-5000; Telephone:
(614)692-1859; DSN: 850-1859 E-mail: <blagana@ogc.dla.mil>.

### Defense Logistics Agency Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) Alternative
Dispute Resolution Program was designed to offer mediation at any stage
of the EEO complaint process and any stage of a contract dispute. There
are plans to expand the program to include union grievances and
conflicts between managers. Employees access mediation through their
union, EEO, Legal Office and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). To
promote ADR awareness, the Office of Counsel established an ADR Working
Group. The Office of Counsel has teamed with the Battle Creek Medical
Center Veteran\'s Administration to \"Share Neutrals.\" The DRMS
Program\'s emphasis is \"Early Detection is Early Correction.\"

***Background/Objective***\
The goal of the program is to resolve a variety of workplace and
contract disputes using mediation. It is the program\'s philosophy that
the organization and the individual benefit through alternatives to
litigation. The ADR Program is informal and voluntary and if resolution
can\'t be reached, the individual or firm is encouraged to use formal
channels. A key emphasis is making the workforce aware that DRMS offers
an effective, inexpensive, time saving and informal process to resolve
conflict.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
An ADR Counsel was appointed in 1999 in the Office of Counsel. The ADR
Working Group was established in March 2000. The Office of Counsel
offers ADR advisory services, seminars and symposiums and hosts
mediation training. ADR is briefed during the annual Ethics briefing to
employees at the Battle Creek Federal Center as well as at field
offices. The Office of Counsel has a segment of its webpage devoted to
ADR and offers an expanse of ADR links.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The DRMS Office of Counsel designed its program after its headquarters,
Defense Logistics Agency\'s (DLA) ADR Program. The DLA ADR Counsel,
Attorney Beth Lagana, helped to initiate the DRMS program in early 2000
by conducting training for over 350 employees. Defense Logistics Agency
Directive 5145.1 and Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
Directive 5145.1 govern the DRMS ADR Program.

***Contact***\
Reba Harrington, Assistant Counsel, DRMS-G, 74 Washington Avenue North,
Suite 6, Battle Creek, Michigan 49017-3092; Telephone: Commercial (616)
961-5808; DSN 932-5808; FAX: (616) 961-5069; DSN FAX: 932-5069; Email:
[ebaharrington@drms.dla.mil](mailto:rebaharrington@drms.dla.mil).

### Defense Threat Reduction Agency

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has established an ADR
program to handle discrimination complaints as well as other complaints
associated with misconduct and performance. DTRA encourages the use of
ADR when the issues are well understood, the dispute revolves around
facts, each party involved has a valid argument, each side can easily
assess its strengths and weakness without conducting extensive research,
the parties need to vent their frustrations, and all involved desire a
speedy resolution. ADR techniques such as mediation, factfinding, and
negotiated/alternative discipline are used to assist parties informally
resolve many of their disputes. Shared neutrals and ombudsmen also
assist in the early resolution of conflict and the agency is considering
establishment of an ombudsmen program. If any issue remains unresolved
at the conclusion of the ADR process, an employee may still pursue the
issue through the more traditional grievance process.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR program is designed to be used as a tool that can assist both
managers and employees to resolve problems without costly and timely
litigation. The early and less costly resolution of disputes result in
an enhanced working relationship between the parties involved. The most
common techniques used to achieve DTRA\'s ADR objective are mediation
and factfinding.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The well-established program has been in operation with DTRA\'s
predecessor agencies for ten years and has been adopted by the recently
established DTRA. DTRA is also incorporating the use of negotiated
discipline. The key features of the program will include fostering a
healthier relationship between management and employees while still
addressing acts of misconduct, reducing paperwork and time spent by all
parties on disciplinary actions, and encouraging employees\' acceptance
of the program and willingness to participate in the selection of a
negotiated penalty.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing this program are in DTRA\'s *Discipline and Adverse
Action Instructions*.

***Contact***\
Dominick Brognano, Assistant General Counsel, Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, 45045 Aviation Drive, Dulles, VA 20166-7517, Telephone: (703)
810-4561; Email: <Dominick.Brognano@DTRA.MIL>.

### Education

#### ADR Techniques: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
An employee must contact the Informal Dispute Resolution Center (IDR)
within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory act, personnel
action, or other basis of complaint, or the date he/she became aware of
the matter that is the basis of the complaint. A counselor meets
individually with the involved parties and assists them in attempting to
resolve the dispute. The IDR Center will try to resolve the matter
informally within 30 calendar days from the date of the initial contact.
If necessary, the employee may request an additional 60 days for further
counseling or to pursue mediation. If the dispute is not resolved, the
IDR Center provides a written notice of right to file a formal
grievance.

***Background/Objective***\
The IDR Center was established May 1996. It provides employees,
applicants, and managers with an informal process to resolve disputes,
disagreements, or complaints on a wide range of work-related matters.
The IDR Center was set in motion on the following inducements: it
provides quick resolution; promotes creative problem solving; encourages
open communication; allows parties to resolve disputes themselves; uses
an impartial third party to assist the involved parties in resolving
disputes; may improve working relationships; and may avoid lengthy
litigation.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The services provided by the IDR Center include counseling and mediation
offered in an informal setting to assist employees in resolving
complaints in an expeditious and impartial manner. The IDR Center is
staffed by trained counselors who are available to discuss a wide
variety of employment disputes. Trained mediators are also available to
assist participants in reaching a voluntary agreement that resolves EEO
and other work related disputes.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
In many situations, bargaining unit employees may elect to use the IDR
Center or the Collective Bargaining Agreement\'s Problem Resolution
Procedure.

***Contact***\
David Wortham, Department of Education, 490 E. L\'Enfant Plaza, SW,
Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: (202) 619-9724; FAX: (202) 708-4549;
Email: <david_wortham@ed.gov>. Informal Dispute Resolution Center, 490
L\'Enfant Plaza, SW, Suite 2100A, Washington, DC 20024, Telephone: (202)
619-9700; TTD: (202) 619-9731; FAX: (202) 619-9726; Email:
<idr_center@ed.gov>.

### Energy Office of Dispute Resolution

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Office of Dispute Resolution is located in the headquarters of the
Department of Energy and is responsible for encouraging Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) throughout the agency, at all its field offices
and with all its contractors. The Director of the office provides
training, system design support and acts as a consultant for all types
of dispute resolution, ranging from preventive techniques, such as
partnering, differing professional opinion processes and ombuds, to
mediation in many types of disputes, such as intellectual property,
contract, environment, grants and whistleblower complaints.

The majority of mediations concern workplace disputes. In addition to
working with the field and contractors, the Office of Dispute Resolution
manages a workplace mediation program for headquarters employees. Any
kind of dispute can be referred to mediation - from the Office of Civil
Rights, Office of Employee and Labor Relations, the Employee Assistance
Program, the Office of Ombudsperson, the Union, or directly from
managers or supervisors. The program encourages referrals of conflicts
at as early a stage as possible, believing that this offers the best
opportunity for a lasting resolution. Thus, managers are encouraged to
use the program before an EEO complaint or grievance has been filed.

The program is run by a Headquarters Mediation Program Manager who
spends a great deal of time on convening. She determines the nature of
the dispute and who must be involved to achieve resolution. She then
obtains the consent of relevant parties to the mediation process and
works closely with them, offering information, including a video, and
often providing coaching, to help them understand and prepare for the
mediation. She assigns a mediator from a group of mediators under
contract with the Department of Energy, or on occasion, uses mediators
from other federal agencies. A new phase has been added to the mediation
program\--the Mediation Program Manager observes each mediation and
helps the mediator by assisting with the logistics, such as getting
information from the personnel office, collecting signatures for
settlement agreements, etc. In essence, she ties up the knots so that
the mediator does not have to spend time making numerous phone calls.
Both mediators and parties evaluate each mediation.

***Background/Objective***\
The headquarters program began as a pilot in 1995, spurred by the
requirements for ADR in EEO regulations. The program operates on the
premise that most workplace conflicts are based on miscommunication, and
that it is best to resolve them as early as possible before they enter a
formal and adversarial process.

All offices and the National Treasury Employees Union were involved in
the development of the initial pilot, and the program continues to
emphasize broad involvement and access. The number of informal referrals
continue to increase, in addition to those filed through the EEO or
grievance process. There has been an increase in higher graded employees
requesting mediation and senior management continues to be very
supportive in resolving these workplace disputes. Most DOE field
locations have established some kind of local mediation program, either
using a shared neutrals program, private mediators, or local community
organizations. Several of them are listed below.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Both parties must voluntarily agree to participate in mediation, and may
bring with them a family member, colleague, union representative, or
attorney. If the complainant is represented by counsel, the mediation
program manager requests attendance of agency counsel; otherwise, no
attorneys are present. Technical assistance, such as a personnel
specialist or the disability program coordinator are invited to
participate when their expertise is needed. Mediations are strictly
confidential, and information is shared only with those within the
agency who need to know in order to implement a settlement.

***Contact***\
Pamela Pontillo, Manager of the DOE Headquarters Mediation Program,
Office of Dispute Resolution, GC-12, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room
6B-222, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-4002 for Pamela
Pontillo; FAX: (202) 586-7479; Email: <pamela.pontillo@hq.doe.gov>.

### Energy Employee Concerns Program

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Department of Energy (DOE) Employee Concerns Program (ECP) is
administered by the Headquarters Office of Employee Concerns which is
located in the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, and is
implemented by employee concerns program offices throughout the DOE
complex. The program does not replace existing formal procedures such as
administrative grievance procedures, normal Environmental, Safety, and
Health (ES&H) reporting avenues, or appeal rights available to
employees. Instead, using ADR techniques such as facilitation,
factfinding-finding, and mediation, the ECP supplements those programs
by seeking to resolve problems before it becomes necessary to invoke
formal procedures which can be costly and litigious, and frequently
result in long delays before concerns are resolved.

***Background/Objective***\
The Employee Concerns Program was established as part of a Secretarial
initiative to ensure openness and reinforce DOE\'s zero-tolerance policy
regarding whistleblower reprisal. The primary goal of the program is to
create an environment in which DOE Federal and contractor employees feel
free to raise concerns about policies and practices that adversely
affect DOE\'s accomplishment of its mission in a safe and efficient
manner; management at all levels appreciates the value of employee
concerns; and concerns are appropriately, fairly, and objectively
considered.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The current Employee Concerns Program was established in September 1996.
In addition to establishing overall program policy and guidelines for
the ECP, the Office of Employee Concerns assists ECP offices in the
resolution of concerns, provides training to ECP managers and staff,
coordinates the collection of data, and reports to the Secretary and
other management officials on employee concerns program activity.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The initial Employee Concerns Program, established in 1993, was governed
by DOE Order 5480.29 and focused on concerns related to environmental,
safety, and health issues. The new DOE policy statement, order, and
program guide governing the current ECP was published under the 442
series in the DOE Directive System (DOE 0442.1A; DOE G442.1-1, both
issued February 1, 1999).

***Contact***\
William A. Lewis, Jr., Director, Office of Employee Concerns, U.S.
Department of Energy, Room 1F-024, Routing Symbol ED-5, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585; Telephone: (202)
586-4034; FAX: (202) 586-4924; Email: bill.lewis@hq.doe.gov.

### Energy Albuquerque Operations Office

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
Employees are encouraged to use mediation as a tool to address any issue
that may interfere with employee morale, productivity, and work
efficiency. Such issues are unavoidable in any workplace, and
particularly in a workforce as large, diverse, and geographically
dispersed as the activities reporting to the Albuquerque office.
Employees are always encouraged to discuss issues with their immediate
supervisor, with the understanding that they may pursue the
administrative grievance process or the EEO Discrimination Complaints
Process within the prescribed time frames. Mediators are supplied by a
contractor. Each mediation participant is given an evaluation form.
Additionally, employees are provided an agency point-of-contact if they
prefer to provide an evaluation orally. Because of the confidentiality
built into the program, evaluations cannot be matched to a particular
case, but they allow continuous improvement of the overall program.

***Background/Objective***\
The program goal is to address, as early as possible, any work-related
dispute in an objective and confidential manner that inspires trust and
achieves win-win solutions. Continued use of mediation helps the
organization reach its strategic goals and operate within its core
values.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
This program began as DOE\'s first mediation pilot in May 1994 and
became permanent because of its success. Its total cost through
September 2001 has been \$30,141. During that time, there have been 56
mediations with 36 successful resolutions. Since the EEOC\'s low-range
estimate for the cost of a formal EEO complaint is \$70,000, the program
has clearly been highly cost-effective. Evaluations by participants show
they are generally pleased with the program and believe that it
facilitates fair and impartial resolutions to issues in the workplace.
The program is actively promoted, with information made available to all
employees and briefings provided to senior managers and EEO counselors.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Aggrieved individuals have the right to representation throughout the
complaint process, including during any mediation. While the purpose of
mediation is to allow the parties to fashion their own resolution to a
dispute, it is important that the mediation program provides all parties
the opportunity to bring a representative to the mediation if they
desire to do so.

***Contact***\
Yolanda Ruiz, Office of Equal Opportunity, DOE, Albuquerque Operations
Office, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400; Telephone: (505)
845-4243; FAX: (505) 845-4963; Email: <yruiz@doeal.gov>.

### Energy Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
Mediation and facilitation services are available to resolve Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) disputes, and certain other workplace
disputes, including those brought under Bonneville Power
Administration\'s (BPA) Harassment-Free Workplace Policy. Participation
by both employees and managers is voluntary; mediation services are
provided either by a list of internal mediators (EEO cases only), or
through the Oregon Federal Executive Board\'s \"Shared Neutrals\"
program. Shared Neutrals\' mediators come from participating Federal,
state, and local governments. The Transmission Business line now has
ombudsman services available.

***Background/Objective***\
BPA\'s mediation program started after BPA developed its Harassment-Free
Workplace Policy in 1992. The program began using external contract
mediators. Internal mediators were selected and trained in 1996. BPA
joined Shared Neutrals in 1997.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In 1996, BPA selected employees to train as mediators. They perform
mediation as collateral duty for BPA cases and the Shared Neutrals
Program. The number of BPA cases using mediation as an alternative is
slowly growing. The Transmission Ombudsman program started in May 2000
after a year-long pilot program. For EEO cases only, the agency can use
Early Neutral Evaluation and other forms of ADR.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules vary depending on the nature of the dispute, e.g., the
Harassment Free Workplace Policy or the EEO Complaint process as defined
under 29 CFR 1614. Since participation in the ADR program is voluntary,
all parties to a dispute must at least believe that mediation or other
forms of ADR have some value to resolve and/or bring better
understanding to their dispute. ADR events through the EEO process are
normally organized by an EEO Counselor; mediations through the Shared
Neutrals program must comply with the Federal Executive Board\'s rules.

***Contacts***\
Mark S. Danley, BPA Shared Neutrals\' Liaison and Mediator, Telephone:
(503) 230-7370; Email: <msdanley@bpa.gov>.

### Energy Environment, Safety and Health, Office of Oversight

#### ADR Technique: Differing Professional Opinions Program

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Differing Professional Opinions Program (DPO) is designed to respond
to any matter relating to the topics and operational areas within the
Office of Oversight, which oversees safety programs in Doe's nuclear
facilities. It recognizes that frequently there may be more than one way
to solve a problem, and encourages informal discussion of differing
professional opinions at the peer and immediate supervisory level. If
resolution is not achieved, it provides an appeal mechanism to
increasingly higher levels of management. The program is designed to
promote free discussion of ideas and provide an avenue to higher level
management that employees may use without fear of reprisal for \"going
out of channels.\"

***Background/Objective***\
The program was established in 1996 to respond to employees\' need for
an avenue to express opinions in an increasingly complex and technically
challenging discipline that remains both highly controversial and highly
suspect in the public eye. The program provides a formal process for the
expression and resolution of differing professional opinions within the
organization regarding positions taken by management that have not been
resolvable through informal discussions with peers, immediate
supervisors, and managers. Through this program, supervisory and
managerial personnel can maintain a working environment that encourages
employees to make known their best professional judgments even though
they may differ from the prevailing staff view, disagree with a
management decision or policy position, or take issue with proposed or
established office practices. The program is meant to supplement, not
supplant, appropriate appeal mechanisms such as the Departmental
Employee Concerns Program, the activities of the Office of the Inspector
General, or the Merit Systems Protection Board.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has been in effect since 1996; the procedures were updated
in 1998.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Office of Oversight has issued formal procedures for the conduct of
the program. The procedures define the circumstances under which a DPO
might occur, outline exclusions from the DPO process (e.g., matters
outside the Office of Oversight or matters appealable through other
channels), describe the processes and requirements for employees filing
a Level I DPO, requesting an office director\'s response, and a Level II
DPO, calling for senior review and response. For example, the Level I
process must include a written statement including the following: a
summary of the prevailing view or decision; a description of the
individual employee\'s view and a description of what the individual
expects the resolution to be; and an assessment of the consequences
should the individual\'s position not be adopted. All responses must be
fully documented and DPO rejections must be fully explained and the
appeal to Level II fully described.

***Contact***\
Frank Russo, Office of Oversight, EH-21, Room 4006, 270/cc, 19901
Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874; Telephone: (301) 903-1845; FAX:
(301) 903-2268; Email: <frank.russo@hq.doe.gov>.

### Energy Idaho Operations Office

#### ADR Technique: Ombuds

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) Ombudsman program uses mediation as
one form of dispute resolution. It is a voluntary program offered to any
employee with a concern or dispute. Employees are encouraged to use
mediation as a tool to address any issue that may interfere with
employee morale, productivity, and work efficiency.

The program does not replace existing formal procedures such as
administrative grievance procedures, normal Environmental, Safety, and
Health (ES&H) reporting avenues, or appeal rights available to
employees. Instead, using ADR techniques such as facilitation,
fact-finding, and mediation, the Ombudsman supplements those programs by
seeking to resolve problems before it becomes necessary to invoke formal
procedures which can be costly and litigious, and frequently result in
long delays before concerns are resolved. Formal grievance processes are
still available.

Any workplace concern or dispute may be resolved using mediation,
including group mediation. Employees are encouraged from the top down to
participate in this process. An independent organization supplies
mediators for DOE-ID.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the Ombudsman program is to provide assistance to the
entire organization to further promote organizational health for both
individuals and the entire organizational structure. The primary goal of
the program is to create an environment in which DOE-ID employees feel
free to raise concerns about policies and practices that adversely
affect DOE\'s accomplishment of its mission in a safe and efficient
manner; management at all levels appreciates the value of the concerns
and issues employees may have; and concerns are appropriately, fairly,
and objectively considered.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The DOE-ID Ombudsman program was started in April 2000 to provide an
alternative to the formal complaint processes. The number of cases is
slowly growing as the program becomes more established and the workforce
gains trust in the process. Feedback is provided to upper management
regarding the types of concerns being identified (being careful to
maintain the confidentiality of the individuals)to address systemic and
programmatic areas for improvement.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Prior to beginning each mediation session, ground rules are discussed
and each participant is required to sign an \"Agreement to Participate\"
which explains the mediation process. Since the process is voluntary,
any settlement is the product of the participants and they are bound y
the terms to which they have agreed. Should mediation not succeed, the
case will be returned to the forum from which it came and the parties
are then bound by the rules of that process. Mediations are strictly
confidential, and information is shared only with those within the
agency who need to know in order to implement a settlement.

***Contact***\
Jeffrey N. Perry, Ombudsman, U. S. Department of Energy, Idaho
Operations Office, 850 Energy Drive, Mail stop 1225, Idaho Falls, Idaho
83401; Telephone: (208) 526-4570; FAX: (208) 526-5964; Email:
<perryjn@id.doe.gov>.

### Energy Nevada Operations Office

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Nevada Operations Office ADR program uses mediation as the preferred
form of dispute resolution. It is a voluntary program offered to any
employee with a concern or dispute. The program is not limited to formal
grievances or EEO complaints. Any workplace concern or dispute may be
resolved using mediation, including group mediation. Employees are
encouraged from the top down to participate in this process. Mediators
are assigned by the Southern Nevada Federal Mediation Consortium (SNFMC)
which maintains a pool of Federal employees trained as mediators. A
mediator is only assigned cases from agencies other than the agency with
which he/she is employed. This is a policy of the SNFMC intended to
maintain the maximum level of confidentiality and neutrality.

***Background/Objective***\
In 1996, the Nevada Operations Office began seeking ADR options to offer
employees. After determining that mediation was the best alternative,
the concept of partnering with other Federal agencies was developed.
Solicitation began and on February 5, 1997 four Federal agencies signed
an agreement establishing the SNFMC. Training of Federal employees began
and the consortium now maintains up to 24 trained mediators.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The SNFMC continues to provide mediation services to all Federal
agencies in the southern Nevada area. It is expected the number of
disputes that will go to mediation will increase as the process gains
credibility with its successes. The changes to the EEOC regulations
requiring agencies to offer ADR to EEO complainants has resulted in
interest being expressed by smaller agency offices in the Las Vegas area
for mediation services. The SNFMC offers these services to any Federal
agency, at no cost, even though they may not be a participant in the
SNFMC. As more cases go to mediation, the savings to the agencies will
subsequently increase.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Prior to beginning each mediation session, ground rules are discussed
and each participant is required to sign an \"Agreement to Participate\"
which explains the mediation process. Since the process is voluntary,
any settlement is the product of the participants and they are bound by
the terms to which they have agreed. Should mediation not succeed, the
case will be returned to the forum from which it came and the parties
are then bound by the rules of that process.

***Contact***\
Kathy M. Lynn, Human Resources Division, U.S. Department of Energy,
National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Operations Office, P.O.
Box 98518, Las Vegas NV 89193-8518; Telephone (702) 295-0566; Email:
<lynn@nv.doe.gov>.

### Energy Richland Operations Office

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
While using a panoply of techniques to resolve disputes, the Richland
Operations Office/Office of River Protection uses the Alternative
Dispute Resolution/Differing Professional Opinion (ADR/DPO) programs.
The ADR/DPO programs are complementary in that ADR tends to handle
problems that are more personnel related while DPO tends to handle
problems that are more technical in nature. Whether the actual technique
used is mediation, partnering, ombudsmanship, neutral evaluation,
nonbonding arbitration, ministerial, binding arbitration, or something
else will depend on the specifies of each particular case.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program is to
provide assistance to the entire organization to further promote
organizational health for both individuals and the entire organizational
structure.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The ADR program has been minimally used at Richland Operations
Office/Office of River Protection within the last two years. Currently,
there are three collateral duty mediators on staff who are certified
through a local Dispute Resolution Center and many outside experts
available on call. RL/ORP currently has a contract with the
Benton-Franklin Dispute Resolution Center, a non-profit organization.
The DPO program has been in existence at Richland for two years. On
staff are an administrator and several resource people who are
experienced in the DPO process.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The ADR program receives referrals from employees, supervisors, the
Office of Special Concerns/Employee Concerns Office, Human Resources
Division, the Diversity Program Manager, Employee Assistance Programs,
and Procurement, and the Office of Chief Council. The ADR Administrator
then recommends an appropriate mechanism whether it be arbitration,
mediation, or another dispute resolution technique, and assists in
obtaining the services needed. The DPO program receives a formal DPO
submittal, normally from an employee, and then refers it to assigned
senior management official. The RL/ORP manager appoints a review chair
who in turn appoints two more members to a review panel. The panel
studies the submittal and then makes its recommendations to the RL/ORP
Manager. The ultimate decision on the issue or dispute remains with the
management official.

***Contact***\
Julie A. Goeckner, Program Manager, Office of Special Concerns, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, A1-61, P.O. Box 550,
Richland, Washington, 99352; Telephone: (509) 376-1198; FAX: (509)
372-0998; Email: <Julie_A_Goeckenr@rl.gov>

### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

#### ADR Techinque: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
FDIC\'s ADR Program has eight major parts: conflict management systems
design, ADR advice and consultation, mediation and facilitation
services, ADR policy and legislative analysis, outreach and work in the
federal sector, ADR training and education, evaluation and tracking, and
support for the Corporate ADR Steering Committee. The FDIC\'s current
ADR policy strongly encourages the use of ADR and is committed to
continuing to expand its use both internally and with those outside the
Corporation. The current policy is outlined at 62 Fed. Reg. 66370.

***Background/Objective***\
In 1989 during the height of the banking and thrift crisis, the FDIC
(which then also had responsibility for the Resolution Trust Corporation
(RTC)) adopted ADR policies in response to the increasing number of
cases in which the FDIC and RTC found themselves on opposite sides of a
lawsuit with few, if any, other disputants. The FDIC\'s Legal Unit used
trained FDIC and RTC personnel to resolve these disputes. This led to
the establishment of the ADR Unit whose purpose is to develop,
implement, and coordinate ADR programs for use in preventing disputes
from occurring and resolving those which do occur in the most timely and
least costly manner. Since 1991, the FDIC has saved over \$41 million in
estimated legal fees and expenses by using ADR rather than litigation.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In addition to the negotiation, mediation and arbitration used in
various internal disputes, the FDIC has also used mediation, minitrials,
early neutral evaluation, non-binding and in rare cases, binding
arbitration, to resolve disputes with outside parties. These cases have
included creditor claims, real estate disputes, commercial matters, and
professional liability cases. The FDIC also has a mediation program to
resolve EEO disputes, both in the formal and informal stages. The FDIC
also uses facilitation and interest-based techniques in its
labor-management partnerships.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
In disputes involving internal FDIC parties, members of the ADR Unit are
often asked to provide conflict management system design services or
mediation/facilitation services. In disputes arising among entities
controlled by the FDIC, ADR coordinators encourage negotiation and
mediation. For cases involving outside parties, the Legal Division has
guidelines to determine whether a case is appropriate for ADR and what
type of ADR should be used. Approval to use ADR with an outside party
may be given at the field level if proper monetary delegations of
authority are present. Special procedures govern the use of binding
arbitration and the selection and payment of neutrals, and approval by
Headquarters is required. The FDIC has also participated for years in
court-ordered ADR.

***Contact***\
Cathy Costantino, Counsel, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW, H-5126, Washington, DC 20429;
Telephone: (202) 736-0249; Email: <ccostantino@fdic.gov>.

### Federal Election Commission

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Early Intervention Program is a joint initiative of the agency EEO
Director, Personnel Director, and EEO counselors to use ADR techniques
to resolve employee concerns that might otherwise result in the filing
of a formal EEO complaint. Prior to filing an EEO complaint, employees
may voluntarily agree to meet, separately or jointly, with the EEO
Director, Personnel Director, EEO Counselor, and/or the party allegedly
responsible for the discrimination or other wrongdoing. The EEO Director
establishes ground rules for the resolution meeting, facilitates the
discussion, recommends options, reduces the terms of the informal
resolution to writing, coordinates the document with the Personnel and
Staff Directors to obtain agency approvals, issues the approved
resolution agreement to the appropriate parties, and schedules follow-up
meetings to measure progress and ensure full compliance with the
negotiated terms. If resolution attempts are unsuccessful, the employee
may proceed with EEO counseling and the filing of a formal complaint.

***Background/Objective***\
The initiative began in March 1994, as an attempt to bring about more
timely and complete resolution of employee concerns.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
During the period March 1994 through April 1997, the agency resolved
100% of the 26 issues employees brought voluntarily before the EEO
Director. Based on the EEOC\'s 1996 estimates, the total cost to process
an EEO complaint from precomplaint counseling to litigation is between
\$162,390 and \$310,390. The agency has therefore recognized substantial
savings. Before initiation of the Early Intervention Program, the agency
carried from two to five formal EEO complaints at any given time.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program is entirely voluntary, and there are no formal rules.

***Contact***\
Patricia A. Brown, EEO Director, Federal Election Commission, 999 E
Street, NW, Room 436, Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1228;
FAX: (202) 219-3880; Email: <pbrown@fec.gov>.

### General Accounting Office

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The mediation program at the General Accounting Office (GAO) is strictly
voluntary. GAO employees are encouraged to consider mediation for all
work related issues including issues raised in discrimination complaints
or grievance processes. It is also used to resolve difficulties in
working relationships between a staff member and a supervisor, or
between two or more individuals working together. Mediation is
introduced to an employee during the precomplaint stage and is most
frequently used before a formal complaint is filed. However, if all
parties agree, mediation may be used at any stage in the process. GAO
has trained over 35 employees as collateral duty in-house mediators.

***Background/Objective***\
GAO\'s mediation program was established in fiscal year 1989 as a pilot.
The objective was to clear up a backlog of Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) complaints. The agency also was looking for a way to process
employee disputes without formal complaints. The pilot program became a
formal mediation program in November 1990.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
There is no time limit on the duration of the current program. 135 cases
have been processed and the level of activity varies from year to year
with the high being 26 in one year.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
GAO Order 2713.2, Discrimination Complaint Process, Chapter 2, Mediation
Program, December 2, 1997.

***Contact***\
Dolores H. Crawford, Program Manager, General Accounting Office, Civil
Rights Office, 41 G Street, NW, Room 6F08, Washington, DC 20548;
Telephone: (202) 512-4715; FAX: (202) 512-4818; Email:
[crawfordd.sup@gao.go](mailto:crawfordd.sup@gao.gov).

### General Services Administration

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
In accordance with 29 CFR Part 1614, an aggrieved individual may elect
either the traditional EEO complaint procedures or the agency\'s ADR
program. If the individual is member of one of the bargaining units, the
negotiated grievance procedure is also one of the options from which the
election may be made. If the ADR program is elected, the precomplaint
processing period is extended for an additional 60 days, and the
individual agrees to waive anonymity to aid in resolution of the
problem. Mediation is the only technique currently used. A number of
agency staff members have been trained in the mediation process.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was devised in response to a decision from the top of the
agency EEO structure that GSA would have a credible means of resolving
problems throughout the complaint stage.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
GSA made a decision to implement the ADR program nationally in 1994, and
the program has been in effect since that time.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Operating procedures are currently being revised and should be issued
sometime in 2000.

***Contact***\
Bill Conley, General Services Administration, Office of Civil Rights,
18th and F Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20405; Telephone: (202) 501-0767;
FAX: (202) 219-3369.

### General Services Administration Greater Southwest Region

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The General Services Administration (GSA) in the Greater Southwest
Region, provides mediators for any requested Government mediation. The
mediators (Cadre members) volunteer to spend their resources (mileage,
time, parking) to mediate a requested case within the Dallas Forth Worth
metroplex area. When an agency, or service of GSA is willing to fund the
travel expenses, a GSA volunteer mediator will fly to another area. The
mediators also assume mediation responsibilities in addition to normal
assigned work responsibilities. First, a request for a mediator is sent
to the Regional Counsel (RC). Often the parties will first contact a
contracting officer, supervisor, or EEO Officer who then forwards the
request to the office of Regional Counsel. Second, the parties involved
in the mediation are required to sign an authorization of agreement to
mediate in good faith, and to provide two optional dates and times for
the mediation. Third, the mediator sends the request to either of the
two volunteer mediator schedulers who arrange a place and find two
co-mediators who are available to mediate that case. The scheduler
(there are two in case one is not available) will handle the necessary
scheduling work in notifying the parties of when, where, and who will
mediate.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the volunteer Cadre is to provide an EASY TO ACCESS
resolution method to disputants. The goal of the GSA Cadre mediators is
to mediate. The only way to mediate is to have disputants request
mediation. The ease of accessing the process was determined to be
critical to the success of the program. The volunteer Cadre members
perform many \"behind the scene tasks\" to keep the program alive and
accessible. The disputants need only bring a dispute to the Cadre.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Greater Southwest Region Cadre began in 1995 with record keeping
charts starting in 1996. The Cadre is presently comprised of 27
experienced mediators and is growing in numbers. Currently, the Cadre
has added 8 new members. The Cadre continues to meet once a month and
has established a permanent \"brown bag\" luncheon on the third Thursday
of each month. An advertising campaign is promoting an all new and
active program for agencies and tenants of the Fritz Lanham Federal
Building at 819 Taylor Street in Fort Worth, Texas.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Cadre is defined as an actual working democracy. The members are
voluntary, the chairperson of the monthly meetings is a different
volunteer each month. The meeting format is presented by the
chairperson, and generally includes an update on new members, mediation
statistics (settlements, numbers) and includes shared tales of
experiences for mediators. When a need arises, a volunteer is requested.
New educational training opportunities are presented. A report on the
DFW/FEB/ADR program is presented when that group has met. The rules are
non existent, the goal is to keep a functioning group of mediators
available when needed.

***Contact***\
Jerry Ann Foster, Regional Counsel (GSA) or Sara Meadors, Paralegal, 819
Taylor, Room 11A31, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Telephone: 817-978-2325: FAX:
817-978-4924. Email: <jerryann.foster@gsa.gov> or [sara.meadors@
gsa.gov](mailto:sara.meadors@ gsa.gov).

### Health and Human Services

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
This ADR program covers informal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaints initiated by current employees of the Office of the Secretary
and the Administration on Aging at headquarters and in the ten Federal
regional cities. This includes bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit
employees who present issues covered by 29 CFR Part 1614. Mediation is
an alternative to EEO counseling. If the informal complaint is not
resolved through mediation, the employee may file at the formal stage.
Participation in this process is voluntary on the part of the aggrieved
individual. The program\'s coverage does not rule out any personnel
actions or EEO matters.

***Background and Objective***\
The objective is to resolve informal complaints prior to the formal EEO
complaint process.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The pilot ADR program has been extended one year, from October 1, 1999
through September 30, 2000.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules are contained in the issuance \"Alternative Dispute Resolution
of Informal EEO Complaints through Mediation\--A Pilot Program.\"

***Contact***\
Barbara Aulenbach, EEO Director, Office of the Secretary, HHS, 200
Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20201; Telephone: (202) 619-1564;
Fax: (202) 619-0823.

### Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry

#### How the ADR System Works

The Centers for Disease Control and the Agency for Toxic Substances
Disease Registry\'s (CDC/ATSDR) ADR program offers dispute resolution
and prevention processes such as mediation, collaboration, partnering,
conciliation, and facilitation to all employees including civilians,
members of the Public Health Service, members of the Commissioned Corps
and Fellows employed by the CDC and ATSDR. The ADR program was
established in 1996. It serves approximately 8500 employees and is a
global program used to resolve day-to-day conflicts, including equal
employment opportunity complaints at all stages of the process,
grievances, general communication and interpersonal relationship
problems between supervisors and employees or between colleagues.
Parties interested in using the ADR processes contact the ADR Office
directly to request a confidential meeting. Referrals are also received
from the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office, the Employee
Assistance Program Office (EAP), and the Human Resources Management
Office. The ADR program includes three full-time staff members and an
extended staff of approximately 37 mediators available through the
Atlanta Federal Executive Board\'s Shared Neutrals cadre, which is
managed by the CDC ADR office. The ADR Director also serves as the
contract Ombudsman for CDC and ATSDR.

***Background/Objective***\
There are a variety of ADR processes used in resolution of disputes at
CDC and ATSDR since program staff believe that the parties must have
maximum flexibility in resolving concerns and issues. While mediation or
facilitated discussion remain the most favored processes, ANYTHING THAT
WORKS may be used as long as the involved parties agree. A great deal of
energy is expended and focus placed on early intervention activities,
training and marketing the program to elevate awareness of the ADR
process as an effective and viable alternative to the traditional
dispute resolution mechanisms. ADR is voluntary for employees but
participation is mandatory for supervisors and managers. All
participants in ADR processes are entitled to and encouraged to include
representatives, whether a Union representative, attorney counselors,
Human Resource representatives or friends and family members, for moral
support. Significant amounts of time are spent managing the expectations
of the process, ensuring that all participants understand what ADR is
about, what the chosen process looks and may feel like, what their roles
in the process entail, and providing an opportunity to ask any questions
about the process. In addition to one-on-one discussion about the
process, e-mail information about the ADR process selected is provided
to participants for review prior to scheduled sessions. There is no
charge for services provided. All employees, supervisors and managers
were offered Conflict Resolution Skills and ADR awareness training when
the program was instituted in the 1996 timeframe. Conflict Resolution
Skills training continues on a regular and recurring basis and is also
tailored to fit specific situations and provided as requested.
Additionally, the ADR Office staff provides team and trust building
sessions for groups undergoing difficult change or experiencing
conflict.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The ADR program was established in 1996 and became operational at that
time. CDC and ATSDR strive to institutionalize key aspects of ADR
throughout the organization. Focus on early intervention as a
preventative mechanism and recurring training to increase awareness of
the availability and benefit of ADR as a resource for all employees has
resulted in a dramatically increased usage by employees at every level.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Rules governing ADR at CDC and ATSDR are contained in partnership
agreements, memoranda of understanding, agency collective bargaining
agreements and various other agency documents.

***Contact***\
Reba Rivera, Director, ADR, CDC/ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, ATTN: MS D-67,
Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 371-5917; e-mail ror5@cdc.gov; fax
(404) 371-5923. Internet web site address:
[http://webdev.cdc.gov//od/adr/index.htm](http://webdev.cdc.gov/od/adr/index.htm)

### Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services\'s (CMS\'s) Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaints became operational on September 15, 1999, as a joint venture
with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) - Local
1923. The program, identified by the acronym CARE - Conflicts Addressed
and Resolved Expeditiously, covers EEO complaints initiated by CMS
employees and applicants for employment at the Agency\'s central office
in Baltimore, MD and in its ten regional offices across the country.

The program offers mediation as an alternative to the traditional EEO
process during both the informal and formal stages. Mediators for these
cases are obtained through the Department of Health and Human Services\'
Sharing Neutrals Program and various Federal Executive Boards\' Sharing
Neutrals Programs nationwide. On occasion, CMS has contracted with
GSA-approved vendors for this service. The parties have 90 days to
engage in mediation. If during this allotted time the parties reach an
agreement, the case is closed and the agreement is binding on all
parties. If the matter is not resolved during mediation, the complaint
continues through the traditional EEO process.

Since January 2000, 90% percent of CMS\'s 450 managers have attended a
1-day ADR training session provided by the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service. Beginning in January 2002, CMS will not only
continue training its managers and supervisors on ADR, but will also
expand the training endeavor to include all CMS employees to further
market the program and encourage continued success.

***Background/Objective***\
The purpose of the program is to resolve EEO concerns/complaints at the
earliest possible stage of the complaint and at the lowest level within
the organization; restore productivity to areas affected by complaints;
and improve working relationships.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program, introduced as an 18-month pilot in September 1999,
continues to be an option for employees and applicants as a means to
address EEO concerns. Since September 1999, 65 % of the complaints
mediated have been settled. This significant success of resolving EEO
complaints through CARE has resulted in a considerable reduction in
formal complaint filings. Over the last two years, the Agency has
realized a 49% decrease in formal complaints.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing this activity are contained within CMS\'s ADR
Program for EEO Complaints. In sum, the program conforms to the core
principles set forth in EEOC\'s policy statement on ADR; fairness,
voluntariness, neutrality, confidentiality, and enforceability.

***Contact***\
Ramon Suris-Fernandez, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil
Rights, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Blvd.,
N2-22-16, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850; Telephone: 410-786-5110; Email:
<rsurisfernandez@cms.hhs.gov>

### Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration

#### ADR Technique: Mediation 

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a two-track Dispute
Resolution System (DRS) for nonbargaining unit employees. An employee
may choose to air a complaint through Track 1 (the ADR track) or Track 2
(a two-stage grievance track). Track 1 allows resolution of disputes
through mediation. Track 2 is a traditional written grievance system. If
resolution is not accomplished through mediation, the grievant may
elevate the complaint to the second stage of the grievance track.

***Background/Objective***\
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has provided a
grievance system for the use at all DHHS agencies for many years. In
1995, the Department gave permission for DHHS agencies to develop their
own grievance systems. FDA enthusiastically began to develop a creative
grievance system using ADR. The objective of FDA\'s program is to give
employees the choice between resolving disputes through the newly
introduced mediation procedures or the traditional written grievance
methods with which some employees are more comfortable.

***Duration/CurrentActivity***\
The FDA Dispute Resolution System has been in use since January 13,
1997. An updated version, providing fine tuning and clarifications,
became effective in February 1998.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The procedures for governing the DRS are contained in instructions
issued by FDA.

***Contact***\
Theresa Foster and Cecilia Boswell, Deputy Director, Division of
Employee and Labor Management Relations, Food and Drug Administration,
HFA-430, Room 9-89, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone:
(301) 827-4180; Email: <tfoster@oc.fda.gov> and
[cboswell@ora.fda.gov](http://www5.opm.gov/er/adrguide/cboswell@ora.fda.gov).

### Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
In addition to its Dispute Resolution System (DRS), opportunities to
resolve differences in a less formal manner are provided by FDA.
Mediation is the process most commonly used to help resolve
employee-supervisor disputes and difficulties among peers by those who
prefer the flexibility of informal problem solving. FDA has a number of
employees who have been trained in the mediation process. FDA has also
provided neutrals to other agencies and is open to reciprocally using
these resources when concerns about neutrality exist. The goal of this
effort is to effectively resolve differences as early as possible by
allowing employees to be directly involved in creating solutions. A
written settlement agreement that captures the parties\' resolution is
another goal. The DRS remains an option for matters not excluded by its
procedures when this avenue does not resolve the issue.

***Background/Objective***\
FDA recognizes that employees occasionally have organizational concerns
or experience interpersonal conflict while at work. Unresolved issues
create problems with morale, communication, teamwork, productivity, etc.
One of the methods FDA uses to address such matters is to offer
mediation (or other appropriate problem-solving strategies). Our
objective is to keep FDA as productive as possible by reducing the
stress and discomfort in the workplace that often results from the
adversarial process.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
FDA staff has been trained in the methods of ADR for a number of years.
In 2000, FDA will have two certified Dispute Resolution Specialists on
staff.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
There are no formal, internal rules governing this approach to resolving
disputes. Parties voluntarily enter into the process. The normal
expectations of neutrality and confidentiality are clearly understood
and accepted by the staff serving as mediators. Managers and other
employees learn of and secure this assistance through the Division of
Employee and Labor Management Relations.

***Contacts***\
Theresa Foster and Cecilia Boswell, Employee Relations Specialists, Food
and Drug Administration, Parklawn Bldg. Room 9-89 HFA-430, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20851; Telephone: (301) 827-4180; FAX: (301)
443-0087; Email: <tfoster@oc.fda.gov> and <cboswell@ora.fda.gov>.

### Health and Human Services National Institutes Of Health

#### ADR Technique: Ombudsman

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Office of the Ombudsman/Center for Cooperative Resolution
coordinates and provides a full range of dispute resolution services for
all 25 of NIH\'s Institutes and Centers. The Ombudsman, who directs the
Center, serves as a focal point for conflict resolution at NIH by (1)
providing confidential, neutral, informal assistance to employees and
managers in resolving work-related concerns and (2) developing and
coordinating effective dispute resolution processes and procedures.

Staff Ombudsmen work in conflict intervention, conflict prevention and
internal education on ways to manage conflict. They address individual
conflicts and concerns as well as multi-party and group conflicts. They
address every sort of issue that arises in the NIH environment -
scientific disputes and employee-supervisor conflicts, racial and ethnic
tensions and difficulties between peers. Although all of the staff are
trained mediators, they employ a full array of ADR techniques in
addition to mediation- facilitation, shuttle diplomacy, coaching,
consulting, peer panels and partnering agreements. The Ombudsmen are
scrupulous in maintaining neutrality and independence and rigorous in
protecting confidentiality.

***Background/Objective***\
In 1995, the Directors of the Office of Equal Opportunity and the Office
of Human Resource Management initiated a collaboration to reinvent
dispute resolution at the NIH. Everyone within the system considered the
traditional administrative dispute processes to be ineffective and
costly to the organization, both economically and in terms of employee
productivity and morale. They formed a NIH ADR Working Group charged
with designing and implementing a program that would work independently
of the traditional formal dispute systems. Within the scientific
community, the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, also recognizing
the need to more effectively address conflicts arising within the
scientific staff, had charged the Committee on Scientific Conduct and
Ethics with developing a process for resolution of scientific disputes.
These efforts were merged into one. The Working Group researched various
models of ADR and recommended adoption and development of an Ombudsman
program over the more prevalent mediation-only programs. After a one
year pilot project serving five institutes, its success led to its
expansion to the entire organization in January of 1999.

The Center\'s goals and objectives are to:

1.  Further scientific research through efficient, effective and
    innovative conflict management and resolution methods.

2.  Provide an alternative to traditional grievance and equal employment
    opportunity (EEO) complaint processes.

3.  Improve the work environment, preserve work place relationships, and
    enhance the quality of work life.

4.  Reduce the costs associated with, and time committed to, traditional
    formal dispute processing.

5.  Improve participant satisfaction with dispute resolution and its
    outcomes.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Office of the Ombudsman serves a population of approximately 20,000
NIH scientists, administrators and support staff across 25 NIH
Institutes and Centers. In 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman handled a
total of 328 cases involving a total of 777 consumers. 357 (46 percent)
were complainants and 420 (54 percent) were respondents. Many of the
cases involved multiple issues. In addition, it is common for multiple
processes to be used on a particular case. More than 40 percent of all
cases are closed within two weeks, 60 percent of cases were closed
within 6 weeks and over 90 percent of all cases were closed in 6 months.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The staff strictly adhere to The Ombudsman Association\'s Code of Ethics
and Standards of Practice for organizational ombudsmen. The NIH Office
of the Ombudsman was established as an independent, neutral,
confidential, informal office. The Ombudsman reports directly to the
Deputy Director of NIH. The Ombudsman does not make or change policy.

***Contact***\
Howard Gadlin, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, Center for
Cooperative Resolution, National Institutes of Health. 9000 Rockville
Pike, Bldg. 31, Room 1B39, MS-2087, Bethesda, MD 20892; Telephone: (301)
594-7231; FAX: (301) 594-7948.

### Health and Human Services Phoenix Area Indian Health Services

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Phoenix Area Indian Health Service has developed a Management
Intervention process that is formally established under a policy
issuance and is extended to the initial processing of all Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. If the employee chooses the
Management Intervention process, 30 days are allowed for the mediation
of the dispute. If the process is not effective, the complainant has the
remaining 15 calendar days in which to seek EEO counseling to continue
pursuit of the dispute. The management intervention process is
coordinated by the Area\'s full-time EEO counselor to ensure that
timeliness and confidentiality are maintained and that the process is
properly documented. In 1998, each service unit appointed a mediator who
was given 24 hours of certified training. In addition to Indian Health
Services mediators, the Phoenix Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service is used to provide mediation service.

***Background/Objective***\
In addition to the use of mediation in the Management Intervention
process, the Phoenix Area Indian Health Service utilizes management
review process called Quality Review ADR to address if and why a
management process created an allegation of discrimination. If a quality
management issue surfaces in the complaint findings, management ensures
that corrective measures are instituted. The objective of both processes
is to reach an expedient, informal resolution of the EEO complaint at
the lowest organizational level.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The model of Quality Review ADR was instituted in 1992 and revised in
1997. This model is part of the informal EEO counseling process. An
informal Management Intervention process has been used since 1990 to
address sexual harassment complaints. The application of the Management
Intervention process for all EEO complaints was formally instituted in
1997 with a policy issuance. This process has helped to effectively
resolve EEO informal complaints effectively.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Under the quality review model, each management committee member follows
standard procedures in the review process, submits a record of the
review, and meets at pre-closeout sessions to discuss the ramifications
of the complaint, risk management and the disposition of the complaint.

***Contact***\
Cecelia Heftel, Director, EEO & Civil Rights Staff, Indian Health
Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 6A-14, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone:
(301) 443-1108; FAX: (301) 443-0096; Email:
<cecelia.heftel@hge.ihs.gov>.

### Interior

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
Under the agency\'s decentralized ADR program, each Bureau is required
to develop and implement an ADR plan; to designate a senior official as
a dispute resolution specialist; to establish training programs on ADR
methods; to review standard language in contracts, grants, and other
agreements for inclusion of ADR provisions; and to adopt a formal ADR
policy on: formal and informal adjudications, rulemakings, enforcement
actions, issuing and revoking licenses and permits, contract
administration, litigation brought by or against the agency, and other
agency action. The ADR policy encourages the use of ADR techniques and
negotiated rulemaking to the fullest extent practicable. A comprehensive
ADR program was developed and implemented by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Office to respond to allegations of discrimination. Each
Bureau is encouraged to use ADR to avoid workplace conflict, and to
facilitate faster resolution of other internal workplace disputes. The
Secretary of the Interior designated the Director of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals to serve as the Dispute Resolution Specialist (DRS)
to facilitate intra-agency coordination, communication, and training; to
establish minimum qualifications for mediators, arbitrators, and agency
employees with ADR responsibilities; to monitor and report to the
Secretary of the Interior on implementation and effectiveness of all
agency ADR plans; and to disseminate knowledge about ADR.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR policy was adopted to reduce the time, cost, inefficiencies, and
contentiousness associated with litigation and other adversarial dispute
resolution mechanisms. It encourages the use of ADR techniques by the
Bureaus to achieve mutually acceptable solutions to disputes, to foster
the cooperative development of regulations, and to avoid conflicts and
disputes whenever possible. Each Bureau was allowed discretion, however,
to tailor its ADR plan and policy to meet its own needs and
circumstances.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The DRS is in the process of evaluating and reporting to the Secretary
of the Interior on the Bureaus\' experiences and progress in
implementing their respective ADR plans since implementation of the
agency\'s final ADR policy in August 1996. The Bureaus are reporting
extensive ADR training efforts, and successful use of a variety of ADR
techniques, including mediation, partnering, negotiated rulemaking,
cooperative problem-solving, and interest-based problem solving. The
agency continues to advocate for greater use of ADR techniques by the
Bureaus whenever practicable, while allowing decentralized
decision-making.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The agency published its interim ADR policy on June 13, 1994, 59 Fed.
Reg. 30368, and its final ADR Policy on August 2, 1996, 61 Fed. Reg.
40424. There are several internal ADR program issuances and directives.

***Contact***\
Robert L. Baum, Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 4015 Wilson
Boulevard, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203; Telephone: (703) 235-3810;
FAX: (703) 235-9014; Email: <robert_baum@Ios.doi.gov>.

### Interior DOI Human Resources Management

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The CORE (COnflict REsolution) Program was established for the
Department of the Interior and with the flexibility to allow each bureau
and office to develop implementing procedures based on specific
capabilities and local needs. The CORE Program focuses on: (a)
maximizing the use of ADR methods; (b) improving personal communications
between parties involved in workplace disputes; (c) preserve
relationships between employees and supervisors using interest-based
focus; and, (d) allowing employees and management to address specific
workplace concerns for positive organizational change. The CORE Program
does not provide any extension of time frames in which to seek redress
under formal administrative processes, with the exception of allowing an
additional 15 days to file a formal administrative grievance after
receipt of a Notice of Results and Options when resolution was not
reached. CORE services are normally provided within 15 days, and
possible extensions. All employees (non-supervisory, supervisory,
managerial, and senior executives) are free to use this procedure
without restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal
of any kind. In order for bargaining unit employees to have access to
the CORE Program, there must be specific authorization in the collective
bargaining agreement or in an MOU. Bureau Directors ensure that
management participates in ADR when requested by a party bringing an
issue or concern to the CORE Program. If an employee\'s supervisor is
directly involved in the concern and does not voluntarily participate,
the participation of another manager, preferably in the employee\'s
supervisory chain of command, is required.

***Background/Objective***\
The Department has the goal of reducing workplace conflict among
employees and between employees and employer. The CORE Program was
developed as an early intervention alternative to other established
resolution dispute processes. The major tenet of the CORE Program is to
provide fair, equitable and effective means for resolving workplace
disputes at the lowest organizational level, by: (1) providing
information to address specific workplace issues or concerns, and (2)
provide neutral dispute resolution assistance.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Use of ADR to resolve workplace disputes through CORE services has shown
steady increase throughout the Department since implementation of the
CORE Program.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, P.L. 104-320; 5 U.S.C.
Section 571-584. Department of Interior Departmental Manual 370 DM 770,
effective date: 3/17/00.

***Contact***\
Sarah Rogers, CORE Program Coordinator, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 5221,
Washington, DC 20240; telephone 202-219-0813; fax 202-482-3179.

### Justice

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
In handling lawsuits brought by and against the United States,
Department of Justice attorneys use many different forms of consensual
dispute resolution, with a particular focus on mediation. Cases are
placed into mediation at the request of the court, opposing counsel, or
a Department attorney, as long as all parties agree. Where
court-sponsored programs are not available, the attorneys work with
opposing counsel to find a suitable ADR provider and share the relevant
expenses. As the biggest user of the Federal courts in the country and
the nation\'s most prolific litigator, the Department recognizes the
necessity of considering alternatives to litigation in all appropriate
cases. The goal of the Department\'s program is to benefit litigants by
producing better and quicker results, and benefit the entire justice
system by preserving the scarce resources of the courts for the disputes
that only courts can decide.

***Background/Objective***\
The Attorney General issued an Order on April 6, 1995, to promote the
broader use of ADR in appropriate cases to improve access to justice for
all citizens and to lead to more effective resolution of disputes
involving the Government. The Department\'s program is focused on civil
matters, rather than criminal matters or enforcement of criminal fines.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
While Department attorneys had been using ADR prior to the Attorney
General\'s 1995 Order, utilization of these processes has increased
dramatically in recent years. The Order created the Office of the Senior
Counsel for Dispute Resolution to coordinate ADR activities on a
Department-wide basis. The office has trained Assistant United States
Attorneys and Department litigators around the country and continues to
provide follow-up and advanced training. The office also works on
policy-making, legislation, and other activities in the ADR field. The
Attorney General also serves as the Chair of the Interagency Working
Group on Alternative Dispute Resolution, a large group of Federal
agencies seeking to increase their use of ADR.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Department has no special rules on ADR use. Because it is well
recognized that the United States cannot be forced to settle a case over
its objection, the hallmark of this program is a consensual approach by
all parties.

***Contacts***\
Peter R. Steenland, Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution
and Jeffrey M. Senger, Deputy Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room
5240, Washington, DC 20530; Telephone: (202) 616-9471.

### Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) ADR program allows parties to resolve
disputes themselves by employing neutrals, in the form of ADR-trained
Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs), as mediators. EOUSA\'s
mediators are trained at the National Advocacy Center, run by the
Department of Justice\'s Office of Legal Education. Mediation gives
parties to the dispute an investment in the settlement by assuring that
the resolution of the ADR will originate with the parties, rather than
as a decision from a third party.

***Background/Objective***\
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
program was created in 1995, pursuant to the Attorney General\'s Order
1200.1, and provides mediation services for all 94 United States
Attorneys Offices (USAOs), as well as the employees of EOUSA.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In accordance with 29 C.F.R § I 614.102(b)(2), the EOUSA EEO Staff has
established an ADR Program to resolve discrimination-based disputes
prior to, and after, the filing of a formal EEO complaint. Under MD-110
all Complainants/Aggrieved Persons may request ADR mediation at any
stage of the EEO process.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
EOUSA\'s ADR program follows 29 C.F.R §614.102, MD-110, and DOJ Human
Resources Order 1200.1. If the EEO Staff has determined that a case is
appropriate for ADR, and an aggrieved person complainant has requested
the use of ADR in his/her case, management is required to participate in
ADR, in good faith, pursuant to DOJ Human Resources Order 1200.1. For
further information on EOUSA\'s ADR or EEO programs, see the website
below.

***Contact***\
Juan Milanes, Assistant Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Staff,
EOUSA, Department of Justice, 600 E Street, NW #2300, Washington, DC
20530. Telephone: (202) 514-3982. Website:
[www.usa.doj.gov/staffs/eeo/](http://www.usa.doj.gov/staffs/eeo/)

### Justice Federal Bureau Of Investigation

#### ADR Technique: Settlement

***How the ADR System Works***\
The FBI\'s Office of Personnel Dispute Resolution (OPDR) provides
training to and relies on the experience of senior-level managers to
attempt to negotiate settlements of EEO complaints upon completion of an
investigation of a formal complaint. OPDR assigns such complaints to
these Management Officials (MOs), provides advice and assistance in
their negotiations, and prepares legally binding settlement agreements
if resolutions are reached. OPDR was established to work outside the
FBI\'s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Affairs (OEEOA) to provide
an independent means of resolving EEO complaints prior to their reaching
the formal decision stage. OPDR also receives requests to become
involved in the attempted resolution of employee complaints prior to the
use of the formal EEO process. These referrals usually come from EEO
Counselors, but OPDR\'s assistance in resolving issues may be requested
by supervisory or executive management throughout the FBI, including all
field offices.

***Background/Objective***\
OPDR was established in 1991 to comply with 29 CFR, Section 1613.217,
which mandated agencies to provide an opportunity for adjustment to EEO
complaints on an informal basis and to provide the complainant the
opportunity to discuss the case with appropriate officials. The goal of
OPDR is to resolve EEO-related complaints without assigning fault. Each
party will get something they want as opposed to a win/lose situation
which occurs from a final decision; both parties save time and the
expense of litigation, and both parties can focus on their day-to-day
activities rather than dwell on past events.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
OPDR is staffed with a Unit Chief and a Management Analyst, who report
to the Deputy Assistant Director/Personnel Officer (Personnel Assistance
and Facilities Management Branch) of the Administrative Services
Division at FBI Headquarters. OPDR continues to rely on the experiences
of senior-level managers to attempt the resolution of complaints;
however, since the earlier regulation *EEOC* was replaced by 29 CFR,
Section 1614.603, providing that agencies shall make efforts to
voluntarily settle EEO complaints of discrimination as early as possible
throughout the process, OPDR\'s responsibility for resolving EEO matters
has increased to provide for attempted resolution prior to the formal
filing of EEO complaints.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
OPDR is in compliance with 29 CFR Section 1614.603. The confidentiality
and informality of negotiations preclude the need for extensive record
keeping. OPDR works closely with the FBI\'s OEEOA and the Office of
General Counsel to ensure compliance with all Federal and agency
regulations.

***Contact***\
Colleen Baldwin, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20535;
Telephone: (202) 324-1632; FAX: (202) 324-5153. E-mail:
[mailto:opdr.personnel@fbi.gov](mailto:opdr.personnel@fbi.gov)

### Justice Federal Bureau Of Investigation

#### ADR Technique: Ombudsman 

***How the ADR System Works***\
The FBI Ombudsman is an employee of the agency who assumes a neutral
role in dealing with work-related concerns of FBI employees. All
contacts with the Ombudsman are afforded confidentiality, and no action
is taken without the approval of the caller or visitor. The Ombudsman
works outside the normal chain of command and works through negotiation,
mediation, consultation, influence, shuttlediplomacy, informal
investigation, dispute resolution, and referral. The Ombudsman also
operates as an early warning system by providing upward feedback to the
organization on significant issues affecting employees. Typically, the
Ombudsman explores options and attempts to achieve equitable solutions
for all parties as an alternative to formal processes.

***Background/Objective***\
The FBI Ombudsman position was established in 1981 by then Director
William H. Webster as a result of a recommendation of the Special Agent
Advisory Committee. The incumbent was appointed as the point of contact
for field agents regarding problems and/or questions concerning transfer
policies and other work issues which directly affected agents.

***Duration/CurrentActivity***\
The FBI Ombudsman serves a two-year term of office, which can be
extended up to a four-year period. The role of the Ombudsman has
expanded considerably since its inception. Today, the Ombudsman responds
to inquiries from support and agency personnel concerning a wide variety
of issues. In addition, the Ombudsman travels to field offices upon
request, gives presentations and provides consultation to outside
entities, facilitates meetings of the Director\'s advisory committees,
prepares statistical reports, evaluates trends, and actively promotes
sound work values and concepts through various forms of communication,
to include monthly articles in the agency\'s employee magazine.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The FBI Ombudsman practices are consistent with the standards of conduct
and the code of ethics of the Ombudsman Association.

***Contact***\
Sarah Ziegler, Ombudsman, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 6640,
Washington, DC 20535; Telephone: (202) 324-2156; FAX: (202) 324-5188;
Email: <ombudsmen@FBI.gov>.

### Justice Federal Bureau Of Prisons

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Dispute Resolution Specialist (DRS) program (piloted at 6
institutions) was created to establish a collateral duty DRS at each
institution. The DRS is jointly selected by the warden and local union
president based on criteria developed at the national level. The DRS may
resolve any type of workplace dispute involving all staff, including
supervisor to subordinate disputes and co-worker to co-worker issues.
The DRS has 10 days to resolve the issue. If the issue is not resolved,
the staff member may escalate it to the Regional Dispute Resolution
Administrator who also has 10 days and then to the Central Office
Counsel for Dispute Resolution who also has 10 days. In total, it is a
30 day process.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the DRS program is to create an informal dispute
resolution system at each institution in which staff can have their
workplace disputes addressed immediately, thereby decreasing the amount
of EEO complaints, increasing staff satisfaction and productivity, and
reducing costs.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The DRS provides the staff member with a document which explains that it
is the staff member\'s responsibility to protect his rights regarding
meeting the time requirements of the EEO, union grievance and agency
grievance processes. The DRS will respect the confidentiality of the
staff member except with regards to allegations of criminal behavior or
sexual harassment.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
During the first ten months of the pilot, over 64 issues have
cumulatively been brought to the attention of the 6 DRSs. Many of these
are issues that the DRSs believed would have resulted in EEO complaints.
Comparing EEO Complaints filed in FY 00 versus FY99, there has been a
33% reduction in filings at the piloted institutions.

***Contacts***\
Mina Raskin, Counsel for Dispute Resolution, Bureau of Prisons, 320
First St., NW, Washington, DC 20534; Telephone:(202)307-3062;
FAX:(202)307-2995; Email:<mraskin@bop.gov>.

### Justice United States Marshals Service

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) uses multiple techniques in
their ADR Program in order to resolve workforce disputes. Most common
techniques utilized include: mediation, factfinding, interest-based
bargaining, and ombuds. Employee Involvement Processes (EIP) include:
the USMS Partnership Council, Labor Management Committee, Business
Process Review Facilitation, and Advisory Panels.

***Background/Objective***\
The two year pilot program initiated in 1996 was established to use
various ADR techniques to quickly resolve workforce disputes in an
efficient and timely process, avert costly EEO settlements and
grievances, and promote a renewed, positive working relationship between
the parties to enable the USMS mission to be accomplished without
prolonged disruption.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program became fully operational in October 1998. The policy was
finalized, an employee handbook was distributed, and a USMS ADR web page
was established. The USMS is pursuing supervisory as well as employee
training in conflict resolution. The USMS also plans to actively
participate in the Interagency Working Group on ADR created by the
President to assist agencies in meeting their obligations under the ADR
Act of 1996.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Rules governing the program are the ADR Act of 1996, Public Law 104-320,
the USMS Policy and the ADR Employee Handbook.

***Contacts***\
Mr. Thomas Mulhern, United States Marshall Service, Labor Relations
Officer, 600 Army Navy Drive, Suite 850, Arlington, VA 22202-4210;
Telephone: (202) 307-9863; FAX: (202) 557-9702; Email:
<tom.mulhaern@usdoj.gov>.

### Labor

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Early Resolution of EEO Complaints (EREC) program offers mediation
as an option in the informal and formal stages of the EEO complaint
process:\
***Informal stage*** --- During the initial interview with complainant,
the EEO counselor describes the EREC option, along with the traditional
counseling process and the complainant\'s rights and responsibilities.
If the complainant elects mediation (by signing an agreement to extend
counseling and to mediate), the counselor does an expedited, limited
factfinding and forwards the counselor\'s report to DOL\'s Coordinator
of Counselors (COC), who convenes a meeting of the EREC Team (which
includes the responding agency\'s EEO manager) to consider broad options
for resolution. Subsequently, the COC names the mediator, who schedules
the mediation, and the agency EEO manager selects the agency Settlement
Official from a list of officials (usually SES) to whom the Assistant
Secretary of the responding agency has delegated authority to negotiate
a resolution and commit the agency to it. The Settlement Official
replaces the responding official in the mediation process to ensure that
proposed resolutions can be implemented. Where issues are resolved in
mediation, resolution is captured in a settlement agreement signed by
both parties. Where issues remain unresolved, the complainant is given a
notice of right to file and has 15 days to file a formal complaint on
the unresolved issues.\
***Formal stage*** --- The complainant is informed in the letter
accepting the formal complaint that he/she may request mediation at any
stage in the formal process. The option is offered again in the letter
transmitting the completed investigative file to the complainant and
offering the complainant the choice of an agency decision or an EEOC
hearing/decision. Should the case be accepted for mediation at this
stage, mediation (see informal process above) proceeds in parallel with
the agency\'s drafting of the decision or the request for hearing to
EEOC.

***Background/Objective***\
The Civil Rights Center (CRC), organizationally located within the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management,
developed the EREC program in response to recommendations of the
National Performance Review. The program complies with recent revisions
to 29 CFR Part 1614. EREC objectives include: allowing parties to
resolve disputes themselves; encouraging open communication in a
nonthreatening environment; using a neutral third party to help parties
clearly identify the problem and underlying interests as a basis for
resolution; avoiding administrative process time/costs and protracted
litigation; and improving workplace relationships.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Fully implemented in the informal process in DOL (headquarters and all
regions) as of 10/1/96, and in the formal stage of the EEO process
effective 11/9/99.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
CRC Policy Memorandum 6 describes the EREC program.

***Contact***\
Lynne Pratico, Chief, Office of Mediation, Counseling, and Evaluation,
Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Room N4123, Washington DC 20210. Phone 202/219-8927. E-mail:
<pratico-lynne@dol.gov>.

### Library of Congress

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Library of Congress has established ADR agreements with its
non-bargaining unit employees, American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Locals 2477 and 2910, and the Congressional
Research Employees Association. Each agreement recommends the use of
mediation to resolve workplace disputes whether they are equal
employment opportunity complaints, grievances, or a category designated
as \"other.\" The LOC encourages parties involved in a dispute to
resolve it directly through informal discussions, or through mediation
facilitated by conveners in its Dispute Resolution Center. Parties
retain the option, in certain limited circumstances, of using a peer
panel process outlined in the negotiated agreements and the regulation.

***Background/Objective***\
It is the policy of the LOC that disputes be settled informally at the
lowest level possible. The LOC also encourages the use of ADR to devise
interest-based resolutions to disputes. When possible, systemic problems
are identified and recommendations are made for their resolution.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Dispute Resolution Center was established on October 11, 1991. Since
the Center\'s inception, it has proven to be very instrumental in the
LOC\'s efforts to resolve disputes before they reach the formal stages
of investigation, hearings, or District Court litigation.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing this program are found in an LOC regulation and in
negotiated agreements with the labor organizations.

***Contacts***\
Andre C. Whisenton, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE, Room
626, Washington, DC 20540; Telephone: (202) 707-4170. Cortez Austin,
Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE, Room 624, Washington, DC
20540; Telephone: (202) 707-9403.

### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
All ten NASA Centers have Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs
in place that employ mediation to attempt settlement of complaints at
the informal stage of the complaints process. NASA also has an ADR
program at the formal stage of the complaint process that employs
mediation. It can be used at any time after a complaint is filed up
until a hearing, agency decision, or the filing of a civil action. The
program at the formal stage uses contract mediators that have been
certified as meeting the requirements of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission\'s (EEOC) Management Directive (MD) MD-110.

***Background Objective***\
The objective of ADR is to obtain resolutions of employment disputes at
the earliest possible time in the process and at the lowest
organizational level. In addition, ADR may resolve disputes before
positions harden, and it may highlight poor personnel or management
practices that can be corrected before employees and managers become
further polarized.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
NASA began a pilot program in ADR at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
in December 1991, and all NASA Centers had adopted some form of ADR for
use at the informal stage by 1994. When new EEOC regulations were
proposed in 1998, that required ADR at both the informal and formal
stages of the complaint process, NASA undertook a review of its existing
ADR programs. As a result of that review, NASA\'s Office of Equal
Opportunity Programs conducted an ADR/Mediation/Conference to provide a
framework for the refinement of existing programs or development of new
programs at the NASA Centers for the informal stage as well as the
development of an Agency Program for the formal stage of the process.
Following EEOC\'s issuance of its final rule, NASA put in place an
Agencywide ADR mediation system consisting of individual Center
mediation programs at the informal stage of the process and a centrally
operated Agencywide mediation program at the formal stage of the
process.

The overall program has been operational since February 2000. All NASA
Centers are reporting varying levels of activity and success. The Office
of Equal Opportunity Programs has developed an ADR evaluation system
which all Centers are using; however, the new programs and the
evaluation system have not been in effect long enough to provide
meaningful data.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Agency as well as the Center ADR mediation program have written
procedures in place for the mediation processes, which define the role
and responsibilities of all parties. The program is voluntary for both
the complainant and the Center or Agency, and no rights are sacrificed
during the processes. Settlement agreements are reduced to writing and
signed by all necessary parties.

***Contact***\
Jim Starnes, NASA Headquarters, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs
(Code EC), Washington, DC 20546-0001; Telephone (202) 358-2180.

### National Imagery and Mapping Agency

#### How the ADR System Works

ADR is a voluntary process in which parties agree to meet with a
neutral, third party to resolve or prevent disputes. Disputes may be
referred for ADR through contact with the director of the ADR program
(ADRO) or by direct contact with a Facilitation and Mediation counselor
(FMC). Upon receipt of the dispute, the ADRO or mediation counselor will
decide if any of the ADR programs available are appropriate for purposes
of addressing the dispute. If it appears that a program or process,
within the mix of those offered by the Agency may address the dispute,
the program, or process will be discussed with the parties and, upon
their approval, scheduled.

***Background/Objective***\
The long-term goal of the NIMA ADR Program is to create a world class
ADR program to help NIMA reach its Strategic Goal of \"shap\[ing\]
\[its\] workforce and infrastructure to ensure mission success in the
21st century.\" To this end, those associated with the program have
worked hard, under very short time lines, to build a program that not
only provides excellent ADR services to employees that are flexible,
cost-effective and non-adversarial, but also:

-   Accounts for the evolving needs of a diverse group of NIMA employees
    and develops innovative solutions to accommodate their individual
    circumstances.

-   Recognizes and implements technology improvements to make ADR
    training, services and information more accessible to all NIMA
    employees, regardless of location.

-   Overcomes increasing budgetary constraints by encouraging
    partnership with outside agencies and organizations to lower costs.

-   Continuously strives to increase management and employee awareness
    of the benefits of ADR.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Since its commencement by NIMA in 1999, ADR has been shown to offer a
number of benefits, including: (1) improving communication and trust
between employees; (2) encouraging expeditious, creative, and
inexpensive resolutions to disputes (3) discouraging formal and rigid
procedures; and (4) prioritizing the need for employee privacy and
confidentiality. ADR services are available for resolving disputes in
any subject matter area, including equal employment opportunity
disputes.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Any employee may elect to participate in NIMA\'s ADR program. NIMA
bargaining unit members, however, may only participate upon the request
of their bargaining unit representatives. Employees may choose the kind
of neutral they would like to use. They may use an in-house neutral from
either the FMC (NIMA\'s in-house ADR service) or NIMA\'s Roster of
Mediators. Alternatively, employees may use neutrals from external
governmental rosters of neutrals (e.g., Department of Defense Roster of
Mediators) from private organizations specializing in ADR (e.g., Bowie
State University).

### National Security Agency

#### ADR Technique: Ombudsman/Mediation - Dispute Resolution Center

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) is the National Security Agency\'s
(NSA) focal point for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The DRC acts
in an ombudsman role addressing employee issues and concerns, houses the
Agency\'s Mediation Program, and administers the NSA Grievance Process.
Our mediation process is voluntary: the goal is for both parties to
reach an achievable solution satisfactory for all before the conflict is
escalated into a formal and costly investigative procedure. The NSA
Grievance Policy covers issues of employee concern or dissatisfaction in
the workplace that are subject to control of Agency management. The DRC
also benefits the workforce by creating a place for individuals to go
with concerns and problems in the workplace that do not fit the criteria
of rights-based formal systems, but are legitimate issues that threaten
productivity and workforce morale.

***Background/Objective***\
The implementation of the DRC followed a successful two-year Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) pilot program conducted by the Office of Equal
Employment Opportunity (OEEO). OEEO\'s pilot mediation program was
initiated in order to help reduce a backlog of EEO complaints and the
high costs associated with formal EEO investigations. The pilot
mediation program was so successful that the agency mentor for the
program decided to expand the use of ADR to assist in resolving all
types of workplace disputes and founded the DRC.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Center has been in operation since November 1997 and has
continuously marketed its services and the benefits of ADR. The DRC is
in the process of coordinating with private organizations, and
partnering with other DOD and federal government agencies.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Rules governing the Grievance Policy are covered by agency regulation.
Guidance for the mediation process adheres to the Justice Center of
Atlanta\'s practices and is published in a mediation handbook. A policy
directive for the ADR Program is in final draft.

***Contact***\
The Dispute Resolution Center, APS20, National Security Agency, 9800
Savage Rd. Ft. Meade, MD 20755-6862 Suite 6862; telephone: (410)
854-6228; Fax (410) 854-6052.

### Navy

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Department of the Navy (DON) offers Workplace ADR services to all
its civilian employees. Using mediation, facilitation, conciliation and
a variety of other ADR processes, the DON is interested in using ADR in
all formal arenas as well as resolving concerns at the lowest possible
level when workplace disputes arise. In an effort to provide
well-trained practitioners, DON has implemented a Mediation
Certification Program. In September 2000, the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (CP/EEO) established an Ombudsman Program to expand
opportunities that offer an impartial avenue for civilian managers and
employees to explore areas of concern encountered while on the job.

***Background/Objective***\
The DON Workplace ADR Program was originated in the early 1990\'s. While
under DON\'s ADR Working Group, chaired by Mark Wilkoff, workplace
mediators in the Navy Secretariat and Staff Offices along with ADR
advocates in NAVAIR\'s EEO Program and NAVSEA\'s Employee Relations
Program expressed interest in developing a certification program for
mediator candidates. DON\'s former Office of Civilian Personnel
Management sponsored mediation training for over 200 people. One of the
goals of the DON Workplace ADR Program is to continue to foster growth
for its mediators so they can provide competent services to the parties
at the table. Additionally there is a focus to expand the use of ADR
throughout the various formal arenas as well as encourage managers and
employees to voluntarily seek ADR services when any form of workplace
dispute is discovered.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Many Workplace ADR Programs developed over the last decade to meet the
needs within DON. Several of these programs are highlighted on the Navy
pages in this publication. Guidelines for Workplace ADR were developed
for use by all involved with DON Workplace ADR. A mediator handbook is
under development. The focus this year is dedicated to provide refresher
training, screening and co-mediations to assist successful candidates
through the certification program. They have tripled their number of
certified mediators since April 2000.

***Rules Governing the Program***\
The DON Mediation Certification Program sets criteria to provide
knowledge, determine skill, and hone the ability of each candidate.
Additionally, the program guidance supports the adherence to
SPIDR/AAA/ABA Ethical Standards for Mediators.

***Contact***\
Mary Ryan, Department of the Navy Workplace ADR Program, Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (CP/EEO), Nebraska Avenue
Complex, DP-2, 321 Somers Court, NW, Suite 40101, Washington, DC
20393-5451; Telephone: (202) 764-0746; DSN7 64-0746; FAX: (202)
764-0788; email: <ryan.mary@hq.navy.mil>; email:
<ombudsman.workplace@hq.navy.mil>

### Navy Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW), San Diego

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The CNRSW San Diego Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) was established in
1998 and serves 30,000 Navy and Marine Corps civilians, offering
mediation and other ADR processes at a single Center with intake at
multiple site offices in the Southwest Region. Former EEO and ER/LR
Specialists have migrated to new Personnel Management Advisor (PMA)
positions to reflect the cross functional nature of their work, as well
as new competencies in dispute resolution, since the PMAs are expected
to work toward the resolution of workplace disputes at the lowest
possible level. If the dispute is unresolved by the intake PMA, the case
is referred to the DRC for either ADR or traditional complaints
processing.

***Background/Objective***\
In addition to multiple successes with mediation and other
interest-based methods of dispute resolution in individual workplace
program areas such as EEO and Labor Relations in the past several years,
the CNRSW wanted to design an integrated conflict management system that
would handle workplace disputes in a comprehensive and coordinated
manner. The DRC offers interest-based processes to all employees,
whether their dispute arises under Title VII, negotiated grievance
procedure, or simple mis-communication. An Advisory Council made up of
representatives from the functional areas concerned with workplace
disputes establishes DRC protocol and monitors the cadre of collateral
duty internal mediators.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The CNRSW DRC has been very successful in resolving workplace disputes
and in lowering the number of formal complaints filed. Over 75% of the
cases that go into mediation are successfully resolved, including some
EEO complaints that had been at various stages of the formal process for
up to two years. Improving workplace relationships and creating a
workplace that fosters open communication allows Navy employees to focus
on the Department\'s mission.

***Rules Governing the Program***\
A certification program for Navy employees who wish to become mediators
in the Navy\'s workplace disputes program has been established. The
multi-stage process for certification includes Introductory and Advanced
Mediation skills training, intensive evaluation of skills, three
successful co-mediations with an experienced mediator, and adherence to
SPIDR/AAA/ABA ethical standards for mediators.

***Contact***\
Mahealani Tolbert, Program Manager, Dispute Resolution Center, Human
Resources Office (Code N00CP33), Commander Navy Region Southwest, 937
North Harbor Drive, 6th Floor, San Diego CA 92132-0058; Telephone: (619)
532-2328; FAX: (619) 532-1307; Email: <Tolbert.Lani@cnrsw.navy.mil>.

### Navy Human Resources Service Center, Norfolk

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Department of the Navy, Human Resources Office (HRO), Norfolk
located in Norfolk, Virginia provides human resources services for
approximately 20,300 personnel in the Hampton Roads geographical area of
Virginia. The activity established an Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Program in 1998 that uses Mediation, Conciliation, Early Neutral
Inquiry, and Settlement Conference processes, with Mediation being the
primary ADR process used. An ADR Program Manager coordinates the Program
for 172 commands serviced by HRO Norfolk, and a cadre of neutrals, from
various personnel disciplines, function in a collateral duty capacity
within the Program.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR Program is available to address discrimination issues under
Title VII. The goal of the Program is to promote resolution between the
parties at the earliest opportunity feasible, by the fastest and least
expensive method possible. However, ADR has also been used successfully
in advanced EEO complaints. During the first meeting relating to a
discriminatory issue, an EEO counselor provides the complainant with an
explanation and description of the available ADR processes.
Subsequently, the respective command is contacted and provided with an
overview of ADR and, if agreed to by both parties, a specific ADR method
will be chosen. The Program is presently expanding to encourage early
use of ADR for other types of workplace disputes separate from the EEO
process.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Besides improving employee morale and satisfaction and
management-employee relationships, ADR has reduced processing time and
costs associated with informal and formal complaints. This resulted in
cost avoidance of approximately \$720,000 in fiscal year 1999 and
\$920,000 for the first two quarters of fiscal year 2000.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The ADR Program follows the guidance provided by the Secretary of the
Navy Instruction 5800.13. All four ADR processes supported by the
Program are voluntary and impartial; however, each incorporate specific
distinctions. Mediation is confidential and, if resolution is reached,
it is reduced to writing. If resolution is not reached, the content of
the mediation conference is not reported and the EEO file would only
state that mediation took place. Conciliation is not confidential. If
there is not a formal agreement, the written record includes the
strengths and weaknesses of the dispute. Early Neutral Inquiry is
generally an oral inquiry wherein the neutral recommends a solution for
resolution and provides a written non-binding evaluation of the dispute.
A Settlement Conference is the most formal ADR process and is used in
cases involving a large degree of documentation.

***Contact***\
Joyce Guthrie, Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Manager; Human
Resources Office, Norfolk; 487 East C Street, Norfolk, Virginia
23511-3997; Telephone: (757) 444-7957; FAX: (757) 444-4327; Email:
[guthriej@hronorf.navy.mil.](mailto:guthriej@hronorf.navy.mil)

### Navy Human Resources Service Center, Pacific

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Federal Informal Resolution System Team (FIRST) ADR Program is a
global program which is used to resolve day-to-day conflicts, including
equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints, grievances and general
communication problems between supervisors and employees or between
coworkers. The program is comprised of civilian and military mediators
and offers mediation services to Federal agencies throughout the State
of Hawaii. Managing the FIRST ADR Program is the Human Resources Service
Center, Pacific EEO Director who serves as the FIRST Intake Coordinator.
EEO, Labor Relations and Dispute Resolution Specialists may request ADR
assistance after it is determined that the issue(s) is appropriate to
mediate. Interested employees, supervisors and managers may also contact
the Intake Coordinator to request mediation. Their motto is TRY FIRST
FIRST!

***Background/Objective***\
To assist Federal agencies in Hawaii to be in compliance with the 29 CFR
1614 requirement that agencies establish an ADR program or have access
to one, FIRST was recently expanded to include all Federal agencies.
This initiative, with the permission of an agency\'s headquarters, has
enabled the smaller DOD and non-DOD agencies to tap FIRST resources
rather than bringing mediators from their headquarters to mediate local
disputes. This initiative has also enabled FIRST mediators to gain and
maintain their mediation skills so that they can pass the Department of
Navy\'s Mediator Certification Program.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
ADR has been successful in both EEO and day-to-day disputes. In addition
to restoring communication and work relationships of the disputants, it
has reduced the number of grievances filed and the number of EEO
complaints processed.

***Rules Governing the Program***\
Disputes are co-mediated or solo mediated depending on whether the
mediator has successfully been certified by the Department of Navy.
Co-mediations are with the Mediation Center of the Pacific. Cases which
are not mediated are: criminal conduct issues; issues that involve
security breaches; precedent setting issues; issues involving negotiated
contracts from bargaining units and precomplaints that concern a matter
which has already been decided by the Department of Navy, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, or a U.S. Court.

***Contact***\
Cindy Pierson, Human Resources Service Center, Pacific, EEO Department,
Code 10, 178 Main Street, Bldg. 499, Honolulu, HI 96818-4048. Telephone:
(808) 474-0176 ext 214 or (808) 471-3328 (fax); Email:
<cynthia_pierson@pac.hroc.navy.mil>.

### Navy Human Resources Service Center, East

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Human Resources Service Center (HRSC) East offers Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) services to over 33,000 individuals within the
Department of Navy. HRSC East has provided neutrals for Mediation,
Conciliation, Early Neutral Inquiry, and Settlement Conference sessions.

***Background/Objective***\
The HRSC East workplace ADR Program originated with the first conus HRSC
in 1997. While under the guidance of William Jackson, Jr., Human
Resources Director, and due to the expertise of the HRSC East neutrals,
the HRSC East has partnered with other branches within the Department of
Defense to provide the services of neutrals for Alternative Dispute
Resolution sessions. In addition, the HRSC East is organizing a Shared
Neutrals Group, which will enable various organizations (government and
non-government) to share neutrals. Because of the HRSC East\'s
demonstrated ability in dispute resolution, they were requested to
design and implement an ADR program outside the Department of Navy.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In addition to providing neutral services, HRSC East has participated in
innovative approaches to problem solving and implemented training
courses for individuals desiring certification as mediators. The process
involves four levels of training: Basic Mediation, Advanced Mediation,
Screening, and Co-Mediations. To develop individuals into the best
neutrals possible and to enhance the training, HRSC East developed the
courses to include extensive role-plays and video taping of
participants. These processes enable instructors and participants to
critique the role-plays for further improvements. Additionally, HRSC
East offers refresher sessions and training designed for specific needs.
Their Neutrals have provided advice, guidance and training on ADR
program implementation nationwide

***Contact***\
Joan Williams, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Building 17, Portsmouth, Virginia
23709-5000;Telephone: (757) 396-7142; FAX: (757) 396-2499; email:
<joan_williams@east.hroc.navy.mil>.

### Navy Human Resources Service Center, Southeast

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Human Resources Service Center, Southeast (HRSC SE) shared neutrals
program is the largest in the Department of the Navy with 63 extensively
trained Dispute Resolution Specialists (DRSs) providing services to over
30,000 employees in 250 activities in ten states, Puerto Rico, and Cuba.
The DRSs are from various clerical, technical, blue-collar,
administrative, professional and managerial backgrounds. Under this
program ADR can be used for almost any issue in controversy (old or new)
including but not limited to general workplace disputes, grievances,
unfair labor practices, informal EEO complaints and formal EEO
complaints. However, ADR is not used for issues involving sexual
assault, other criminal activity, or issues prohibited by law,
regulation or policy.

Mediation is the current form of ADR offered to customers in this region
with an option to add additional forms as recommended by the ADR
advisory group, which consists of HR professionals, legal experts, and
union representatives. After the local ADR intake specialist defines the
issues, explains all rights and responsibilities and obtains a signed
agreement to use ADR from the parties, the HRSC SE assigns a DRS from an
outside activity to conduct the ADR session.

***Background/Objective***\
All DRSs are required to go through a comprehensive training program,
which includes at least 4 tiers of training (Basic Mediation, Advanced
Mediation, Screening and Evaluation, and Co-mediations with current
professional mediators). The objective of the program is to provide the
activities and employees with the best mediators in the business to
facilitate fair and mutually acceptable resolutions at the lowest level
possible and in the most expeditious manner possible.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The HRSC SE established the ADR program in October 1999. Employees,
supervisors and managers began using the program in January 2000 with
the first case occurring in February 2000. Since that time, the HRSC SE
has provided ADR services for 50 cases. Of those 50 cases, only 27% have
gone to the formal stage with 73% being resolved officially or
unofficially.

***Rules Governing the Program***\
The program is governed by Navy policy and a regional ADR instruction.
ADR is completely voluntary and may be requested by an employee,
supervisor or manager. Employees have the right to continue the formal
administrative process if no resolution is reached and employees will
remain free from retaliation of any kind.

***Contact***\
Sarah B. Overstreet, Regional ADR Program Manager or Larry Bruce, ADR
Coordinator, Human Resources Service Center, Southeast, 9110 Leonard
Kimble Road, Stennis Space Center, MS 39522; Email:
<sarah_overstreet@se.hroc.navy.mil>; Telephone: (228) 813-1028; or
<larry_bruce@se.hroc.navy.mil>; telephone: (228) 813-1035; FAX: (228)
813-1303.

### Navy Human Resources Service Center, Northwest

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Department of the Navy Human Resources Service Center Northwest
(HRSC-NW) in Silverdale, Washington, and the Commander Navy Region
Northwest (CNRN) Human Resouces Offices (HROs), located at the major
Navy activities in this 6-state region, provide consolidated human
resources services. This includes an ADR Program that offers training,
consultation, and mediation. Mediation may be requested by anyone in the
organization, and can be used to address workplace conflicts that are
either at the informal or formal stages. Participation is voluntary. ADR
Coordinators are located at each major activity. A Regional Coordinator
oversees the program.\<

***Background/Objective***\
When the HRSC-NW and CNRN HROs stood up in 1997 and 1998, a new ADR
program was created to provide broad based dispute resolution services
to the entire region. In the design of this program, it was of paramount
concern that ADR be related to the community in which this Navy region
resides and that skills and services already existing in that community
not be duplicated. To this end, the ADR Program works with the local
Sound Options Group, the Dispute Resolution Center of Kitsap County, and
the Seattle Federal Executive Board Intergovernmental Mediation
Consortium. To launch the Program, a forty-hour course on Basic
Mediation Skills was given to representatives throughout the Region,
including labor unions, management, and the human resources community.
Interest in becoming certified mediators was solicited from this group
and a number of individuals have continued with their training and
acquisition of expertise in mediation.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
More workplace disputes were mediated at Navy activities in the Region
in the first nine months of the Program than in the previous five years.
Evaluations by participants have been very positive.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
If not otherwise addressed in a negotiated contract, both parties to a
formal dispute may mutually agree to suspend time frames while
attempting mediation. When necessary, appropriate clearance is obtained
through union representatives for bargaining unit members who wish to
participate in this process. Mediation sessions are confidential and no
records are kept of what happened in the sessions.

***Contact***\
Mando Morales, Human Resources Service Center Northwest (HRSC-NW), 3230
NW Randall Way, Silverdale, WA 09383-7952: Telephone: (360) 315-8020,
email:
[Mando_Morales@nw.hroc.navy.mil](mailto: Mando_Morales@nw.hroc.navy.mil).

### Office of Personnel Management

#### ADR Technique: Peer Review

***How the ADR System Works***\
A Labor Management Committee (LMC) comprised of three union-appointed
members and three management-appointed members hears grievances on a
variety of topics which have not been resolved after initial review by
supervisors and management officials in the bargaining unit involved.
After interviewing individuals and reviewing documentation, the LMC
issues a written report with its recommendations. When consensus cannot
be achieved, recommendations are determined by secret ballot, with the
majority position adopted. If both parties accept the recommendation, it
is implemented. If either party rejects the committee\'s recommendation,
the grievance may be moved to arbitration. In arbitration, the case is
assigned in rotation to one of five arbitrators who have been previously
accepted by both the union and management. The arbitrator\'s decision is
normally binding on both parties but may be appealed under limited
conditions. This committee also serves as a mechanism to conduct impact
and implementation bargaining using interest-based negotiations.

***Background/Objective***\
In 1992, the Employee and Labor Relations Division and the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 32, negotiated a collective
bargaining agreement which includes an ADR option as part of the
grievance procedure. The objective of the program is to minimize the use
of third parties to resolve disputes.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Operational since October 1992, the committee has reached a consensus on
every case that it has reviewed\--never has a secret ballot vote been
necessary. Over that period, it has reviewed performance based actions,
disciplinary actions, and impact and implementation bargaining cases.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Rules are contained in the June 1992 Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the Employees and Labor Relations Division and the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 32.

***Contact***\
Suzanne Giannetti, Team Leader, Employee Relations and Performance
Management Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20415-0001; Telephone: (202) 606-2310, FAX: (202)
606-2996; Email:
[smgianne@opm.gov](http://www5.opm.gov/er/adrguide/smgianne@opm.gov).

### Postal Service

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

### REDRESS

***How the ADR System Works***\
REDRESS is an EEO mediation program. The acronym stands for Resolve
Employee Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly. A complainant who
contacts an EEO counselor is offered mediation with an approved outside
mediator in lieu of counseling. If the complaint does not settle during
that process, the complainant may continue through the traditional
process.

***Background/Objective***\
REDRESS began in 1994 with a pilot project in three Florida cities. It
has two objectives: to resolve individual disputes quickly and
effectively, by empowering the parties to find their own solutions; and
to address underlying issues and improve the workplace climate.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
REDRESS is currently available in all 85 Postal Service performance
clusters. An evaluation completed with the help of Indiana University
has found: the majority of complaints mediated under REDRESS settle,
diminishing the number of complaints proceeding to the formal stage; the
REDRESS process is significantly faster; supervisors who have been
through the mediation process manage workplace conflict more
successfully; and employees, union representatives, and supervisors show
high and equal satisfaction with all aspects of the program.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Complaints may not be mediated if there is an active criminal or other
Inspection Service investigation, or if an active Office of Workers
Compensation Programs (OWCP) file is pending. Prospective mediators must
go through a three-part application process, which includes a mandatory
training segment and selection criteria. Only mediators on the resulting
pre-qualified roster may be used, and they must abide by established
Postal Service standards to retain this status.

***Contacts***\
Laree Martin, Manager, Equal Employment Opportunity; Email:
lmartin5@email.usps.gov.; Kevin Hagan, Redress Program; Email:
[mailto:khagan@email.usps.gov](mailto:khagan@email.usps.gov). U.S.
Postal Service, 475 L\'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20260-0004;
Telephone: (202) 268-3991.

### REDRESS II

***How the ADR System Works***\
REDRESS II is an extension of the Postal Service\'s REDRESS (Resolve
Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly) EEO mediation
program. REDRESS mediation is offered to complainants in lieu of
counseling in the informal complaint process. If a complaint becomes a
formal complaint and it is appropriate for ADR, mediation will be
offered under REDRESS II.

***Background/Objective***\
REDRESS II began in 2000 as part of an effort by the law department to
expand the use of ADR in Equal Employment Opportunity cases whenever
appropriate. Its objective is to resolve individual disputes quickly and
effectively by empowering the parties to find their own solutions
through better understanding and recognition of each other\'s
viewpoints. In turn, it is expected that this will improve the overall
workplace climate.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
REDRESS II is currently available through all of the Postal Service\'s
aw department and labor relations field offices. Staff attorneys have
been schooled in effective mediation advocacy skills and work closely
with their clients to address cases in the most effective manner. The
goal is to increase the use of mediation so that it is offered in all
appropriate cases. This program is ongoing and continues to grow.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Complaints may not be mediated if there is an active criminal or other
Inspection Service investigation, or if an active Office of Workers
Compensation Programs (OWCP) file is pending. Mediators re not employees
of the Postal Service and must complete a three-part application process
including screening for minimum qualifications, training and skills
assessment. Only mediators on the pre-qualified roster are used to
mediate cases in conformance with established Postal Service standards.

***Contacts***\
Karen Intrater, Managing Counsel, Employment and Labor Law; United
States Postal Service Law Department; 475 L\'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6436,
Washington DC 20260-1150; Email:
[kintrate@email.usps.gov](http://www5.opm.gov/er/adrguide/kintrate@email.usps.gov);
Telephone: (202) 268-3026

Traci Gann, Acting Chief Counsel, ADR; United States Postal Service Law
Department; 475 L\'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6514, Washington DC 20260-1150;
Email: <tgann@email.usps.gov>; Telephone: (202) 268-8029

### Smithsonian Institution

#### ADR Technique: Ombudsman

***How the ADR System Works***\
Most cases come to the attention of the Ombuds through personal contact
by employees from throughout the agency. The Ombuds handles a wide
variety of cases that might otherwise be resolved in some formal
resolution process. The Ombuds always makes sure that the individuals
involved know about these other processes that might be available in a
given situation. In some situations, cases are referred to the Ombuds by
other offices. For example, the equal employment opportunity office
refers individuals when it turns out that they do not have
discrimination complaints. If the Ombuds is working with an individual
in cases where a discrimination matter is involved, the Ombuds notifies
the EEO office of this fact and keeps that office informed of any
progress toward resolution (without disclosing the names of individuals
involved unless there is specific authorization to do so). If the
individual prefers that the Ombuds not attempt resolution of the
discrimination matter, the Ombuds refers the individual to the EEO
office. Other referrals come from the employee assistance program (EAP).
The Ombuds may act as a mediator in resolving a matter. If a matter is
covered by the union contract and involves a bargaining unit employee,
the Ombuds will notify the union and will discontinue resolution efforts
if the union wishes to take on the case.

***Background/Objective***\
The Ombuds program was set up in part in 1977 to provide relief to some
of the agency\'s employees who didn\'t enjoy the protections that Title
5 Federal employees had and to address the belief that some disputes
involved issues that didn\'t really fit under established procedures.
The Ombuds is intended to be a neutral party to whom employees can bring
any work-related problem, concern or complaint that could not be
resolved through normal channels.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
About 75% of the Ombuds\' time is spent on individual employee cases and
5% is spent on cases involving systemic matters. Between 220 and 250
cases per year are processed by the Ombuds.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Ombuds works within the Office of the Under Secretary for Finance
and Administration of the agency and operates under The Ombudsman
Association code (which requires confidentiality of all proceedings
unless there could be physical harm to the individual or others).
Information about the program is contained in a brochure.

***Contact***\
Chandra Heilman, Smithsonian Institution, 900 Jefferson Drive, SW, Room
2101, Washington, DC 20560-0425; Telephone: (202) 357-3261; FAX: (202)
786-2528; Email: <heilmanc@ops.si.edu>.

### Social Security Administration

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
SSA\'s ADR program covers a wide range of issues including employment
disputes, EEO complaints, partnership disputes and any other issue
involving third parties. The program encourages the use of a variety of
techniques, including arbitration, conciliation, facilitation,
mediation, factfinding, and expedited arbitration. ADR may be used to
resolve the entire issue or a portion of the issue. Some examples where
ADR is used at SSA include: partnership agreements, grievance procedure,
ULP process, negotiations, and EEO matters.

***Background/Objective***\
There are a variety of ADR procedures that have been used to resolve
disputes at SSA. SSA plans to allow the parties to a dispute the
greatest flexibility possible and therefore, does not prescribe a
detailed set of ADR procedures. Deputy Commissioners and Regional
Commissioners are permitted to design and implement ADR procedures for
their components, either on a pilot or full implementation basis. If a
component chooses to participate in the ADR process, the component may
determine specific procedures to be used for all disputes.
Alternatively, the component may treat each dispute on an ad hoc basis
and select whatever type of process appears to be best for a particular
dispute. The only limitation on the use of ADR procedures is that both
parties agree to use just those procedures. Parties include the employee
who files the grievance and the grievance official involved. Note: The
declination of the Stage one Official to use ADR procedures does not
preclude the use of those procedures by the Stage two Official. Each
component pays any expenses incurred by the use of ADR. Office of Labor
Management and Employee Relations maintains a list of arbitrators with
arbitration/mediation experience whose services may be procured as
needed. In addition, SSA\'s Ombudsman\'s Office in the Office of Human
Resources is available to assist in resolving grievances. There is no
charge for its services.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The ADR program was developed in 1993 and became operational in 1994.
SSA has implemented key aspects of ADR in every component. SSA plans to
continue and will expand implementation of ADR during the next year.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing ADR are contained in partnership agreements,
memorandum of understandings, the agency collective bargaining
agreements, and other agency documents.

***Contact***\
Michael J. Hoover, OGC, Social Security Administration, Woodlawn, MD
21235; Telephone: (410)966-5737; FAX: (410) 966-6486; Email:[mailto:
Michael.Hoover@ssa.gov](mailto: Michael.Hoover@ssa.gov).

###  Western Program Service Center

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
WNPSC created the Roundtable Alternative Dispute Resolution Process as a
joint union-management partnership adjunct to the Employee Assistance
Program (EAP). This ADR process is used as an early intervention to
resolve conflicts involving performance, attendance, conduct, tardiness
and interpersonal disputes. The Roundtable process may be initiated by
an employee, supervisor or union representative. The complaint is
reviewed by a \"screener\" who determines if the complaint fits into the
process. The Roundtable is made up of a cadre of managers and bargaining
unit employees. The cadre does factfinding, clarifies and defines
problems and facilitates agreements on mutual solutions.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was developed to reduce the number of adverse actions,
resolve disputes more quickly and increase staff productivity. ADR helps
to resolve workplace issues in a positive manner. At a time when
workloads are increasing, staff resources are diminishing, and the
number of managers shrinking, the WNPSC found it is necessary to refocus
this attention on positive and proactive dispute resolution.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Roundtable process operates under an informal agreement between
management and the local union representative. The Roundtable process
began in April 1998, and has continued since that date.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
This ADR process was developed in consultation with an EAP counselor who
assisted in training a cadre of union and management screeners. There is
a Roundtable Oversight Committee (another union/management group)
charged with monitoring and evaluating the process.

***Contacts***\
Stephen Breen, Assistant Regional Commissioner, Western Program Service
Center, SSA, 1221 Nevin, P.O. Box 4119, Richmond, CA 94804; Telephone:
(510) 970-1400; Fax: (510) 970-1415; Email:
[sf.arc.peo@ssa.gov](mailto: sf.arc.peo@ssa.gov) or
[steve.breen@ssa.gov.](mailto:steve.breen@ssa.gov)

### State

#### ADR Technique: Ombudsman

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Ombudsman for Civil Service Employees and a special assistant
provide answers to employee questions about career opportunities,
training, and other work-related matters. The Ombudsman has an open-door
approach to individuals contacting the office and, once contacted,
protects the individual\'s confidentiality. A primary focus of the
Ombudsman\'s office is systemic issues in the workplace which affect
Civil Service employees. The office also provides confidential
counseling for employees on matters of concern but does not supplant
other dispute processes such as the grievance procedure and the Equal
Employment Opportunity discrimination complaint process. The Ombudsman
or special assistant occasionally, and with the individual employee\'s
consent, engage with management on the employee\'s behalf in an effort
to resolve the employee issue or concern.

***Background/Objective***\
In the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989
(PL-100-204), Congress established the Office of Ombudsman for Civil
Service Employees in the Office of the Secretary of State to advise the
Secretary and senior management on Civil Service issues, to assure the
ability of Civil Service employees to contribute to the agency\'s
mission, and to ensure that the career interests of these employees are
adequately represented via a vis the Foreign Service. By law, the
Ombudsman must be a career member of the Senior Executive Service and
reports directly to the Secretary of State.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
About 70% of the office\'s time is spent on policy and systemic issues
and about 20% on individual issues and concerns. The Ombudsman is a
collateral duty and takes up about 20% of the incumbent\'s total time.
The special assistant is available on a full-time basis. The office does
not maintain statistics on individual cases.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing the office and Ombudsman activities are prescribed
in Section 172 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
1988 and 1989 (PL-100-204).

***Contact***\
Ted A. Borek, Ombudsman for Civil Service Employees, U.S. Department of
State, S/CSO, Room 5815A, Washington, DC 20520; Telephone: (202)
647-2182; FAX: (202) 736-7968; Email:
[ombudsmacs@state.gov](http://www5.opm.gov/er/adrguide/ombudsmacs@state.gov).

### Tennessee Valley Authority

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
ADR has been used successfully in a number of areas including various
labor disputes, contract disputes, and litigation cases. In addition,
TVA has used mediation to resolve EEO complaints and considers using
other ADR procedures when appropriate. An in-house ADR training program
is used as an awareness and overview program for TVA personnel.

***Background/Objective***\
All TVA offices have been informed that TVA encourages the use of ADR
where appropriate and feasible to achieve consensus decisions which
resolve disputes fairly and economically. There is no separate budget or
staff for ADR activities. ADR activities instead are funded as
components of various agency program budgets - primarily that of the
Office of the General Counsel, whose attorneys handle most ADR
proceedings as a part of their legal work for TVA. TVA uses both its own
attorneys with specialized training in mediation and arbitration as well
as outside arbitrators and mediators. ADR is reflected in performance
appraisals of attorneys who are responsible for ADR training and
implementation.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Types of ADR that have been used in various disputes include mediation,
arbitration, partnering, and minitrials. In July 1999, TVA implemented a
new ADR pilot program which includes mediation and arbitration for
various claims against TVA including claims for personal injuries and
property damage. This program has led to the successful resolution of a
number of claims since the program was initiated. The pilot program has
been made a permanent component of TVA\'s ADR procedures.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
There are no formal written rules governing when ADR is to be used. It
is used on an ad hoc basis when it appears appropriate to do so. ADR is
conducted in accordance with mediation rules and procedures used by the
Federal courts and established arbitration rules and procedures.

***Contacts***\
James E. Fox, Deputy General Counsel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive,
Knoxville, TN 37902-1401; Telephone: (865) 632-4151; Email:
jefox@tva.gov. William L. Osteen, Jr., Associate General Counsel, 400
West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401; Telephone: (865)
632-4142; Email: <wlosteen@tva.gov>.

### Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Early Resolution System (ERS) makes the services of trained
mediators available to resolve workplace issues raised by non-bargaining
unit employees of the Associate Administrator for Research and
Acquisitions ARA). Usage of the ERS does not affect access to other
administrative processes, such as the EEO complaint process, and does
not waive or extend their time limits for filing. Mediators are agency
employees who have been trained to provide services on a collateral-duty
basis.

***Background/Objective***\
The ERS program is designed to give participants a creative, efficient,
and sensible way to resolve workplace issues before they become
adversarial conflicts. The goal is to resolve issues quickly (within
five working days), promote a quality work environment, reduce the cost
of disputes, avoid litigation, and create resolutions that are durable.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The ERS was established in March 1998 and has achieved a 94% success
rate. Some of the issues raised for mediation include team conflicts,
organizational changes, managerial disputes, performance challenges, and
harassment. Most issues have been resolved within the target time frame
of five working days. The program has a web site under the ARA listings
on the FAA home page. All ARA employees have also received a mailing
describing the program, and the program manager conducts frequent
briefings.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program is currently available only to non-bargaining unit
employees. It is entirely voluntary and confidential.

***Contact***\
Norma Saafir, ERS Program Manager, ARA-3A, 800 Independence Avenue, SW,
Room 1019, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 493-4607; FAX: (202)
267-5811; Email: <nsaafir@faa.gov>.

### Transportation Federal Aviation Administration - Great Lakes Region

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Great Lakes Region of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
operates a program that encourages the use of mediation at any level of
a dispute. Once the parties agree to mediate, an EEO case is referred
from the Civil Rights Office to a full time team of mediators who
coordinate the mediation, from pre-mediation conferencing through to
evaluation and tracking. For other than EEO related cases, disputes are
referred directly to the mediator team. Referrals come from management,
unions, special emphasis groups, EAP, and employees. The team then
coordinates the entire process from intake through evaluation and
tracking. Coordination for all disputes often requires interface with
human resource personnel, attorneys, union personnel and agency medical
authorities. Mediation may also be used to resolve disputes that arise
outside of the agency such as contracting/procurement, real estate and
environmental noise abatement.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR program in the Great Lakes Regions of the FAA was initiated in
December 1993 to provide employees with the option of electing mediation
to resolve Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. Due to the
program\'s success, this option became an alternative process for
resolving all types of disputes in the workplace. The Conflict and
Conciliation Initiative (CCI) team was formed in 1998, and is currently
staffed by three full-time trained professional mediators who have an
extensive background in organizational consulting and conflict
resolution. Their goals are to reduce the EEO case backlog and to expand
the use of mediation both internally and externally.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Since April 1998, the CCI team has conducted or coordinated 65 mediation
in the Great Lakes Region. Co-mediation is used in all mediation
conducted, utilizing the CCI team and cadre of nine other collateral
duty mediators. The CCI team is also part of the Chicago Federal
Executive Board\'s shared neutrals consortium. In addition to mediating
for other federal agencies, the CCI team utilizes and/or co-mediates
with other FEB shared neutrals for FAA cases, when appropriate. The
co-mediation model provides opportunities for mentoring and allows
diversity considerations to be met. It also provides the perspective of
two points of view that can pick up on a fuller range of dynamics in the
mediation. A combination of the facilitative and transformative
mediation models is used.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
To ensure a clear understanding and consistency in the ADR program, the
CCI team established Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). These SOPs
were drafted, coordinated, finalized and distributed to the Regional
Management Team during the first quarter of Fiscal Year 99.

***Contact***\
Conflict and Conciliation Team (CCI), DOT/FAA Great Lakes Region, 2300
E. Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL. 60018; Fax: (847) 294-8413, Jan
Lebovitz, Telephone: (847) 294-7375, Babette Hodges, Telephone: (847)
294-7221, Don Saballus, Telephone: (847) 294-7222.

### Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Civil Rights Staff (CRS), Northwest Mountain Region (ANM), Federal
Aviation Administration, has two internal program managers: a Regional
ADR Program Manager (PM) and a Discrimination Complaints Program Manager
(DCPM). The two managers work together to prevent and resolve EEO
conflicts at the earliest stage and lowest level. The DCPM manages the
EEO Counselor Program, conducts EEO training for managers and employees,
and uses diverse strategies to resolve conflicts between employees,
e.g., facilitation, negotiation, conciliation, etc. The ADR PM manages
the Mediation Program, conducts EEO Evaluations and Model Work
Environment assessments, facilitates \"People Skills\" Training, and
develops written products, e.g., brochures, slide presentations, video
scripts, reports, etc.

***Background/Objective***\
The ANM CRS established its regional mediation program in FY92 with
seven mediators in the regional office and currently has 15 mediators in
the RO and in two field locations. Of the total cases mediated between
FY92 and FY98, 94 percent were resolved. As the level of complexity
increased, the resolution rate (for mediations only) decreased from 94
to 85.4 percent and the CRS found that they had to use more than one ADR
technique to resolve a single complaint. As the CRS expanded its pool of
ADR instruments and used these additional tools to prevent complaints,
the complaint ratio (total complaints divided by number of employees)
decreased to an average of 0.38 percent in FY00. (This compares to an
average of 1.08 percent for FAA and an average of 1.01 percent
government-wide.)

***Duration/Current Activity***\
With the help of its counterparts and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR),
ACR-1, Headquarters, the ANM CRS developed two-part 30-minute mediation
video. The FAA is currently using he video to provide mediation
awareness briefings to its 6,000 managers and 43,000 employees. The
video cost a total of \$5,748 to produce and distribute for an average
cost of 12 cents per employee.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
In December 1999, the FAA issued the \"Equal Employment Opportunity
Mediation Program,\" Order No. 1400.10, which established a national
mediation program for the resolution of EEO claims. The order also
identified criteria for the selection, training, and certification of
mediators. The ANM CRS works closely with its colleagues in Labor
Relations, Legal, Medical, Employee Assistance, and others, e.g.,
Violence in the Work Place Core Team, etc., to prevent and resolve EEO
claims.

***Contacts***\
Stephanie Raquer, Regional ADR Program Manager, Civil Rights Staff,
ANM-9, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA
98055-4056; Telephone (425) 227-2096; FAX: (425) 227-1009. Gregory
Pender, Discrimination Complaints Program Manager. Telephone (425)
227-2098. Visit our website at
[www.nw.faa.gov/civilrights/home.htm](http://www.nw.faa.gov/civilrights/home.htm)

### Treasury Bureau Of Engraving and Printing

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing\'s Alternative Dispute Resolution
Pilot Project became operational on January 3, 1997, as a joint venture
with the Joint Labor-Management partnership Council. The program
includes a committee comprised of an equal number of members from labor
and management. The primary ADR techniques used are mediation,
factfinding, and facilitation. The issues that are resolved are mostly
those that arise in the informal and formal EEO and labor-management
relations complaint processes (of the issues addressed, 38% involved
grievances and 29% involved EEO complaints). The mediators are drawn
from a cadre of in-house mediators trained specifically for the program
and external mediators. In addition, management and labor officials have
received mediation and conflict resolution training. The BEP ADR Program
was the recipient of the 1999 Office of Personnel Management Director\'s
Award for Outstanding ADR Programs; honorable mention for the 1998 John
N. Sturdivant Partnership Award; and the BEP Quality Achievement Award.

***Background/Objective***\
The purpose of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program is to resolve
conflict at the lowest level within the agency, restore productivity to
areas impacted by conflict and improve working relationships among
affected parties. The objective is to change the agency\'s culture in a
way that promotes managing conflict promptly and informally.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot Project has helped improve
employee morale and satisfaction and has improved management-employee
relationships. Where employees have agreed to use the mediation or
factfinding processes, 83% of the cases were resolved within
approximately 15 days (versus 180 days or more through the traditional
complaint process) after the dispute was brought to the project. ADR has
reduced processing time and transaction costs associated with processing
informal and formal complaints through the administrative, grievance,
and EEO processes. Over the past three years, the ADR program has
processed more than 120 cases with an estimated cost avoidance of over
\$2,500,000. The project has been widely advertised and marketed through
brochures, news articles, and through the internal network news.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Department of Treasury Order 107-06; Title 5 of the U.S. Code Section
301; Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996; and, (d) Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act of 1998.

***Contacts***\
Linda Bradford-Washington, Alternative Dispute Resolution Staff, Room
735-5-PD, 14th & C Streets, SW, Washington, DC 20228; Telephone: (202)
874-6046; FAX: (202) 927-1817; Email: <linda.washington@bep.treas.gov>.

### Treasury Bureau Of the Public Debt

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Public Debt Early Resolution Process was permanently established in
October 1998 after the successful completion of a pilot program that
started in April 1997. Public Debt has made a conscious decision to
always extend the offer of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to
aggrieved person(s) through the equal employment opportunity (EEO)
process when the requested resolution is within Public Debt\'s
authority. As situations arise, Public Debt evaluates each on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether the use of ADR would be
appropriate. Public Debt has an interagency agreement with the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation services. Whenever
Public Debt needs a mediator, the EEO Office makes arrangements directly
with the mediator. Therefore, no additional staff within the EEO Office
is required. Public Debt is very supportive of the ADR program and has
approved a generous budget to ensure that every individual who expresses
interest in ADR will be able to participate in the program.

***Background/Objective***\
Advantages of the ADR process include: 1) Public Debt gains an
additional opportunity to resolve EO complaints at a lower level and
more autonomously; 2) the ADR process diminishes formal complaint
activity and thus the expenses incurred in connection with the Regional
Complaints Centers; and 3) time spent in mediation is significantly less
than time spent on formal complaints. These advantages immediately
translated into goals and objectives for the ADR program at Public Debt.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In 6.3% of the total complaints filed in Fiscal Year 1999, ADR was used
to help mediate resolution that resulted in 100% resolution rate with a
direct cost savings to the bureau of \$8,594.00. The cost of a mediation
session is approximately 8% of the cost to process a complaint through
the formal process. For fiscal year 2000 year to date, 9.1% of total
documented complaints have requested ADR.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Public Debt Issuance 71-02\--Public Debt Early Resolution Process.

***Contacts***\
Cheryl D. Adams, EEO Officer, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third
Street, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106; Telephone: (304) 480-6527;
FAX: (304) 480-6074; E-mail: <cadams@bpd.treas.gov>.

### Treasury Customs Service

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The United States Customs Service and National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU) implemented an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure for
bargaining unit employees to process Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
disputes. The procedure gives the parties 90 days to informally resolve
the dispute through mediation. When a bargaining unit employee requests
mediation under the negotiated process, the parties have agreed to
participate in at least one mediation session. If there is no resolution
during the informal process, the employee can then elect to pursue his
complaint either through the statutory process or the negotiated ADR
process. If the employee elects the negotiated ADR process, the parties
have the opportunity to resolve their dispute through mediation. The
process also features an optional panel review process at the formal
stage. Customs also has implemented an ADR process (mediation) for
non-bargaining unit employees at both the informal and formal stages of
the EEO complaint process in compliance with 29 C.F.R. 1614. To use the
mediation process effectively, Customs has established an internal cadre
of mediators. These collateral duty employees, trained and certified
through the Justice Center of Atlanta, are located throughout the
Customs Service.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the ADR program is to 1) resolve informal EEO disputes
prior to filing a formal EEO complaint and 2) improve communication.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Both the Negotiated and Statutory ADR process have been in effect since
October 1, 1999. Under the current process, over 50 disputes have been
mediated with a resolution rate of approximately 65%.

***Rules/Governing the Activity***\
The ADR process has been incorporated under Article 18 of the Bargaining
Agreement between NTEU and Customs. In addition, Customs has issued
written implementation guidance for both the negotiated and statutory
process.

***Contacts***\
Alfred Furrs, Equal Employment Specialist, U.S. Customs Service, 1300
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3.2A, Washington, DC 20229.
Telephone:(202) 927-0246; FAX:(202) 927-1476; email:
<alfred.e.furrs@customs.treas.gov>.

### Treasury Internal Revenue Service

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
In 1993 IRS management and the National Treasure Employees Union (NTEU)
jointly established the Conflict Management Initiative and the Center
for Conflict Management, and adopted the interest-based approach based
on *Getting To Yes* (Fisher, Ury and Patton). The Initiative consists of
three strategies: education; leadership and partnering; and conflict
management systems.

Education: provides interest-based skills, tools and techniques to
everyone in the organization. To date, an estimated 35,000 people have
been trained.

Leadership and Partnering: fosters an interest-based approach within
IRS. Beginning with the establishment of the Initiative and the Center,
management and NTEU have advocated using the interest-based approach in
a variety of settings, including several pilots to demonstrate its
impact. External partners include dispute resolution experts and
professional associations, as well as taxpayers.

Conflict Management System: incorporates the interest-based approach
into grievance resolution and negotiation processes as part of an
integrated conflict management system for the IRS.

The Initiative has influenced the use of the interest-based approach
internally and externally, as well as formally and informally. Examples
include Fast Track Mediation for certain tax disputes, negotiation of
the Restructuring Agreement, revision of some Internal Revenue Manual
procedures, a change in core competencies to reflect managing conflict,
and inclusion of an ADR clause in the union contract.

***Background/Objective***\
The Center was established to provide training, consulting and support
services, and resource/clearinghouse information. The objective is to
change the way the IRS deals with conflict by promoting a culture that
manages and resolves conflict at the source, both within the Service and
with taxpayers.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Education efforts are now geared toward customizing courses to meet
specific business needs. The Center is working with an external
contractor to design a conflict management system for the IRS.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
There are no restrictions on the issues organizations and individuals
can bring to the Center.

***Contacts***\
Deborah Landen, Team Leader, Phone: (404) 338-7028, Fax: (404) 338-7029,
E-mail: <Deborah.Landen@m1.irs.gov>; Maxine Hess, Organization
Development Consultant, Phone: (404) 338-7027, Fax: (404) 338-7029,
E-mail: [Maxine.Hess@m1.irs.gov](mailto:Maxine.Hess@ml.irs.gov); 401 W.
Peachtree Street, Room 2031, Atlanta, GA 30308-3539.

### Treasury IRS - Kansas City Service Center

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The ADR Program at the Internal Revenue Service\'s Kansas City Service
Center was established as an early intervention process to be used
during the initial stages of an informal EEO complaint. The option of
selecting ADR is afforded to every complainant upon initiation of an
informal complaint. If the complainant selects ADR, an ADR Panel will be
convened and meet with the parties within seven to ten days. If
settlement is not reached during this meeting, the case continues under
the normal EO process. The program utilizes employee neutrals for its
ADR Panel, consisting of two management officials and two NTEU
representatives. There are six members on the management cadre, with an
equal number on the NTEU cadre, and they rotate to serve on the panel.
Panel members receive training in mediation and new panel members sit in
and observe several ADR sessions prior to serving on a panel y
themselves. This program has worked very smoothly with much of the
credit due to joint efforts between management and NTEU, whose officials
have demonstrated genuine support of the program.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was established as a six-month pilot program, and due to its
success, continues to the present time. Its objectives are to facilitate
resolution of EEO complaints as soon as possible at the source,
encourage open communication in a non-threatening environment, encourage
parties to take responsibility for resolving their dispute, allow
neutral third parties to assist the parties in identifying the
underlying causes of the dispute and create remedies for resolution,
improve workplace relationships, and avoid lengthy litigation.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Since its establishment in April 1994, 190 cases have been handled
through the ADR program. Reports completed for each informal complaint
filed at the service center show approximately a 2:1 benefit in terms of
resolution rates, cost of resources, and time spent when comparing the
ADR program with traditional counseling.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The agency has established procedural steps consistent with 29 CFR 1614,
roles of participants in the process, and ground rules for the ADR
Panel.

***Contact***\
Robert M. White, Assistant to the Director for Diversity and Equal
Opportunity, Internal Revenue Service, Kansas City Service Center, KCSC
Stop 1010MB, Kansas City, MO 64131; Telephone: (816)926-5488; FAX: (816)
926-5932; Email: <robert.m.white@irs.gov>.

### Treasury IRS - North-South Carolina District

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The North-South Carolina District of the IRS has developed a peer
mediation process in which a neutral third party, the peer mediator,
facilitates problem solving between two or more individuals or groups in
resolving their EEO related dispute. This is a voluntary process in
which the mediator helps the parties identify their interests, develop
options for resolution, and arrive at a jointly acceptable agreement of
the parties\' own choosing. The peer mediator has no decision making
authority and cannot impose a decision. Peer mediators serve all levels
within the North-South Carolina District, assist the parties in as
informal a manner as possible, and are present only to facilitate the
process.

***Background/Objective***\
In the early 1990\'s, the agency requested that offices place an
emphasis on reducing the number of formal EEO complaints. The
district\'s EEO staff and EEO Advisory Committee took on the challenge
to identify ways to impact the number of formal EEO complaints. The
result was the Peer Mediation Process. The process provides: 1) a
non-threatening, non-intimidating environment for employees to
communicate dispute issues; 2) an environment where the disputing
parties can discuss interests and options to reach a mutually
satisfactory resolution; 3) an avenue to retain the employee\'s rights
under the statutory complaint process; and 4) a way to maintain or
improve employee-employer working relationships.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The peer mediation process was implemented in 1996 when nine employees
were selected from strategic geographic locations in North and South
Carolina and provided training in conflict management and facilitation
skills. Each year, approximately 20 employees are invited to choose the
option of using the Peer Mediation Process to resolve potential
complaints. About a third of the contacts choose the process. Written
settlement agreements are not always the end result. However, in every
case, the process results in improved communication between the employee
and the manager, which fosters a more harmonious working relationship.

***Rules Governing the Program***\
The Peer Mediation Process was developed locally based on several
mediation models used by public and private organizations. However, the
final product was developed by the North-South Carolina District\'s EEO
staff, he local EEO Advisory Committee with support from the local
organizational development specialist, and concurrence by the National
Treasury Employee\'s Union, Chapter 50 and Chapter 55.

***Contact***\
Gwendolyn L. Pearson, Chief, EEO and Diversity, Internal Revenue
Service, North-South Carolina District, 320 Federal Place, Room 229,
Greensboro, NC 27401; Telephone: (336) 378-2488, FAX: (336) 378-2086.

### Treasury U.S. Mint

#### ADR Technique: Multiple Techniques

***How the ADR System Works***\
The ADR program is currently operated by the U.S. Mint at all of its
locations and uses mediation and binding arbitration to provide
employees with a \"fast track\" alternative to resolving most employment
disputes and EEO complaints. Within 15 days of a decision or event that
raises a dispute, employees submit their requests to an ADR Intake
Coordinator who schedules mediation, maintains records, and processes
requests for arbitration (if mediation is unsuccessful). For EEO
complaints, EEO Counselors offer ADR as an option at the beginning of
the pre-complaint stage. For non-EEO discrimination disputes processed
through the Mint\'s ADR Program, the claimant waives their statutory and
regulatory rights to pursue their issue in other forums. Waiver of these
rights is informed and voluntary on the part of claimant. If mediation
is unsuccessful, claimants may either discontinue their grievance or
progress to binding arbitration. For EEO complaints, if ADR is selected
in the pre-complaint stage, the mediator has up to 90 days to attempt
resolution of the issues. If the issues are unresolved, the complainant
has the option of (a) selecting binding arbitration under the Mint\'s
ADR Program; or (b) receiving the Notice of Right to File a Formal
Discrimination Complaint. Arbitration must be completed within 30 days
of the appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitrator has 60 days to issue
a final written decision, which is binding on all parties. In disputes
alleging discrimination, arbitrators determine only if discrimination
occurred; a three-arbitrator panel holds hearings to determine damages.

***Background/Objective***\
In January 1998, the U.S. Mint created an ADR pilot project that
involves the use of mediation and binding arbitration to resolve all
types of employee disputes, including Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaints. The pilot program was launched at the Denver and
Philadelphia Mints. The American Federation of Government Employees
(AFGE) local bargaining units at each location were co-creators of the
ADR program and continue to participate in the implementation and
evaluation of its operation.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Since its inception in 1998, the most significant positive results of
the program have been the reduction in EEO complaints. The Mint\'s ADR
Program has substantially reduced the amount of funds the Mint would
have otherwise expended in connection with defending work-related
disputes under the statutory process. Almost all of the employee
disputes have been resolved through mediation. Of the total cases
processed through ADR since the program\'s inception, only 3 have gone
forward for arbitration. Evaluations indicate that both management and
employees were very satisfied with the ADR process, and both parties
felt a fair decision had been reached. Disputes have been appropriately
addressed in an early intervention mode and the ADR Program has
significantly contributed to a healthier work environment.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Election of ADR to address disputes is voluntary on the part of the
employee. Management participation is mandatory unless compelling
circumstances in an unusual case dictate otherwise. Mint employees, who
were provided training by the Justice Center of Atlanta and/or the
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS) in dispute resolution,
conduct the mediation. Staffing for the program at each facility
includes collateral duty ADR Intake Coordinators and Mediators.
Arbitrators are obtained from external sources (i.e., FMCS) if needed.
Each Mint facility is responsible for their respective costs associated
with the program. All ADR Intake Coordinators, Mediators, and employees
are granted official time to participate in the program. Program
management and administration is conducted by an ADR Committee which
consists of representatives from the Mint\'s Office of Chief Counsel,
Office of Equal Opportunity, and the Mint Council (AFGE) National
President. The ADR Committee is responsible for overall program
development, establishment of program policy, and administrative
procedures and evaluation.

***Contact***\
Connie Brannon, Equal Opportunity Manager, U.S. Mint, 801 9th Street,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20220. Telephone: (202) 354-7260; FAX: (202)
756-6150; Email: <cbrannon@usmint.treas.gov>.

### Treasury Secret Service

#### ADR Technique: Ombudsman

***How the ADR System Works***\
It is the policy of the Secret Service that all employees will have
access to a work environment in which they are treated fairly and
impartially. It is essential that there exists a mutual trust between
employees and management along with a trust in the integrity of the
communications process within the Secret Service. In an effort to
enhance the ability of the Secret Service to provide such an
environment, the position of Ombudsman was established. The Ombudsman
provides a mechanism through which employees at all levels may seek
answers to questions involving work related activities and programs.
Additionally, the Ombudsman provides informal and impartial assistance
to employees and managers attempting to resolve work related concerns.

***Background/Objective***\
The Ombudsman program is designed to encourage an open atmosphere in
which human relationships may be improved. The program encourages
employees to raise an employment concern without fear of reprisal. The
success of the program depends on the Ombudsman performing his or her
duties with utmost discretion by assuring employees that every effort
will be made to keep information confidential unless the affected
employee agrees that other parties must be informed in order to
facilitate resolution. The Ombudsman program is not intended to be a
panacea for all concerns and complaints, rather it is intended to keep
lines of communication open among all elements of the Secret Service.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
All Ombudsmen are appointed by the Director with appointments renewable
on a two year basis.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The following rules are published in the agency\'s administrative
manual. All employees, including supervisors, may contact any of the
designated Ombudsmen for assistance. The Ombudsman will listen to the
employee\'s concern, review it, and advise the employee of available
options. The Ombudsman, using personal judgment, will facilitate
conflict resolution through counseling, mediation, conciliation or other
appropriate means. Under most circumstances, an employee with an issue
or concern should first discuss the matter with those involved. If the
situation is not resolved, the employee should, in most cases, discuss
the issue with his or her immediate supervisor. The employee or
supervisor may contact an Ombudsman to discuss the pertinent facts and
possible resolutions. The Ombudsman does not have decision-making
authority in issues brought to his or her attention. The Ombudsman\'s
function is to make suggestions or recommendations to the individuals
involved in order to resolve an issue.

***Contact***\
Special Agent Paul B. Imbordino, Special Assistant to the Director,
Office of the Director, Treasury, U.S. Secret Service, 950 H Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20223; Telephone: (202) 406-5555; FAX: (202) 406-5246;
Email: <ssombud@usss.treas.gov>.

### U.S.Congress Office of Compliance

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) applies 11 civil
rights, labor, and workplace laws to employees of the legislative branch
of the Federal government and establishes dispute resolution procedures
and judicial remedies for employees. The CAA established the Office of
Compliance as an independent agency to administer the Act. Counseling
and mediation are mandatory steps before an employee may file a formal
complaint. To begin a proceeding, a covered employee must first request
confidential counseling by the Office of Compliance within 180 days of
the incident or alleged violation. An employee who still wishes to
proceed after counseling must file a request for mediation with the
Office of Compliance within 15 days after receiving notification that
the counseling period has ended. The Office then appoints a neutral
mediator to work with the parties to the dispute to achieve a voluntary
resolution of the matter. If the dispute is still unresolved, the
employee has the option to file a formal complaint with the Office of
Compliance, which will lead to an administrative hearing, or to file
suit in Federal district court.

***Background/Objective***\
Many legislative branch employees previously ad protections and access
to mediation for discrimination claims and other types of dispute
through other laws and rules. The CAA broadens employee protection, and
brings the administration of these provisions under a single independent
office. The CAA applies to alleged violations occurring on or after
January 23, 1996. A significant number of cases are resolved in the
counseling and mediation phases.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Additional information about employee coverage, action coverage, and
procedure is available on the Office\'s home page at
<http://www.compliance.gov/>, or by calling the numbers given below.

***Contact***\
Office of Compliance, Room LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second
Street, SE, Washington, DC 20540-1999: Recorded Information Line: (202)
724-9260. Teresa James; Telephone: (202) 724-9250; TTY: (202) 426-1912;
FAX: (202) 426-1913.

### Veterans Affairs

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a policy of encouraging the
use of ADR, particularly mediation, to resolve workplace conflicts as
early as feasible, to the maximum extent practicable, in an appropriate
manner, and at the lowest organizational level. VA does not have one
centrally directed ADR program but rather a series of initiatives,
policies, and/or programs at both the national and local levels. Many of
the 173 VA medical centers have locally designed and implemented
mediation programs. A number of VA regional offices have entered into
local partnerships with these programs or with other shared neutral
programs. The VA\'s Office of Resolution Management (ORM) has instituted
a national mediation program for handling discrimination complaints that
looks to local facility programs as a primary source of mediators. In
the event that a local facility cannot provide a mediator, ORM has
trained mediators that it can make available to the disputants. Other
possible mediator sources ORM will consider include other VA mediation
programs and inter-agency mediator sharing programs.

***Background/Objective***\
In February, 2000, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs signed and approved
a policy statement committing VA to using ADR for resolving workplace
disputes and directing that the option of mediation be made available to
all VA employees. Additionally, each VA employee is to be provided
sufficient information about mediation and the ADR program at his/her
facility so that an informed decision can be made about whether to
exercise the mediation option. (See VA Directive 5978, Alternative
Dispute Resolution, (
[www.va.gov/adr/adrdirectiv.htm](http://www.va.gov/adr/adrdirective.htm).)
To oversee the implementation of this Directive, VA has drawn from
throughout the Department two high-level intra-agency groups: the VA-ADR
Steering Committee and the VA-ADR Working Group. The Steering Group is
chaired by Guy H. McMichael III, the Chair of VA\'s Board of Contract
Appeals, the Department\'s Dispute Resolution Specialist. The Working
Group is chaired by Pat Sheridan, the Deputy Dispute Resolution
Specialist. In addition to these there are three subcommittees hat will
focus on three important areas: measurements and program evaluation,
information technology, and training. The Measurements and Evaluation
Subcommittee will make recommendations concerning how to monitor the use
of mediation for resolving workplace disputes, what data should be
collected and how to identify \"best practices\" that can be employed
throughout the Department. A second Subcommittee will work closely with
the Measurements and Evaluation Subcommittee. The Information Technology
Subcommittee will make recommendations concerning how best to capture
the data identified by the Measurements and Evaluation Subcommittee. The
final Subcommittee is the Training Subcommittee which will develop
recommendations for ensuring that VA employees know about the mediation
option and have access to qualified, trained mediators. VA\'s Veterans
Health Administration (VA\'s largest employer) has published a Handbook
on Alternative Dispute Resolution. This informative handbook contains
useful information on mediation and on how to design and implement an
effective ADR program at the local level. The handbook has been
distributed nation-wide for use by VHA and other VA facilities needing
to establish an ADR program. VA\'s Office of General Counsel has also
promulgated a policy directing VA attorneys to consider utilizing ADR
techniques, particularly mediation, in every controversy or dispute
involving two or more individuals. (See
[www.va.gov/adr/ogcdir.htm](http://www.va.gov/), GC Directive 8001, Role
of General Counsel Attorneys in Alternative Dispute Resolution.) VA\'s
General Counsel also has a cadre of individuals who have received
extensive training in ADR who can serve as advisors and trainers as
facilities establish their own programs.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
VA facilities at the local level have developed ADR programs at various
stages of development and refinement. Some facilities have
well-designed, seasoned programs while others are now just beginning to
develop programs. An effort is currently underway to evaluate the
existing programs and to assist those facilities still in the
developmental stage in bringing those programs on line. All programs
will be the result of joint design and implementation by management and
its labor partners. Most VA mediators have received in-house training
provided by experienced VA mediators or by contract with qualified
training organizations.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Participation in the ADR program is voluntary. All types of workplace
disputes may be considered for mediation. If no resolution is achieved,
the traditional, more formal avenues of redress are still available to
the employee (employees are informed of statutory or regulatory time
frames that need to be adhered to in order to revert to the traditional
processes).

***Contact***\
Fred Conway or Pat Sheridan, Veterans Affairs Board of Contract Appeals,
810 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20420; Telephone (202)
273-6743. FAX: (202) 275-5381.

### Veterans Affairs Alexandria, Louisiana VA Medical Center

#### How the ADR System Works

The VA Medical Center in Alexandria, Louisiana formed a Task Force
consisting of Human Resources, Union Officials, and a Quality Management
Specialist as the Chairperson. The Task Force gathered information from
various Medical Centers within its VISN, acquired documents to use as a
guide, and developed a proposal for its Medical Center. Open
communication resolved all obstacles in the planning of this proposal.
The proposal was presented to the Local Partnership and adopted for
approval by the Medical Center Director for implementation.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of the program is to provide ADR/Mediation processes that
allow individuals to resolve their differences more quickly and less
formally in a non-adversarial environment, resulting in better
utilization of resources than traditional dispute mechanisms (i.e.,
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination process, union
grievances, etc.). ADR/Mediation is used to resolve all workplace and
employment disputes that include supervisor/employee, employee/employee,
Healthcare Line/Healthcare Line, patient complaints, and other workplace
differences.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program utilizes an ADR Panel, which consists of no more than three
members that are appointed by the ADR Council. Employees volunteered to
be facility Mediators. These individuals were selected by the local
Partnership and approved by the Medical Center Director. An external
source of trained Contract Mediators provided conflict resolution
techniques to selected employees. The complainants contact the
Coordinator via e-mail or telephone. They are offered either ADR Panel
or the Mediation process. An explanation of the program is reviewed with
the complainant. If they agree to mediate, the complainant then selects
the Mediators. The Coordinator talks with the other party involved and
obtains their concurrence to mediate. The Coordinator makes arrangements
for the location, time, etc. The ADR/Mediation Process is publicized via
posters, flyers, Intranet, New Employee Orientation and word of mouth.
Referrals are generated from Employee Assistance Program, EEO
Complaints, and Management staff.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
\"Neutrals\" or Mediators are nominated by the ADR Council and its
working group and should possess the following qualities: reputation for
confidentiality, fairness, patience, honesty, trustworthiness,
credibility, respect, empathy, open-mindedness, creativeness,
professional demeanor, good listening/communication skills, and the
ability to be non-judgmental, unbiased, and remain neutral. They provide
a structured process, which enables the parties to exchange information,
listen to one another\'s position and jointly consider various options
that are mutually advantageous to both parties. They are not
decision-makers. Their role is a collateral duty, therefore no cost is
associated with their responsibilities. Once they have been selected to
serve as a Mediator, they have five duty days in which to complete the
resolution process. Periodic refresher classes are provided throughout
the year and a review of the process is provided before each session.
Both parties involved and the ADR Panel Members/Mediators complete
evaluation forms after each session. The process is timely and allows
employees to resolve conflicts in an expeditious manner. The
ADR/Mediation process is a faster and more cost effective process than
Union Grievances or EEO complaints. The open communication allows for an
exchange of ideas and concerns, and therefore leads to a more timely
resolution. Employees feel they can express their concerns without the
threat of reprisal and the process is faster.

***Contact***\
Karen James, EEO Program Manager, VA Medical Center-Alexandria, P.O. Box
69004, Alexandria, Louisiana 71306-9004; Telephone (318) 473-0010 ext.
2760;

### Veterans Affairs Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
Any employee or management official of the Central Texas Veterans
Healthcare System (CTVHCS) may request mediation. Requests are submitted
to the HRM Mediation Coordinator and may be verbal or written. The
Mediation Coordinator will determine if the issue is appropriate for
mediation and ascertain if the other party is agreeable to participating
in the mediation. If so, the Mediation Coordinator will select the
co-mediators from a rotating roster and schedule a place for the
mediation. All parties are then notified of the time and place the
mediation is to be held. Prior to the actual mediation, the parties view
a short video explaining mediation and sign an agreement to participate
in the mediation process. If the parties are able to reach agreement, a
written document specifying the terms of the agreement is given to the
Mediation Coordinator for review to ensure the agreement is not contrary
to regulation or law. If the agreement is technically acceptable, the
parties involved and the co-mediators sign the agreement.

***Background/Objective***\
CTVHCS was struggling with the aftermath of a particularly difficult
integration involving three major medical centers and their ancillary
clinics. Dissatisfaction was prevalent, complaints and disputes were
numerous, and morale was low. Formal complaints were at an all time
high. The program was established with the objective of assuring a work
environment that is conducive to the delivery of high quality patient
care and services through early resolution of disputes. The goal is to
resolve disputes before they actually become complaints, as well as
expedite the resolution of formal complaints. An added benefit is that
the Mediation Program serves as a tool to improve morale by empowering
employees and affording them the opportunity to be heard.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The mediation program at CTVHCS is a cooperative effort between
management and labor through the Partnership Council and began operation
in June 1999. The program is widely publicized. A major emphasis has
been on pre-complaint mediation. The scope of the program is broad,
encompassing both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees and
covers almost all types of workplace disputes. The Mediation Coordinator
is empowered to determine if a dispute is appropriate for mediation.
Since most disputes are between an employee and a management official,
co-mediation, with one mediator being from labor and the other from
management, is the method most commonly used. When disputes are between
management officials, only one mediator from management is used. CTVHCS
has a full-time Mediation Coordinator and a cadre of 32 trained
mediators who were selected based on nominations from both labor and
management. The mediators are representative of the employee population
and include bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees; professional,
white collar and blue collar workers; members of both genders; and is
multicultural. Every effort is made to schedule and bring to closure
mediations within 10 days of the request date of the mediation.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The rules governing the mediation program at CTVHCS are set out in a
Facility Memorandum available to all employees. The decision to
participate is voluntary and both parties must agree to participate.
Strict adherence to confidentially is maintained, and mediators are
required to remain neutral. Rules and guidelines are discussed at the
beginning of the process and all parties can ask questions or express
their concerns. Every effort is made to reach resolution; however, if
agreement cannot be reached, other avenues of redress are still
available to the employee.

***Contact***\
Robert Bruce, Mediation Coordinator, Human Resources Management Service
(05D), 1901 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Temple, Texas 76504; Telephone:
254-778-4811 extension 4422; FAX: 254-899-4007; Email:
<robert.bruce2@med.va.gov>.

### Veterans Affairs Desert Pacific Healthcare Network

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
Either party to a dispute may call toll free at 1-877-MEDIATE
(877-633-4283) to request Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services
at any time. The Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution will
assign ne ADR Specialist from the Roster of Mediators on a rotating
basis. If either party to mediation object to one or both of the
mediators assigned to a particular matter, the Office of Dispute
Resolution Director assigns another mediator(s) from the Roster.
Mediators are not assigned to resolve cases in their own division;
however, they are exchanged among the medical facilities and Veterans
Centers as part of a shared neutral agreement between facilities. The
mediators employ mediation, conciliation, and group facilitation
techniques to resolve employment and civil legal matters in dispute.
These matters can come from the Equal Employment Opportunity office,
Merit System Protection Board appeals, Whistleblower reprisals filed
with the Office of Special Counsel, union grievances, medical
malpractice claims, among others. The mediators practice two resolution
styles: the facilitative and the transformative model. Additional
information on the process and procedures can be obtained at
www.visn22.med.va.gov/hot/mediation/default.htm

***Background/Objectives***\
The Office of Dispute Resolution was established as a means of fostering
and developing more effective alternatives to resolving employment and
civil legal matters than traditional litigation or other administrative
processes used by the Department of Veterans Affairs. ODR was
implemented to improve the results gained in resolving disputes and
reducing costs and delays associated with investigation and litigation
of complaints made by employees and veterans. The organizational cost of
counterproductive conflicts and achieving organizational excellence are
the primary objectives. The Office of Dispute resolution also provides a
means by which employees could enjoy their work more and resolve
employment related disputes in an informal positive manner. A final
objective is to promote a balanced process for employees, applicants for
employment, and their primary customers, veterans.

***Duration/Current Activities***\
The program is staffed with a Director and 60 collateral duty VA
employee mediators. Management and union officials choose employees to
be trained as mediators using established criteria from its process on
\"Qualifications for Credentialing Mediators.\" The chosen mediators
undertake 40 hours of basic and 20 hours of advanced mediation training.
Continuing mediators are given follow-up training each fiscal year and
are provided additional information for pursuing continuing education in
the field of ADR.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Office of Dispute Resolution has established and implemented a
Uniform ADR Initiative which is in full alignment with the VA Strategic
Plan\--FY 2001-2006 Objective E-2 (Alternative Dispute Resolution), VA
Directive 5978 of February 2000 on ADR, VHA ADR Policy, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614) November 1999,
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act of 1996, and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

***Contact:***\
Call 1-877-MEDIATE (877-633-4283)

### Veterans Affairs Iowa City VA Medical Center

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Iowa City VA Medical Center established an Alternative Dispute
Resolution Mediation Program as a format to solve workplace disputes. If
a person is interested in mediation they can call one of the ADR
Coordinators or any of the on site mediators with questions or to set up
a mediation session. The program uses the co-mediator model and the
parties involved in the dispute agree on the mediators to conduct the
session. The contents of any settlement reached through mediation are
confidential; however, if the settlement agreement involves the
dismissal of an EEO complaint, the agreement is reviewed by the EEO
Program Manager to assure it is compliant with EEO laws and regulations.
The agreement is given to the participants only; the ADR Coordinator
does not maintain a copy. Program staff determined that by not keeping a
copy of the agreement in the coordinator\'s office the maintenance of
confidentiality is increased.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR mediation program at the Iowa City VA Medical Center was
established as a tool to assist in the resolution of workplace disputes,
grievance cases, and EEO discrimination complaints. The medical
center\'s objectives are to empower the employee in the resolution of
the conflict, to create a positive and pleasant work environment, and to
retain employees. The medical center strives to reduce the number of
conflicts at the facility and to provide a quick and confidential tool
to use when conflicts do arise.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program was developed in 1997 as an alternative format for the
resolution of work place disputes, union grievance cases, and EEO cases.
Mediation is offered at any stage of the dispute, grievance, or EEO
case. The program currently has six fully trained and experienced
mediators who function in a collateral role, and two of the six
mediators also serve as the coordinators of the program. Due to the
success of the program, it has four additional mediators who are
awaiting formal training. The program has a \"shared neutral\" agreement
with the Central Iowa Health Care system that consists of nine trained
mediators.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program is voluntary, confidential, neutral, and impartial. is
designed to assist in the resolution of a dispute between the parties.
The program conducts mediation sessions with two parties and up to
sixteen parties. The disputes may be between employees or employees and
their supervisor. Mediators have received extensive training in
communication skills and conflict resolution. All mediators are neutral
to the parties and the situation being brought to mediation. The
coordinator contacts the parties within seven calendar days with the
potential mediators. The parties shall agree on the mediators before the
session is to occur. When possible the mediation will be scheduled to
proceed within the above-mentioned time frame. Extension of this time
period may result due to employee or mediator availability.

***Contact***\
Angie J. Martin, ADR Coordinator, mediator, VISN 14 ADR Coordinator, VA
Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa 52246. Telephone: (319) 338-0581
extension 6216; Fax; (319) 339-7085; Email: <Angela.Martin@med.va.gov>.

### Veterans Affairs Martinsburg VA Medical Center

#### ADR Technique: Mediation 

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Martinsburg VA Medical Center established an Alternative Dispute
Resolution Mediation Program which operates under an \"open door\"
policy for any disputant who wants to call or walk into the Mediation
Office to learn more about the mediation program. Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) complaints are the primary types of disputes being
raised in the program but other workplace disputes are covered by the
process. Some union grievances are presently excluded until additional
negotiations are accomplished. If a person chooses mediation, the
Mediation Program Coordinator, and the parties to the dispute agree on a
co-mediator and the process of mediation begins. The terms of any
settlement agreement reached through mediation are confidential;
however, if the settlement agreement involves any type of compensatory
award, the agreement is reviewed by the Medical Center Director.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR Mediation Program at the Martinsburg VA Medical Center was
established to reduce the number of disputes between employees and
management and to address common work problems, grievances and the EEO
discrimination complaint procedure. The Medical Center\'s objectives are
to settle as many complaints as possible without a negative impact on
the disputants, agency or staff members involved. Through the program,
the agency hopes to improve active listening skills, reduce conflicts
between employees and management, and to develop agreements that are
mutually acceptable.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program began following the issuance of the VHA Directive 98-297 on
May 8, 1998, which mandated that the EEO Complaint Process be modified
to include some form of ADR as a technique to prevent disputes and
resolve them at the earliest stage or to settle them prior to formal
litigation. The program is currently staffed by one full-time Mediation
Program Coordinator, one full-time assistant and eleven collateral duty
co-mediators.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program is voluntary, confidential, neutral and impartial. It is
designed to promote and facilitate the resolution of a dispute between
parties. Mediators must be honest and neutral, act in good faith, and
diligent with regard to communication skills. Mediators must not have a
vested interest in the terms of the settlement agreement, must show no
bias toward individuals or institutions involved in mediation and be
reasonably available as requested by mediating parties. The Mediation
Office attempts to establish a mediation date within five business days
after the intake has been completed.

***Contact***\
Denise A. Burton, Certified Mediator, EEO/AEP Program Manager &
Mediation Program Coordinator, VA Medical Center, Martinsburg, WV 25401;
Telephone: (304) 263-0811 ext. 4059; FAX: (304) 260-4860; Email:
<denise.burton@med.va.gov>.

### Department of Veterans Affairs St. Louis, MO VA Medical Center

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works:***\
The Program at St. Louis VAMC is well recognized by the staff as a
result of several initiatives. All new employees receive the policy and
brochure during orientation. Pictures and telephone numbers of the
coordinators and mediators are posted in two locations in the medical
center. The program was introduced to the staff in 1998 when 1500
employees attended mandatory training. The program is discussed at staff
meetings and receives full support from officials of Local 96. The
program\'s policy is to encourage the use of mediation at an early stage
of the dispute, although mediation is available at any time during the
processing of a dispute. Once the mediator coordinator is notified of a
request to mediate, the case is assigned to a mediator and a review of
the dispute, VA policy and guidelines is made with the mediator.
Mediators are assigned on a rotating basis but are not permitted to
mediate a dispute in their own department.

The parties sign an agreement to mediation and identify the issues
before beginning to mediate. At the conclusion of the mediation, a
settlement agreement is prepared and signed by all involved parties if
the matter is resolved.If no resolution is reached, the complainant may
proceed with their complaint using applicable processes, i.e., EEO,
grievance, etc. The terms of any settlement are confidential.

***Background/Objective:***\
The VA Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri, established an ADR
Mediation Program in January 1998 for several reasons. It has long been
established in the federal and private workplace that mediating disputes
is an efficient, cost saving, and relatively quick method to resolve
differences in the work place. Management officials and AFGE Local 96
union officials recognized the need to find quicker and less expensive
ways to resolve disputes. Further, the Master Labor agreement between
the DVA and AFGE provides for establishment of an ADR program. Thus the
parties met over several months and formalized a mediation program. The
program is used to resolve all types of disputes. The most common are
grievances, discrimination complaints, employee disputes with a fellow
employee, and supervisor-employee differences. Obstacles to development
of the program were addressed through a joint committee made up of
senior management officials and officers from AFGE Local 96. This joint
committee met on a regular basis and discussed the formal guidelines and
responsibilities of the program. These discussions lead to the issuance
of MCM 00-33 as a matter of policy for the program. The committee
addressed each concern that was brought up and resolved it. Both labor
and management wanted a program that gave employees an alternative to
formal processing of disputes.

Goals and objectives of the program are to promote principles that
establish open communication and better working relationships in the
work place. An objective is to provide for quick, less adversarial,
efficient way to resolve matters. Mediation may be used to resolve all
types of disputes except patient abuse issues, violations of law, and
matters that are covered by federal or VA regulations.

***Duration/current activity***\
The St. Louis VAMC has had approximately 120 mediation cases since the
program started. 92% of the cases have been resolved. The Program was
started in 1998 after several months of meetings with officials at the
medical center. The Program is the result of a joint initiative by
management and the union. Mediation training by an outside contractor
was provided to the coordinators, mediators, and medical center and
union officials. Two coordinators and three mediators were initially
appointed to begin processing the cases.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The mediation process is voluntary and therefore the parties to a
dispute are not mandated to use mediation to resolve their differences.
Mediation is confidential, informal, private, non-adversarial and
non-adjudicative. The mediator is not authorized to make a decision and
may not force provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, assist the
parties in identifying issues, foster joint problem solving and explore
settlement options.

***Contact***\
Richard T. Young, Labor Relations Specialist, Director\'s Office, VA
Medical Center, 915 N. Grand Ave. St. Louis, MO 63106. Telephone (314)
289-7651. FAX: (314) 289-6557.

### Veterans Affairs Salem VA Medical Center

***How the ADR System Works***\
The Salem VA Medical Center has implemented a successful and thriving
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program. The program has resulted in
successful resolutions to disputes and has changed the atmosphere at the
medical center. Staff realize that they have another avenue to resolve
disputes that is much more efficient than other alternatives and almost
always achieves greater satisfaction for all involved. This is due to
the fact that ADR allows an informal way for individuals to resolve
disputes with a fellow employee, a manager or a colleague. In
mediations, a mediator helps two or more persons explore ways to resolve
their differences and reach an agreement that best addresses their
interests. Mediations are referred to the collateral duty ADR
Coordinator either by phone, e-mail, ORM referrals, EEO Manager
referrals, AFGE referrals, manager/supervisor referrals, employee
interest, among others. Salem has taken the position that they will
mediate anything at any level at any stage of the grievance process and
has found that this is the best option. The ADR Coordinator schedules
the mediations and ensures all pertinent staff are at the table and all
staff requiring representation are represented accordingly.

***Background/Objective***\
The ADR Mediation Program at the Salem VAMC was established to reduce
the number of disputes between employees and management and to address
work place problems that were prevalent. The medical center has made a
100 percent commitment to support the ADR program at this facility and
due to that support and partnering effort they have been able to enjoy
great success. ADR at Salem has evolved into a realm of changing
behaviors, which has been gradually incorporated into a High Performance
Development Model for their medical center.

***Duration/CurrentActivity***\
The ADR Program at the Salem VAMC was started in the fall of 1997.
Mediators were trained and mediations began immediately. Resolving
differences at the earliest stage or settling them prior to the Step I
grievance level was a goal the facility wanted to achieve as quickly as
possible. The mediation program began with an ADR Coordinator and three
mediators, and today they have ten trained mediators, one of whom has
traveled throughout the entire VISN mediating, facilitating, and doing
team building workshops that have virtually turned around the working
relationships in numerous medical centers. Since implementation of this
ADR Program, Salem has held approximately 140 mediations reaching full
settlement in all but 11.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The ADR Program at the Salem VAMC is entirely voluntary and does not
interfere with the employees\' right to turn to other means of resolving
their dispute. Both parties to a dispute must agree to go to mediation
before the process can take place. Salem has a local ADR policy that
governs the ADR practice and a very strict confidentiality and
neutrality policy with the mediators which is clearly detailed at the
beginning of each mediation. Rules and guidelines are shared at the
beginning of each mediation and all parties are given ample time to
voice their concerns and be heard. They operate under the premise that
all resolutions to disputes basically fall into two areas, communication
and respect.

***Contact***\
Vonda Broom, ADR Coordinator, Mediator VAMC (003-137) 1970 Roanoke
Blvd., Salem, VA 24153; Telephone: (540)982-2463 Ext. 2862; Fax: (540)
224-1912; Email: <VDJBroom@msn.com>.

### VA Healthcare Network Upstate New York

#### ADR Technique: Mediation

***How the ADR System Works***\
Each of the Network Medical Centers (located at Buffalo/Batavia,
Canandaigua, Bath, Syracuse and Albany, NY) maintains a cadre of five to
six trained mediators who perform their duties on a collateral basis.
Each of the Medical Centers has a Facility Program Coordinator. There is
a Network ADR Coordinator that monitors the program on a Network wide
basis. Either party to a dispute may request mediation. Employees are
allowed to select any of the local mediators that gives the employee a
sense of confidence in the mediator\'s ability to resolve his or her
issues. Every effort is made to assign mediators from the facility where
the dispute has arisen. However, disputes do arise that require a
heightened level of trust, sensitivity or confidentiality. In these
cases employees may request the services of mediators from other Network
Medical Centers. To facilitate the assignment of mediators from other
facilities two sets of \"Sister Institutions\" have been established.
They are: 1) Albany and Syracuse; 2) Canandaigua, Bath and
Buffalo/Batavia. If mediators are requested from another Network
facility they are from one of the initiating facility\'s Sister
Institutions. This ADR model allows employees the option to have two
mediators at mediation sessions. They have found co-mediation to be
advantageous since it often enhances the number and variety of
settlement options. This model also increases the trust that
participants have in the ADR process. For example, if the dispute
involves male and female employees who have issues related to
differences in gender, having two mediators, one male and one female,
can lead to a heightened level of trust.

***Background/Objectives***\
The ADR program promotes principles and practices that will facilitate
the improvement of communications and working relationships. The ADR
process allows parties to resolve their differences quickly, in a less
formal environment, in a less adversarial atmosphere, and is a more
efficient use of resources than the traditional dispute mechanisms
(i.e., litigation).

***Duration/Current Activity***\
In May and June 2000, mediators were given a 3 1/2 day introductory
training course. In September 2000 a 2 ½ day advanced mediation training
course was given. Mediations began in June 2000. Since its inception
fourteen months ago Network employees have utilized the ADR Program
twenty-nine times. Twenty-two of these mediations have resulted in some
form of settlement. They have invited other Federal Agencies to use
their mediation services. In August 2001, they conducted their first
successful mediation for another Federal Agency, the Customs Service.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
ADR is a totally voluntary and confidential process. The program covers
the majority of disputes that may occur in the workplace. Certain cases
may not be appropriate for mediation. Typically, the most egregious
matters, such as patient abuse issues or violations of law, are not
suitable for resolution under the mediation process.

***Contact***\
Douglas Bender, Network ADR Coordinator (05), VA Medical Center, 113
Holland Ave., Albany, NY 12208; 518-433-0929; Email:
<Douglas.Bender@med.va.gov>

# Section II: Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques and Agency Practices

## Alternative Discipline Agency Practices

Alternative discipline (AD) can be characterized as a form of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that, like more traditional ADR
techniques such as mediation, facilitation, etc., can be used
effectively to resolve, reduce, or even eliminate workplace disputes
that might come from a circumstance where disciplinary action is
appropriate. As the term suggests, AD is an alternative to traditional
discipline\--usually when the traditional penalty would be less than
removal.

In a case where traditional discipline might call for a penalty of
suspension without pay, under AD, the employee and the agency might
agree that a letter in lieu of the suspension is appropriate. Typical
features of such an agreement between the employee and agency are: (1)
an accurate and full description of the employee\'s offense; (2)
employee admission of wrongdoing; (3) employee promise to modify his or
her behavior; (4) notation of the specific traditional disciplinary
penalty and the specific alternative discipline; (5) acknowledgment that
the agreement will be kept to support possible future disciplinary
action based on new offenses and/or acknowledgment of the disposition of
the agreement at the end of a specified reckoning period; (6)
notification of the possible penalty for a subsequent offense; (7)
usually a waiver of appeal and/or grievance rights; (8) a statement that
the agreement was voluntarily entered into by the employee and the
agency; and (9) signatures of the employee, the supervisor, and any
representative. A key aspect of AD is that the employee has a stake in
AD in that he or she is actively involved in determining how the
workplace problem is resolved.

Benefits of AD include avoidance of the high costs of litigating
appeals, grievances, or complaints that often follow traditional
discipline\--under AD, all issues are resolved at the time the action is
taken. The agency retains the services of the employee instead of losing
productivity because the employee is under suspension as may be the case
under traditional discipline. If the employee is suspended, there may be
replacement coverage expenses which might include overtime payments for
other employees to do the work of the suspended employee. AD helps avoid
lost time and productivity of supervisors, deciding officials,
witnesses, and others who may be preparing for and attending hearings or
other dispute resolution proceedings if traditional discipline is used.
AD also reduces the negative impact on the relationship between a
supervisor and a disciplined employee that can occur following
traditional discipline. Finally, AD can be a tool to help cope with
reductions in agency funding by keeping employees on the job and
productive.

The following are summaries of agency AD programs. They are arranged in
alphabetical order according to the name of the agency involved.

### Administrative Office Of The U.S. Courts Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
Good employee and management relations are critical to the success of a
productive work environment at the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts (AO). The agency actively incorporates its policy that
disciplinary actions should be limited to the minimum action necessary
to correct unacceptable conduct and to maintain discipline and morale
among employees. Alternative discipline agreements may be formed in the
following ways: (1) before a proposal to discipline is initiated; (2) in
lieu of a proposal to discipline; and (3) after a proposal to discipline
has been initiated.

***Background Objective***\
All AO employees are covered by its alternative discipline agreement
policy. Supervisors are strongly encouraged to use alternative
discipline agreements in instances where some action other than a formal
disciplinary action is likely to effect a positive change in an
employee\'s behavior.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
AO\'s alternative discipline program began in 1995. Due to the small
number of employees at AO, alternative discipline is not widely used.
However, in instances where it has been utilized, it has proven to be
successful.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
AO\'s alternative discipline program provides employees with an
opportunity to become actively involved with supervisors in creating
acceptable agreements to resolve work-related issues. Both the
supervisor and employee are responsible for adhering to the terms and
conditions in the alternative discipline agreement.

The supervisor and employee enter into a written form agreement
specifying the terms and conditions for successful completion. Some of
the options from which the parties can choose include community service,
forfeiture of leave, leave without pay, participation in the agency\'s
Employee Assistance Program.

Alternative discipline agreements cannot be used in instances that
involve egregious activity (criminal conduct or offenses proscribed in a
statute), performance-based actions, or where the employee denies having
engaged in the identified unacceptable conduct.

***Contact***\
Scott Daniels, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, One Columbus
Circle, NE, Suite G-200, Washington, DC 20544; Telephone: (202)
502-1262; FAX: (202) 502-4688.

### Agriculture

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
Alternative discipline (AD) may be offered to employees as an
alternative to traditional discipline provided individual circumstances
meet the agency\'s written policy criteria. AD may be initiated instead
of the traditional disciplinary process or at any stage of the
traditional process. Individual employees are not entitled to
alternative discipline nor can the agency impose AD on its employees
since participation is voluntary.

***Background Objective***\
The alternative discipline program is an available option to help carry
out the USDA policy that disciplinary action be limited to the minimum
action necessary to correct employee misconduct and to maintain
discipline. The agency strongly encourages the use of AD as an excellent
tool for reducing administrative costs and burdens associated with
traditional discipline. It also encourages managers and supervisors to
take a more active role in managing their employees, and provides
employees an opportunity to demonstrate accountability for their actions
and subsequent rehabilitation for productive Government service.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has been in effect since March 10, 1993 and is used by all
of the organizations with delegated authority within USDA. Organizations
with AD authority include the agency\'s mission areas, the Chief
Information Officer, the General Counsel, and the Inspector General.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The agency\'s policy is provided in USDA Personnel Bulletin No. 751-3
(June 3, 1998) which superseded former Department Personnel Manual 751,
Subchapter 4. The criteria for using alternative discipline are: (1) the
misconduct justifies a penalty less than removal; (2) the employee
admits to the misconduct, accepts responsibility for it, and agrees not
to repeat the misconduct; (3) the agency determines the employee is a
good candidate for alternative discipline and the alternative discipline
acts as a deterrent to other employees; and (4) the employee agrees to
waive any and all grievance, appeal, and/or EEO complaint rights with
respect to the particular action. These rights are also waived if
traditional discipline is imposed because the employee fails to satisfy
the terms and conditions of the AD agreement. If the employee fails, the
terms and conditions of the AD agreement, the employee is notified in
writing that the agreement was violated and the traditional penalty,
which is identified in the agreement, would be immediately imposed. AD
agreements are signed by the employee, the employee\'s representative,
and the supervisor or other management official and are maintained in
the servicing human resources office, not in the OPF.

***Contact***\
Linda Browdy, Manager, Alternative Discipline Program, Office of Human
Resources Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mail Stop 9601,
Washington, DC 20250-9601; Telephone: (202) 690-3420; FAX:
(202)690-2435; Email:<lbrowdy@usda.gov>.

### Air Force Keesler Air Force Base

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
The system allows management and the employee who has committed an
infraction to agree to an alternative form of corrective action in lieu
of traditional discipline. This may include attendance at remedial
classes, leave donation, community service, apologies, etc. It is
intended to provide rapid resolution to problems, avoid the costs and
lost time resulting from use of formal complaint systems, and contribute
to a more positive resolution to problems from both management\'s and
the employee\'s perspective. It is not used in situations where removal
is warranted or where legally prescribed penalties apply to the
violation.

***Background/Objective***\
In March 1995, Headquarters Air Education and Training Command (AETC)
developed and distributed a guide entitled, A Guide for Developing an
Alternative Discipline Process (ADP). It was distributed to the 13 bases
under the Command, with a request for a volunteer to do a formal test of
the program. Keesler AFB MS volunteered to conduct the test and, after
negotiations with its three local unions, published program guidance in
mid-1996.

***Duration/current Activity***\
The initial test of the program at Keesler has been well completed.
Although it has experienced limited opportunities to use ADP, it has
been well received by employees and local unions. Other bases within
AETC have also adopted the AETC guide and developed their own programs.
Several instances of ADP have taken place, especially in cases where the
infraction constitutes a first offense and the employee appears a good
candidate for rehabilitation. Feedback on the program has been quite
positive at all these bases.

***Rules Governing the Activity***

-   Both management and the employee must elect ADP in lieu of
    traditional discipline.

-   The employee must acknowledge the wrongdoing.

-   The terms and conditions of alternative discipline are put in
    writing.

-   The agreement is signed by the employee, his/her representative and
    management.

-   The agreement provides for waiver of grievance/appeal rights for the
    current infraction.

-   There is a determination of the \"traditional\" penalty in each case
    which will be imposed if the employee fails the terms of alternative
    discipline and can be used as prior offense for subsequent
    infractions.

***Contacts***\
Tom May, HQ AETC/DPSP, 1850 - 1st Street, W., Suite 1, Randolph AFB, TX
78150-4308; Telephone: (210)652-7720; FAX: (210) 652-4809; Email:
<tom.may@randolph.af.mil>.

### Army Letterkenny Army Depot

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
The current system expands and replaces the former Depot Systems
Command\'s (DESCOM) earlier highly successful Elected Voluntary
Alternate Depot System Command Discipline (EVADED) and Alternate to
Traditional Discipline (ATD) programs. Where EVADED was used only for
attendance related offenses, and ATD involved other offenses, ATD now is
used for all types of misconduct offenses (attendance, thefts,
falsifications, insubordination, etc.) Under ATD, a full range of
punitive and nonpunitive penalties can be chosen, including reduced
suspensions, financial restitution, community service, donations of
leave, or other mutually agreed upon corrective actions. The supervisor,
employee, and where appropriate, the employee\'s designated union
representative, must agree upon the penalty imposed. ATD agreements
include an admission of fault or wrongdoing, acknowledgment of the
penalty being replaced, commitment to improve future conduct, and waiver
of grievance and appeal rights. If there is no agreement between
employee and agency, the matter reverts to traditional disciplinary
methods.

***Background/Objective***\
The agency began EVADED in 1989 and subsequently ATD in 1991. In 1996,
the agency combined the two into the current broad ATD alternative
discipline program. The objective of each of the programs has always
been to provide managers with a means to address employee misconduct in
a manner involving shared responsibility that improves working
relationships and enhances the efficiency of the service.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
Supervisors and managers at Letterkenny Army Depot are pleased with this
additional management tool and use ATD agreements frequently. Because of
the success of ATD, and EVADED before it, the Department of the Army is
encouraging all of their subordinate commands to adopt such programs.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The specific rules governing ATD vary depending upon the depot.
Generally, the rules are outlined within a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) agreed upon by depot management and the local unions. At the
Letterkenny Army Depot, the offer of ATD is mandatory when the proposed
traditional penalty would be a one-day suspension or greater. ATD is not
offered if the proposed penalty would be a reprimand.

***Contact***\
Ronald Newcomer or Terry Murphy, Letterkenny Army Depot, ATTN:
ASAM-LE-RM-H, Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150; Telephone: (717)
267-9409/9277 respectively; FAX: (717) 267-5621. Tom Locke, President,
NFFE Local 1429, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150;
Telephone: (717) 267-5286. Deborah Witherspoon, President, NFFE Local
1442, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150; Telephone:
(717) 267-8677.

### Defense Logistics Agency

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
The Letters of Discipline Program is available throughout DLA and may be
used at the sole discretion of management. When management determines
that an employee has committed an offense for which a letter of
reprimand or a suspension f 14 calendar days or less is appropriate, a
Letter of Discipline may be issued. Such letters require no proposed
action letter and are not followed by a decision letter. Letters of
discipline are effective upon issuance, and must identify the formal
disciplinary action each is taken in lieu of. Employees have the right
to formally question a Letter of Discipline using the regular grievance
process and must be informed of this right in the letter. The process
may be used with both bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees.

***Background/Objective***\
This alternative discipline program was initiated by management to
reduce processing time and costs associated with effecting disciplinary
actions. It is also believed to minimize disruption to mission
accomplishment.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has been in effect since April 1990. The alternative
approach to disciplinary actions has been used by some DLA activities,
while others have chosen not to employ this newer method. DLA plans to
continue this program as an option for management.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Letters of Discipline Program is governed by an attachment to DLA
regulations on discipline.

***Contact***\
Kathy Kabinier, Personnel Management Specialist, Defense Logistics
Agency Headquarters, Labor and Employee Relations Division, 8725 John J.
Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221; Telephone: (703) 767-6412;
Email:<k_kabinier@hq-dla.mil>.

### General Accounting Office

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
The agency\'s alternative discipline system is an ad hoc, informal
system. The system typically involves the issuance of an \"in lieu of
letter,\" i.e., a letter issued to the employee in lieu of the
traditional disciplinary suspension that might be appropriate in that
circumstance. This document is retained in the employee\'s official
personnel folder as a temporary document for up to four years. The
agency also has used a \"paperless\" suspension, i.e., a personnel
action (SF-50) was issued documenting a suspension but, in cooperation
with the agency\'s payroll office, money was not actually lost by the
employee. The SF-50, however, was retained in the employee\'s personnel
folder as a permanent document just as if the suspension action had not
been \"paperless.\" There is no formalized procedure in place for the
agency\'s system.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective and background of an individual case can be cited to
describe the background and objectives of the program generally. In this
individual case, the employee had a leave problem, a result of
alcoholism. Less severe disciplinary action (i.e., reprimand) had not
resulted in correction of the attendance problems. Management and the
Employee Relations staff felt something more had to be done to get the
employee\'s attention. Putting the employee on a formal suspension was
not perceived as useful to either the employee or the agency. On the
other hand, there was a need to document the employee\'s record in the
event of possible future actions. The employee was issued a letter in
lieu of being suspended. The employee agreed to the \"in lieu of
letter\" which documented the employee\'s leave problems. By agreeing to
the \"in lieu of letter,\" the employee waived any appeal and grievance
rights.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The use of alternative discipline at the agency operates strictly on an
ad hoc, informal basis as the need arises. Given the relatively small
number of adverse actions initiated by the agency, alternative
discipline has been used infrequently.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
There are no written rules for alternative discipline at the agency.

***Contact***\
Stephen Schmal, Chief, Employee Relations and Retirement Benefits
Branch, Room 1181, General Accounting Office, 441 G Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20548; Telephone: (202) 512-8783; FAX: (202) 512-8869;
Email: <schmals.pers@gao.gov>.

### Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline Program Works***\
At FDA, managers have the option of offering employees alternative
discipline (AD) in lieu of traditional, formal discipline for
misconduct. Other than certain minimum standard requirements (see
below), there is a great deal of flexibility in the program to ensure
that AD agreements are tailored to meet the needs of the agency and the
employee. The AD program is viewed as a win-win proposition. Employees
experience less hardship (no loss of pay in a suspension and only a
temporary record of discipline), and the agency does not lose the
employee\'s services as it would during a period of traditional
suspension. It is management\'s option to offer AD, and the employee may
accept or decline. If AD is declined, traditional discipline is pursued.
AD is not an entitlement and is not precedent setting.

***Background/Objective***\
The program\'s objective is to provide an additional management tool
that may improve communications and interpersonal working relationships,
correct behavior, and improve the efficiency of the service. Seeking the
employee\'s agreement to AD provides the employee a more positive and
equal role in correcting the problem and enables employees to avoid
being subjected to traditional disciplinary action that can result in
barriers and resentments detrimental to the accomplishment of the
agency\'s mission and to the employee.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
FDA has been using AD since approximately 1995 and has used AD in many
situations where it was deemed appropriate.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
AD agreements must be in writing and be signed by the employee and
appropriate management official. Agreements will at least include: a
statement that the employee voluntarily elects to enter into the AD
agreement in lieu of a specified formal, traditional disciplinary
action; a brief description of the misconduct; a statement of the
employee\'s admission to the misconduct and commitment to improving; a
statement that, should further misconduct occur during the life of the
AD agreement, it will constitute a prior disciplinary record; a
statement that there will be no SF-50 implementing the agreement, but
that the AD agreement will be maintained in an administrative file
(rather than the OPF) for four years; a waiver of all rights to grieve,
file a discrimination complaint, or otherwise contest the AD agreement,
but with retention of the right to contest any violation of the
agreement by management and any future disciplinary action taken against
the employee; and an advisement that the employee may take advantage of
the services of the Employee Assistance Program.

***Contact***\
Theresa Foster or Cecilia Boswell, Division of Employee and Labor
Management Relations, Office of Human Resources and Management Services,
Parklawn Building, Room 9-66, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857;
Telephone: (301) 827-4180; FAX: (301) 443-0087; Email:
<tfoster@oc.fda.gov> or <cboswell@ora.fda.gov>.

### Interior National Park Service

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
The Columbia Cascades Support Office of the National Park Service uses
alternative discipline when the misconduct involved would warrant a
penalty less than removal or, if mitigated, would be less than removal.
It is appropriate in situations when management determines that the
alternative discipline has a good probability of preventing further
misconduct and the employee admits to the misconduct and agrees not to
repeat it. The employee waives all grievance and appeal rights. Once
misconduct warranting disciplinary action occurs, the supervisor, the
employee, and (if applicable) the union, may agree to use the
alternative discipline process. The alternative discipline may be
imposed by having the employee serve only a small fraction of a
suspension and holding the remainder in abeyance pending successful
completion of the abeyance agreement. The alternative discipline may
also be given by preparing an analysis of the misconduct, stating the
rules violated, recommending a penalty and preparing an agreement with
the employee holding the penalty in abeyance, specifying the terms and
conditions of the agreement.

***Background/Objective***\
The Columbia Cascades Support Office\'s alternative discipline policy
was based on a National Park Service issuance which allows its offices
to develop alternative discipline policies at the field level. The
purpose is to offer non-traditional discipline which may serve as
corrective, rather than punitive, actions.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The policy went into effect in January 1994. Before the policy went into
effect, it was used in a more informal process. It has not been used
often because the types of disciplinary circumstances in the workplace
have been of a nature not appropriate for action under the alternative
discipline program.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The policy is set forth in a National Park Service manual and a local
policy statement approved by the Park Service.

***Contact***\
Charlotte Munson, Personnel Officer, National Park Service, 909 1st
Ave., Seattle, WA 98104-1060; Telephone: (206) 220-4066; FAX: (206)
220-4076; Email: <charlotte_munson@nps.gov>.

### NASA

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
Of NASA\'s ten Centers, Lewis Research Center is the only one with a
formal, written alternative discipline policy. The Lewis Center issues
letters of discipline in lieu of suspension of up to 14 days, which are
retained in the personnel file for two years and carry the same weight
as a formal suspension action. Most of the other Centers have
experimented with settlement in lieu of formal discipline informally,
including preproposal settlements. Headquarters actively encourages the
Centers to consider settlement as an option in every disciplinary
situation, and to share their experiences with each other. NASA
considers their extensive use of Last Chance Agreements to be part of
this approach.

***Background/Objective***\
The objective of alternative discipline is getting an employee to commit
to resolving the problem and becoming productive. In many cases, AD
results in corrected behavior, and where it does not, a foundation is
laid for more formal and severe action. In either case, the emphasis is
kept on the issues, rather than on procedure.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Lewis Center has had a formal policy since April 1993. It is more
difficult to state a duration for the more informal instances of
alternative discipline elsewhere in NASA, but Headquarters has been
promoting the approach for over two years.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Lewis Center has a formal written policy. There are no \"rules\" for
the use of alternative discipline elsewhere in the agency. The basic
principles promoted by Headquarters are:

-   Consider alternative approaches in every disciplinary situation.

-   Develop agreement as early in the process as possible.

-   Work with the EAP any time personal issues may be present.

***Contact***\
Hillard Harrison, National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Code
FPP, Washington, DC 20546-0001; Telephone: (202) 358-1217; FAX: (202)
358-3039. Lori Pietravoia, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH;
Telephone: (216) 433-2506.

### National Security Agency

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
Traditional discipline is often bureaucratic and time consuming. The
employee, aware that disciplinary action has been proposed, remains in
the workplace during the processing time, creating a situation that is
often negative for the employee, coworkers, and management. Alternative
Discipline (AD) is a more constructive means of correcting behavior. AD
conveys to the employee that the misconduct must stop, while at the same
time demonstrating good will on the part of management. AD is a more
effective use of resources, allowing the employee to remain in a duty
status for a longer period of time. The punitive approach of traditional
discipline is replaced with an opportunity to demonstrate improved
behavior through constructive action, i.e., donating leave to the leave
bank, giving briefings or writing papers relative to \"lessons
learned.\" When implemented properly, AD can be a win/win for all
concerned.

***Background/Objective***\
Following a successful two-year pilot program, AD was formally
implemented at NSA in 1998. The objective is to offer a constructive
alternative to the traditional disciplinary process.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
NSA has recommended AD increasingly since it was first introduced to NSA
in 1996. A primary performance objective for all ER counselors is to
consider every case involving a 14-day suspension or less for AD and to
document the reason whenever a case should not be resolved in such a
manner.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Rules as outlined in draft Standard Operating Procedure:

-   Misconduct must be minor.

-   Management agrees to participate.

-   Employee freely agrees to participate.

-   Employee admits to misconduct.

-   Employee waives all due process rights.

-   Employee understands AD Agreement is binding.

-   Employee knows AD agreement may be cited in future disciplinary
    action.

***Contact***\
Robin L. Miller, Employee Relations Services, National Security Agency,
9800 Savage Rd. Suite 6781 Ft. Meade, MD 20755-6781; telephone: (410)
854-6405; Fax (410) 854-6049.

### Navy Fleet & Industrial Center, San Diego

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
In addressing misconduct, a supervisor first meets with the employee and
asks the employee to develop a solution to the workplace problem caused
by the employee\'s misconduct. A letter is developed to outline the
proposed solution and the supervisor determines the reckoning period
after which the letter is destroyed if the employee\'s behavior
improves. If misconduct continues, step two of the process involves a
second meeting which results in a constructive action plan outlining
commitments the employee will make to improve. This letter remains in
the employee\'s personnel folder for two years. If additional misconduct
occurs, the supervisor meets with the employee to determine why the
problem is continuing. After hearing the employee\'s response, the
supervisor drafts a letter notifying the employee that continued
misconduct will result in a proposed removal notice. The employee meets
with the supervisor and is sent home for the remainder of the day to
consider his/her responsibility to make a change or risk removal.

***Background/Objective***\
The Human Resources Department began adopting Dr. Edward Deming\'s
philosophy of management and took a look at the employee and labor
relations function to determine what could be done more effectively. The
conclusion was that the traditional system of discipline created a
hostile, confrontational environment for supervisors and employees and
rarely resulted in changed behavior. Further, it was costly and
inefficient to have employees suspended from the workplace. The agency
drew from a program at McDonald-Douglas Corporation and other programs
within Navy in developing the constructive discipline process (see also
Constructive Discipline program at Naval Surface Warfare Center).

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The constructive discipline process went into effect in 1988 and has
been implemented at many of the activities serviced by the Human
Resources Department. The program is considered extremely successful in
that real behavioral change has been seen in employees whose supervisors
participated in the process. There has been a reduction in formal
actions taken and actions appealed to MSPB, and the constructive
discipline process has been upheld in terms of meeting the need for
progressive management action.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Where the process has been put into place, HR staff provide briefings
and training for supervisory personnel. Additionally, supervisors are
given sample letters that can be adapted to the particular circumstances
of each case. Union representation is allowed at all stages of
counseling. The multiple unions representing employees at the facilities
were consulted at the time the process was implemented.

***Contact***\
Lani Tolbert, Human Resources Office, Naval Region, SW, (Code N00CP33),
937 North Harbor Dr., San Diego, CA 92132-5044; Telephone: (619)
532-2328 ; FAX: (619) 532-1307.

### Navy Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
In addressing misconduct, a supervisor first meets with the employee and
asks the employee to develop a solution to the workplace problem caused
by the employee\'s misconduct. A letter is developed to outline the
proposed solution and the supervisor determines the reckoning period
after which the letter is destroyed if the employee\'s behavior
improves. If misconduct continues, step 2 of the process involves a
second meeting which results in a constructive action plan outlining
commitments the employee will make to improve. This letter remains in
the employee\'s personnel folder for two years. If additional misconduct
occurs, the supervisor meets with the employee to determine why the
problem is continuing. After hearing the employee\'s response, the
supervisor drafts a letter notifying the employee that continued
misconduct will result in a proposed removal notice. The employee meets
with the supervisor and is sent home (with pay) for the remainder of the
day to consider his/her responsibility to make a change or risk removal.

***Background/Objective***\
The goal of the constructive discipline process is to make employees act
as their own agent for change and assume responsibility for the
consequences of their misconduct. Unlike the traditional discipline
process which labels the employee as \"bad\" and places the supervisor
in a parent-like role of dispensing punishment, this process treats all
parties as adults and emphasizes the need to resolve the workplace
problems created by the employee\'s misconduct.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has been in effect since 1989 and has a high success rate in
terms of early resolution of misconduct problems. There have only been a
handful of instances where the process was taken to the third step of
the process. Traditional discipline is still used in cases of egregious
misconduct.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
When the process was put into place, HR staff provided briefings and
training for supervisory personnel. Additionally, supervisors are given
sample letters that can be adapted to the particular circumstances of
each case. Union representation is allowed at all stages of counseling
although practice has shown a low rate of representation requested at
the first step. The multiple unions representing employees at the
facilities were consulted at the time the process was implemented.

***Contact***\
Mark Thomas, Labor Relations Specialist, Human Resources Office, Port
Hueneme Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, 4363 Missile Way, Code
HR200, Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5007; Telephone: (805) 228-0709; FAX:
(805) 228-8421.

### Postal Service

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
Recognizing the need to maintain an effective workplace while taking
appropriate discipline based on misconduct, the United States Postal
Service (USPS) began several years ago to issue letters of warning in
lieu of suspensions for supervisory employees. This program requires
managers to issue a letter of warning when a supervisor\'s misconduct
warrants a suspension of 14 days or less. The warning letter carries the
weight of a time-off suspension (as an element of prior discipline
should future discipline become necessary) and has the benefit of
keeping the employee on duty. Situations involving suspensions of more
than 14 days, indefinite suspensions, or suspensions ordered by third
parties as a modification to a removal action are exempt from the
warning letter program.

***Background/Objective***\
This program was developed to provide management with an alternative
approach to discipline when misconduct by a supervisor merited a short
suspension. The Postal Service recognized the diminished efficiency when
a supervisor is away from his or her duties.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The warning letters in lieu of time-off suspension program was piloted
for several years in the U.S. Postal Service\'s New York Metro and
Northeast Area Offices (formerly the Northeast Region). An evaluation of
the program showed positive results despite some concerns that the
warning letters might not be taken seriously by the supervisor being
disciplined or that managers might find the letters too easy to issue
and abuse the process. Based on the overall success of the pilot, the
USPS implemented the program in 1996 on a nationwide basis for all
non-bargaining unit employees.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The warning letters are styled after the traditional adverse action
notice and a separate appeals process has been established for these
actions. The employee may reply orally and/or in writing to a
higher-level manager than the individual who issued the letter. That
manager will issue a Letter of Decision which may be appealed to the
Area Human Resources Manager. The USPS implemented the pilot program and
the permanent program in cooperation with the management associations.
The program is documented in a Postal Service Management Instruction.

***Contact***\
Leslie Bayliss, Appeals Review Specialist, 475 L\'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room
9431, Washington, DC 20260-4135; Telephone: (202) 268-3797; FAX: (202)
268-3074; Email: <lbayliss@email.usps.gov>.

### U.S. Soldiers\' and Airmen\'s Home

#### Alternative Discipline

***How the Alternative Discipline System Works***\
When discipline is appropriate for proven misconduct, the Employee and
Labor Relations Staff make a case-by-case assessment of the employee\'s
length of service and overall potential for rehabilitation. Based on
that assessment, the specialist makes a recommendation to the employing
division in those cases where an alternative approach to discipline
looks like it would be of value to the organization. When the employing
division agrees, the employee is offered the opportunity to enter a
written agreement that specifies an alternative to the discipline that
would normally be imposed. This alternative may include, for instance,
an abeyance agreement which waives or mitigates the selected penalty
subject to the employee\'s satisfaction of certain conditions over a
stated period of time. Those conditions will normally include waiver of
appeal rights, and some activity to correct the underlying problem. Such
activities have included substance abuse treatment, an anger management
program, and mediation to resolve interpersonal issues. The EAP is an
active participant in helping to define corrective approaches.

***Background/Objective***\
A negotiated alternative agreement can often capture the attention of an
employee who would otherwise be removed from employment, and focus the
employee on correcting the problem. When this occurs, it is a win for
both the employee and the organization.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The USSAH began using alternative discipline on a selective basis in
1995. Both specialists had been exposed to alternative corrective
methods in other jobs and knew how effective they could be. The two
unions are generally supportive of the approach; in one case, it was the
union that proposed alternative discipline as a resolution of the
misconduct. The alternative approach has been highly successful with
most employees who sign agreements, with only two employees being fired
because of a breach.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The union is a participant in negotiation of agreements for bargaining
unit employees.

***Contacts***\
Sherba Essex, Chief, Employee Management Branch, Soldiers\' and
Airmen\'s Home, Personnel - 1200, Washington, DC 20317; Telephone: (202)
722-3213; FAX: (202) 722-3005. Joyce Jones, Employee Assistance Program;
Telephone: (202) 722-3425. Tony Malloy, Public Employees Local 572;
Telephone: (202) 722-3260.

# Section III: Shared Neutrals Programs

One of the key elements of a typical Federal ADR program is the use of a
third party individual or \"neutral\" to help resolve workplace
disputes. Most commonly the neutral will work as a mediator under such
programs. Other programs may call on the neutral to work as a
facilitator or a factfinder or to work in a combination of these or
other roles. In some cases, neutrals may team up and co-mediate
disputes. In whatever manner the neutrals are used, their services can
be very costly. Costs may be several hundred dollars per day plus
expenses.

In order to reduce their costs in pursuing the use of ADR in resolving
workplace disputes, Federal agencies often have worked together to share
their resources. In some cases, they have developed formal programs for
\"sharing\" neutrals used in ADR applications. A number of collaborative
and cooperative efforts were accomplished through local Federal
Executive Boards (FEB). \[The Guide provides a listing of FEB web sites
in Section VI, ADR Web Sites. Some of these sites provide information
about standing FEB ADR committees, with some providing very detailed
information about their operating shared neutrals programs.\]

In this section, the Guide provides summary information about several
current shared neutrals programs. Each summary describes how the program
works, the background/objective of the program, the duration/current
activity of the program (how long it has been operating and its
results), the rules governing the program, the member agencies of the
program, and the names of individuals who can be contacted for
additional information about a particular program.

The basic concept of a shared neutrals program is that agencies
\"share\"\" employees who are qualified to serve as neutrals. For
example, an employee of one agency may act as a mediator for a dispute
in a second agency. The second agency, in turn, would provide a
similarly-qualified employee to mediate a dispute in the first agency as
needed. In each instance, the employer of record would continue to pay
the mediator\'s salary, but the agency receiving the mediator\'s service
would pay other expenses such as travel. This arrangement is typically
accomplished by written agreement of the program\'s participating
agencies. While the monetary benefits of using ADR may be judged in
terms of costs avoided (early resolution of a disputes avoids costly
litigation in formal processes including the courts), the avoidance of
\"up front costs\" such as paying mediators\' fees contributes to actual
monetary savings once an agency decides to use ADR to resolve the
dispute.

### Atlanta Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
The CDC and ATSDR Alternative Dispute Resolution Office manage the
program. They service locations within a 50-mile radius of Atlanta.
However, if an agency requests that mediator travel outside of the metro
Atlanta area, the requesting agency covers any costs associated with
traveling. When an agency identifies the need for an outside mediator,
the contact person for that agency notifies the CDC ADR office and a
mediator is assigned. The mediator contacts the parties, schedules and
coordinates the mediation. During the mediation the parties have a
chance to describe the situation and to provide specific information
from their experience and perspective. Using a variety of techniques and
skills, the mediator assists the parties in exploring the cause(s) of
the dispute, identifying the issues, and assessing alternatives for
resolution. The program covers all types of workplace disputes and
includes mediation of cases for the Equal Employment Opportunity Office.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was established to help the Atlanta Federal Community
employees in resolving workplace disputes quickly and effectively at
minimal cost.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program was initially established in 1996, as a reciprocal
arrangement with Federal agencies in Atlanta. A cadre of 20 volunteer
federal employees from various agencies in the Atlanta Metropolitan area
is trained in mediation and available to conduct mediations. The program
has since grown to a cadre of 40 federal employees representative f
approximately 20 local federal agencies. It routinely receives requests
from various federal agencies having employees located throughout the
southeast region of the country. About 95% of the cases are settled with
one mediation session of four to six hours. Members of the Shared
Neutrals cadre have opportunities to enhance heir knowledge and skills
by observing mediation in various contexts through a collaborative
initiative with a local court ADR program.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program operates under the direction of the Atlanta CDC/ATSDR ADR
Office.

***Contact***\
Reba Rivera, Director, ADR, CDC/ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, ATTN: MS D-67,
Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone 404) 371-5917; e-mail <ror5@cdc.gov>; fax
(404) 371-5923.

### Chicago Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Agencies wishing to participate must first notify the FEB\'s Shared
Neutrals ADR Program (SNAP) Committee through a formal letter. This
letter must identify the agency liaison, the types of cases that the
agency wishes to exclude from the program and any other specific
requirements of the agency. When all parties within an agency have
agreed to utilize the Shared Neutrals ADR Program (SNAP), and have
signed the Agreement to Mediate, the Agency Liaison then contacts the
SNAP Intake Coordinator, an individual from the SNAP Committee, by
calling the toll-free SNAP Hotline (877-886-SNAP). The Intake
Coordinator obtains all the necessary information and assigns a primary
mediator and a co-mediator. The mediators contact the Agency Liaison to
arrange a time and place for mediation. The mediators conduct the
mediation and report back to the Intake Coordinator providing
information about the type of dispute, whether it was settled, and the
amount of time the process took. The program is available for all types
of workplace disputes, including those involving external and
inter-agency issues. While there is no cost to use the program,
participating agencies have agreed to reimburse the cost of the
mediators\' travel should that be necessary.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was established to assist the Federal agencies in the
Chicago metropolitan area in resolving workplace disputes by providing
an interagency pool of trained mediators. At the same time, it was also
formed to provide a cost-savings to agencies by avoiding costly
litigation and even more costly private sector consultants. The Chicago
FEB developed the program through a series of informal discussions with
two groups: those agencies that already had a dispute resolution program
in place and those agencies interested in establishing one. These
discussions, along with the survey results from the entire Federal
community, led to the establishment of the Shared Neutrals ADR Program
(SNAP) Committee as a formal committee of the FEB in the latter part of
1998. The SNAP Committee then developed the policy, procedures and
details of the program.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program began operations on July 1, 1999 and currently uses 43
trained mediators to provide dispute resolution services in a
co-mediation model to over 33 Federal agencies. Approximately 56% of all
cases are settled within one mediation session. Feedback from the users
has been extremely positive about the program, the mediators and the
process.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program operates under the direction and oversight of the Chicago
Federal Executive Board\'s Shared Neutrals ADR Program (SNAP) Committee.
Policy and procedures are outlined in the *SNAP Informational Brochure*
and provided in detail in the *Shared Neutrals ADR Program (SNAP)
Handbook*.

***Program Members***\
Current members include the General Services Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Department of Energy, Railroad Retirement Board, Defense
Logistics Agency, Military Entrance Processing Command, Department of
Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human
Services, Department of Labor, Department of the Navy, Customs Service,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Labor Relations Board,
National Weather Service, Office of Personnel Management, Social
Security Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small
Business Administration.

***Contacts***\
Jan Stinson, Executive Director, Chicago Federal Executive Board, 230
South Dearborn, Suite 3816, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone: (312)
353-6790; Fax: (312) 353-3058; Email: <jan.stinson@gsa.gov>; SNAP
Program web site address: <http://www.chicago.feb.gov/snap.htm>

### Dallas-Ft. Worth Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
A designated point of contact for the agency obtains a signed agreement
to voluntarily mediate from the parties to the dispute. The mediation
agreement is passed on to the FEB\'s mediation coordinator. The
coordinator selects two mediators from different agencies and arranges
the mediation. The mediators (disputes under the program are
co-mediated) conduct the mediation session and provide a written
close-out to the coordinator covering such matters as the type of
dispute involved, whether it was settled, and how much time the process
took to complete. The program covers all types of workplace disputes and
includes mediation of Equal Employment Opportunity cases.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was established to help Dallas-Ft. Worth agencies resolve
workplace disputes effectively at minimal cost. In particular, small
agencies generally do not have adequate budgets or staff to have
internal dispute resolution programs. The initial planning for the
program was done by individuals from the Office of Personnel Management,
the General Services Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Department of Health and Human Services. They were
joined by other agencies to develop a two-year pilot program that was
accepted by the Dallas-Ft. Worth FEB. Based on the pilot\'s success, the
program was adopted by the FEB as a permanent program.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program began operations in 1994 and uses over 50 trained mediators
to provide dispute resolution services to more than 20 agency program
members. About 80% of the cases are settled with one mediation session
of four to six hours. It is estimated that each of the mediated cases
saves an average of \$10,000.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program operates under the direction of the Dallas-Ft. Worth FEB/ADR
Committee.

***Program Members***\
U.S. Army Reserves, Joint Reserve Base-Fort Worth; USDA, Animal & Plant
Inspections Service; USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Department of Education; Defense Contract Audit Agency; Environmental
Protection Agency; Federal Aviation Administration; Federal Highway
Administration; General Services Administration; Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children & Families; Housing and Urban
Development; Internal Revenue Service, Southwest Regional Office;
Internal Revenue Service, Dallas District Office; Department of Justice,
Community Relations Service; Bureau of Prisons: Federal Medical
Center\--Carswell, Federal Medical Center\--Fort Worth, Federal Medical
Center\--Seagoville; Office of Personnel Management; Office of Thrift
Supervision; Small Business Administration\--Disaster Relief; Department
of Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency; VA Medical Center\--Dallas;
and VA Outpatient Clinic\--Fort Worth.

***Contact***\
Gladean R. Butler, Executive Director, Dallas-Ft. Worth Federal
Executive Board, 4300 Amon Carter Blvd. #108, Ft. Worth, TX 76155;
Telephone: (817) 684-5370; FAX: (817) 684-5375; Email:
<gladean.butler@sba.gov>; Consortium web site address:
[www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6md/feb/adr.htm.](http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6md/feb/adr.htm)

### Denver Federal Executive Board DFEB-ADR Consortium

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
The Consortium uses existing talent among Federal agencies in a manner
that eliminates the need for other more costly formal administrative
processes and litigation. The program is a voluntary process that
reinforces confidentiality and empowers employees to resolve their own
disputes with the services of neutral mediators from agencies outside of
the disputants\' own agency at no direct cost. Participating agencies
have agreed to accept the cost of travel and salary of the mediators in
exchange for the services of the consortium. The use of the co-mediation
model has created a system and process by which the talents of more
experienced mediators in the consortium have acted as mentors and
coaches for other mediators who may have only related experience in
addition to the training. The program\'s Mediator Profile forms are used
to match skills and backgrounds to create mediation teams that are more
effective for each type of dispute. The parties in conflict describe the
nature of the dispute using the program\'s Mediation Initiation
Document. Mediators then use the document to plan strategies to narrow
the issues and define the interests of the parties. The program received
the Hammer Award in 1997.

***Background/Objective***\
In 1995, the DFEB/EEO Committee proposed the program to executive
members of the DFEB as a cost-effective means of resolving disagreements
and avoiding litigation. The Committee has served as the sponsor of this
interagency resource sharing project. The objective of the program is to
realize cost savings by drawing on the talent and potential of a diverse
Federal workforce and using its skills and experience in resolving
disputes within the workplace. The program is intended to resolve
disputes, often arising as a result of affirmative employment and
diversity issues, in a manner that removes barriers and restores working
relationships among all employees.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The consortium began operations in October of 1996 and currently uses
thirty volunteer mediators who were certified through training in a
co-mediation model. Surveys used in the program indicate positive
attitudes among the users toward the mediators and the mediation process
with relationships restored in each case. Program evaluation results
including feedback from both mediators and participants is maintained in
an automated database. The average amount of time spent in mediation is
four to eight hours at an average cost of \$614.39, including
administrative time, mediator salaries, and travel costs. Based on a
cost analysis completed by the consortium, the cost-savings per
mediation case is conservatively estimated at \$4,885.61.

In January 2000, the DFEB Interagency ADR Consortium began a partnership
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Denver/Metro
area. The partnership is a win-win situation for both the DFEB
Interagency ADR Consortium and the EEOC. The co-mediators have gained
more hands-on experience and the EEOC has witnessed a significant number
of cases resolved from their backlog. In the first four months of this
partnership, the DFEB Interagency ADR Consortium assisted with more than
125 cases of which 46% were settled.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The operation of the consortium is defined in a comprehensive document
developed by the EEO/ADR Committee that outlines roles,
responsibilities, procedures, and program evaluation.

***Program Members***\
Colorado National Guard; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; National Institute of Standards; Health and Human
Services; Food and Drug Administration; Department of Energy; Department
of Labor; Defense Finance and Accounting; Western Area Power
Administration; Department of Agriculture; Minerals Management Service;
Environmental Protection Agency; Peace Corps; Internal Revenue Service;
Federal Labor Relations Authority; Department of the Interior; and
Department of Veterans Affairs.

***Contact***\
Charles Marquez, Consortium Coordinator; P.O. Box 281213 - Mail Code
AO300, Lakewood, CO 80228-82; Telephone: (720) 962-7040; FAX: (720)
962-7041; Email: <marquez@wapa.gov>; Consortium web site address:
[www.dfeb.mms.gov/mediation.htm](http://www.dfeb.mms.gov/mediation.htm).

### Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Each participating Federal agency appoints an Agency Coordinator, often
the EEO or Labor Relations Manager, to work with the SMART (Shared
MediAtoR Team) Coordinator, who works for the Greater Los Angeles
Federal Executive Board (FEB). When a dispute arises, the Agency
Coordinator completes the *Request and Intake Form* and faxes or e-mails
it to the SMART Coordinator. The SMART Coordinator identifies an
appropriate co-mediation team from other agencies from a pool of trained
mediators, confirms their availability and provides them with the Agency
Coordinator\'s contact information for setting up the mediation. *The
Consent to Mediation Form* is signed by the Parties, Representatives,
Agency Coordinator, and Mediators before the mediation. If agreement is
reached, the *Settlement Agreement* is used. At the conclusion of the
mediation, the co-mediation team provides the parties with the required
*Confidential Customer Feedback Form* and completes the *Confidential
Feedback From Mediator Form*. The Agency Coordinator completes the
*Confidential Feedback From Agency Coordinator Form*. The SMART
Coordinator receives all the forms, which are kept strictly
confidential. SMART is available for all types of internal workplace
disputes at any stage, including EEO complaints and grievances. There is
no cost to the using agency except mediator travel expenses, if any.
SMART covers the southern half of California, with occasional southern
Nevada and Arizona cases.

***Background/Objective***\
The primary SMART goal is to help parties resolve workplace disputes
economically and expeditiously to improve workforce communication,
morale, and relationships. Using SMART trained mediators, the parties
avoid costly private-sector mediators and expensive and time-consuming
litigation. A secondary objective is to develop the professional
expertise of the SMART mediators as a valuable resource for Federal
agencies.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The formal SMART program, started in 2001, was preceded by a successful
informal shared neutrals effort begun around 1995. SMART currently has
20 volunteer Federal trained mediators available to resolve cases in one
day or less, using co-mediation in any requesting agency outside their
own. Using agencies typically pay only one day\'s local mileage and
parking for the co-mediators, compared to the going local rate of about
\$5,000 a day for one private-sector mediator and the average cost of a
formal EEO complaint that does not go to court, \$16,372.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The *SMART Handbook and Forms Packet*, which explain the program and
procedures, are available as hard copies or at the FEB web site,
[www.losangeles.feb.gov](http://www.losangeles.feb.gov/). Completion of
feedback forms is required by all parties, mediators and coordinators
for program assessment and improvement. The FEB operates the program
using an experienced Federal manager on a long-term detail as the SMART
Coordinator.

***Program Members***\
Any Federal agency within the FEB territory may use SMART on an ad hoc
basis. State and local government agencies may also apply.

***Contact***\
Andrea Winkler, SMART Coordinator, Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive
Board, 300 North Los Angeles St., MS 7000, Los Angeles, CA 90012;
Telephone: Dial 800 735 2922 (CA Relay Service) and Request 213 576 3091
(TTY); Fax 213 576 3092; E-mail <andrea.winkler@irs.gov>; web site
[www.losangeles.feb.gov](http://www.losangeles.feb.gov/).

### Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Federal agencies in Hawaii have access to the Federal Informal
Resolution System Team (FIRST) ADR program which is managed by the Human
Resources Service Center, Pacific EEO Department. FIRST is comprised of
trained civilian and military mediators from various Federal agencies in
Hawaii. The program covers EEO complaints, grievances and any other
work-related disputes that may be resolved through mediation. Anyone may
refer disputes to FIRST by calling the intake coordinator. A written
request for mediation is only required if the disputes involve
discrimination complaints or grievances.

***Background/Objective***\
To assist Federal agencies in Hawaii to be in compliance with the 29 CFR
1614 requirement that agencies establish an ADR program or have access
to one, FIRST was expanded to include all Federal agencies. This
initiative, with the permission of an agency\'s headquarters, has
enabled the smaller DOD and non-DOD agencies to tap FIRST resources
rather than bringing mediators from their headquarters to mediate local
disputes. This initiative has also enabled FIRST mediators to gain and
maintain their mediation skills so that they can pass the Department of
Navy\'s Mediator Certification Program.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program operates under the leadership of the Navy HRSC Equal
Employment Opportunity Director. Neutrals are nominated by their
supervisor to attend training and must successfully complete the Navy\'s
Mediation Certification program or have documented experience as a
mediator. Each activity is responsible for funding its mediator\'s
formal training program and must allow the mediator to mediate, at a
minimum, two disputes per year and attend all of the training required
by the Department of Navy for certification. Disputes are co-mediated or
solo mediated depending on whether the mediator has successfully been
certified by the Department of Navy. Co-mediations are with the
Mediation Center of the Pacific.

***Program Members***\
Mediation services are FREE and available to all Federal agencies in
Hawaii.

***Contact***\
Cindy Pierson, Human Resources Service Center, Pacific, EEO Department,
Code 10, 178 Main Street, Bldg. 499, Honolulu, HI 96818-4048. Telephone:
(808) 474-0176 ext 214 or (808) 471-3328 (fax); Email:
[ynthia_pierson@pac.hroc.navy.mil](mailto:cynthia_pierson@pac.hroc.navy.mil).

### Oklahoma Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
office. FEB staff contacts mediators (in most cases, the program uses
co-mediators) with the names of the parties, telephone numbers, and
other pertinent information. If there is diversity (gender, race,
union/management) in the parties requesting services, the program makes
an effort to reflect the same diversity in the mediators assigned. Both
management officials and union representatives serve as mediators. The
mediators contact the parties to set up a date for the mediation
session. The program may be used at any step of an agency\'s dispute
process. The program does not cover cases where there are willful or
criminal violations of law.

***Background/Objective***\
Interagency mediation services were identified as an objective by the
Oklahoma FEB\'s Executive Policy Council under the major goal of
\"reducing costs and improving efficiencies.\" The goal of the program
is to make mediation services available from outside the requesting
agency with no fee in order to resolve disputes at the earliest possible
date, increase the quality of communication within the workforce,
maintain a friendly and productive work environment, and reduce the cost
and time involved with formal processes.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program was implemented in April 1998. During its first 12 months of
operation, it received requests for assistance in 60 cases, with 47
mediated. Of the mediated cases, 36 were resolved for an estimated
savings of approximately \$1,500,000 (costs avoided). In making this
calculation, expected monetary costs for each stage of the
discrimination complaint process were assigned using information from
various sources of historical data and prior analysis. The resolution
rate for mediated cases was 76%. The program has 45 mediators available
for use.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The operation of the program is controlled by the Oklahoma FEB and
described in a guidebook available in hardcopy or on the FEB\'s web
site. Mediators are trained in partnership with the State Supreme Court
of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City VA Medical Center (VAMC), and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

***Program Members***\
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Oklahoma City; Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Oklahoma City; Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Services, Stillwater; Air Force, Tinker AFB;
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moore and Tulsa; Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City and Aviation Systems Standards;
Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Oklahoma City;
Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center in Oklahoma City and
Regional Office in Muskogee; United States Postal Service, Norman and
Oklahoma City, and other field offices and activities of the Federal
Government in the Oklahoma area.

***Contact***\
LeAnn Jenkins, Director, Oklahoma Federal Executive Board, 215 Dean A.
McGee, STE 320, Oklahoma City, OK 73102-3422; Telephone: (405) 231-4167;
Consortium web site:
[www.mmac.jccbi.gov/feb-okc/shared%20neutrals.html.](http://www.mmac.jccbi.gov/feb-okc/shared neutrals.html)

### Oregon Federal Executive Board 

#### How the Shared Neutrals System Works

Shared Neutrals in the Pacific Northwest Region currently has 27
participating agencies (federal, state, city and county). Agencies
wishing to participate must notify the Shared Neutrals Program
Coordinator through a formal letter. This letter must identify the
agency liaison, what kinds of cases they will accept, in what way their
agency will participate in Shared Neutrals (i.e., trained neutrals,
meeting spaces, etc.), travel and reimbursement policy and any other
specific requirements of that agency. The program is available for all
types of workplace disputes, within the guidelines of each agency. While
there is no cost to use this program, participating agencies usually
agree to reimburse the cost of the mediators\' travel, when needed.

Each case comes to the SN Program Coordinator through the Agency
Liaison, who initially screens whether the case is appropriate for
mediation. The Program Coordinator collects party information, sends out
a letter and sample Consent to Mediate form to the parties, and assigns
a mediation team consisting of primary and co-mediator. Using a Mediator
Checklist, the mediators do case development and arrange a time and
place for the mediation. At the mediation, all participants must sign
the Consent to Mediate form, which is sent to the Program files at close
of the mediation, along with the mediator paperwork, party evaluations
and co-mediator critiques. All documents are kept strictly confidential.

***Background/Objective***\
The Oregon Federal Executive Board (OFEB) adopted the Shared Neutrals
Program as a pilot in November 1996, following a model of similar
programs. The Program was formally adopted in November 1997. This
program is designed to serve three objectives:

1.  Provide agencies with low cost and flexible access to sophisticated
    dispute resolution services

2.  Provide disputing individuals with accessible, timely and
    confidential neutral (mediation) services

3.  To support a diverse cadre of trained and experienced neutrals who
    mentor less-experienced neutrals from other agencies on a collateral
    duty basis.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The Program has been in official operation since November 1997, and
currently uses 40 trained mediators to provide dispute resolution
services in a co-mediation model to 27 federal, state, city and county
agencies. Of the cases that go to session, approximately 72% are
considered successful. User feedback has been very positive about the
program, the mediators and the process.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The program operates under the direction and oversight of the Shared
Neutrals Subcommittee. The Subcommittee consists of 12 members,
including a Chair and Co-chair. Policy and procedures are provided in
detail in the Shared Neutrals Program Guide, available on-line at the
web site below.

***Program Members***\
As of September 2001, current members include:

-   **FEDERAL**

    -   Albany Research Center, Department of Energy

    -   Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

    -   Bonneville Power Administration

    -   Bureau of Indian Affairs, NW Region

    -   Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office

    -   Chemawa Indian School, Bureau of Indian Affairs

    -   Environmental Protection Agency

    -   Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Seattle, WA)

    -   Indian Health Services, Portland Area

    -   Internal Revenue Service, Pacific Northwest District

    -   Small Business Administration

    -   US Attorney, District of Oregon

    -   US Customs, Department of the Treasury

    -   USDA - National Agriculture Statistics Services OR SSO

    -   US Forest Service, Region 6 (Oregon & Washington) & Pacific

    -   Northwest Research Station

    -   Department of Veterans Affairs - Medical Center (Portland)

-   **STATE**

    -   Centennial School District, Portland;

    -   Dept. of Corrections, Human Resources, SW Region South
        (Vancouver, WA);

    -   Dept. of Social Health Services/, Division of Child Support,
        Vancouver, WA; and Oregon Military Department.

-   **LOCAL**

    -   City of Beaverton; City of Gresham;

    -   City of Portland; City of Vancouver;

    -   City of Wilsonville;

    -   Clark County, Washington; and

    -   Multnomah County, Oregon.

***Contacts***\
Julie Wells, Subcommittee Chair, US Forest Service, PO Box 3623,
Portland OR 97208, 503-808-2609, <jwells@fs.fed.us>\
Karin Waller, Program Coordinator, OFEB, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Ste.1776,
Portland OR 97204-2823, 503-230-3536, <ofeb@pcez.com>\
*Shared Neutrals web site*:\
[www.oregon.feb.gov/SharedNeutrals.htm](http://www.oregon.feb.gov/SharedNeutrals.htm)

### Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Each participating agency names one person as a Mediation Contact (MC).
Within an agency, disputants may individually contact the MC who, in
turn, calls or sends a fax to the FEB/ADR coordinator if services are
needed. The coordinator contacts the disputants, the mediator(s), and
the agency MC to set up a time and place for mediation. After the
mediation, the process is evaluated by the participants. The program
covers all types of internal personnel disputes including agency
grievances, informal disputes between employees and groups of employees,
and Equal Employment Opportunity complaints. The program can also be
used for external disputes with agencies\' customers, clients, or other
Federal agencies.

***Background/Objective***\
The Pittsburgh FEB began the developmental process by holding
information seminars which resulted in the formation of the FEB/ADR
Committee. The Committee included representatives from both labor and
management and devised the consortium program. The goals of the program
were to promote the use of ADR by Federal agencies within the Pittsburgh
FEB and to share resources by building an interagency cadre of skilled,
professional mediators. In partnership with the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, 22 mediators were trained in the first class in
1995.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program has been operating since 1995. The average mediation takes
eight hours with about 80% of the cases being settled. A majority of the
cases involve EEO matters. The FEB is currently a partner with the
Pittsburgh ADR Business Alliance and is helping promote ADR in the
private sector.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The policy and procedures for the program are contained in a booklet,
*Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Consortium*, developed by
the Pittsburgh FEB/ADR Committee and available in hardcopy or on the
FEB\'s web site. The Committee maintains oversight of the program.

***Program Members***\
Federal agencies within the Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board.

***Contact***\
George P. Buck, Executive Director, Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board,
406 Wm. Moorhead Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
15222; Telephone: (412) 395-6607; FAX: (412) 395-4402; Email:
gpb920@aol.com; Consortium web site address:
[www.pittsburgh.feb.gov/pitadr.htm](http://www.pittsburgh.feb.gov/pitadr.htm).

### Portland Federal Executive Board

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Each participating agency notifies the FEB ADR Subcommittee through a
formal letter that it intends to participate in the program. This letter
also identifies an agency liaison, the types of cases it wishes to
exclude from the program, the person within the agency who may authorize
mediation, and other specific information. Mediators from the program
roster may mediate anywhere but the requesting agency is responsible for
any travel costs involved. The program focuses on internal agency
disputes but is also available for external and inter-agency mediations
on a wide range of issues including contracting, environmental, etc.
Neutrals are typically obtained by agency liaisons working with the
program intake person (a member of the ADR Subcommittee).

***Background/Objective***\
The Portland FEB has developed and sponsored the program to facilitate
the use of ADR among local and state government and Federal agencies.
Its objective is to permit participating agencies to draw from the
program\'s roster of ADR neutrals and use the services free of charge
and with minimal paperwork. A keynote of the program is flexibility for
individual agencies on how they may access and use the program.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The current program was originally set up to run as a pilot from October
23, 1996, to October 23, 1997. The program continues to operate as set
up in the pilot.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
The Portland FEB has issued the *ADR/Shared Neutrals Program Handbook*
which describes the program and its requirements. The FEB ADR
Subcommittee provides oversight of the program.

***Program Members***\
Members of the FEB ADR Subcommittee include individuals from the
Bonneville Power Administration; Environmental Protection Agency; Bureau
of Land Management; U.S. Forest Service; Clark County (Washington);
Portland/Multnomah County; Indian Health Service; and Army Corps of
Engineers.

***Contact***\
Julie Wells, Chair, ADR Subcommittee, Portland Federal Executive Board
or Ron Johnson, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208. Telephone: (503)
230-7370; Consortium web site address:
<http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/feb>.

### Seattle Federal Executive Board Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Consortium

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Each participating agency appoints an Agency Coordinator who is the
focal point for the initial screening of requests for services from that
agency and who coordinates all logistical arrangements within the
agency, including payment of travel expenses. When a disputes arises,
the Agency Coordinator contacts the Consortium In-Take Coordinator who,
in turn, contacts the parties to provide them with information about the
program. If mediation is desired, the Intake Coordinator coordinates the
time and location of mediations and finds mediators for the parties. The
consortium uses a co-mediated, eight step method for all mediations

***Background/Objective***\
In 1993, a steering committee was established by Michael Walsh, then of
Health and Human Services, and Deborah Diamond, Internal Revenue
Service, to design a program to support ADR in the Federal community.
The program was designed specifically to support a consortium of Federal
mediators who would be able to provide free services to all agencies.
Their program proposal was adopted by the Seattle Federal Executive
Board

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The consortium began offering services in 1993 with 273 mediations in
the last three years ending in 1998 (120 cases were completed in 1998).
The settlement rate for all cases (excluding EEO cases) is approximately
87%. Where the consortium mediates for another Federal agency, the
success rate is 97%. The consortium provides services to any Federal,
state, county or local government agency that provides a written request
for services.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Requirements for the program are set by the consortium members
themselves, and include very stringent qualifying requirements for
mediators used by the member agencies.

***Program Members***\
Federal agencies, Washington State, King County (Washington), City of
Seattle, and Port of Seattle.

***Contacts***\
Neil A. Doherty, Chair, Seattle FEB Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution
Consortium, 1200 Sixth Ave., M/S OMP-077, Seattle, WA 98101; Telephone:
(206) 553-0125 or (206) 220-6171; FAX: (206) 553-4672; Email:
doherty.neil@epamail.epa.gov or sfeb@halcyon.com. Ann Marie Stacker,
Chair, Social Security Administration, Seattle, WA; Telephone: (206)
615-2241. Consortium web site address:
<http://www.seattle.feb.gov/mediation.htm>.

### Washington, DC - Sharing Neutrals Program

#### Shared Neutrals

***How the Shared Neutrals System Works***\
Participating Federal agencies wishing to use the services of Sharing
Neutrals contact the Program Administrator in writing. Sharing Neutrals
then provides the names and contact information for three senior
mediators and three co-mediators to the requesting agency. The
requesting agency is responsible for scheduling the initial mediation
conference, in coordination with the neutrals, and handling meeting
space and other logistics. At the conclusion of mediation, all parties
complete evaluation forms for return to Sharing Neutrals.

***Background/Objective***\
The program was set up to provide low cost, high quality neutrals to
Federal agencies. It is meant to provide an option when an agency has no
\"in-house\" mediators or when a party questions the neutrality of a
mediator employed by the agency.

***Duration/Current Activity***\
The program was begun as a pilot in the mid-1990\'s. Thirty-two
executive branch agencies and one legislative branch agency now
participate. There are 180 neutrals on the combined mediator and
co-mediator rosters. About 100 cases are referred each fiscal year. Most
of the cases involve workplace disputes although the program will refer
neutrals for other types of cases.

***Rules Governing the Activity***\
Neutrals must meet minimum requirements including successful completion
of a 20-hour mediation skills course, specified mediation experience,
and references. Senior mediators must have significant documented
mediation experience. All roster members and participating agencies
agree to abide by the Sharing Neutrals Standards of Practice (January
2000) and the confidentiality principles outlined in the Administrative
Dispute Resolution Act of 1996.

Agencies using the program must go through the program administrator for
mediator referrals. They should not contact Sharing Neutrals without a
referral for a specific case. Because neutrals provide services as a
collateral duty, with supervisory approval, acceptance of assignments
outside Sharing Neutrals could jeopardize employee rights and benefits.

***Program Members***\
Primarily Washington-Baltimore Federal agencies.

***Contact***\
Peg Porter, Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Room
637-D, Washington, DC 20201; Telephone: (202) 401-2847; FAX: (202)
690-5863; Email: <pporter@os.dhhs.gov>.

# Section IV: Administrative Appeals Agencies

In the Federal dispute resolution process, four key agencies adjudicate
appeals arising from workplace disputes. These administrative appeals
agencies are the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Each has its own
statutorily-based areas over which it has authority to adjudicate. MSPB
also has appellate jurisdiction over additional matters as authorized by
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In addition, while not an
\"administrative appeals\" agency, this section also discusses the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) since much of what
that agency offers for dispute resolution cross-cuts the entire
Government, including the four agencies above.

In general, each agency has consistently been faced over the years with
demands for quicker resolution of disputes, often at times when they are
faced with limited resources to meet those demands. As a result, the
administrative appeals agencies experimented with various techniques to
carry out their missions. MSPB\'s settlement initiative was one of the
earliest and most concerted efforts to streamline its adjudication
process and has led to the present-day statistic that over one half of
its appeals are resolved through the settlement process. EEOC has been a
leader in encouraging agencies to use ADR techniques to resolve
workplace discrimination disputes. FLRA has been instrumental in
streamlining the formal adjudicatory process for considering
labor-management relations issues and FMCS has been the Government\'s
long-time \"go-to\" agency for obtaining the services of mediators. Each
of the administrative appeals agencies is now using ADR techniques to
adjudicate matters over which it has jurisdiction, and each is engaged
in substantial outreach efforts to encourage potential litigants to use
their respective ADR processes.

This section provides a short summary of the various ADR initiatives
each of the four administrative appeals agencies and FMCS are using (or
planning to use) at this time. In addition to describing initiatives,
the summaries provide the names and contact information for individuals
at each agency who can provide more detailed information if needed.

### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

The EEOC is an independent agency charged with nationwide leadership in
anti-discrimination efforts and enforcement of related laws. Within the
agency, the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) conducts these activities
for Federal employees. The regulations that govern Federal sector Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs are found at Part 1614 of 29 CFR
and the EEOC\'s Management Directive (MD)-110 (November 9, 1999).

As of January 1, 2000, all federal agencies are required to establish or
make available an ADR program at both the pre-complaint and formal
complaint stages of the EEO process. The OFO is committed to assisting
Federal agencies with technical guidance on their ADR program to ensure
its consistency with EEOC\'s regulations and its MD-110.

Another important function of the OFO is to act as a clearinghouse for
ADR information in the Federal sector, including statutory and
regulatory documents, best practices, sources for neutrals, training
opportunities, and ethical issues. In this regard, the OFO is developing
an ADR webpage to provide agencies with easy access to its ADR
clearinghouse, ADR questions and answers, and links to other ADR
resources.

In an effort to assist small Federal agencies in the Washington, D.C.
area, the OFO has also established the Federal Sector Mediation Services
(FSMS) pilot program to provide mediation services so those agencies can
comply with the ADR requirements of Part 1614. To participate in this
pilot, an agency must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the
EEOC, whereby the agency would compensate the EEOC for the hourly wages
and benefits of the lead mediator and any related administrative costs,
pursuant to the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. 1535.

Most EEOC field hearing offices will make some attempt to encourage
pre-hearing settlement of disputes that come to them, but each office
takes its own approach. In some offices, the administrative judge
assigned to the case will personally conduct settlement discussions with
the parties, and then proceed to hearing if these discussions are not
fruitful. In orders, the judge who guides settlement exploration is not
the same judge who would hear the case. Many EEOC hearing offices offer
pre-hearing mediation programs. Except for the FSMS pilot program, which
is currently limited to the small agencies in the Washington, D.C. area,
the EEOC does not normally have any means to become involved in the
resolution of a complaint until it has been assigned for hearing, but
agencies are encouraged to contact the local field office if they wish
to explore joint ways they can encourage earlier resolution of disputes.

For further information, consult the agency\'s home page at
<http://www.eeoc.gov/> or contact: Donald J. Names, Director, Special
Services Staff, EEOC Office of Federal Operations, 1801 L Street, N.W.,
5th floor, Washington, D.C. 20507. Telephone: (202) 663-4591; Fax: (202)
663-7022.

### Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is an independent agency
responsible for administering the labor-management relations program for
1.9 million Federal employees world-wide, approximately 1.1 million of
whom are exclusively represented in 2,200 bargaining units. The
Authority is actively engaged in labor-management collaboration and
other ADR efforts dedicated to reducing the costs of conflict in the
Federal service.

The Authority has set up an agencywide program known as the
Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (CADR). This
program joins all three independent components of the FLRA (the
Authority, the Office of General Counsel, and the Federal Service
Impasses Panel (FSIP)) to reduce the cost of conflict in the Federal
workplace.

CADR helps resolve disputes before they become cases. The CADR program
provides interest-based conflict resolution services in pending unfair
labor practices, negotiability, representation, and impasse bargaining
disputes. CADR has been designed to assist the parties in integrating
appropriate ADR techniques into their dispute processes to focus on
early resolution. The program also focuses on facilitation and training
in relationship building. CADR staff works with labor and management in
developing collaborative relationships and constructive approaches to
conducting their relationships. When parties voluntarily choose to use
CADR\'s services, the case remains with the particular FLRA component
(the Authority, the Office of General Counsel or FSIP). In most
circumstances, the case is held in abeyance at the parties\' request
while attempts are made to informally resolve the dispute.

Within the FLRA Regional Offices, the General Counsel has implemented
the Facilitation and Intervention Training and Education Policy (FITE)
program. This program allows FLRA employees to use their labor law and
problem solving expertise to assist Federal employees, unions and agency
management in resolving disputes and enhancing labor-management
relationships. FITE allows Federal agencies to partner with Federal
unions to deliver the highest quality services that enhance the quality
of worklife.

For further information, consult the agency\'s home page at
<http://www.flra.gov/>, or contact: Andrew Pizzi, CADRO Program; Federal
Labor Relations Authority, 607 14th Street, NW, Fourth Floor,
Washington, DC 20424-0001; Telephone: (202) 482-6690 ext 408; Fax
202-482-6574. David Feder, FITE Program; Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 607 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20424-0001; Telephone:
(202) 482-6608.

### Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is an independent
agency of the Federal Government established in 1947. The Service,
headquartered in Washington, DC, has 210 mediators located in 75 field
offices (divided into ten sub-regions) across the country. FMCS is best
known for its role as \"Peacemaker\" in collective bargaining disputes;
however, its commitment to dispute resolution extends beyond the
labor-management table.

The term \"Alternative Dispute Resolution\" (ADR) is used to describe a
variety of approaches that are alternatives to courtroom litigation or
agency adjudication and rulemaking. Under the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act of 1996, FMCS was officially authorized to share its
expertise in all aspects of dispute resolution with Federal agencies,
including third-party dispute resolution assistance; dispute resolution
training for agency personnel; and consultation/systems design.
Additionally, FMCS consults with and assists Federal agencies and their
designated dispute resolution specialists develop dispute resolution
policies.

FMCS has become a leading authority on mediation techniques and offers
mediation and facilitation services, consultation, in-house training and
development programs to Federal, state and local governmental bodies
mediators and agency personnel who structure program content based on
the specific needs of the parties. Among these programs and processes
currently offered to improve problem-solving, understanding and
resolution of disputes are:

***ADR Mediation/Facilitation***\
FMCS can offer trained mediators/facilitators to assist in resolving
disputes in a variety of areas. FMCS mediators have resolved complex
disputes involving environmental issues, educational grants,
agriculture, age discrimination, and other ADR matters for Federal,
state and local agencies.

***Negotiated Rulemaking***\
Under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, FMCS has been authorized to convene
and facilitate complex multi-party negotiated rulemaking procedures. As
a neutral Federal agency, it works with the regulatory agency involved
and all the interested parties who would be covered to help produce a
consensual draft rule. This rule is then sent out for public comment.
FMCS has mediated rulemaking negotiations for the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection
Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Interior, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the states of
Tennessee, New York and Arizona, among others.

***Systems Design Consultation***\
FMCS mediators are available to work with governmental agencies to
design systems for internal or external dispute resolution. Such work
normally entails a needs assessment and diagnosis and may involve a site
visit. Systems design also includes a \"procedures audit\" of how issues
and problems are currently resolved, what options are available for
improvement, and how any new program can be implemented, maintained, and
evaluated.

***Mediation in Age Discrimination Disputes***\
Based upon an interagency agreement with the Department of Health and
Human Services, FMCS offers mediation to all individuals who file
complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of age, in regard to any
Federally-funded program (e.g. food stamps eligibility, public housing,
education) covered by the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. When a
complaint alleging age discrimination is filed with a Federal agency, it
is forwarded to FMCS where a mediator has 60 days to assist the parties
in reaching agreement. If no settlement is reached at the end of that
period, the complaint is returned to the responsible agency for
investigations and formal enforcement proceedings.

For further information or assistance, contact the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, International and Dispute Resolution Services, ADR
Coordinator, 2100 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20427; Telephone: (202)
606-5445; FAX: (202) 606-3679; Web site address:
<http://www.fmcs.gov/pubinfo/adrbroch.htm>.

### Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board is an independent agency in the
Executive branch of the Federal Government that serves as the guardian
of Federal merit systems. The Board\'s mission is to ensure that Federal
employees are protected against abuses by agency management, that
Executive branch agencies make employment decisions in accordance with
the merit system principles, and that Federal merit systems are kept
free of prohibited personnel practices. A key function is hearing and
deciding employee appeals from agency actions. The Board handles close
to 10,000 cases each year.

Under MSPB regulations, individual administrative judges at the regional
level \"may initiate attempts to settle the appeal informally at any
time.\" As part of the Board\'s settlement program, the judge assigned
to the case uses standard language requesting the parties to attempt to
resolve and settle the matter in the judge\'s first correspondence after
an appeal is filed. After being assigned a case, some judges will
immediately contact the parties by telephone to initiate settlement
discussions. Prehearing conferences also may be used to help achieve
resolution of an appeal or, at least, help define and sometimes narrow
the scope of formal proceedings. In some cases, a regional office may
assign another judge to act as a \"settlement judge\" at the request of
the parties to facilitate resolution. In most cases, settlement
agreements are entered into the record with the Board retaining
enforcement authority. Overall, more than half of the appeals filed with
the Board are settled.

MSPB also operates a settlement program at the full Board level to
attempt resolution of appeals involving petitions for review of initial
decisions. Under this program, a small cadre of individuals in
Washington select a limited number of cases which appear to have the
most potential for settlement. Once a case is selected, the Board\'s
settlement attorneys formally contact the parties in the case to
initiate the resolution process. The Board may use the services of an
outside neutral to facilitate settlement. Approximately 25% of the cases
selected at this level for special attention are ultimately settled.

Over the years, the Board has constantly sought to modify and streamline
the formal appeals process so that an ever-increasing number of appeals
can be adjudicated in a timely fashion in spite of ever-increasing
budget restraints. A new effort in 1998 to conserve the resources of the
Board and individual agencies involved in employee appeals was to use
video conferencing technology in hearings in employee appeals. In
selected cases, direct testimony from witnesses may be obtained through
video links between the appellant, the agency, and the judge without
incurring the travel costs normally associated with conducting a hearing
at a set location. The Board notes that it has saved up to \$2500 in a
single case while preserving the quality of the hearing process. The
program received a 1998 Hammer Award for its significant contributions
in support of reinventing Government principles.

In 1998, MSPB, in partnership with the Public Administration Forum (PAF)
and George Washington University, developed a joint program of
instruction for Dispute Resolution Specialists who can help intercept
and resolve cases prior to adjudication by MSPB.

During 1998 and 1999, MSPB, in partnership with the Public
Administration Forum (PAF) and the George Washington University,
developed a joint program of instruction for Dispute Prevention
Specialists who can help intercept and resolve cases prior to
adjudication by MSPB. The goals of the program are to help agencies
anticipate, manage and reduce workplace conflict and tension, so that
productivity and job satisfaction are increased while agency resources
spent directly and indirectly on issues related to conflict (including
case management) are reduced. The integrated 8-day education package
provides extensive training on how to anticipate and avoid conflict and
facilitate early case resolution, how to help organizations develop
better management and communication structures which promote less
conflict, and provides instruction on federal personnel law principles,
including MSPB case law. The Dispute Prevention Specialist could perform
multiple roles in an agency, all related directly or indirectly to early
conflict resolution and avoidance.

On May 24, 1999, MSPB amended its rules to provide an automatic
extension of the regulatory time limit for filing an appeal with MSPB
where an appellant and agency mutually agree, prior to the timely filing
of an appeal, to attempt to resolve their dispute through an ADR
process. MSPB made this change to ensure that its filing requirements do
not deter potential appellants from first attempting to resolve their
disputes through an agreed-upon ADR process at the agency level. This
revision can be viewed in the Federal Register at 64 F.R. 27899.

Finally, in support of its efforts to make its formal dispute resolution
system work better, MSPB conducts an aggressive outreach program to help
educate those who might be involved in Board matters. This program makes
administrative judges and other agency officials available to speak in
various forums, e.g., seminars, workshops, conferences, and symposia.
Often, opportunities are provided for practitioners before the Board to
participate in skills-building training sessions which may include
exercises in settling appeals as an alternative to formal litigation.
\[See Section V on ADR Training and Assistance Sources for more
information on the Board\'s training offerings.\]

For further information on MSPB\'s ADR initiatives, see the agency\'s
web homepage at <http://www.mspb.gov/> or contact:

***Regional Level Settlement Program:***\
Darrell Netherton, Director, Regional Operations, U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 1615 M St., N.W., Washington, DC 20419; Telephone:
(202) 653-6772, Ext. 1186; FAX: (202) 653-8911.

***Board Level Settlement Program:***\
John Murphy, Associate Director, Office of Appeals Counsel, U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board, 1615 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20419.
Telephone (202) 653-6772, Ext. 1245; FAX: (202) 653-2260.

***Certified Appeals Resolution Advisor Program:***\
John Settles, Director of Program Development, Public Administration
Forum, 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 590, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone:
(703) 684-4799; FAX: (703) 836-7953.

***Video Conferencing Program:***\
Bently Roberts, Regional Operations, U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 1615 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20419; Telephone: (202)
753-6772, Ext. 1143; FAX: (202) 653-7655.

***Outreach Program:***\
Darrell Netherton, Director, Regional Operations, U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20419. Telephone:
(202) 653-6772, Ext. 1186; FAX: (202) 653-7655.

### Office Of Special Counsel (OSC)

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal
investigative and prosecutorial agency. Under the Civil Service Reform
Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act, the OSC\'s primary mission is
to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and
applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for
whistleblowing. To that end, OSC investigates allegations of prohibited
personnel practices and other improper employment practices within its
jurisdiction, and seeks appropriate corrective or disciplinary action.

In early 2000, OSC launched a nationwide voluntary Mediation Program as
an alternative approach to resolving complaints of prohibited personnel
practices (PPPs). OSC\'s Mediation Program helps federal agencies and
complainants resolve PPP complaints in a quicker, less expensive, and
more amicable way. The Mediation Program also enables OSC to concentrate
its investigative and prosecutorial resources on a smaller percentage of
cases, thereby increasing its effectiveness as a law enforcement agency.
Complaints are generally resolved through the Mediation Program within
45 - 100 days after the parties agree to mediate.

OSC initiates the mediation process by identifying cases that are
appropriate for mediation, and that would otherwise be referred to
OSC\'s Investigation Division. In those cases, OSC\'s ADR Specialist
invites the complainant and the employing agency to participate in the
Mediation Program. If both parties accept the invitation, trained
mediators, experienced in federal personnel law, conduct the mediation.

The parties risk nothing by mediating their OSC complaint. If mediation
does not lead to resolution, the complaint is assigned to the OSC
Investigation Division, as it would have been had the parties not tried
mediation.

OSC engages in ongoing comprehensive evaluation of the Program and,
based on its experience thus far, is optimistic that mediation will
continue to achieve the program goals that are described above.

For further information, contact Julia Roig, ADR Specialist, OSC, 1730 M
Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone: (202) 653-2253;
Email: <jroig@osc.gov>. Additional information about OSC\'s Mediation
Program may be accessed at OSC\'s web-site:
[www.osc.gov.](http://www.osc.gov/)

# Section V: ADR Training and Assistance Sources 

## PART I. Federal Sources For ADR Training and Assistance

### Department Of Defense

Training programs offered by the Department of Defense include:

***Partnership Council Training, Facilitation and Intervention***\
This on-site service involves direct partnership assistance to labor and
management in an ongoing relationship. It provides skills and process
training for partnership council members and delivery of facilitative
interventions for partnership councils in various stages of development.
Agendas, training exercises and delivery of training are customized to
the needs of the parties. This on-site assistance is normally limited to
fifteen to twenty management and union participants. Depending on your
needs, this assistance is two to three days in duration.

***Interest-Based Negotiations/Interest-Based Problem-Solving***\
This on-site service trains management and union negotiating teams or
other groups in the interest-based techniques of negotiations and
problem solving. It introduces team members to interest-based principles
and problem-solving skills to the negotiation of real issues. This
on-site training is normally limited to fifteen to twenty management and
union participants. Depending on your needs, this training is two to
three days in duration.

***Basic Mediation Skills***\
This on-site training provides the basic skills necessary for mediation.
The training includes an overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution,
confidentiality, defining mediation and its stages, using effective
communication skills in the mediation process, and applying the
interest-based approach in mediating disputes. Exercises and role-plays
are used throughout the course to provide the participants an
opportunity to practice the techniques and skills taught throughout the
training. This on-site training is strictly limited to twenty-four
participants. This training is three days in duration.

For additional information, contact the DoD Field Advisory Services,
Labor & Employee Relations Branch, 1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B200,
Arlington, Virginia, 22209-5144. Telephone: (703) 696-6301 (menu
selection #3); Fax: (703) 696-4588; or Email:
<labor.relations@cpms.osd.mil>

### Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)

Training programs offered by the FMCS include:

***Orientation to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Techniques***\
This is a one-half to one-day \"awareness\" workshop which explores the
various ADR techniques of negotiation, mediation, fact-finding,
settlement judges, facilitation, minitrials, arbitration, negotiated
rulemaking, and consensual decision making. This includes a combination
of lecture, discussions, exercises, and mock mediations.

***FMCS Specialized Training in Dispute Resolution Skills***\
Programs offered by FMCS are customized to the needs of Government
agencies and their clients. For example, FMCS has worked with numerous
Federal, state, and local agencies to train their personnel in
understanding the dynamics and practice of dispute resolution. These
programs include:

-   Conflict Resolution

-   Differences between mediation, arbitration, counseling,
    adjudication, etc.

-   Communication skills and how to deal with difficult people

-   Negotiation skills - Interest Based Negotiations and other Win/Win
    Approaches

-   Mock exercises

-   Ethical concerns

-   Measures of success

These programs (whose content can range from general to specific and
typically last 1 - 5 days) are designed for neutrals, advocates, and
those administering the particular program. Follow-up programs and
resources are also available.

Successful programs have been completed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Farmers Home Administration\'s Farmer/Lender Program,
Defense Mapping Agency, Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals,
Department of Interior, Department of Energy and others.

For further information, contact the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service, International and Dispute Resolution Services, ADR Coordinator,
2100 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20427. Telephone: (202) 606-5445;
FAX: (202) 606-3679; Web site:
<http://www.fmcs.gov/pubinfo/adrbroch.htm>.

\[**NOTE:** See also FMCS in [Section IV: Administrative Appeals
Agencies](http://www5.opm.gov/er/adrguide/section4.asp).\]

### Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)

The FLRA\'s Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program
(CADR) assists parties in the resolution of pending case disputes,
provides partnership facilitation, and assists parties with relationship
building and the development of ADR programs. Through the FLRA\'s
National Office in Washington and a network of Dispute Resolution
Specialists in its Regional and Headquarters offices, the CADR Program
promotes the use of interest-based problem-solving in labor-management
relationships and provides agency and union representatives with the
skills to resolve disputes at earlier stages.

Training programs offered by the FLRA\'s CADR program include: *Advanced
Statutory, Interest-Based Problem Solving, Facilitation, ADR Design
Training, Mediation Skills, and Relationship Building*. These programs
are generally offered as part of a larger program designed to resolve
pending cases or help heal damaged relationships.

Training in Interest-Based Bargaining is offered at many different
levels. Depending on the skill level desired by the parties, this
program can be designed to be an overview of the process or an intense
skill development. CADR staff explain the process and use exercises that
allow the participants to begin to develop the skills necessary to
successfully use this approach. In most situations, participants apply
the process to the particular issues in dispute.

The Advanced Statutory Training was developed to address concerns
expressed by both labor and management. In light of the increasing
complexity of Federal sector labor law, practitioners see a need for
more advanced knowledge of the law and its related concepts. This
seminar deals with the most significant labor-management relations
issues in the Federal sector, and also illustrates how ADR fits into
traditional labor-management negotiations.

The Relationship Building Training is usually offered in conjunction
with either partnership or interest-based bargaining training. It
typically involves team building exercises and modules about effective
listening and communicating, highlighting how essential these skills are
in long-term relationships.

The CADR program also provides interest-based conflict resolution
services in pending unfair labor practices, negotiability disputes,
representation and impasse bargaining disputes. CADR representatives
combine their ADR skills with labor law expertise to assist Federal
employees, unions and agency management in resolving disputes and
enhancing labor-management relationships.

For more information on any of the CADR efforts, contact Fern Feil
Kaufman, Director, CADR, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 14th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20424. Telephone: (202) 482-6690 ext. 405.

### Graduate School USDA

The Graduate School USDA offers training at various locations
nationwide. A listing of telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and email
addresses for each location follows the Graduate School course
descriptions. The following courses are among those available from the
Graduate School training centers.

***Alternative Dispute Resolution,*1.2 CEU, 2 days.**\
Management and union officials will learn valuable techniques in this
practical program on ADR. This training will provide participants with
an opportunity to understand methods, techniques and appropriate
applications for ADR; identify legitimate characteristics of neutrals
and their role in the ADR process; recognize opportunities to use ADR
processes in Federal agencies; develop an action plan to implement an
ADR program; and assess mediation techniques to resolve disputes.

***Conflict Management Practicum*, 1.8 CEU, 3 days.**\
All participants in the *Conflict Management Certificate Program* (see
below) must complete a Practicum to receive their certificate. The
Practicum is the participants\' final project, and may consist of a
paper, a video presentation, the design of a mediation program or other
meaningful product. By applying the knowledge and skills learned during
the program to an actual workplace conflict, participants demonstrate
their competency and expertise. The program will provide participants
with an opportunity to create a useful product that illustrates their
ability to help settle disputes; put into practice the skills gained
during the program; and gain valuable insight from experienced faculty
who will advise participants during the completion of the Practicum. The
practicum is conducted on an as-needed basis.

***How to Deal with Conflict: Principles and Practice*, 1.2 CEU, 2
days.**\
This course is designed for supervisors, managers and team leaders. By
understanding why conflict originates in the workplace and how to best
resolve it, participants will be more effective on the job. The training
will provide participants with an opportunity to sharpen their personal
skills at resolving conflict; resolve conflict cost effectively and
equitably; lead their employees to act in the best interest of the whole
organization; and develop win/win solutions for their organizations.

***Constructive Conflict Resolution*, 1.8 CEU, 3 days.**\
This course is designed for employees who want to develop skills for
managing and resolving conflict positively and assertively. Participants
will be provided the opportunity to learn how to identify and resolve
conflict in a variety of situations; control tense situations before
they get out of hand; and use proven conflict resolution approaches.

***Facilitator Workshop*, 2.4 CEU, 4 days.**\
This workshop is designed for employees who have experience working with
groups. Managers, supervisors, team leaders, human resource management
professionals will learn how to facilitate complex human interactions in
a group setting. Participants will be provided an opportunity to develop
key facilitation skills; practice process consultation; defuse difficult
interpersonal conflict; deal with disruptive group members; and optimize
overall group performance.

***Interest-based Problem Solving*, 1.8 CEU, 3-days.**\
Successful labor contracts are the result of mutual understanding.
Management officials and union representatives responsible for
negotiating working conditions and resolving workplace problems will
learn valuable techniques for working together. Participants will be
provided the opportunity to recognize the pitfalls of the traditional,
adversarial approach to negotiating labor contracts; distinguish between
interest-based and position-based problem solving; practice techniques
that support the interest-based process; develop a strategy for
identifying mutual interests; use techniques to focus on issues rather
than personalities; and formulate mutually satisfying options based on
objective standards rather than the power of leverage.

***Managing Multi-party Disputes*, 1.2 CEU, 2-days.**\
Facilitating complex disputes involving many representatives is a
valuable skill for government supervisors, managers and internal
consultants. Learn how to use a participatory process to obtain public
input on proposed agency rules and regulations, and how to handle
complicated cases with multiple stakeholders. This course will provide
participants with the opportunity to enable disputing parties to find
common ground; implement proven techniques for dealing with seemingly
intractable disputes; and effectively manage input from several parties
representing multiple interests.

***Mediating Employee Disputes*, 2.4 CEU, 4-days.**\
How an organization manages Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaints, union or administrative grievances and other employee
relations issues will determine whether these issues can be resolved at
the lowest level possible. Personnel specialists and EEO officials will
find this course especially helpful. Participants will be provided the
opportunity to understand ADR and interest-based negotiating; learn how
to select cases best suited for mediation; recognize when ADR is not
appropriate; coach disputing parties to communicate productively; and
determine whether joint mediation or caucus will best suit a particular
case.

***General Mediation Skills*, 2.4 CEU, 4 days.**\
This course is designed for managers, supervisors, team leaders and any
employee who is interested in obtaining the skills necessary to become
an effective mediator. Participants will be provided an opportunity to
understand ADR philosophies and techniques; distinguish among positions,
issues and personal interest; prevent problems that will damage employee
morale and performance; build a work environment that helps employees
succeed; and apply mediation techniques for developing workable
solutions to conflict situations.

***Positive Approaches to Difficult People*, 1.2 CEU, 2-days.**\
This training provides practical techniques to successfully handle
challenging personalities and to cope effectively with difficult
coworkers, employees and supervisors. The training will provide
skill-building exercises to each participants how to maintain their
composure around difficult people; compromise without backing off;
motivate others to take positive action; and minimize the negative
impact of difficult personalities.

***Conflict Management Certificate Program***\
The Graduate School, USDA developed the Conflict Management Certificate
Program to respond to the National Performance Review, which encourages
the use of conflict resolution to manage organizational problems within
agencies. Participants who complete the Program will be equipped with
the knowledge and skills to handle disputes in the workplace. The
program offers a practical approach to learning and practicing a wide
range of approaches for addressing conflict. The Certificate Program
offers more than mediation training. It incorporates the latest issues,
trends and practices in the field. Participants will gain a broad
perspective on implementing the continuum of alternative dispute
resolution methods. Designed to be interactive and participatory, the
courses give participants an opportunity to role play, engage in
discussions and exercises and apply what they learn to an actual
organizational issue. Each participant is required to complete the
following curriculum in order to earn a certificate. There are a total
of 11 courses (equal to 15.6 CEU), including a practicum to demonstrate
competency.

-   Conflict Across Cultures CMGT7101D - 2 days, 1.2 CEU 1150

-   Conflict Management Practicum CMGT99900D - 1.8 CEU 1111

-   How to Deal with Conflict: Principles and Practices CMGT7104D -2
    days, 1.2 CEU 1737

-   Facilitator Workshop TDEV8120D - 4 days, 2.4 CEU 1127

-   Interpersonal Communication Skills COMM7006D - 2 days, 1.2 CEU 1504

-   Managing Conflict in an Environment of Change CMGT7102D - 2 days,
    1.2 CEU 1161

-   Managing Multi-Party Disputes CMGT7105D - 2 days, 1.2 CEU 1154

-   General Mediation Skills CMGT7103D - 4 days, 2.4 CEU 1157

-   Negotiation Techniques MGMT9014D - 2 days, 1.2 CEU 1106

-   Planning & Eval. Conflict Management Programs CMGT8100 - 2 days, 1.2
    CEU 1112

-   Preventing Violence in the Workplace LABR8102D- 1 day, 0.6 CEU 1259

To receive course descriptions, dates and locations, use the Fax Back
service by calling 1-800-789-8658 and following the instructions. Have
your fax number available to input into the system.

For more information on the certificate program, contact Al Officer at
202-314-3432 or e-mail to <alvin_officer@grad.usda.gov>

#### Location and Contact Numbers at USDA Graduate School:

**Midwest Training Center**, Chicago, IL, Telephone: (312) 353-2929,
<Chicago@grad.usda.gov>, Fax: (313) 353-3297

**National Capital Training Center**, Washington, DC Telephone: (202)
314-3400, <nctc@grad.usda.gov>, Fax: (202) 479-6810

**Northeast Training Center**, Philadelphia, PA, Telephone: (215)
861-4700, <philly@grad.usda.gov>, Fax: (215) 861-4723

**Southeast Training Center**, Atlanta, GA, Telephone: (404) 331-3488,
<atlanta@grad.usda.gov>, Fax: (404) 730-3813

**Southwest Training Center**, Dallas, TX, Telephone: (214) 767-8245,
<dallas@grad.usda.gov>, Fax: (214) 767-8205

**Western Training Center**, San Francisco, CA, Telephone: (415)
281-7025, <sanfran@grad.usda.gov>, Fax: (415) 281-7026

The Graduate School can also design a program to meet an agency\'s
special training needs and deliver it to their employees in multiple
locations across the country. To learn more about their professional
training opportunities contact the nearest regional training center, use
the toll free number (888) 744-GRAD, or web site:
<http://grad.usda.gov/>.

### U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

The MSPB has in-house trainers who instruct others on techniques and
specific skills tailored to MSPB appeals. MSPB currently provides
training upon request to interested parties. They provide an explanation
of the Board\'s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process and provide
training at no cost to agencies and private organizations when resources
are available.

For more information contact Darrell Netherton, Director, Regional
Operations, U.S.Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20419. Telephone: (202) 653-6772 ext.1186; FAX: (202)
653-8991.

### U.S. Office Of Personnel Management (OPM)

OPM\'s Easter Management Development Center offers an introductory
seminar, *Alternative Dispute Resolution,* that examines the major ADR
techniques and current dispute applications. The seminar is designed for
executives, managers, and mission program staff at GS-13 and above.
Participants will learn about ADR procedures and their use; identify
sources of conflict; understand the principles and value of
interest-based negotiating; understand the advantages of different
dispute resolution processes such as facilitation, mediation,
arbitration and minitrials; and identify the obstacles of using ADR and
how to overcome these problems.

For additional information, contact OPM\'s Easter Management Development
Center at 101 Lowe Drive, Shepherdstown, WV 25443. Telephone: (304)
870-8000; FAX: (304) 870-8001; Web site: <http://www.opm.gov/mdc/>.

### Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)

PBGC established an ADR Implementation Committee within its Office of
the General Counsel (OGC). The Committee members attended intensive ADR
training presented by various sources, then put together an ADR Desk
Book and made training available to all attorneys within OGC.
Additionally, PBGC's EEO and labor relations staffs have received
training in applying ADR to resolve EEO complaints and labor-management
relations disputes, including grievances and collective bargaining
negotiations.

PBGC's ADR Implementation Committee will supply its Desk Book to other
Federal agencies and personnel for the cost of reproduction, and is
available to advise or meet with ADR personnel from other agencies. PBGC
also has training facilities that can be used by other agencies.

For further information, contact Philip R. Hertz, Deputy General Counsel
and Dispute Resolution Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street, N.W., Suite 340,
Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 326-4020 ext. 3055; FAX: (202)
326-4112. Israel Goldowitz, Senior Assistant General Counsel and Chair,
ADR Implementation Committee. Telephone: (202) 326-4020 ext. 3078.

## PART II. Non-Federal Sources For ADR Training and Assistance

The following list is not exhaustive of the organizations and
institutions available, nor does the list constitute an endorsement by
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

### Colleges and Universities

#### COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL - Columbia University Executive Programs

Columbia University Executive Programs offers the following training
program:

***Managing Interpersonal and Group Dynamics***\
The ability to gain the confidence and support of subordinates and
peers, as well as handle change, is critical for managers at all levels.
Managing Interpersonal and Group Dynamics combines cutting-edge insight
into communication, conflict resolution, negotiation and teamwork to
increase personal performance.

This three-day program is designed for managers who want to perform more
effectively in situations that require competence in interpersonal
relations and the use of personal power. Managing Interpersonal and
Group Dynamics focuses on the development of each participant, using
360-degree feedback and one-on-one coaching to assist in the development
of an individual action plan to build on strengths and overcome
weaknesses.

Exercises combined with a solid conceptual framework demonstrate
effective interpersonal and group dynamics. Although this program is
highly experiential, emphasis is also placed on understanding and
applying theoretical analyses of interpersonal and group processes.

For additional information, contact Columbia Business School, Executive
Education, 2880 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10025. Telephone:
(212) 854-3395; Fax (212)316-1473; Web site:
[www.gsb.columbia.edu/execed](http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/execed).

#### CORNELL UNIVERSITY - New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations

Training programs offered by the Cornell University\'s New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations include:

***Problem-Solving for Mutual Gains***\
A 2½-day workshop designed to teach the principles of mutual gains (also
known as interest bargaining) as they are applied to decision making and
problem-solving within organizations. In this workshop, participants are
taught how to engage in side-by-side problem-solving rather than
face-to-face confrontation. The concept represents a shift from
traditional adversarial approaches where parties take strong positions
and stick to them at all costs. It is especially appropriate for parties
representing constituents with different interests.

***Interest Bargaining***\
Other titles: Mutual Gains Bargaining, Getting to Yes Bargaining,
Principled Bargaining, Win/Win Bargaining. This is a 2½-day program
offered as an in-house program only. Shorter workshops are possible.
This course recognizes that negotiation, or bargaining, presents parties
with competitive realities as well as collaborative realities as well as
collaborative opportunities. It presents a method of bargaining that
enables the parties to make the most of collaborative opportunities
while also handling the competitive aspects of negotiation in a fashion
more likely to result in technically superior deals, constituent
compliance and an improved relationship. The course is simulation-based,
increasing the likelihood that participants will be able to apply the
skills and information to post-training applications such as contract
bargaining, grievance negotiations, consultative labor-management
deliberations, and general interpersonal relationships.

***Developing Effective Negotiation Skills***\
This workshop explores the fundamental principles of negotiation,
effective and ineffective approaches, negotiation traps and pitfalls,
preparing for negotiation situations, traditional v. interest based
approaches, and using negotiation techniques for effective problem
solving. Participants will develop a better understanding of the variety
of negotiation approaches and skills as well as techniques for more
effective negotiation. The use of role plays, simulations, and large and
small group presentations will be utilized to provide participants with
an active understanding and experience with negotiation concepts. This
3-day program can be customized for specific on-site audiences and
needs.

***Enhancing Conflict Resolution Skills***\
This 3-day workshop involves the study of human conflict and responses
to it from the individual, group, and organizational levels of
interaction. Conflict and conflict management will be evaluated through
analysis and discussion of the causes of conflict, cultural/gender
perspectives, conflict goals, styles and tactics of conflict
involvement, the role of power in conflict, assessing conflict in
individuals, groups, and organizations, effective intervention
strategies and ADR models for conflict management. Participants are
taught to assess conflict situations (interpersonal and group) and to
gauge the appropriate type and level of response for productive
management. Participants will gain a better understanding of their own
conflict perspective and approaches. Individual and group exercises
provide opportunities to actively employ the skills and techniques
learned. This program can be customized for specific on-site audiences
and needs.

***Managing Conflict in the Workplace***\
This 3-day workshop focuses on interpersonal and group conflict as it
applies to the workplace setting. Causes of workplace conflict will be
discussed along with its impact on the organization and individuals
exposed to it. The five major ways people engage in and respond to
conflict will be presented and the effect each has in the workplace. The
differences between interpersonal and group workplace conflict
situations will be evaluated with techniques for assessment,
intervention, and effective conflict management presented. Individual
and group exercises are utilized throughout the workshop to demonstrate
and apply the concepts presented. This program can be customized for
specific on-site audiences and needs.

***Effective Dispute Resolution Programs***\
This 1-day workshop provides participants with information on the broad
spectrum of ADR processes that offer individuals, organizations,
employers, and/or employees with private, timely, and inexpensive
methods for managing interpersonal and group conflicts. It will present
methods for assessing dispute resolution systems and selecting the
one(s) most appropriate to the particular needs of those seeking to
implement such a program. The workshop will provide participants with
the principles of dispute resolution systems design and how to customize
a program to their particular needs without compromising system
integrity. Participants will also be provided with the information and
skills needed for evaluating a dispute resolution program. This program
can be customized for specific on-site audiences and needs and can be
provided as an on-site consulting program.

***Mediation Training***\
A 3-day workshop designed to train participants in mediation and the
mediation process. It will present in-depth information on the
development and use of mediation, the variety of mediation approaches
including linear and non-linear, content and relationship, and
multi-party, and the unique role and responsibility of the mediator.
Participants will be trained in the most common mediation models and
their respective process steps. Practice problems and ethical issues in
mediation will be discussed and evaluated. Participants will work with
various exercises to practice skills needed in specific stages of
mediation and will also have the opportunity to experience mock
mediations with debriefing after each. This program can be customized
for specific on-site audiences and needs and can be expanded to meet
more detailed or extensive training requirements.

***Personal Mediation Skills***\
A 2 or 3-day workshop designed to teach the fundamental principles of
mediation and the mediation process with the emphasis on how individuals
can learn mediation approaches and skills and incorporate them in their
personal daily interactions. Participants will learn the basic
philosophy behind mediation, different mediation approaches and when to
use them, effective mediation techniques to address problems, and how to
engage another party in productive problem solving using mediation
principles. The workshop will prepare participants to more effectively
resolve problems for themselves as well as develop skills to increase
their ability to effectively assist others in their organization,
workplace, or personal relationships. This program can be customized for
specific on-site audiences and needs.

***Increasing Effectiveness in Arbitration***\
This 3-day workshop is designed for those participants who wish to
improve their preparation for and participation in arbitration
proceedings. The workshop focuses on the understanding of the
arbitration process and case presentation. Practical skill aspects of
arbitration will be developed including assessing both side\'s position
and case, selection of an arbitrator, analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses in a case, dealing with evidence, selecting and preparing
witnesses, developing a theory of the case, opening and closing
statements, briefs, and styles of case presentation. A mock arbitration
hearing exercise will allow participants to apply workshop skills in a
complete simulated case. This program can be customized in length and
content for specific on-site audiences and needs.

For further information on *Problem-Solving for Mutual Gains* and
*Interest Bargaining*, contact Ann Martin, Associate Dean of Extension
and Public Service, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3901.
Telephone: (607) 255-2773; FAX: (607) 255-0574.

For further information on *Developing Effective Negotiation Skills,
Enhancing Conflict Resolution Skills*, *Managing Conflict in the
Workplace*, *Effective Dispute Resolution Programs, Mediation Training*,
*Personal Mediation Skills*, and *Increasing Effectiveness in
Arbitration*, contact Stephen P. LaLonde, Director, Alternative Dispute
Resolution Programs, Rochester District, Cornell-ILR, Powers Building,
Suite 243, 16 W. Main Street, Rochester, NY 14614-1601. Telephone: (716)
262-4440; FAX: (716) 262-3715.

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY - Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution

The Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) offers a full
graduate degree program in the field of Conflict Resolution. ICAR
initiated the Master of Science in Conflict Resolution in 1981-82 and
its Doctoral Program in Conflict Resolution in 1988-89. ICAR faculty
provide consultation and training in conflict analysis and resolution,
negotiations and mediation to businesses, corporations, governmental and
non-governmental agencies and their staffs, including to the United
Nations and the State Department, and to academic institutions
worldwide.

For information about ICAR\'s degree programs, contact the Institute for
Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, 4400
University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444. Telephone: (703) 993-1310;
FAX: (703) 993-1300; Web site: <http://www.gmu.edu/departments/icar/>.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

The Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School offers a variety
of opportunities for graduate students and professionals interested in
developing a special expertise in negotiation and dispute resolution.
Each year, the PON offers two semester-length courses: A Seminar on
Negotiation and Dispute Resolution during the fall; and Mediation and
Other Facilitative Roles in Dispute Resolution during the spring. In
addition, the PON offers an extensive array of short training programs
through its executive education division. Another important function of
PON is \"The Clearinghouse,\" which distributes instructional materials,
books, and videotapes on many aspects of ADR. Among these is the
annually updated *Dispute Resolution Directory*, a guide to courses and
training programs in the greater Boston Area.

For more information about these semester-long courses, contact the
Program on Negotiation, 513 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge,
MA 02318. Telephone: (617) 495-1684 ext 514; FAX: (617) 495-7818.
Information is also available at the PON web site:
<http://www.pon.harvard.edu/>.

For more information about executive education training programs,
contact the Center for Management Research of Wellesley, Massachusetts.
Telephone: (781) 239-1111.

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute

One of the training programs offered by the University of Houston\'s
A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute is ***Basic Mediation
Training***. This forty-hour training program introduces participants to
mediation as a method to resolve conflict through the use of lectures,
discussion, role plays, and individual videotaped sessions, teaches the
skills of mediation.

The A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute, Inc. is a sec. 501(c)(3),
non-profit corporation whose purposes are charitable, educational, and
civic. The Institute was organized to foster public awareness and
understanding of conflicts and conflict resolution and the impact of
interpersonal disputes on society. The Institute also encourages broader
understanding, development, and use of alternative means of dispute
resolution. One important mission of the Institute is to study, analyze,
and recommend dispute resolution procedures that will provide less
costly and more expeditious access to justice. The Institute provides
assistance to the courts in encouraging the early settlement of pending
litigation. The Institute also provides assistance to educational
institutions, including law schools, in the development and use of ADR
concepts and procedures.

The Institute\'s by-laws specifically state it was created in order to
\"strive to reduce delay in the resolution of legal disputes through
ADR; to reduce the cost of resolving legal disputes through ADR; to
encourage the teaching of ADR procedures in schools.\" In addition, the
Institute will assist any other organizations whose activities further,
accomplish, foster, or attain any of these purposes.

For more information, contact Robyn Pietsch, University of Houston, 325
Melcher Hall, A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute, College of
Business Administration, Houston, TX 77204-6283. Telephone: (717)
743-4933; FAX: (713) 743-4934; Email: <rpietsch@uh.edu>.

### Associations and Consulting Organizations

#### AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - Section of Dispute Resolution (SDR)

The American Bar Association\'s Section of Dispute Resolution (SDR)
maintains a resource center offering technical assistance, conducting
studies, and disseminating information concerning multi-disciplinary
dispute resolution. SDR encourages community and state and local bar
activities in dispute resolution, develops educational programs for the
bar and judiciary, and works to expand law school curricula in dispute
settlement techniques. In addition, each spring the SDR convenes a
national dispute resolution conference which provides a meeting place
for dispute resolution leaders, providers, consumers and scholars.

For more information, contact the American Bar Association, Section of
Dispute Resolution, 740 - 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Telephone: (202) 662-1680; Email: <dispute@ABANET.ORG>.

#### CDR ASSOCIATES

Training programs offered by CDR Associates include:

***The Mediation Process***\
This seminar presents a step-by-step approach to the mediating process
and emphasizes the concepts, strategies, and skills effective in
resolving conflicts. The seminar includes several simulated mediation
exercises in which participants can practice skills learned in the
seminar under the supervision of experienced mediators/coaches. This
5-day seminar is designed for anyone who wants to learn or develop
mediation skills. Program content includes analyzing the causes of
conflict and learning strategies to manage them; structuring the
mediation process through a step-by-step problem-solving procedure;
negotiating strategies that lead to joint problem solving; communicating
effectively as a mediator (listening, framing, and reframing); handling
strong emotions that interfere with problem solving; exercising power
effectively; responding to ethical dilemmas that arise in mediation; and
implementing a mediation program as a private practitioner or as part of
an organization\'s problem-solving process.

***Mediating Workplace Disputes***\
This 4-day seminar provides a step-by-step approach to mediation.
Participants will engage in simulated mediation exercises under the
supervision of trained coaches. The seminar emphasizes the mediation
concepts, skills, and strategies necessary to resolve complex employee
relations disputes. It is designed for human resource officers,
managers, EEO specialists, and other staff, as well as representatives
of labor-management councils, unions and other employee organizations.
The content is applicable to business, industry, education, government
agencies, community and religious organizations, and healthcare
providers. Program content includes diagnosing and managing causes of
conflict; identifying stereotypes and promoting an acceptance of
differences; managing prejudice in mediation; negotiating successful
solutions; communicating effectively as a dispute resolver; handling
strong emotions, cultural differences and value disputes that interfere
with problem solving; healing situations involving sexual harassment;
responding to ethical dilemmas that arise in mediation; and implementing
a mediation program within an organization.

***Advanced Seminar for Experienced Mediators***\
This 3-day seminar offers a directed and highly interactive setting to
discuss experiences and ways to apply mediation principles and
techniques. This seminar emphasizes the skills and techniques for
resolving complex case issues. Trainers and participants will provide
\"real life\" cases for instructor demonstrations, participant role
plays, and conceptual and skill-based strategy discussions. The course
offers a more in-depth opportunity for participants to learn from their
successes and failures. Program content includes assessing mediator
styles (rights versus interest-based, direct versus indirect, and other
approaches); using reframing and other communication skills; getting
parties to raise conflict productively; developing strategies for
managing power imbalances; managing difficult mediation challenges
(values disputes, complex data, use of experts, managing external
pressures, dealing with intractable conflicts); and analyzing the
challenges of multiparty disputes.

In addition to CDR\'s Boulder-based Public Training Seminars, CDR
conducts seminars at sites selected to suit the specific needs of
individual companies or organizations. CDR also conducts
\"training-for-trainers\" for agencies and corporations who wish to
develop their capabilities internally to train employees and associates.
Custom-designed seminars have been developed and conducted for clients
such as the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
among many others.

To obtain more information on CDR Associates course descriptions and
services, contact CDR Associates, 100 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 12,
Boulder, CO. Telephone: (303) 442-7367; Toll-free: 1-800-MEDIATE; FAX:
(303) 442-7442; Email: cdr@mediate.org, web site:
<http://www.mediate.org/>.

#### CONFLICT RESOLUTION EDUCATION NETWORK (CREnet)

The Conflict Resolution Education Network (CREnet) is the successor
organization to NIDR. It is the nation\'s largest membership association
dedicated to making conflict resolution education an integral part of
the educational process in every school. It is devoted exclusively to
promoting innovation, excellence and public information in the area of
conflict resolution education. Member services include a quarterly
publication, The Fourth R; extensive practical web-based resources and
access to research and relevant news articles for educators and
practitioners and; and an annual conference.

For additional information, contact CREnet, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036; Telephone: (202) 667-9700; Fax: (202) 667-8629;
E-mail: membership@crenet.org; Web site: <http://www.crenet.org/>.

#### CONFLICT WORKS

Conflict Works has developed and implemented a unique approach to
teaching conflict resolution skills to individuals and groups. Conflict
Works conducts workshops to help people overcome their fear of conflict
and train them to address and resolve conflict situations. It conducts
workshops on employing effective conflict resolution skills in the
workplace for directors, managers, human resource personnel and agency
supervisors. Conflict Works is available to facilitate and mediate
disputes in the workplace. It can also tailor workshops in the area of
dispute resolution to the needs of the particular clients. Workshops
include:

***The Joy of Conflict: A Recipe for Resolving Disputes Creatively***\
This workshop is for individuals who are interested in moving from
avoiding conflicts to resolving them. Through discussion, role-plays,
interactive exercises and utilizing participants\' real-life conflicts,
participants will learn a method for overcoming their fear and
transforming conflicts into opportunities. The workshop is 12-15 hours
in length and is limited to 15 participants.

***Group Dynamics: Turning Conflict to Opportunity in the Workplace***\
This workshop is for agency directors, human resource personnel,
managers and supervisors interested in learning conflict resolution
skills in a work setting. Using a participatory format including role
plays, interactive exercises and discussion, participants will learn
skills which can be used to either mediate disputes or to coach
employees to resolve their disputes without outside intervention. The
workshop is 12-15 hours in length and is limited to 30 participants.

***Mediation 101: The Wave of the Future***\
This workshop is for agency directors, managers, human resource
personnel, and supervisors interested in learning traditional mediation
skills to be used in the workplace setting. This workshop will introduce
participants to the mediation model and provide on the job experience
with role plays, discussion and interactive exercises. The workshop is
16-20 hours in length and is limited to 15 participants.

For more information, contact Conflict Works, c/o of Oran Kaufman,190
University Drive, Amherst, MA 01002. Telephone: (413) 256-1575; Email:
mediate@BKBK.com; FAX: (413) 256-1207; or Donna Jenson, 27 Laurel Hill
Rd., Montague, MA 01351. Telephone: (413) 367-9661; FAX: (413) 367-9711.

#### COOPERATIVE CONSORTIUM FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Cooperative Consortium for Dispute Resolution (CCDR), in conjunction
with Florida Southern College and Accormend Associates, offers a
five-day Mediation Training course designed to teach participants to
apply sound mediation practices and principles while managing and
resolving disputes. Additionally, CCDR provides a variety of customized
ADR services to fit a particular situation, including problem-solving,
factfinding, arbitration, and interest-based bargaining.

To obtain more information on the Cooperative Consortium for Dispute
Resolution\'s course descriptions and services, contact CCDR/Accormend
at Telephone: (301) 384-6557; FAX: (301) 384-3619; Email:
<ccdr@olg.com>.

#### COUNCIL OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS, INC.

Training programs offered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus,
Inc. include:

***Mediation Training***\
Intensive 40-hour training in interest-based mediation using a lecture,
videotape, group activity and role play training format. Subjects
covered include an overview of ADR, a six-stage mediation model,
professional ethics and standards, and 14 specific mediator skills. It
is designed for newcomers to mediation and those interested in enhancing
their basic mediation skills. Although focused on business/consumer
conflicts, the model is applicable to a wide variety of disputes.

***Arbitration Training***\
Training is offered in both binding and conditionally binding
arbitration. The binding training course is three days and the
conditionally binding training is three and one half days. Both cover an
overview of ADR; the arbitration process; factfinding skills; weighing
evidence and writing decisions; and reasoning.

The *conditionally binding* training is focused primarily on auto
manufacturer/consumer disputes and the *binding* training is more
general. The training is designed for those with little or no
arbitration experience.

The Council of Better Business Bureaus will also custom design training
to address specific areas and applications of ADR.

For additional information, contact Annette Lee, Arbitrator Recruitment
Coordinator, Dispute Resolution Division, Council of Better Business
Bureaus, Inc., 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203-1804.
Telephone: 1-800-334-2406 or (703) 276-0100; FAX: (703) 525-1794; Email:
<alee@cbbb.bbb.org>; Web site: <http://www.adr.bbb.org/>.

#### FPMI COMMUNICATIONS

Training programs offered by FPMI Communications include:

***Alternative Dispute Resolution***\
An overview of two important aspects of Executive Order 12871 including
uses, limitations, and techniques of Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR); applying ADR to common workplace problems; differences between
interest-based bargaining (IBB) and traditional bargaining; identifying
labor relations issues for IBB; and setting criteria for possible
solutions and agreements.

***Consensual Methods of Dispute Resolution***\
Participants are provided with an enhanced capacity to deal successfully
with conflicts and disputes rather than letting them degenerate into
grievances or official complaints. Includes an introduction to dispute
resolution, anatomy of conflicts, principles of consensus decision
making, elements of effective interpersonal communications,
interest-based problem solving, and grievance mediation as an ADR
method.

***Dispute Mediation***\
This in-depth seminar informs participants about the key principles
involved in mediation, how mediation differs from other forms of ADR,
and how to establish a program that will meet EEOC and related
guidelines. This seminar trains participants in the skills necessary to
become a collateral-duty mediator. It emphasizes alternatives to MSPB,
FLRA, EEOC, and arbitration procedures.

***Interest-Based Problem Solving***\
This seminar shows how IBB principles can be used to solve a variety of
non-labor-relations problems affecting employees, supervisors, managers,
customers, and vendors. The seminar is designed for any federal employee
or manager who wants to use IBB to solve work-related problems.

***Mediation Overview***\
This seminar informs participants about the basic principles involved in
mediation, how mediation differs from other forms of ADR, and how to
establish a program that will meet EEOC and related guidelines. This
seminar is not designed to train individuals in the skills necessary to
become a mediator -- FPMI\'s seminar, Dispute Mediation, is the
appropriate vehicle for more extensive training in mediation.

***Counseling Techniques for EEO Practitioners***\
This seminar is a 32-hour seminar that fully meets the prerequisites
identified for EEO counselors by EEOC under Management Directive 110, as
amended. The seminar has two primary objectives: 1) It gives counselors
an overall view of the EEO process; and 2) It gives them detailed
step-by-step guidance for handling and resolving complaints of
discrimination at the informal and formal levels.

FPMI Communications offers both single-agency on-site seminars and open
enrollment seminars for large and small groups. We also offer
publications and consulting services in all aspects of alternative
dispute resolution.

To obtain more information on FPMI Communications\' training and related
services, contact FPMI at 707 Fiber Street, Huntsville, AL 35801.
Telephone: (256) 539-1850; FAX: (256) 539-0911; Web site:
<http://www.fpmi.com/>.

#### JUSTICE CENTER OF ATLANTA (JCA)

The following training courses are offered by the Justice Center of
Atlanta:

***Mediation of Workplace Disputes***\
This is an intense three-day training course which is highly
experiential using actual case demonstrations and roleplay activities to
teach the particular mindset, language, and process skills unique to the
mediation process. Training includes a focus on legal considerations in
mediation as they pertain to issues arising from CFR Part 1614, Civil
Rights Act of 1991, and ADR Act of 1996, as well as skills in
communication techniques, negotiation strategies, and troubleshooting
tips for mediators.

***Advance Mediation Training***\
This is a two day training course designed for persons who have some
experience mediating cases. This class focuses on enhancing the
mediator\'s understanding and use of the mediation process. It includes
a focus on advanced communication and negotiation strategies, multiparty
disputes, and dealing with difficult people and complex issues.

***Clinical Practicum***\
This is a two day training designed to provide new mediators with
additional experience with the mediation process beyond the basic
three-day certification class. Participants have the opportunity to be
evaluated by two professional mediators in a mediation roleplay.

***Conflict Management for Managers***\
A two day training designed for managers who want to gain additional
skills at handling conflict in the workplace. Emphasis is placed on
understanding the development and dynamics of conflict. The focus will
be on using interest based communication techniques.

***Conflict Management Seminar***\
This is a one day seminar addressing the origins of conflict and the
dynamics of conflict within an organization. Attention is given to what
blocks communication and what promotes communication, including
exercises on interest based problem solving.

Courses are held at JCA\'s training facilities in Atlanta and all over
the world at the request of the sponsoring agency. Class size ranges
from 15-54 participants with a low trainer to trainee ratio. Highly
individualized instruction is, therefore, provided.

For further information on training courses and fees, contact: Christine
Colcord, JCA, 976 Edgewood Avenue, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30307.
Telephone: (404) 523-8236 ext. 236; FAX: (404) 523-3936; Email:
<christine@justicecenter.org>; Website:
[www.justicecenter.org](http://www.justicecenter.org/).

#### VIRGINIA MEDIATION SERVICE

Training programs offered by the Northern Virginia Mediation Service
include:

***Basic Mediation Skills and Process***\
This interactive 3-day program teaches practical and effective mediation
skills applicable to many fields. The course is taken by district court
mediators, lawyers, therapists, government employees and other
professionals each year. Approved for Virginia mediator certification.

***Conflict Resolution 101***\
This full-day program is for those looking for a practical, hands-on
introduction to conflict resolution skills. Small business partners and
managers will work more smoothly and effectively, supervisors will
improve staff interaction and problem-solving and parents, teachers,
administrators, etc. will have a new framework for developing
constructive relationships, conserving time and energy and improving
decision-making. This course will cover the underlying causes of
conflict; conflict management styles; avoiding common communication
mistakes; effective communication and problem-solving skills;
identifying group processes for conflict prevention and resolution;
ingredients for durable agreements and win-win outcomes; and advanced
skills in reframing conflict and interest based negotiations.

***Designing Conflict Management Systems For Organizations***\
In this 1-day course, managers, supervisors, ADR professionals, human
resource and labor-management personnel will learn to design conflict
management systems for use in corporations, government, and other
workplaces.

***Facilitation & Group Consensus Building***\
Learn and practice the techniques and skills necessary to professionally
structure, facilitate and build consensus within meetings, conferences
and multi-party decision making groups. Also approved for 16 of the 24
hours required for Virginia\'s Advanced Certificate in Civil Mediation.

***Federal Mediation Role-Play***\
This intensive two-day course is approved to meet the general mediator
certification requirement for the observation of two cases. Prior
mediation knowledge or experience is required.

***How To Mediate EEO And Other Employment Disputes***\
This course provides in-depth, hands-on-training on the special aspects
of mediating public and private sector employment disputes. It includes
information on discrimination, ethics, system design and intake issues.
Outstanding faculty make this an exciting day.

***Negotiation Skills***\
A 2-day program for attorneys, business people, government employees and
others who must be successful when they negotiate. This is an
interactive workshop of realistic exercises and simulations which will
cover understanding how people make decisions in negotiation; developing
skills in persuading, convincing and influencing; learning to produce
agreements that people will carry out; and developing effective
strategies for dealing with difficult negotiators.

For further information on training courses and fees, contact Carole
Dowd, Training Coordinator, Northern Virginia Mediation Service, C/O
Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution, George Mason University,
4260 Chain Bridge Road, Suite A-2, Fairfax, VA, 22030. Telephone: (703)
759-9720; office staff at (703) 993-3274 or 3656; FAX: (703) 993-3551;
Web site: <http://www.gmu.edu/departments/nvms>.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc22691329 .anchor}PART III. ADR Videotapes

The following videotapes can be obtained from the Department of Justice,
Office of Legal Education Institute, Attention: Sheila Cook, 1620
Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201; Telephone: (803) 544-5121; FAX:
(803) 544-5110; Email: <sheila.cook@usdoj.gov>; Web Site:
[www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/ole](http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/ole).

#### Effective Negotiation Techniques

This one-day videotape explains the benefits of getting background
information, holding practice negotiation sessions, and creating the
proper atmosphere for negotiation participants. Topics include:
preparing for negotiations; strategy and tactics in negotiations; and
psychological factors in negotiations. Time: 2 hours 30 minutes.

#### The Strategy and Art of Negotiating

This one-day program is presented by expert panelists who present
practical information and new insights on effective negotiating
approaches, strategies, and methods. They analyze various dramatized
negotiating styles and present proven techniques. They discuss how to
establish a positive climate and philosophy for negotiating, how to
distinguish between positions and interests, when to take control, and
how to avoid misrepresentation. Time: 3 hours 30 minutes.

#### What Every Litigator Should Know About Mediation

This half-day program is a practical guide for litigators. It includes
discussions and demonstrations addressing: What mediation is and when
you should use it, how to prepare your client and yourself for
mediation, and how to represent your client during mediation. Time: 3
hours 30 minutes.

#### Mediating Workplace Disputes\[Under Development\]

The video is under development by the Human Resources Service Center,
Pacific Training and EEO, Department of Navy personnel who are working
with the Neighborhood Justice Center of Honolulu and the Department of
Navy ADR Program Coordinator on the project. It is intended to educate
the workforce about ADR and encourage the use of mediation to resolve
workplace disputes. Time: Approximately 45 minutes.

For information contact Department of Navy, Cindy Pierson; Telephone:
(808) 471-1342; FAX: (808) 471-3798; Email:
<cynthia_pierson@pac.hroc.navy.mil>.

## PART IV. Periodicals & Newsletters

**AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)**

#### Dispute Resolution Journal

Published quarterly by the American Arbitration Association, this
journal provides in-depth articles by leading practitioners and scholars
that covert he spectrum of ADR issues, emerging techniques, and new
applications of ADR processes in every area of commercial and labor
practice. Winner of the 1998 Gold Excel Award for General Excellence -
Scholarly Journal, by the Society of National Association publications.
For more information and costs, contact: American Arbitration
Association, 335 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Telephone: (212)
716-3968; FAX: (212) 716-5906; or Web site: <http://www.adr.org/>.

#### Dispute Resolution Times.

Published quarterly, the AAA\'s newspaper reports on ADR developments
and AAA initiatives, new programs, new rules, significant court
decisions, special events and conferences. Features are national and
international scope. For more information and costs, contact: American
Arbitration Association, 335 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017.
Telephone: (212) 716-3968; FAX: (212) 716-5906; or Web site:
[http://www.adr.org](http://www.adr.org/).

**COOPERATIVE CONSORTIUM FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (CCDR)**

#### Practical Dispute Resolution.

Published semi-annually, this journal features articles, reviews and
summaries which inform the general dispute resolution community of
practical issues, developments and concerns in the field. If you are
interested in receiving a copy and/or subscribing, please send your name
and address to the Cooperative Consortium for Dispute Resolution (CCDR),
P. O. Box 4774, Crofton, MD 21114-4744; Email: <ccdr@olg.com>.

**DEPARTMENT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA**

#### Resolutions.

This free quarterly publication covers a broad spectrum of topics with
respect to current issues related to dispute resolution services in
Virginia, the practice of mediation, and other ADR. This Department of
the Supreme Court of Virginia is responsible for the certification of
court-referred mediators in Virginia. Each issue of *Resolutions*
includes a Training Calendar, a great resource for those interested in
receiving mediation training, both basic and advanced. For copies of
this publication, contact: Melanie Rinehults at the Supreme Court of
Virginia, Office of the Executive Secretary, Department of Dispute
Resolution Services, 100 N. Ninth Street, Third Floor, Richmond, VA
23219. Telephone: (804) 786-6455; FAX: (804) 786-4760; Web site:
<http://www.courts.state.va.us/>.

# Section VI: ADR Web Sites

This section contains selected web sites that provide miscellaneous
resource information about the use of ADR in the resolution of workplace
disputes. Some sites describe working Federal agency ADR programs. These
sites are maintained by associations, government agencies, non-profit
organizations, and others. \[This listing is not exhaustive and does not
indicate endorsement by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management of ADR
services that might be offered by that site.\]

## GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

***Department of Agriculture***\
[http://www.usda.gov:80/cprc/](http://www.usda.gov/cprc/)\
Describes agency\'s Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center.

***Department of Air Force***\
[http://www.adr.af.mil](http://www.adr.af.mil/)\
Describes Air Force ADR program wide range of ADR resources.

***Defense Logistics Agency***\
<http://www.dscc.dla.mil/offices/doccr/adr/adr.html>\
Describes DLA ADR program.

***Department of Education***\
<http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed338791.html>\
Provides information on educational resources and guidelines on dealing
with conflict resolution within educational institutions.

***Department of Energy***\
[http://www.doeal.gov/oeo/summaryl.pdf](http://www.doeal.gov/oeo/summary1.pdf)\
Discusses Albuquerque Operations Office Mediation Program.

***Equal Employment Opportunity Commission***\
[http://www.eeoc.gov](http://www.eeoc.gov/)\
Provides information about the use of ADR in the EEO complaint/appeal
process.

***Federal Labor Relations Authority***\
[http://www.flra.gov](http://www.flra.gov/)\
Provides information about the use of ADR in FLRA appellate matters.

***Department of Health and Human Services***\
<http://os.dhhs.gov/progorg/dab/>\
Discusses agency\'s Departmental Appeals Board and ADR services
provided.

***Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service***\
<http://www.fmcs.gov/pubinfo/cameos/fy98/adr.htm>\
Discusses ADR services offered.

***General Services Administration***\
<http://fedlaw.gsa.gov/legal89.htm>\
Provides links to laws, regulations, and other ADR-related sites,
including the GSA Board of Contract Appeals ADR process.

***Department of Justice***\
[http://www.financenet.gov/financenet/fed/iadrwg](http://www.financenet.gov/financenet/fed/iadrwg/)\
Provides ADR resource information and the latest activities of the
Attorney General\'s Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working
Groups.

***Department of Labor***\
<http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/programs/adr/main.htm>\
Provides overview of DOL\'s ADR Activities and DOL\'s ADR Policy.

***Department of Navy***\
<http://www.adr.navy.mil/>\
Describes Navy\'s ADR program and ADR initiatives, and successful tips
and techniques.

***Merit Systems Protection Board***\
[http://www.mspb.gov](http://www.mspb.gov/)\
Provides information about agency\'s appellate jurisdiction case
processing and the agency\'s latest ADR initiatives.

***Office of Personnel Management***\
[http://www.opm.gov/er](http://www5.opm.gov/er/index.htm)\
Contains OPM\'s *ADR Resource Guide* and describes the Management
Development Centers\' ADR training offerings.

***Office of Special Counsel (OSC)***\
[http://www.osc.gov](http://www.osc.gov/)\
Provides information about prohibited personnel practices, Hatch Act,
and other disputes within the agency\'s jurisdiction.

***Department of Veterans Affairs***\
<http://www.va.gov/adr/ocgdir.htm>\
Describes DVA\'s policy concerning the use of ADR.

## Federal Executive Board (FEB) Web Sites:

Many FEBs have ADR Committees and some coordinated shared neutrals
programs in their specific FEB geographical areas. FEBs are resources
for those wanting to set up shared neutrals programs or use the services
of such programs coordinated by FEBs.

-   Buffalo, NY -
    [http://www.buffalo.feb.gov](http://www.buffalo.feb.gov/)

-   Boston, MA -
    [http://r1.1k.gsa.gov/gbfeb](http://r1.1k.gsa.gov/gbfeb/)

-   Chicago, IL -
    [http://www.chicago.feb.gov](http://www.chicago.feb.gov/)

-   Cincinnati, OH -
    [http://www.cincinnati.feb.gov](http://www.cincinnati.feb.gov/)

-   Cleveland, OH - <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/OHR/FEB/index.htm>

-   Dallas - Ft. Worth, TX -
    <http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6md/feb/index.htm>

-   Denver, CO - [http://www.dfeb.mms.gov](http://www.dfeb.mms.gov/)

-   Honolulu-Pacific, HI -
    [http://www.honolulu-pacific.feb.gov](http://www.honolulu-pacific.feb.gov/)

-   Kansas City, MO -
    [http://www.kansascity.feb.gov](http://www.kansascity.feb.gov/)

-   Los Angeles, CA -
    [http://www.losangeles.feb.gov](http://www.losangeles.feb.gov/)

-   Twin Cities, MN - <http://www.doi.gov/febtc>

-   New Orleans, LA -
    [http://www.nfc.usda.gov/feb](http://www.nfc.usda.gov/feb/)

-   Oklahoma City, OK - [http://www.ok.feb.gov](http://www.ok.feb.gov/)

-   Philadelphia, PA - <http://tsd.r3.gsa.gov/feb.htm>

-   Pittsburgh, PA -
    [http://www.pittsburgh.feb.gov](http://www.pittsburgh.feb.gov/)

-   San Antonio, TX -
    [http://www.sanantonio.feb.gov](http://www.sanantonio.feb.gov/)

-   San Francisco, CA -
    [http://www.gsa.gov/r9feb](http://www.gsa.gov/r9feb/)

-   Seattle, WA - <http://www.seattle.feb.gov/mediation.htm>

**Note:** The above FEB web addresses are undergoing change. The most
current websites can be located on OPM's home page at
[http://www.opm.gov/feb/index.htm#febweb](http://www5.opm.gov/feb/index.htm).

## ASSOCIATIONS,NON-PROFITS, AND OTHERS

***American Arbitration Association***\
<http://www.adr.org/>\
Provides a list of AAA periodicals that address latest ADR developments.

***American Bar Association (Section of Dispute Resolution)***\
<http://www.abanet.org/dispute/home.html>\
Provides information on ABA ADR initiatives, including the *Dispute
Resolution Magazine* and links to other ADR sites.

***CPR-Institute for Dispute Resolution***\
<http://www.cpradr.org/welcome.htm>\
Provides information about a non-profit alliance of corporations and
firms using ADR.

***Justice Center of Atlanta***\
[http://www.justicecenter.org](http://www.justicecenter.org/)\
Provides information about ADR services provided.

***Law Journal EXTRA***\
<http://www.ljextra.com/practice/arbitration/index.html>\
Includes links to articles on ADR.

***Mediation Information and Resource Center***\
[http://www.mediate.com](http://www.mediate.com/)\
Provides a list of mediator resources and mediation information.

***National Institute for Dispute Resolution (NIDR)***\
[http://www.crenet.org/index.htm](http://crenet.org/index.htm)\
Contains a compilation of ADR training courses and conferences.

***Northern Virginia Mediation Service***\
[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/nvms](http://www.gmu.edu/departments/nvms/)\
Provides information on ADR education and services.

***Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR)***\
<http://www.spidr.org/pubs.htm>\
Lists available SPIDR publications.

# SECTION VII Bibliography

The following is an annotated selection of books, articles, and other
aids that may be useful for Federal agencies and unions considering or
using ADR methods or techniques. Some of the sources describe theories
behind ADR, and others describe ways of implementing ADR, including
various examples of ADR techniques. Most of the resources provide
bibliographies for further investigation.

## ARTICLES

Albrecht, Karl and Steve Albrecht, \"***Added Value Negotiating***,\"
*Training*, April 1993, Vol. 30(4),pp. 26-29.

This article describes a process of adding value to a deal rather than
extracting or conceding value from one party to the other. A method of
interest-based or win-win negotiating, Added Value Negotiating (AVN)
uses the idea of \"multiple deals.\" Several deal packages are offered
in a multiple choice format, rather than a single position which can be
beaten into some mutually accepted final agreement. Each alternative is
based on a mutual understanding of interests and the options that can
meet these interests. The system is based on the assumption that most
people do want to negotiate cooperatively. Most want a good deal as well
as a good relationship, and recognize that the parties may have to do
business again. The other fundamentals of AVN, besides clarifying
interests and identifying options, include designing alternative deal
packages, selecting a deal, and perfecting the deal.

Bolb, Deborah M. and Susan S. Silbey, \"***Enhancing the Capacity of
Organizations to Deal with Disputes***,\" *Negotiation Journal*, October
1990, Vol.6(4), pp. 297-305.

The authors provide a \"how to\" for integrating dispute resolution
methods into an already existing system. This article considers the
\"enhanced capacity\" for tolerating disputes instead of promoting
dispute prevention.

Cameron, Chip, Philip J. Harter, Gail Bingham, Neil R. Eisner,
\"***Alternative Dispute Resolution with Emphasis on Rulemaking
Negotiation***,\" *The Administrative Law Journal*, Spring 1990, Vol.
4(1), pp. 83-111.

This is a report on a discussion among the authors at the First Annual
Review of the Administrative Process of the Federal Bar Association and
the Washington College of Law. It includes comments on how negotiated
rulemaking works, a list of criteria for a successful rulemaking, some
pitfalls in managing the process, and comments and suggestions from
practical experience.

Carr, Frank, \"***Alternative Dispute Resolution***,\" *Federal Bar News
& Journal*, August 1993, Vol.40(7), pp. 444-447.

This article describes a creative approach to resolving disputes as an
alternative to litigation. The author goes through a step-by-step
approach that provides a structure for developing any ADR program. The
outline includes: needs analysis, systems design, pilot testing system,
evaluation, and program implementation.

Carr, Frank, \"***Alternative Dispute Resolution in an Agency
Program***,\" *Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association Quarterly
Magazine*, Winter 1990, Vol. 1(2), pp. 11-15.

An examination of the implementation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADR program is provided. The Corp\'s chief trial attorney comments on
the decision to experiment with ADR and discusses the development of ADR
into a formal program for dispute resolution. The paper addresses some
of the problems encountered and how they were resolved.

Cohen-Rosenthal, Edward, \"***Commentary\...Employee Participation
Councils***,\" *Journal for Quality and Participation,* September 1992,
Vol. 15(5), pp. 88-89.

Cohen-Rosenthal makes a case for legislating a requirement that every
organization with 50 or more employees have councils of employees and/or
their representatives and management officials. These councils would be
strictly advisory and would discuss a broad range of issues. Excluded
from discussions would be the negotiation of wages, hours, and job
classifications. The primary motivation for this policy suggestion is
the need to confront the U.S.\'s anemic economy and lagging global
competitiveness, according to the author. Germany and Japan are cited as
examples of successful employee participation systems. The authors
contend that a national policy would not assure universally excellent
participation, but would expand opportunities for participation, impact
competitiveness dramatically, and deepen our national values of
democracy.

Combe, George W. Jr., \"***Anatomy of a Business Dispute: Successful ADR
Analysis by the Office of the General Counsel***,\"*Arbitration
Journal*, September 1990, Vol. 45(3), pp. 3-14.

This journal article provides an analysis of the nature of business
disputes. It presents considerations in using an ADR approach in a
business situation, lists steps to enhance institutional ADR commitment,
and provides factors to consider in ADR selection. Two case problems are
analyzed.

Costantino, Cathy A, \"***FDIC Uses Spectrum of ADR Options to Resolve
Disputes: Finding New Ways to Decrease Costs, Speed Resolutions, and
Maximize Recoveries***,\" *Federal Bar News & Journal*, October 1992,
Vol. 39(9), pp. 524-527.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has adopted policies
and procedures which allow and encourage the use of ADR to resolve a
variety of disputes. The article reviews ADR processes and discusses the
history, goals, objectives, and seven components of the ADR program at
the FDIC.

Crowell, Eldon H. and Charles Pou, Jr., \"***Appealing Government
Contract Decisions: Reducing the Cost and Delay of Procurement
Litigation with Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques***,\"
*Maryland Law Review*, Vol. 49(1), pp. 183-254.

The pros and cons of ADR in government contract disputes are examined in
this article. It includes the experiences of government agencies that
have used minitrials in contract disputes. It also addresses questions
concerning the use of neutrals.

Ferris, Frank D, \"***Labor Relations: A Conflict Trap***,\" *The
Bureaucrat: The Journal for Public Managers,* Spring 1991, Vol. 20(1),
pp. 47-51.

The author is the director of negotiations for the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU). The article outlines ways in which conflict
between management and labor has been handled under Title VII of the
Civil Service Reform Act and offers some alternative methods for dispute
resolution. He proposes an increase in facilitated brainstorming,
improved communications, experimentation, and help rather than threats
and expedient compromises. Imposed agreements, if needed, would come at
the end of intensified intervention and be based on what had been built
by the parties. Grievances should be treated as opportunities to enhance
relationships and adjust the organization to changes.

Hoffman, Eileen Barkas and John A. Wagner, \"***Courtbusters**,\"
Government Executive*, October 1993, pp. 29.

The authors give an overview of ADR. They describe how ADR has grown and
give the pros and cons that the ADR offers to its users.

Honeyman, Christopher, \"***On Evaluating Mediators***,\" *Negotiation
Journal*, January 1990, Vol. 6(1), pp. 23-36.

This article is helpful for evaluating mediators and selecting standards
for further training. It lists \"Seven Parameters of Effectiveness\"
with commentary. It is a thoughtful introduction to the complex topic of
using subjective criteria.

Lewin, David, and Daniel J.B. Mitchell, \"***Systems of Employee Voice:
Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives***,\" *California Management
Review*, Spring 1992, Vol. 34(3), pp. 95-111.

This article is a comprehensive review of the various forms in which
employee participation occurs. Most interesting are studies which found
that in production facilities lower numbers of grievances were related
to higher rates of productivity. Also noteworthy are studies which show
that not only were high grievance rates related to low productivity, but
also related to high unit production costs.

Meltzer, D. Leah, \"***The Federal Workplace Ombuds***,\" *Ohio State
Journal on Dispute Resolution,* Vol. 13(2), 1998, pp. 549-609.

This article discusses the ADR technique of ombudsing and how it works.
The article also reports the results of the author\'s survey of Federal
Government agencies who have an ombuds programs. The author describes
selected Federal agency ombuds programs in detail including why they
were set up and how they are working.

Merchant, Christina Sickles, \"***Labor-Management Cooperation in the
Federal Service***,\" *Federal Labor Relations Reporter*, August 17,
1992, Vol. 1(14B), pp. 92/29-92/32.

A strictly adversarial and rights-based approach to problem-solving in
labor-management relations creates uncompromising and unyielding
positions. This approach can be both very time consuming and costly. As
union-management relations mature, the parties will look for other
avenues to address problems such as ADR and labor-management
cooperation. The author emphasizes that the measure of labor-management
cooperation success is not necessarily a decrease in the number of
unfair labor practices or grievances filed, but an improvement in the
overall health and quality of the relationship including improved
communications.

Patterson, Roger J., \"***Dispute Resolution in a World of
Alternatives***,\" *Catholic University Law Review*, Spring 1988, Vol.
37(3), pp. 591-604.

A concise introduction to ADR. It describes the concept, offers
pertinent explanations of a range of alternatives and their uses, and
concludes with a discussion on the choices of alternatives in dispute
resolution. The author sees ADR as an alternative to, not a displacement
of, litigation.

Pritzker, David M., \"***Working Together for Better Regulations***,\"
*Natural Resources and Environment*, Fall 1990, Vol. 5(2), pp. 29-31.

A description of the negotiated rulemaking process, reasons for using
it, and potential costs and benefits. The article discusses when and how
to use the process, reviews agency experiences, and examines relevant
Federal legislation.

Rivenbark, Leigh, \"***Seattle Agencies Try Mediating Differences***,\"
*Federal Times*, April 19, 1993.

For the first time, a Federal Executive Board (FEB) will provide
official mediation services to agencies and individual employees wanting
to settle disputes outside of the courts and adjudicatory agencies.
Seattle\'s FEB is poised to start providing mediation as soon as 24
employees from a variety of grades and agencies complete an intensive
training course.

Sander, Frank E. A. and Stephen B. Goldberg, \"***Making the Right
Choice***,\" *ABA Journal* November 1993, pp. 66-68.

Using a hypothetical dispute, Sander and Goldberg analyze which ADR
procedures would most likely satisfy different clients\' goals, and if
settlement is sought, which procedures would most likely overcome
settlement obstacles.

Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution, \"***Qualifying
Neutrals: the Basic Principles***,\" *Dispute Resolution Forum*, May
1989, pp. 2-10.

This article examines the criteria for qualifying neutrals. It
elaborates on central principles for parties to use as guidelines.

Stulberg, Joseph B. and B. Ruth Montgomery, \"***Design Requirements for
Mediator Development Programs***,\" *Hofstra Law Review,* Spring 1987,
Vol 15(3), pp. 499-533.

The authors examine how an agency that administers an ADR program can
train persons to serve as competent mediators. The authors use the
neighborhood justice centers operating throughout the country as the
basis of analysis in developing a framework for developing programs to
train facilitators. This article offers a practical, step-by-step
analysis of the mediator\'s functions and considers the dimensions of a
mediator development program.

Thompson, Brad Lee, \"***Negotiation Training: Win-Win or What?,***\"
*Training*, June 1991, Vol. 28(6), pp. 31-35.

Empowered employees are not always prepared for the new ways of working
with each other, according to the author. They may be ill-prepared to
participate in discussions and decisions that are normal in day-to-day
business operations. Personal negotiations training, specifically the
interest based approach, is a helpful method of preparing empowered
employees for a new working mode of operations. Interest-based
negotiation skills are critical for employees who may be working in
quality teams or circles, self-managing work groups, and other types of
teams. This article addresses the training of personal negotiation
skills which includes interpersonal communication, listening and
feedback, influencing, facilitation, conflict resolution, and
problem-solving.

Ury, William L., Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg, \"***In
Practice: Designing an Effective Dispute Resolution System,***\"
*Negotiation Journal*, October 1988, pp. 413-431.

This article is an adaptation of Chapter 3 of the authors\' book,
*Getting Disputes Resolved*, published by Jossey Bass, in November 1988.
The article presents six crucial principles of ADR: put the focus on
interests; build in \"loop-backs\" to negotiation; provide low-cost
rights and power back-ups; build in consultation before, feedback after;
arrange procedures in a low-to-high-cost sequence; and provide the
necessary motivation, skills, and resources.

Zetlin, Minda, \"***A Neutral Third Party***,\" *Management Review*,
September, 1992, Vol. 81(9), pp. 50-53.

As a form of ADR, the corporate ombudsman is becoming a more popular
method of resolving workplace problems and avoiding litigation and its
associated costs, according to the author. Managers have found that the
availability of ombudspeople in an organization can increase morale and
productivity. In 1991, an MIT survey found that companies had saved
\$125,000 on average in lawsuits in which an ombudsperson had
intervened. The ombudsperson provides the organization with information
about the workplace that is timely, something that many surveys cannot
accomplish. They can show the good as well as the bad. The
ombudsperson\'s role is not that of an employee advocate, but one of a
principled neutral third party. They are not arbitrators, but mediators
who must seek agreement between disputing parties. Most are careful to
steer clear of items covered in union contracts.

## BOOKS AND REPORTS

American Arbitration Association (AAA), ***Grievance Mediation
Procedures***, AAA, New York, December 1992.

This pamphlet lists all AAA offices and provides a detailed review of
the grievance mediation procedures used by AAA mediators. One of the
advantages of mediation according to this publication is that it can be
scheduled early in a dispute. A settlement can be reached much more
quickly and at less cost than through litigation.

American Arbitration Association (AAA), ***Resolving Your Disputes***,
AAA, New York, April 1993.

This pamphlet lists all AAA offices and provides definitions of ADR
terms and explanations of related issues.

American Bar Association, ***Alternative Dispute Resolution: An ADR
Primer***, Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution, 3rd edition, ABA
Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution, Washington, DC, 1989.

This report answers twenty basic questions on ADR, including a brief
exposition on ADR and the basic processes. It addresses such issues as
fees, discovery, power disparity, and confidentiality.

Carpenter, Susan L. and W.J.D. Kennedy, ***Managing Public Disputes: A
Practical Guide to Handling and Reaching Agreements,*** Jossey-Bass
Publisher, San Francisco, 1988.

This step-by-step guide to building a collaborative process in public
policy disputes is written for decision makers in the public and private
sectors. It offers explicit suggestions for conflict analysis and
assessment that can be applied to other types of disputes.

Cochrane, Michael G. ed., ***Attorneys General and New Methods of
Dispute Resolution***, the American Bar Association, Standing Committee
on Dispute Resolution and the National Association of Attorneys General,
Washington, DC, 1990.

This is a collection of articles on various issues in ADR from different
perspectives. The articles are organized under the division headings
\"Background to Dispute Resolution,\" \"New Methods of Dispute
Resolution at Work,\" and the \"The Cutting Edge of Dispute Resolution:
New Developments.\" Among the articles are: \"Alternative Dispute
Resolution in Environmental Cases,\" \"Alternative Dispute Resolution,\"
and \"Transportation: Mediating Peace at the Battle of Peters\' Creek.\"

Costantino, Cathy, A. and Merchant, Christina, S. ***Designing Conflict
Management Systems***, Josey-Bass Publisher, 1996.

The authors use three composite case studies from the health care,
government, and manufacturing sectors, plus numerous charts and
checklists that show how to get programs launched and evaluate how
they\'re working.

Edelman, Lester, Frank Carr, and James L. Creighton, ***The
MiniTrial***, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, IWR
Pamphlet-89-ADR-P-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water
Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA, 1989.

A practical guide to using the minitrial from the experience of the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers. This monograph describes what the technique
is and how it has been used, and provides guidance on conducting the
process. The appendix includes a sample agreement.

Edelman, Lester, Frank Carr, Charles Lancaster, and James L. Creighton,
***Non-Binding Arbitration,*** Alternative Dispute Resolution Series IWR
Pamphlet 90-ADR-P-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water
Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA, 1990.

This is a companion to the minitrial paper described above. It explains
the Corps experience and gives a step-by-step outline for using this
process. The appendix includes a sample agreement.

Fine, Erika S. and Elizabeth S. Plapinger, eds. for the CPR legal
Program, ***Containing Legal Costs: ADR Strategies for Corporation, Law
Firms, and Government,*** Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1988.

This is a collection of articles on implementation by experienced
attorneys and practitioners. It covers specific types of disputes such
as employment and technology disputes. See especially \"Corporate
Responses: Institutionalizing ADR,\" \"Litigation Management,\" and
\"The Federal Government\'s Use of ADR.\"

Fisher, Roger and William Ury, ***Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In,*** Penguin Books, New York, 1981.

This is the book that began the modernization of negotiation with the
creation of win-win, interest or principle based negotiations, from the
Harvard Negotiation Project. It details: how to separate the people from
the problem; focus on interests, not positions; establish precise goals
at the outset of negotiations; work together to create options that will
satisfy both parties; and negotiate successfully with opponents who are
more powerful, refuse to play by the rules, or resort to \"dirty
tricks.\"

Folberg, Jay and Alison Taylor, ***Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to
Resolving Conflicts without Litigation***, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco, 1984.

The authors present a framework for effective mediation for
professionals who desire to integrate mediation into existing roles.
This work presents the various stages of mediation and discusses
concepts for skills building.

Gary, Barbara, ***Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty
Problems,*** Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1989.

This work presents an approach to confronting problems and polarized
legal or political issues. It describes problem sharing and conflict
resolution as collaboration and offers well-organized and specific
information for understanding and evaluating the resolution process. It
includes case studies and covers such issues as when not to collaborate,
how to ensure compliance, and how to determine the mediator\'s role.

Goldberg, Stephen B., Eric D. Green, and Frank E.A. Sander, ***Dispute
Resolution,*** Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1985.

Intended for use in a basic course on dispute resolution, this book
provides an overview and examines the processes. The case studies and
examples of dispute resolution application give insight into practical
uses of ADR.

Jandt, Fred E., and Paul Gillette, ***Win-Win Negotiating: Turning
Conflict into Agreement***, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985.

This book provides a different perspective on interest-based bargaining
from that of Fisher and Ury, authors of \"Getting to Yes.\" Jandt
recommends a more direct and head on approach to negotiations in chapter
nine, \"Getting Past \'Yes\'.\" He states that \"you can\'t negotiate
agreement without giving in; and that if you never give in, you\'re not
negotiating, you\'re merely forcing the other folks to bend to your
will.\" Also provided in this book is a discussion on the nature of
conflict, why conflict is not necessarily bad, and strategies or
approaches to different sources of conflict.

Kanowitz, Leo, ***Cases and Materials on Alternative Dispute
Resolution***, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1986.

Designed as a law school text book, this work includes sections on the
various processes. The appendices include some pertinent Federal and
state statutes and regulations.

Lancaster, Charles L., ***ADR Round Table: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers***, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, IWR Working Paper
90-ADR-WP-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources,
Fort Belvior, VA, 1990.

This report addresses major perceived obstacles to implementing ADR and
strategies to overcome them. It also lists practical suggestions for
implementing ADR.

Lax, David and James. K. Sebenius, ***The Manager as Negotiator:
Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain,*** The Free Press, New
York, 1986.

The authors make the connection between negotiation and management in
accepting negotiation as a way of life for the successful manager.
Written from the perspective of the manager in the middle, it discusses
dispute resolution from negotiations to systems change.

Levinson, Daniel R., G. Jerry Shaw, Christopher M. Okay, ***Using
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal Government***, FPMI
Communications, Huntsville, AL, 1993.

This report gives detailed information in describing the building blocks
of ADR and the resolution methods. It describes ADR programs that
executive agencies use. It also reviews how the judiciary and the
legislative branches are incorporating ADR into their organizations.

Moore, Christopher, ***The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for
Resolving Conflict,*** Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1996.

This book on the mediation process has been one of the best-selling
books on the subject since Fisher and Ury\'s *Getting to Yes*. For the
last decade, the book has been a leading text on mediation in law, other
professional schools, and universities. The expanded 1996 second edition
includes more diverse areas of practice, new strategies and procedures,
and provides insights on intercultural approaches to dispute resolution.

Moore, Christopher and Jerome Delli Priscoli, ***The Executive Seminar
on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedures: the U.S. Corps of
Engineers***, CDR Associates, Boulder, 1989.

Designed as part of an intensive training course for agency executives,
this material presents the spectrum of ADR processes, concepts, and
skills as an adjunct to general management techniques.

Potapchu, William R., James H. Laue, and John S. Murray, ***Getting to
the Table***, IWR Working Paper 90-ADR-WP-3, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA, 1990.

This is a guide to designing a process for getting the parties of a
dispute to an acceptable forum as the first step in an ADR procedure. It
presents cases and guidance for step-by-step analysis and procedure and
a variety of approaches to overcoming obstacles to getting parties
together initially. The appendices include a \"Guide to Situation
Assessment\" and \"Sample Protocol.\"

Singer, Linda R., ***Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business,
Families, and the Legal System***, West view Press, San Francisco, 1990.

An effective overview of ADR in a variety of settings, this work
discusses the advantages and disadvantages of ADR from the perspective
of potential participants and others affected. See especially the
chapters on \"Settling Business Disputes\", \"Settling Public
Disputes,\", and \"ADR and the Legal System.\"

Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank, ***Breaking the Impasses:
Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes***, Basic Books,
Inc., New York, 1987.

Consensus-building strategies to effect win-win solutions to conflicts
are described. This is a practical guide on ADR procedures, from
unassisted negotiation to assisted processes, written specifically for
public officials.

Ury, William, ***Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People***,
Bantam Books, New York, 1991.

From the co-author of *Getting to Yes* and a member of the Program on
Negotiation at Harvard Law School, this book continues the interest or
principle-based bargaining strategy. It focuses on negotiating with
people who don\'t really want to negotiate. It provides methods for
dealing with obstacles to negotiations such as disarming tough
bargainers, dodging dirty negotiation tricks, reframing rather than
rejecting, and making it hard for the other party to say no. The
objective of this style of bargaining is to bring the other side to its
senses, not its knees.

U.S. Department of Labor, ***Committee Effectiveness Training: Skill
Building for Labor-Management Groups***, Bureau of Labor-Management
Relations and Cooperative Programs and the Government Printing Office,
BLMR, Washington, DC, 1991.

Developed in collaboration with the Federal Mediation Conciliation
Service, this guidebook provides a very comprehensive system to develop
better labor-management relations. Included are methods for assessing
ones needs, developing consensus, transforming barriers into objectives,
establishing ground rules, running effective meetings, group problem
solving, improving communications, and sharing leadership. Trainer\'s
resources and slides are included for those who wish to designate an
in-house trainer.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ***Federal Labor-Management
Cooperation: A Guide to Resources,*** Office of Labor Relations and
Workforce Performance, Personnel Systems and Oversight Group,
Washington, DC, July 1993.

This guide is useful as a primer to labor-management cooperation and
ADR. It includes a list of Federal sources of training and a
comprehensive annotated bibliography.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ***Compendium of Labor-Management
Cooperation Activities in the Federal Government,*** Office of Labor
Relations and Workforce Performance, Personnel Systems and Oversight
Group, Washington, DC, May 1992.

This publication provides a brief look at the many diverse forms of
labor-management cooperation throughout the Federal government,
including ADR. It is useful as a contact source for organizations
wishing to get first-hand knowledge of existing cooperative efforts.

Washington Education Association and Washington State School Directors\'
Association with the assistance of Professors\' Stephen Goldberg,
Northwestern University and Chester McCall of Pepperdine University,
***Grievance Mediation: The Preferred Route for Resolution of
Contractual Disputes***, Washington, 1988.

This academic study found that the introduction of grievance mediation
as a step prior to arbitration will yield faster, less expensive, and
less time-consuming resolutions to all grievance disputes that are
resolved without proceeding to arbitration.

# APPENDIX

## Part I. Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996

Public Law 104-320\
104th Congress

An Act

To reauthorize alternative means of dispute resolution in the Federal
administrative process, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

### SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the \"Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of
1996\"

### SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITIONS.

Section 571 of title 5, United States Code, is amended\--

\(1\) in paragraph (3)\--\
     (A) by striking , \" in lieu of an adjudication as defined in
section 51(7) of this title,\";\
     (B) by striking \"settlement negotiations,\"; and\
     (C) by striking \" and arbitration\" and inserting \"arbitration,
and use of ombuds\"; and\
(2) in paragraph (8)\--\
     (A) in subparagraph (B) by striking \"decision,\" and inserting
\"decision;\"; and\
     (B) by striking the matter following subparagraph (B).

### SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS T0 CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

\(a\) Limitation of Confidentiality Application to Communication.\--\
Subsections (a) and (b) of section 574 of title 5, United States Code,
are each amended in the matter before paragraph (1) by striking \" any
information concerning\".

\(b\) Dispute Resolution Communication.\--Section 574(b)(7) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

\"(7) except for dispute resolution communications generated by the
neutral, the dispute resolution communication was provided to or was
available to all parties to the dispute resolution proceeding.\".

\(c\) Alternative Confidentiality Procedures.\--Section 574(d) of title
5, United States Code, is amended\--

\(1\) by inserting \"(1)\" after \"(d)\"; and\
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

\"(2) To qualify for the exemption established under subsection (j), an
alternative confidential procedure under this subsection may not provide
for less disclosure than the confidential procedures otherwise provided
under this section.\".

        \[\[Page 110 STAT. 3871\]\]

\(d\) Exemption From Disclosure by Statute.\--Section 574 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by amending subsection (j) to read as
follows:

\"(j) A dispute resolution communication which is between a neutral and
a party and which may not be disclosed under this section shall also be
exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3).\"

### SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE CLOSURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE.

\(a\) Promotion of Administrative Dispute Resolutions.\--Section 3(a)(1)
of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C. 571 note; Public
Law 101-552; 104 Stat. 2736) is amended to read as follows:

\"(1) consult with the agency designated by, or the interagency
committee designated or established by, the President under section 573
of title 5, United States Code, to facilitate and encourage agency use
of alternative dispute resolution under subchapter IV of chapter 5 of
such title; and\".

\(b\) Compilation of Information.\--

\(1\) In general.\--Section 582 of title 5, United States Code, is
repealed.\
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.\--The table of sections for
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 582.

\(c\) Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.\--Section 203(f) of
the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 173(f)) is amended
by striking \"the Administrative Conference of the United States and
other agencies\" and inserting \"the agency designated by, or the
interagency committee designated or established by, the President under
section 573 of title 5, United States Code,\".

### SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT SERVICES PROVISION.

Section 583 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
\"State, local, and tribal governments,\" after \"other Federal
agencies,\".

### SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT.

Section 6 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 605) is
amended\--

\(1\) in subsection (d) by striking the second sentence and inserting:
\"The contractor shall certify the claim when required to do so as
provided under subsection (c)(1) or as otherwise required by law.\";
and\
(2) in subsection (e) by striking the first sentence.

### SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS ON ACQUIRING NEUTRALS.

\(a\) Expedited Hiring of Neutrals.\--

\(1\) Competitive requirements in defense agency contracts.\--Section
2304(c)(3)(C) of title10, United States Code, is amended by striking
\"agency, or\" and inserting \"agency, or to procure the services of an
expert or neutral for use\".\
(2) Competitive requirements in federal contracts.\--Section
303(c)(3)(C) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3)(C)), is amended by striking \"agency, or\'\'
and inserting \"agency, or to procure the services of an expert or
neutral for use\".

        \[\[Page 110 STAT. 3872\]\]

\(b\) References to the Administrative Conference of the United
States.\--Section 573 of title 5, United States Code, is amended\--\
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:\
\"(c) The President shall designate an agency or designate or establish
an interagency committee to facilitate and encourage agency use of
dispute resolution under this subchapter. Such agency or interagency
committee, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies and
professional organizations experienced in matters concerning dispute
resolution, shall\--\
\"(1) encourage and facilitate agency use of alternative means of
dispute resolution; and\
\"(2) develop procedures that permit agencies to obtain the services of
neutrals on an expedited basis.\"; and (2) in subsection (e) by striking
\"on a roster established under subsection (c)(2) or a roster maintained
by other public or private organizations, or individual\".

### SEC. 8. ARBITRATION AWARDS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

\(a\) Arbitration Awards.\--Section 580 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended\--\
(1) by striking subsections (c), (f), and (g); and\
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and (d),
respectively.\
(b) Judicial Awards.\--Section 581(d) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended\--\
(1) by striking \"(1)\" after \"(b)\"; and\
(2) by striking paragraph (2).\
(c) Authorization of Arbitration.\--Section 575 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended\--\
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking \"Any\" and inserting \"The\";\
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the following: \"Each
such arbitration agreement shall specify a maximum award that may be
issued by the arbitrator and may specify other conditions limiting the
range of possible outcomes.\";\
(3) in subsection (b)\--\
(A) by striking \"may offer to use arbitration for the resolution of
issues in controversy, if\" and inserting \"shall not offer to use
arbitration for the resolution of issues in controversy unless\"; and\
(B) by striking in paragraph (1) \"has authority\" and inserting \"would
otherwise have authority\"; and (4) by adding at the end the following:

\"(c) Prior to using binding arbitration under this subchapter, the head
of an agency, in consultation with the Attorney General and after taking
into account the factors in section 572(b), shall issue guidance on the
appropriate use of binding arbitration and when an officer or employee
of the agency has authority to settle an issue in controversy through
binding arbitration.\".

### SEC. 9. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; PROVISIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (Public Law 101-552; 104 Stat.
2747; 5 U.S.C. 571 note) is amended by striking section 11.

    \[\[Page 110 STAT. 3873\]\]

### SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

\(a\) In General.\--Subchapter IV of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

\"Sec. 584. Authorization of appropriations

\"There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.\".

\(b\) Technical and Conforming Amendment.\--The table of sections for
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 583 the following:

\"584. Authorization of appropriations.\"

### SEC. 11. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING ACT OF 1990.

\(a\) Permanent Reauthorization.\--Section 5 of the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-648; 5 U.S.C. 561 note) is
repealed.

\(b\) Closure of Administrative Conference.\--\
(1) In general.\--Section 569 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended\--\
(A) by amending the section heading to read as follows:

\"Sec. 569. Encouraging negotiated rulemaking\"; and

\(B\) by striking subsections (a) through (g) and inserting the
following:

\"(a) The President shall designate an agency or designate or establish
an interagency committee to facilitate and encourage agency use of
negotiated rulemaking. An agency that is considering, planning, or
conducting a negotiated rulemaking may consult with such agency or
committee for information and assistance.

\"(b) To carry out the purposes of this subchapter, an agency planning
or conducting a negotiated rulemaking may accept, hold, administer, and
utilize gifts, devises, and bequests of property, both real and personal
if that agency\'s acceptance and use of such gifts, devises, or bequests
do not create a conflict of interest. Gifts and bequests of money and
proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts, devises, or
bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be disbursed upon
the order of the head of such agency. Property= accepted pursuant to
this section, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly= as
possible in accordance with the terms of the gifts, devises, or
bequests.\".

\(2\) Technical and conforming amendment.\--The table of sections for
chapter 5 of title 5,United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 569 and inserting the following:

\"569. Encouraging negotiated rulemaking.\"

\(c\) Expedited Hiring of Convenors and Facilitators.\--\
(1) Defense agency contracts.\--Section 2304(c)(3)(C) of  title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting \"or negotiated rulemaking\"
after \"alternative dispute resolution\".\
(2) Federal contracts.\--Section 303(c)(3)(C) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3)(C)), is
amended by inserting \"or negotiated rulemaking\" after \"alternative
dispute resolution\".

\(d\) Authorization of Appropriations.\--

        \[\[Page 110 STAT. 3874\]\]

\(1\) In general.\--Subchapter III of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

\"Sec. 570a. Authorization of appropriations

\"There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.\"

\(2\) Technical and conforming amendment.\--The table of sections for
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 570 the following:

\"570a. Authorization of appropriations.\".

\(e\) Negotiated Rulemaking Committees.\--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall\--

\(1\) within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, take
appropriate action to expedite the establishment of negotiated
rulemaking committees and committees established to resolve disputes
under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, including, with respect
to negotiated rulemaking committees, eliminating any redundant
administrative requirements related to filing a committee charter under
section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and
providing public notice of such committee under section 564 of title 5,
United States Code; and

\(2\) within one year of the date of the enactment of this Act, submit
recommendations to Congress for any necessary legislative changes.

### SEC. 12. JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS AND THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES: BID PROTESTS.

\(a\) Bid Protests.\--Section 1491 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended\--\
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);\
(2) in subsection (a) by striking out paragraph (3); and\
(3) by inserting after subsection (a), the following new subsection:

\"(b)(1) Both the Unites States Court of Federal Claims and the district
courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to render judgment
on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a
Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a
proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of
statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed
procurement. Both the United States Court of Federal Claims and the
district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
entertain such an action without regard to whether suit is instituted
before or after the contract is awarded.

\"(2) To afford relief in such an action, the courts may award any
relief that the court considers proper, including declaratory and
injunctive relief except that any monetary relief shall be limited to
bid preparation and proposal costs.\
\
\"(3) In exercising jurisdiction under this subsection, the courts shall
give due regard to the interests of national defense and national
security and the need for expeditious resolution of the action.

              \[\[Page 110 STAT. 3875\]\]

\"(4) In any action under this subsection, the courts shall review the
agency\'s decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of
title 5.\".

\(b\) Effective Date.\--This section and the amendments made by this
section shall take effect on       December 31,1996 and shall apply to
all actions filed on or after that date.

\(c\) Study.\--No earlier than two years after the effective date of
this section, the United States General Accounting Office shall
undertake a study regarding the concurrent jurisdiction of the district
courts of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims over bid
protests to determine whether concurrent jurisdiction is necessary. Such
a study shall be completed no later than December 31, 1999, and shall
specifically consider the effect of any proposed change on the ability
of small businesses to challenge violations of Federal procurement law.

\(d\) Sunset.\--The jurisdiction of the district courts of the United
States over the actions described in section 1491(b)(1) of title 28,
United States Code (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) shall
terminate on January 1, 2001, unless extended by Congress. The savings
provisions in subsection (e) shall apply if the bid protest jurisdiction
of the district courts of the United States terminates under this
subsection.

\(e\) Savings Provisions.\--\
(1) Orders.\--A termination under subsection (d) shall not terminate the
effectiveness of orders that have been issued by a court in connection
with an action within the jurisdiction of that court on or before
December 31, 2000. Such orders shall continue in effect according to
their terms until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or
revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of law.\
(2) Proceedings and applications.\--(A) a termination under subsection
(d) shall not affect the jurisdiction of a court of the United States to
continue with any proceeding that is pending before the court on
December 31, 2000.\
(B) Orders may be issued in any such proceeding, appeals may be taken
therefrom, and payments may be made pursuant to such orders, as if such
termination had not occurred. An order issued in any such proceeding
shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, set
aside, or revoked by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation
of law.\
(C) Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the discontinuance or
modification of any such proceeding under the same terms and conditions
and to the same extent that proceeding could have been discontinued or
modified absent such termination.

        \[\[Page 110 STAT. 3876\]\]

\(f\) Nonexclusivity of GAO Remedies.\--In the event that the bid
protest jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States is
terminated pursuant to subsection (d), then section 3556 of title 31,
United States Code, shall be amended by striking \"a court of the United
States or\" in the first sentence.

    Approved October 19, 1996.

## Part II. How to Evaluate the *Guide\'s* Usefulness

#### Evaluation of Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource Guide

We are pleased that you have had a chance to review the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management\'s (OPM) issuance, *Alternative Dispute Resolution:
A Resource Guide.* If you have the hardcopy version of the issuance, we
encourage you to share with others in your office. If you\'ve accessed
the web-based version of the *Guide*, please pass on the Internet
address to others. We also would like to hear from you about the
usefulness and the quality of the *Guide*. Your feedback helps us as we
develop new resources. Please fax evaluations to the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management at (202) 606-0967 or complete the form on the OPM
Internet web site. Thank you.

Top of Form

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PLEASE RATE THE USEFULNESS AND QUALITY OF EACH *GUIDE* SECTION:**                                                                             

  ![](media/image1.wmf)Excellent![](media/image2.wmf)Very                                                                                         
  Good![](media/image3.wmf)Good![](media/image4.wmf)Adequate![](media/image5.wmf)Deficient                                                        

  **Section I: ADR Agency Practices:**                                                       Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image6.wmf)5![](media/image7.wmf)4![](media/image8.wmf)3![](media/image9.wmf)2![](media/image10.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image11.wmf)5![](media/image12.wmf)4![](media/image13.wmf)3![](media/image14.wmf)2![](media/image15.wmf)1

  **Section II: Alternative Discipline Agency Practices:**                                   Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image16.wmf)5![](media/image17.wmf)4![](media/image18.wmf)3![](media/image19.wmf)2![](media/image20.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image21.wmf)5![](media/image22.wmf)4![](media/image23.wmf)3![](media/image24.wmf)2![](media/image25.wmf)1

  **Section III: Shared Neutrals Programs:**                                                 Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image26.wmf)5![](media/image27.wmf)4![](media/image28.wmf)3![](media/image29.wmf)2![](media/image30.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image31.wmf)5![](media/image32.wmf)4![](media/image33.wmf)3![](media/image34.wmf)2![](media/image35.wmf)1

  **Section IV Administrative Appeals Agencies:**                                            Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image36.wmf)5![](media/image37.wmf)4![](media/image38.wmf)3![](media/image39.wmf)2![](media/image40.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image41.wmf)5![](media/image42.wmf)4![](media/image43.wmf)3![](media/image44.wmf)2![](media/image45.wmf)1

  **Section V: ADR Training and Assistance:**                                                Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image46.wmf)5![](media/image47.wmf)4![](media/image48.wmf)3![](media/image49.wmf)2![](media/image50.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image51.wmf)5![](media/image52.wmf)4![](media/image53.wmf)3![](media/image54.wmf)2![](media/image55.wmf)1

  **Section VI: ADR Web Sites:**                                                             Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image56.wmf)5![](media/image57.wmf)4![](media/image58.wmf)3![](media/image59.wmf)2![](media/image60.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image61.wmf)5![](media/image62.wmf)4![](media/image63.wmf)3![](media/image64.wmf)2![](media/image65.wmf)1

  **Section VI: Bibliography:**                                                              Usefulness:                                          ![](media/image66.wmf)5![](media/image67.wmf)4![](media/image68.wmf)3![](media/image69.wmf)2![](media/image70.wmf)1

                                                                                             Quality:                                             ![](media/image71.wmf)5![](media/image72.wmf)4![](media/image73.wmf)3![](media/image74.wmf)2![](media/image75.wmf)1

  **How will you use the issuance?:**                                                        ![](media/image76.wmf)As an employee resource\       
                                                                                             ![](media/image77.wmf)As a training tool/desk aide   
                                                                                             for supervisors\                                     
                                                                                             ![](media/image78.wmf)As a training tool for select  
                                                                                             offices (Human Resources, Equal Employment           
                                                                                             Opportunity, Unions and/or Legal Office)\            
                                                                                             ![](media/image79.wmf)Agency-Wide Distribution\      
                                                                                             ![](media/image80.wmf)Other:![](media/image81.wmf)   

                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                             ![](media/image82.wmf)![](media/image83.wmf)         
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom of Form

### Part III. How to Provide Update Information

The usefulness of the *Alternative Dispute Resolution Resource Guide*
depends on having accurate information. If you see errors in the *Guide*
or have update information, please contact the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) in one of the ways noted below.**\*** If you would like
OPM to include your alternative dispute resolution program, alternative
discipline program, shared neutrals program, or to add materials not
currently included, please submit a draft (following the *Guide\'s*
format) to OPM of what you would like publicized. The information you
provide is invaluable to the process of making the *Guide* a better and
more useful tool for you and other readers.

**By Mailing Address:**

U.S. Office of Personnel Management\
1900 E Street, NW\
Room 7425\
Washington, DC 20415-2000

**ATTN:** ADR Resource Guide

**By Telephone:** (202) 606-2920

**By FAX:** (202) 606-0967

**By E-mail:** <er@opm.gov>

**By Web Site:** [http://www.opm.gov/er](http://www.opm.gov/er/)

**\*** If you have comments or suggestions about the usefulness and
quality of the *Guide*, please complete the form contained in **Part
IV** of the *Guide* and send it back to OPM.