This study of interest‐based bargaining (IBB) examined past usage, current preferences, and future intentions to use this approach in U.S. airline and railroad labor negotiations. Based on a survey of eighty‐four union and management chief negotiators, we found that the personal attributes of the chief negotiator (orientation toward relationships, personal conflict handling style, and competency in IBB approaches) were strong predictors of the past use of IBB. However, personal affinities and styles became irrelevant as experience with IBB accumulated. The negotiator's preferences for IBB in general were strongly correlated to his or her awareness of other carriers' and unions' experiences with IBB, as well as to his or her own direct experience. The negotiator's intention to use IBB in the future was also related to the quality of the contract personally obtained through IBB practices. The study also revealed the unpopularity of IBB among labor negotiators relative to their management counterparts.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical framework for assessing the effects representatives have on their client's perceptions of justice, outcome and satisfaction, as well as the treatment received by clients from other stakeholders, in workplace dispute resolution processes. Design/methodology/approach -Research propositions are advanced based on constructs and theories drawn from the literature on organizational justice, in particular, as well as social psychology in general. Findings -Representatives are hypothesized to have a profound effect on their client's perceptions of voice, participation and satisfaction as well as on the treatment accorded the client by the other side and third-party neutral. Representation, per se, is heralded as neither a positive nor a negative force in workplace dispute resolution processes.Research limitations/implications -The framework of a representative's effects is limited by a focus on individual employees who pursue disputes arising out of the employment relationship against management and, therefore, excludes disputes involving groups as well as non-employment related disputes. Practical implications -Suggestions for expanding or contracting the role of representatives in workplace dispute resolution are discussed. Originality/value -Although it is ubiquitous in US jurisprudence and is a growing presence in alternative dispute resolution, the representative-client dyad has been unexplored. The impact representatives have on the client's perceptions of justice, and the effects representatives have on other stakeholders in the process, bear scrutiny.

The Mock Trial is an experiential exercise adapted from a law school process that encourages students to think critically about theories, topics, and the practice of management in an innovative classroom experience. Playing the role of attorneys and witnesses, learners ask questions and challenge assumptions by playing roles in a trial with testimony and cross-examination. Once a theory or topic has been chosen to be “put on trial,” one team of petitioners (challengers) and their witnesses make arguments to a jury. Another team acts as the respondents (defenders) for the opposing side and presents their case in a mock courtroom setting. The jury renders a verdict using a fishbowl format for their deliberations. Then feedback and classroom debriefing, which immediately follow the trial, and later reflection papers help solidify the learning experience. All materials required to create, run, and assess a Mock Trial are provided in this article.

No abstract

The doctrine of judicial immunity holds that a judge cannot be sued for his or her judicial performance even if the judge acts intentionally or with malice. The doctrine has been expanded to include those who assist the judiciary such as mediators. In addition, mental health professionals who, acting pursuant to a court order, evaluate a criminal defendant's competency to stand trial or interview children in neglect proceedings have been accorded quasi-judicial immunity. The authors address the issue of whether immunity exists for therapists who mediate without court approval. Drawing on precedent establishing such protection for court-appointed therapists, the article makes the case for expanding the doctrine to embrace private practitioners. When therapists work with individuals to help them resolve their disputes, the authors contend, they are acting like judges and are deserving of similar protection. The policy factors and precedent militating in favor of extending immunity are explored, as are suggestions for making immunity explicit in the therapist-disputant agreement.