Summarizing the Issue in Dispute
Dan, holding for seven years as a Systems Analyst, applied for a position, which has been posted for a Lead Systems Analyst, and did not get the job that was awarded to another employee, Anne. He is extremely interested in progressing his career to the next level within the work and the command he enjoys and disputes the hiring decision because he has the most seniority on the team. Apart from it, he argues that he is at least as qualified, if not better, than Anne for this role.
Jose, their supervisor, conducted what he thinks to be a fair hiring process, giving due consideration to the applicants’ critical analysis skills, strong organizational, and leadership for this position. He explained it by the fact that although Dan has more experience than Anne, she holds a senior-level job currently. Besides, although Anne’s competence in systems analysis is on par with Dan’s, her organization and governance capabilities are superior. It will have critical importance to the achievement of Jose’s overall team goals and objectives in the upcoming year. In addition, Jose needs to be able to trust the Lead Systems Analyst to use judgment and decision-making to prioritize work and keep things on target without his daily involvement. As a consequence, he seeks to ensure his solution is upheld.
Positions, Underlying Interests, and BATNA for Each Perspective
Dan’s position is receiving the Lead Systems Analyst post. Apart from it, his interest is progressing his career within the work he loves and the team he enjoys because he is feeling stagnant in his current role and desiring new challenges. The best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) for him is an appointment to the indicated workplace due to the most seniority and qualifications on the team.
Jose’s position is assignment Anne to a Lead Systems Analyst role. At the same time, his interest is the achievement of overall command goals and objectives in the upcoming year, given the correct worker’s ability. It comprises allocating tasks among a team, holding projects moving ahead on time and budget, and keeping Jose apprised of progress on a regular basis. The BATNA for him is confirmation of the correctness of his decision concerning assigning Anne due to her strong organizational, leadership, and critical analysis skills.
Benefits and Risks to Jose in Pursuing This Dispute through to Grievance Arbitration
Benefits to Jose in pursuing this dispute through grievance arbitration consist of the conflict’s final settlement. It will also save him time and effort since the procedure will only direct to him the relevant questions (Doyle, 1999). In addition, there is no probability of creating coercion by Dan using strikes and slowdowns (Hill, 1991). On the other hand, the risks to Jose, in this case, consist of formation restrictions on his seniority rights and possibly not meeting existing expectations (Doyle, 1999). Moreover, it involves a protracted process and an excessively long period between the actual decision and the hearing (Hill, 1991). Finally, it will affect his team’s operational efficiency during this time and may have a negative impact on the relationship between Jose and Dan.
Potential Resolution Meeting the Interests of Both Perspectives, Alternative Dispute Resolution Process
The potential resolution, which could meet both Dan and Jose’s interests and corresponds to or exceeds their BATNA, is Dan and Anne’s appointment as the Lead Systems Analyst. It can be done for a specific period of time for each applicant, for instance, a month, according to which the achievement of overall command goals and holding projects on time will be assessed. Jose can compare in practice who he can ultimately trust and who is able to keep things on target without his daily involvement. Dan, in turn, upon successfully completing his temporary assignment to this role, will finally advance his career to the next level. While, if he fails in this task, he will know that Anne’s appointment is reasonable, and he needs to pay attention to developing the skills necessary to receive the desired advancement in the future.
The alternative dispute resolution process consists of integrations negotiation, which examines parties’ goals with a focus on achieving mutual gains and maximizing each participant’s interests. Apart from it, a voluntary method of mediation can be applied, which helps reach an agreement and settlement of their differences. It composes through the participation of a neutral third individual in assessing the results of the achievement of overall command objectives. At the same time, the parties will control the outcome and the process.
Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Grievance Arbitration Process and the Alternative Resolution
The length of the grievance arbitration process is often longer than the alternative resolution due to its cumbersomeness. Besides, the former can have a cost the process significantly more. While the alternative resolution helps to negotiate an arrangement, which will satisfy both Jose and Dan, the arbitration process operates in a similar way to a judge (“Frequently asked questions,” n.d.). Enforcement of its result, which may not meet Dan’s expectations, is mandatory; as a consequence, it can have a negative impact on his workplace.
The alternative resolution considers both the employee’s interests and rights. Therefore, it has a positive influence on the long-term labor relationship between the company and the union, their satisfaction, and the worker’s morale and productivity, on which all three aspects are focused. In comparison, the arbitration process centers more on legislative sides, the attention of which can have a positive impact when it takes place, for example, violence and harassment, and a desire to create a precedent. It has no similar effect in solving conflicts related to internal local documents and employee performance issues in a particular position (“Frequently asked questions,” n.d.). The same applies to the company’s ability to hire the best-qualified individual and internal growth and development of both the organization and the worker since the more creative methods will bring more significant impact. Furthermore, the arbitration process creates restrictions on seniority rights in contrast with the alternative resolution.
Recommended Course of Action to Jose in Responding to Dan’s Grievance
The recommended course of action to Jose in responding to Dan’s grievance is an alternative resolution process, for instance, Dan and Anne’s temporary appointment to the Lead Systems Analyst position. Apart from it, a voluntary process of mediation can be applied through the participation of a neutral third individual in assessing the results of the achievement of overall command objectives in this process. It presupposes brainstorming and not allowing thinking to be within the boundaries of mutually exclusive alternatives, which helps reach an agreement. Moreover, it appears to be real progress for both parties and ensures the company’s stability.
References
Doyle, S. C. (1999). The grievance procedure: The heart of the collective agreement. IRC Press. Web.
Frequently asked questions (n.d.). ADR Institute of Canada. 2020, Web.
Hill, D. S. (1991). Developing effective labour relations skills: Understanding the grievance process. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 44(1), 17-50. Web.