U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
       Appeal Process
    Appellant Q&A
      Electronic Filing
      Forms
      Hearing Sites
		Mediation Appeals Program
	Policy & Resources
     		Regulations
     Whistleblower Q&ASearch and Site Index Mediation Appeals Program (MAP)
	About Mediation
		Agreement to Mediate FormAbout Mediation
	
	
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Mediation Appeals Program (MAP) offers the services of MSPB's trained and certified mediators as an alternative to the formal appeal processes and procedures of MSPB's regulations.  Mediators facilitate a discussion between the parties to help them identify issues and barriers to agreement that will aid in resolving their disputes and settling the appeal quickly, economically, and to the benefit of all concerned.  MAP is free, easy, and confidential.  Both parties must agree to its use before the appeal will be accepted for MAP, and both must agree on its resolution before any settlement is concluded.  Unlike the traditional appeal process, the parties control the result of the case under the skilled guidance of the mediator, who will play no role in deciding the appeal, should an agreement not be reached.
	
MAP was initially launched as a pilot project in two of MSPB's regional offices in 2002 and, because of early accomplishments, it was expanded nationwide at the start of fiscal year 2005.  Two years later, management of the program was moved to MSPB's Office of Regional Operations.  MAP has become a popular and successful program, as shown by the fact that a greater number of cases have been mediated each year since the program's inception, and approximately 60% of all cases mediated settle at the conclusion of the MAP process.  In fact, the advantages of MAP do not stop at the termination of mediation because experience shows that many appeals that are not resolved by the mediation itself settle after returning to the traditional adjudication track.
	
Parties to appeals pending in any of MSPB's regional or field offices who are interested in participating in MAP should contact the assigned Administrative Judge.  For further information on MAP, you may ask the Administrative Judge assigned to your appeal or the Chief Administrative Judge of the regional or field office in which your appeal is pending.  In addition, if you represent an agency or organization that might benefit from a presentation to your group on MAP, you may contact the MAP coordinator at regionaloperations@MSPB.gov to discuss scheduling a session where we can provide further information and answer your specific questions.**MEDIATION OR ADJUDICATION - WHAT'S
      THE DIFFERENCE?**
      
      Mediation provides a quick, simple and
      effective way to resolve many matters appealed to the MSPB, and the parties must
      be ready to use it without delay.  While the MSPB is justly proud of its
      adjudication program where, like in a proceeding before a court, the parties
      gather evidence and make formal presentations to an Administrative Judge who
      will decide the case if the parties do not settle it, mediation is a non­-adversarial
      dispute resolution process in which the parties seek to arrive at a mutually
      satisfactory resolution using the skills of a third party neutral - a trained
      and certified Mediator.To give you a better idea of whether you
      may want to use MAP to try to resolve your case, some of the differences
      between the two processes are listed below.
    MEDIATION
        ADJUDICATIONThe parties retain control
        The Judge retains controlA neutral assists in defining issues, interests and possible resolutions
        The Judge assists in defining issues, but renders a decisionThe parties set the ground rules
        Rules are generally pre-determinedIt is a confidential process
        Hearings are open to the publicThe parties communicate directly with each other
        Communications often are through representatives, directed to the JudgeFocuses more on interests, emotions, goals and relationships than on the
          law
        Focus is determined by established law, rules, regulations and
          proceduresMeetings are informal, using the rules set by the parties
        Hearings are more formal, and follow set proceduresOutcome is based on the needs and perceptions of the parties
        The decision will be based on the evidence and lawResolution is by mutual agreement, to the advantage of both parties
        In a decision, generally one party wins and one losesResolution of complex issues can often be reached in hours or days
        The issuance of a final decision on review necessarily takes months - or
          moreResolution is determined by the parties
        Decision is based on the law and facts determined by the JudgeIt is cost effective and low risk
        Litigation can be expensiveSTYLES OF MEDIATIONMediation can proceed in one format, or
	  sometimes a combination of formats, but you do not have to select one of them
	  in order to use MAP.  Rather, based upon the nature of the issues and
	  the parties involved, it is likely that your mediation will naturally follow
	  the style best suited to the situation, guided by the experience gained by
	  the Mediator in similar situations.  Remember, mediation is an
	  alternative to the adjudication process and therefore it is intentionally
	  more flexible, to suit the needs of the parties.
	  Generally, however, there are four major
	  styles of mediation.
	1.  Facilitative Mediation
	The Facilitative style is the most utilized
	  style today.  It is characterized by providing a framework within which
	  to work with parties toward a mutually acceptable agreement to end a
	  conflict.  The style is generally an approach characterized by the
	  identification of the needs of the disputants, and then utilization of
	  interactive discussion and caucuses in an effort to find a position
	  acceptable to both sides in the conflict.  There are basically six steps
	  to the process of Facilitative mediation, and they are as follows:
	  
	  
	  1. Open the Session/Introduction
	  
	  2. Gather Information
	  
	  
	  3. Focus on Common Ground
	  
	  
	  4. Create Options
	  
	  
	  5. Discuss and Consider Options
	 
	  6. Write the Agreement/Close the Session
	  Of the four basic commonly used styles, the
	  Facilitative is the most structured.
	  2.  Evaluative Mediation
	  In the Evaluative style, Mediators use
	  their skills to help disputants evaluate the positions they espouse in the
	  mediation and to consider whether they are practical.  The Evaluative
	  style can be seen as somewhat directive, and the skillful evaluative Mediator
	  will be careful not to impose his or her opinion, but rather will be
	  illustrative in helping the parties "reality test" their positions
	  and then helping them decide what might be the prevailing position with
	  regard to the facts and perceptions involved in the appeal.
	  In the use of this style, the Mediator will
	  often ask the parties to evaluate their probability of prevailing if the
	  dispute were to go through the formal adjudication process.  This
	  technique can be very useful and can help them come to grips with the likely
	  potential results of their positions in adjudication before an Administrative
	  Judge.  It may be particularly useful when the mediation presents
	  primarily legal positions and arguments, and is heavily influenced by
	  attorney opinion during the mediation process.
	  3.  Transformative Mediation
	  The Transformative style is heavily focused
	  on the interactions and the communications between the disputants.
	   Their body language and attitudes are central to Transformative
	  mediation.  Pointing out the manner in which disputants interact, and in
	  which they communicate or often fail to communicate, is the cornerstone of
	  this style.
	  This style of mediation has become highly
	  popularized through the U.S. Postal Service mediation method, known as
	  REDRESS.  The effectiveness of this method, perhaps more than the
	  others, is the subject of widely varying and strongly held positions, both by
	  Mediators and the parties to mediations that use it.
	  4.  Narrative Mediation
	  Finally, the Narrative style of mediation
	  is based on the premise that the position each party brings to the mediation
	  is a product of their life's discourses.  The Narrative style tries to
	  use conversation and discussion to get the disputants to disclose, often
	  unwittingly, the true nature and their perception of the conflict.  It
	  is done through "story telling" which, in effect, allows them to
	  express how and why they feel the way they do.
	  The Mediator then uses the different
	  stories as a basis for further discussion of the conflict.  The goal is
	  to create an "Alternative Story" which can be substituted for the
	  conflict and result in not only a mutually acceptable agreement, but also in
	  enhanced communication going forward.  The technique seems to be
	  especially useful when there is going to be an ongoing relationship between
	  the disputants after the mediation has concluded.
	  There is no one right style for all
	  mediations and all parties.  All methods have their proponents and
	  detractors.  Although Mediators certified by the MSPB remain flexible
	  and open to the parties' needs and suggestions, they will put their
	  experience to work to guide the parties toward a style or combination of
	  styles they believe is best suited to the particular circumstances of each individual mediation.
AGREEMENT TO MEDIATE
	Before a case will be mediated, all parties
	  will be asked to sign an MSPB "Agreement to Mediate," which sets out their rights,
	  obligations and understandings concerning MAP.  The parties' signature
	  on this form, along with the information that will be provided by the
	  Mediator, will assure that they are all aware of the rules and bounds of the
	  process.  A link to that Agreement appears above for your early review.
	  WHAT THE PARTIES SAY ABOUT
		  MAP
		  The MSPB wants MAP to be the best mediation
      program it can be.  Toward that end, we ask each person who participated
      in a MAP mediation, whether the appeal settled or didn't, to rate both the
      Mediator and the process on specific, key areas and to provide their comments
      on the Program.  Here's a sampling of what they have told us:
    "Great process, avoids cost of
      litigation."
     "Mediator was hardworking,
      knowledgeable, well-versed in the law and very understanding."
    "Need to continue to encourage parties
      to consider using [MAP]."
    "Though unsuccessful here I believe it
      is an excellent process."
    ".may not have settled without [the Mediator]."
    "Not resolved, but helped frame
      possibilities.  ..  In general, mediation before the Board has
      always helped bridge the gap even if not settled."
    "This was an outstanding
      process.  I don't believe a decision would have been reached without
      coming together."
    Not every case will settle, and not every
      party to every case will think that MAP moved the parties closer together,
      but more than 95% of those who participated in a MAP mediation tell us that they would use the process again.  Don't you
      think that MAP is worth your serious consideration?
    **NOW IT'S UP TO YOU**
    We hope that this information has helped
      you decide whether MAP may be right for you as an alternative to
      adjudication.  Remember, though, that both parties must agree before a
      case will be accepted into MAP.  To express an interest in using MAP,
      please contact the regional or field office with geographic jurisdiction over
      your appeal.  If both parties agree to participate in MAP, it is important
      for them to discuss dates within the next month on which they will be
      available for mediation and to suggest the location at which it might be
      appropriate to hold it, so that the mediation can be set with minimum
      delay.  When the parties sign the
      Agreement to Mediate, they will be asked to provide this information.  Mediations are often scheduled at the
      parties’ location or the appellant’s work site, but may be held at the
      regional or field office or at one of the designated hearing sites nearest to
      the parties.  For a list of those
      designated sites, please see the tab entitled Approved Hearing Locations on
      this website.  Please keep in mind that while MSPB Mediators are skilled
      in assisting the parties to arrive at mutually beneficial settlements of
      their disputes, if an appeal is not resolved in mediation, it will return to
      the adjudication track.  If this should happen, however, the Mediator
      will tell the Administrative Judge nothing about the matters discussed during
      mediation except that the parties were unable to resolve the appeal.  You will find that MSPB Administrative
      Judges are also adept at reaching settlements between the parties, and many
      cases that go through MAP without reaching accord are settled after they
      return to adjudication.  Even where the case is resolved by a Judge's
      decision, the mediation process often helps sharpen the parties' focus on the
      matters truly in dispute and the resolution they seek.  Finally,
      remember that the majority of appeals go through the adjudication process, and that if yours is one of them, the MSPB's
      record of timely, high quality adjudication and skillful use of alternative
      dispute resolution methods will assure you a fair and complete chance to be
      heard by a seasoned Administrative Judge.


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov