GRUG CASE STUDY
Work place MEDIATION
It’s very normal for issues to arise in the Workplace, but it’s not always dealt with fast enough & with the right rools, to provide an ideal outcome. This is a Case Study on how one of our Workplace Mediations was carried out, the why, with whom, the how, and what the outcome was. The names and personal details mentioned in the Case Study below, are fictional to protect the privacy of our clients.
GRUG asked for the mediation to help resolve the differences between Andrew and Lawrence and report on the Outcome reached and future strategies with the consent of Andrew and Lawrence but did not wish to be present at the mediation.
||Corporate for GRUG International|
|Party A Name & Gender||Andrew Male|
|Party B Name & Gender||Lawrence Male|
|Party A Perspective of legal and other concerns and issues to be resolved at mediation as raised at prep meeting with mediator before joint session||Andrew has been working for GRUG for 4 months as the programme manager for the Adelaide site.
Before GRUG, Andrew was a minister in a Church but it wasn’t busy enough. He has met with many people in his life and is studying HR at the moment. Andrew considers himself to be easy going.
His role is to communicate with the GRUG customers about the scheduling and timing of the delivery of their products and answer all customer questions.
Andrew likes his job and going to work but can’t work together with Lawrence in the current format. Andrew feels like he is walking on egg shells. Andrew has threatened to load him up to put him under more pressure so he leaves.
Andrew is concerned that he is unable to predict Lawrence’s reactions and that at any moment Lawrence may lose his cool and even hit him. His relationship with Lawrence is affecting his role and jeopardizing his relationship with the GRUG customers.
|Party B Perspective of legal and other concerns and issues to be resolved at mediation as raised at prep meeting with mediator before joint session||Lawrence started at GRUG before Andrew but was promoted to his current role of site manager for Adelaide after Andrew started sat GRUG.
Lawrence is a machinist by trade and worked in manufacturing and production all his work life. He has worked his way from apprentice on the shop floor to senior management and now site manager. He has always been young for his roles.
As site manager, Lawrence works from 4 am to 6 or 7 pm and is responsible for all production by 12 staff, scheduling of productions, audits, testing, good inspection and goods out as well as petty cash. He has 819 unread work emails.
Lawrence works under constant pressure of deadlines and has a very stressful job.
He tries to avoid arguments but acknowledges that sometimes there are arguments which cause strain and he sometimes ‘snaps’ but does not consider that his behavior and language is not any worse than any other shop floor he has worked in even at management level.
Lawrence does not understand the value to GRUG of Andrew spending time at conferences to the bottom line where the site is not yet at break even point.
|Reason for mediation||GRUG asked for the mediation to help resolve the differences between Andrew and Lawrence and report on the Outcome reached and future strategies with the consent of Andrew and Lawrence but did not wish to be present at the mediation.|
|Agenda of concerns raised byParty A and Party B||1 How can Andrew and Lawrence work harmoniously together;
2. How can Andrew and Lawrence communicate more effectively
|Views of Lawyer for Party A||n/a|
|Views of Lawyer for Party B||n/a|
|Options generated and evaluation by Party A||Have daily separate meetings at regular times just tracking productions and rescheduling decisions.|
|Options generated and evaluation by Party B||1) Andrew to better understand Lawrence’s role, work pressures, work environment, and conflicting KPIs
2) Reduce expectations of performance and then over delivery.
3) Clarify the business strategy and priories between offering best delivery times, lowest cost for products or both
|Private session by mediator with Party A reality testing of Party A proposal to be put by Party A||Andrew was concerned that Lawrence was not ‘getting it.’|
|Private session by mediator with Party B reality testing of Party B proposal to be put by Party B||Lawrence was concerned that Andrew did not assume that his first priority was always meeting the client’s expectations and not accepting that there are times where client expectations just cannot be me and Andrew has to have the skills and the language to deal with that.|
|Discussion and negotiation between Party A and Party B||Both Lawrence and Andrew agreed there is a conflict between the client’s expectations and the current production capabilities at GRUG Adelaide site.
Lawrence apologized for not being professional and snapping at Andrew.
|Outcome agreed and recorded||
|How Party A felt before, during and after mediation||Andrew felt apprehensive before the mediation about whether Lawrence could or would change and surprised and really happy that Lawrence apologized in the mediation for his past behavior.|
|How Party B felt before, during and after mediation||Before the mediation Lawrence did not know how the situation had escalated to a mediation so quickly and felt that Andrew should have raised his problems with him first. Lawrence was pleased that they had found a way forward to start to rebuild the work relationship where the trust had been broken.|
If you would like to discuss how SHAW Mediation can help you effectively resolve Workplace or Corporate Disputes, Let’s Talk!