Alternative Dispute Resolution A Resource Guide Table of Contents Introduction Section I: Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques and Agency Practices ADR Techniques or Methods Agriculture Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Agriculture Forest Service Agriculture National Finance Center Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Agriculture Research, Education, and Economics Air Force Air Force Charleston Air Force Base Air Force Kirtland Air Force Base Air Force Lackland Air Force Base Air Force McClellan Air Force Base Air Force Tinker Air Force Base Army Anniston Army Depot Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, KY Army Corps of Engineers Army U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Detrick, MD Army Fort Monmouth, NJ Army Army Materiel Command (AMC) Army Army Research Laboratory Army Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) Army White Sands Missile Range Broadcasting Board of Governors Central Intelligence Agency Commodity Futures Trading Commission Corporation for National and Community Service Defense Contract Audit Agency Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Defense Logistics Agency Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service Defense Threat Reduction Agency Education Energy Office of Dispute Resolution Energy Employee Concerns Program Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Energy Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Energy Environment, Safety and Health, Office of Oversight Energy Idaho Operations Office Energy Nevada Operations Office Energy Richland Operations Office Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Election Commission General Accounting Office General Services Administration General Services Administration Greater Southwest Region Health and Human Services Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Health and Human Services National Institutes Of Health Health and Human Services Phoenix Area Indian Health Services Interior Interior DOI Human Resources Management Justice Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys Justice Federal Bureau Of Investigation Justice Federal Bureau Of Investigation Justice Federal Bureau Of Prisons Justice United States Marshals Service Labor Library of Congress National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Imagery and Mapping Agency National Security Agency Navy Navy Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW), San Diego Navy Human Resources Service Center, Norfolk Navy Human Resources Service Center, Pacific Navy Human Resources Service Center, East Navy Human Resources Service Center, Southeast Navy Human Resources Service Center, Northwest Office of Personnel Management Postal Service REDRESS REDRESS II Smithsonian Institution Social Security Administration Western Program Service Center State Tennessee Valley Authority Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Transportation Federal Aviation Administration - Great Lakes Region Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region Treasury Bureau Of Engraving and Printing Treasury Bureau Of the Public Debt Treasury Customs Service Treasury Internal Revenue Service Treasury IRS - Kansas City Service Center Treasury IRS - North-South Carolina District Treasury U.S. Mint Treasury Secret Service U.S.Congress Office of Compliance Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Alexandria, Louisiana VA Medical Center Veterans Affairs Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System Veterans Affairs Desert Pacific Healthcare Network Veterans Affairs Iowa City VA Medical Center Veterans Affairs Martinsburg VA Medical Center Department of Veterans Affairs St. Louis, MO VA Medical Center Veterans Affairs Salem VA Medical Center VA Healthcare Network Upstate New York Section II: Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques and Agency Practices Alternative Discipline Agency Practices Administrative Office Of The U.S. Courts Alternative Discipline Agriculture Air Force Keesler Air Force Base Army Letterkenny Army Depot Defense Logistics Agency General Accounting Office Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Interior National Park Service NASA National Security Agency Navy Fleet & Industrial Center, San Diego Navy Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Postal Service U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home Section III: Shared Neutrals Programs Atlanta Federal Executive Board Chicago Federal Executive Board Dallas-Ft. Worth Federal Executive Board Denver Federal Executive Board DFEB-ADR Consortium Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board Oklahoma Federal Executive Board Oregon Federal Executive Board Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board Portland Federal Executive Board Seattle Federal Executive Board Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Consortium Washington, DC - Sharing Neutrals Program Section IV: Administrative Appeals Agencies Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Office Of Special Counsel (OSC) Section V: ADR Training and Assistance Sources PART I. Federal Sources For ADR Training and Assistance Department Of Defense Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Graduate School USDA U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) U.S. Office Of Personnel Management (OPM) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) PART II. Non-Federal Sources For ADR Training and Assistance Colleges and Universities Associations and Consulting Organizations PART III. ADR Videotapes PART IV. Periodicals & Newsletters Section VI: ADR Web Sites GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Federal Executive Board (FEB) Web Sites: ASSOCIATIONS,NON-PROFITS, AND OTHERS SECTION VII Bibliography ARTICLES BOOKS AND REPORTS APPENDIX Part I. Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITIONS. SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS T0 CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE CLOSURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE. SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT SERVICES PROVISION. SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT. SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS ON ACQUIRING NEUTRALS. SEC. 8. ARBITRATION AWARDS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. SEC. 9. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; PROVISIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE. SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 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. Part II. How to Evaluate the Guide's Usefulness 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. 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 maysuggest 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 makesrecommendations 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 willingnes 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/ 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 toresolve 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. 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, whomever 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 theissues and decides by majority vote. Under the CECOM ADR procedure, it takesapproximately 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. 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 sorequested 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. 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. 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 inDOE'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