IMI participates in a number of activities in Europe to promote mediation. One of those activities involves providing input to the European Commission regarding the EU Mediation Directive adopted in 2008.
If you are based in or connected to one of the EU states, we encourage you to express your opinion and views about the application of the EU Mediation Directive in a public consultation launched by the European Commission.
The goal of the public consultation is to capture, review and analyse views from the broadest segment of the population: all interested individuals, mediators, legal practitioners, academics, organisations, courts, national authorities and Member States.
Results of the consultation will contribute to the Commission’s report on the application of the Directive, to be published in 2016.
The Mediation Directive seeks to:
To complete the survey, please click here
The ICC International Mediation Conference is one of the most renowned events in the field of mediation worldwide. Combining in-depth discussions and world class speakers with dynamic formats, they attract participants from all over the world.
Mediation is a structured confidential process of informal positive dispute resolution. An impartial mediator assists parties in dispute to collaboratively resolve their concerns in a voluntary, confidential and non-judgemental way. There are several ways in which mediation can be employed to positively resolve dispute and conflict concerns in the workplace. Mediation is useful for disputes arising out of personal, interpersonal or inter-departmental issues, alleged bullying incidents, change management situations, contract negotiations and customer complaint issues. In fact, Mediation can be applied in almost every situation where conflict arises within a workplace setting to provide a collaborative settlement reached through mutual co-operation between parties.
The HSA recommends mediation as an informal route to proactively address concerns of bullying allegations at work (see extract below). The role of the Health and Safety Authority in respect of bullying at work is to monitor if employers and employees are meeting their obligations and duty of care under the 2005 legislation Act. Where complaints of bullying at work are made to the Authority it directs that the procedures of their HSA Code be observed and recommends mediation as an informal process for resolving complaints in the prevention and resolution of bullying at work.
Mediation fosters empathy and respect for deeper understanding of each other's concerns and the other's perspective of the situation. Personal concerns are heard and validated through the mediator witnessing and assisting parties mutually explore their concerns in a respectful manner. Negative conflict patterns of behaviour shift to positive conflict patterns that produce long term benefits and improved communications in the workplace. Improved communications lead to improved job performance and a happier workforce to produce a win/win result for both employee and employer.
(The following is a direct Extract from the HSA Code pertaining to the recommended use of Mediation for resolution)
- Section 5.3 ACCESS TO COMPETENT ADVISORY SERVICES 'Employers have a duty under safety and health laws to obtain the services of a competent person where necessary to help comply with such laws. There may be situations as regards bullying at work where an employer could benefit from expert assistance. This could be provided within the undertaking or sourced from outside. It could involve seeking help from an employer or other representative body which provides such advice or from relevant public bodies such as the Health and Safety Authority or the Labour Relations Commission. It could involve seeking the services of persons particularly qualified in mediation or counselling or training in this area.'
- 6.1.b INTERVENTION (extract from HSA code on Bullying in the workplaces). 'In following the informal process, steps to stop the bullying behaviour, where it has been identified, and monitor the situation along specified lines should be agreed with both parties. This may involve a direct or indirect approach and possible resolution through a programme to change behaviour. It may involve mediation* by an agreed mediator who is practised in dealing with bullying at work.'
by Yasmin McNelis
Ever thought of taking the law into your own hand?
Wouldn’t everyone like finding their own resolution for their own conflict?
As an honorable alternative within legal system we live in: we call it now Mediation.
In event of a dispute there are several aspects automatically taken off the scenario once we delegate the case to Courts.
Legal representatives wipe off all non-objective matters to make cases strong to stand in Court.
However, emotions, fears, requests, expectations may find correspondence and support somewhere in the dense and rich network of Civil Law codes, regulations and principles. Same chances they may have within the mare magnum of Common Law cases history and collections.
Keeping in mind that where each little detailed request gets under Court consideration, they may slow down the whole process of obtaining justice by final sentencing.
If all personal feelings stay out of the Court dispute, however, they seldom disappear from our day-to-day lives; if unheard, they last as long as the Court case ends. Or longer
Time is money.
Time is money to all: parties and representatives.
It is worth it to mention as well that each complaint formally brought to Court becomes public. As consequence, this choice impacts privacy and reputation: how valuable are they to the parties?
Quality of life and relationship are entirely at parties’ (i.e. disputants’) disposal: it is their own life quality at stake.
It is up to the disputants how to treasure their standards of quality.
Mediation process works on those values, considering them closely together with the real interests to be evaluated.
Expert and professional mediators facilitate the disputants’ pattern of clear communication. Assist along the whole process ensuring all requests and expectations are on the table to be heard and worked out towards an agreement.
Mediators are equi-distant o equi-close to both parties, rather than super partes.
Mediation stays neutral and non judgmental before and after a solid, valuable and professional initiative towards solutions the parties themselves may be well able to figure out, handle and finally manage.
Parties keep all the time control of their goals and mediation may save time, money and values after all.
Terms of an agreement may be reasonably reached before any external interference or order from Court. There is no need to publicly disclose their feelings. To any public.
Encouraged by professional mediators, bound to code of conduct, privacy and confidentiality, as a result, are guaranteed to the disputants by their own honorable agreement.
Finally I feel to add a priceless extra value: mediation process brings parties through a self-management of their mutual relationship.
A professional mediation helps all parties adapt their agreement to their own circumstances, creating reasonable solutions within legal frame.
It teaches how to better manage their wishes and values for life.
One own’s justice is a tailored suit: it fits better
By Debora Unali
One of the pillars of Civil Law rules and principles is the maxim “Nemo iudex in sua causa”.
This legal phrase comes from Latin, and its literal translation is: nobody may be judge of his/her own case.
It refers towards a major legal principle, which states that no person can judge a case in which he or she participates as a party (i.e. pursues benefits).
In brief words it means that nobody can judge on their own lawsuit, otherwise there would be no fair justice.
The goal of the law is to secure the delivering of fair justice.
As a student it fascinated me both for the sense of search of fairness and for the necessity of cooling off any case from feelings. Hey, I am Italian…
It did fascinate me and it still does.
My thesis, final work of my Bachelor Degree in Law pointed me there: a further chance to investigate amongst a deeper sense of justice.
“Hermeneutics within the judiciary context” my ambitious title: a broad and extended work, which allowed me to get a taste and a sense of Common Law system.
In Civil Law system, justice is acknowledged confidently as far as a written rule, principle exists prior to the dispute.
What if no trace of same complaints exist in codes, Courts sentences, Constitution or sovereign legal hierarchic database etc…?
From a Civil Law student’s perspective, best area to investigate into was international law disputes, mainly family and commercial cases.
I had finally found grounds to enlightening my own doubts and uncertainties.
If disputants are from different Countries, not only they may speak different languages, they are brought up with different believes, different expectations and occasionally they may behave differently even when they mean to reach a common goal.
Bingo: in those (legal) cases, discarding emotions to be expressed, exchanged, considered, heard and worked at, it would just lead to a superficial agreement with little chance to endure at long term relationship.
During my legal practitioner experience in Italy, where Civil Law rules, I privately questioned this approach of ‘Straight to the facts. Objectiveness as the best way to deliver justice’ every and each time I was hearing a client’s complaint at the lawyers cabinet I worked at.
As legal representative, my duty was to translate clients’ requests into legalities, i.e. facts that can be brought before Court. No feelings allowed.
Each story ended up into legal papers and/or appearances to Court spoiled of the emotions from both disputants.
Litigations often appeared to me as if they were about to fail and to cause further damages as consequence.
I was often tempted by and considered inviting counterparty legal representative to look for some pre-judicial agreement, getting the disputants involved as well.
That personal approach to ideal justice never left me.
Times were not mature, neither was Civil Lay system.
I moved then to Ireland where Common Law represented a total new ground to me.
I learned (hardly at first) that a judge sentence is law. Each case may potentially become new justice rule or principle.
Courts decide on contemporary basis, not on millennial principles.
How much clearly I appreciated my Mediation course and practices…
Here I experienced evidences and tangible scenarios where my long-term dug approach to justice resuscitated and made sense.
What if the disputants get the opportunity to better understand each other requests, expectations, feelings?
What if before any legalities and technicalities the parties clear off the air from matters they may understand, hear and get to agree to?
What if, given the best circumstances and the professional assistance, the dispute becomes more and more a communication meeting, a parties’ strategy meeting?
What if thanks to the mediator I am today, I can see only the most complicate legalities brought to Court, while the parties stay in control of their own relationship?
May each disputant feel and be Iudex in sua causa after all?
By Debora Unali
3rd February 2015
Announcement by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald, Wednesday 4th February 2015, that she intends to proceed with the enactment of mediation legislation...
We are delighted to be speaking at Munster SME Business Expo & Networking event on promoting a positive workplace culture. Join us at Limerick Racecourse on Thursday the 13th of November to network amongst SMEs and its supporters. Munster Business Summit 2014 will feature workshops, knowledge seminars and networking opportunities for attendees and exhibitors. Get your tickets today from http://businesssummiticg.com/ and spread the word.