The Independent External Mediation option for employers of the Irish Private Security

Industry in the light of recent legislation

by Hugh Anthony Moody, BSc

A minor thesis submitted as part of the requirements for the

MA in Mediation and Conflict Intervention,

Edward M Kennedy Institute

Maynooth University

September 2019

Under the supervision of Dr Treasa Kenny

Declaration
I have read and understood the Edward M Kennedy Institute policy on plagiarism.

I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in any form for another
degree or diploma at any university or other institution of higher education.

Information derived from the published or unpublished work of others has been acknowledged
in the text and references are given.

I agree that Maynooth University can hold copies of this thesis via its library or the Edward M
Kennedy Institute. Unless otherwise agreed with the University, this thesis will be publicly
accessible.

Signed: _________________________________________________

Date: 30th September 2019

i
Abstract
While there is increasing interest in workplace mediation in Ireland as an effective process for
workplace dispute resolution, augmented by governmental support in the form of recent
enactment of The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and The Mediation Act 2017, low levels of
uptake of the process persist.

This mini-thesis aimed to explore independent external mediation as a workplace dispute

resolution option for employers of the Irish Private Security Industry in the light of recent
legislation in order that to identify challenges and present opportunities which can lead to
greater engagement of independent external mediators with organisations of this industry and
the wider economy. In order to fulfil this aim, the study used a qualitative grounded theory
methodology with a constructionist approach, based on views and opinions gathered through
the conduct of semi-structured one-on-one interviews with selected individuals comprising five
employers, two employer professional body representatives and six independent external
mediators.

Through the study’s research, discussion and analysis, it is found that, although levels of
engagement of the independent external mediation option are currently low. Many barriers and
challenges have been highlighted, principally related to lack of awareness and knowledge of
the process and its benefits, the voluntary nature inherent in the process and the inability of
practitioners to communicate with an empirically-based mediation outcomes framework. Real
and potential opportunities have been identified and recommended involving enhanced
promotion of the process, focused marketing and legal training, proposed legislative change
consideration and future research efforts which can lead to greater engagement of independent
external mediators with organisations of this industry and the wider economy.

ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr Treasa Kenny for her valuable
direction, continuous support and encouragement.

As an extension, I thank the lecturers associated with the Kennedy Institute for Peace Studies
who imparted their knowledge through the MA Mediation and Conflict Intervention course at
NUI Maynooth. In completing this thesis, a great deal of appreciation goes to Michael Foley
for his comprehensive lecturing in academic research. And to my fellow students, thank you
for selflessly sharing your many diverse experiences and insights, making participation on this
course so much more meaningful and real.

My sincere thanks to the employer representatives. professional body representatives and

independent external mediators who so generously gave of your time and expertise in the
interviews.

And most of all, I thank my parents, my family and my friends, for your constant support,
motivation, love and bestowing of emotional wisdom.

iii
Table of Contents
Declaration ................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iv
Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Context .................................................................................................................................... 2
Workplace mediation in Ireland ..................................................................................................... 2
Independent external mediators .................................................................................................... 3
The Private Security Industry in Ireland .......................................................................................... 3
The Workplace Relations Act 2015 ................................................................................................. 3
The Mediation Act 2017.................................................................................................................. 4
The Researcher ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Purpose and Aim ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Significance and Scope ............................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Thesis Outline.......................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Workplace Conflict: the trend toward alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods .......... 6
2.3 Workplace Mediation ............................................................................................................. 7
2.4 The Workplace Relations Act 2015 ....................................................................................... 10
2.5 The Mediation Act 2017........................................................................................................ 10
2.6 The Private Security Industry in Ireland ................................................................................ 11
2.7 Current Related Research ..................................................................................................... 11
2.8 Summary and Implications ................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design ............................................................................ 13
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Study Participants ................................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 15
3.5 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Reliability and Validity........................................................................................................... 18
3.7 Ethics and Limitations ........................................................................................................... 18

iv
 3.8 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 4: Findings and Data Interpretation ............................................................................... 20
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Independent External Mediators .......................................................................................... 20
Question 1: What type of organisations in the context of nature, size, and HRM/Mediation
organic resource engage with you in relation to external mediation services? ........................... 20
Question 2: What level of operation are you committed to per annum? .................................... 21
Question 3: Through what means have you become known to your client? ............................... 22
Question 4: At what level of workplace dispute/conflict are you usually contacted? ................. 22
Question 5: What reasons do employers present as their reason for engaging with an external
mediator? ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Question 6: In your opinion, what are the main barriers/obstacles deterring employers from
engaging with external mediators? .............................................................................................. 23
Question 7: From your perspective, how has the introduction and implementation of the
Workplace Relations Act 2015 impacted upon your engagement with employers? ................... 24
Question 8: What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC? ....................................................... 25
Question 9: From your perspective, is it operating successfully? ................................................ 27
Question 10: For your perspective, how has the introduction of The Mediation Act 2017
impacted upon your engagement with employers?..................................................................... 28
Question 11: In your opinion, what are the main benefits for employers when they choose to
engage external mediation services? ........................................................................................... 30
Question 12: In your view, what are the most salient challenges facing the expansion of external
mediation in the private sector?................................................................................................... 31
Question 13: From your perspective, how can the independent external mediation option be
further promoted? ........................................................................................................................ 34
4.3 Employers – Employer Representatives ............................................................................... 35
Question 1: Has your organisation ever considered independent external mediation options for
workplace dispute or conflict? ...................................................................................................... 35
Question 2: In your view, would you choose the independent external mediation option? ....... 36
Question 3: At what stage in a conflict/dispute would you consider engaging an independent
external mediator? ....................................................................................................................... 38
Question 4: From your perspective, what obstacles/barriers arise when considering
independent external mediation options? ................................................................................... 39
Question 5: In the light of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (WRC) and The Mediation Act
2017, from your opinion has workplace mediation become more relevant, or not, as a process
for resolving workplace dispute and conflict? .............................................................................. 40
Question 6: What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC? ....................................................... 42
Question 7: Is it operating successfully for your company? ......................................................... 44

v
 Question 8: From your knowledge, what are the current independent external mediation
options currently available?.......................................................................................................... 45
Question 9: In your view, is independent external mediation worth promoting for your
organisation? ................................................................................................................................ 46
Question 10: If so, how do you achieve this? ............................................................................... 47
4.4 Employer Professional Bodies ............................................................................................... 47
Composite Finding ........................................................................................................................ 47
4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 5: Discussion and Analysis ............................................................................................. 49
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 49
5.2 Is it worth promoting? .......................................................................................................... 50
5.3 Barriers and challenges preventing its engagement ............................................................ 51
General Barriers and Challenges ................................................................................................... 52
Barriers and Challenges created due to recent legislation ........................................................... 53
5.4 The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the WRC Resolution Framework ........................... 53
5.5 The Mediation Act (2017) ..................................................................................................... 55
5.6 Salient Issues Arising as Challenges and Potential Opportunities ........................................ 57
Mandatory Mediation ................................................................................................................... 57
The issue of Trust .......................................................................................................................... 59
Lack of Awareness and Understanding ......................................................................................... 60
5.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 62
6.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 62
6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 64
Legislation Change and Progression ............................................................................................. 64
All Mediation Institutes................................................................................................................. 65
Mediators’ Institute of Ireland (MII) ............................................................................................. 65
Individual Mediators ..................................................................................................................... 65
Employers...................................................................................................................................... 66
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 67
List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview – Employers and Employers Representatives ................... 73
Appendix B: Semi-structured Interview – Private security Industry Associations ............................ 74
Appendix C: Semi-structured Interview – Independent External Mediators ................................... 75
Appendix D: Consent Form for Research Interview.......................................................................... 76
Appendix E: Information Letter about the Study – Interview .......................................................... 77

vi
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Context of Workplace Mediation in Ireland ............................................................................. 2
Figure 2 Question Mapping and Thematic Analysis Preparatory Chart................................................ 17
Figure 3 Barriers deterring external mediators from engagements ..................................................... 24
Figure 4 WRC benefits identified by independent external mediators ................................................ 26
Figure 5 WRC pitfalls identified by independent external mediators .................................................. 27
Figure 6 Positive impacts of The Mediation Act identified by independent external mediators ......... 28
Figure 7 Non-positive impact of The Mediation Act identified by independent external mediators .. 29
Figure 8 Benefits of independent external mediation to employers identified by mediators ............. 30
Figure 9 General challenges to expansion of external mediation identified by independent external
mediators .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 10 Process-related challenges identified by internal external mediators ................................. 32
Figure 11 Recent legislative-related challenges identified by independent external mediators ......... 33
Figure 12 Sources of promotion identified by independent external mediators ................................. 34
Figure 13 Consideration by multi-national employers of independent external mediation option .... 35
Figure 14 Consideration by Irish-owned employers of independent external mediation option ........ 36
Figure 15 Multi-national employer reasons for independent external mediation option ................... 37
Figure 16 Irish-owned employer reasons for independent external mediation option ....................... 37
Figure 17 Multi-national employer – what stage to engage independent external mediation ........... 38
Figure 18 Irish-owned employer - what stage to engage independent external mediation ................ 39
Figure 19 Barriers to engagement identified by multi-national employers ......................................... 39
Figure 20 Barriers to engagement identified by Irish-owned employers ............................................. 40
Figure 21 Recent legislation-related relevance of mediation identified by multi-national employers 41
Figure 22 Recent legislation-related relevance of mediation identified by Irish-owned employers ... 42
Figure 23 WRC-related benefits identified by employers..................................................................... 43
Figure 24 WRC-related pitfalls identified by employers ....................................................................... 44
Figure 25 Current independent external mediation options currently available identified by multi-
national employers ............................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 26 Current independent external mediation options currently available identified by Irish-
owned employers ................................................................................................................................. 46

vii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background

Mediation can be defined as;

‘the intervention in a negotiation or a conflict of an acceptable third party who has limited or
no authoritative decision-making power, [and] who assists the involved parties to voluntarily
reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues in dispute.’ (Moore, 2003, p. 15)

And, more specifically, with a view to this study, workplace mediation is defined as;

‘A confidential and voluntary process whereby an independent mediator assists two or more
individuals, work groups, or employers and trade unions experiencing conflict or a dispute to
identify their issues and objectives, and explore how those objectives can be addressed with a
view to reaching agreement.’ (Kenny, 2014)

From both definitions, the elemental principles of the mediation process are that it is voluntary,
neutral, with negotiated outcomes (Lipsky, et al., 2003) (Wall & Dunne, 2012).

A study of conflict management innovations in Ireland by Teague et al. (2015) presents

mediation as ‘an increasingly popular part of a systems approach’ to managing workplace
disputes (p. 111).

Mediation is just one of these conflict management innovations and is rightly termed an
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. Being such, it differs distinctly from the court-
based adversarial system in that it seeks a mutually satisfactory resolution to a dispute
(Schneider, 1999). As a conflict resolution process, it is recognised as relevant for use in the
workplace environment where there are ongoing working relationships (Kenny, 2014, p. 59).

Although cited as relevant and increasing in popularity, it has been found that most
organisations in Ireland are not in favour of implementing radical conflict management
innovations, favouring the adaptation of revised ‘conventional practices to address new forms
of conflict’ (Teague, et al., 2015, p. 294). Furthermore, and adding to this complexity, recent
legislation in the form of The Workplace Relations Act 2015 (Government of Ireland, 2015)
and The Mediation Act 2017 (Government of Ireland, 2017) have potential to influence the
expansion of mediation and its engagement in the workplace. To date, little research has been
conducted on this most recent dynamic.

1
1.2 Context

The main components featured in this research are; Workplace mediation in Ireland,
independent external mediators (otherwise known as private mediators), the Irish Private
Security Industry, recent legislation relating to mediation, and the researcher.

Workplace mediation in Ireland

• Workplace • Mediators
Relations • Companies
Commission

Statutory Private
Body Service

Internal
Professional
Mediation
Body
schemes

• Private • Mediators
Sector Institute of
• Public Sector Ireland

Figure 1 Context of Workplace Mediation in Ireland

Referring to Table 1, adapted from Curran et al. (2016a, p. 8), workplace mediation in Ireland
is conducted by mediators through their involvement in the private sector, the public sector or
the workplace dispute resolution statutory body known as the Workplace Relations
Commission as established in 2015. As will be found in this research the public sector
increasingly caters for its mediation needs through internal mediation schemes, with some
private organisations also operating internal mediation processes. The Workplace Relation
Commission includes a pool of mediators organic to the Commission who conduct both
telephone and face-to-face mediation. The vast majority of mediators active in Ireland are
members of the Mediators Institute of Ireland (MII).

The Mediators’ Institute of Ireland (MII) is the professional association for mediators in the
Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The MII was established in 1992 to promote the
practice of mediation and it provides a public list of accredited mediators on its website (The

2
Mediators' Institute of Ireland). The number of mediators (either as individuals or within
consulting companies) stands at over 700 members and has 35 mediation training programmes
nationwide, of which 180 members claim to specialise in workplace disputes (Curran, 2015, p.
178).

Independent external mediators

Private facilitators, including external mediators, are practitioners engaged by employers, trade
unions and state agencies to assist the process of collective bargaining in various ways, or to
support dispute resolution (Roche, 2015). In this research, independent external mediators are
mediators who engage with either public or private sector organisations in a private faciliatory
capacity for the purpose of workplace dispute resolution through the process of mediation and
exclusive of the statutory Workplace Relations Commission’s framework. It is from this group
that the research’s six independent external mediators are found.

The Private Security Industry in Ireland

The Private Security Industry in Ireland has become highly regulated with the introduction of
The Private Security Services Act 2004 (Government of Ireland, 2004). The Private Security
Authority (PSA) is the statutory body with responsibility for licensing and regulating the
private security industry in Ireland (The Private Security Authority). According to the PSA,
the number of licensed contractors, otherwise employers, has risen from 730 across seven
sectors to 1,320 across twelve sectors, with 30,400 licensed individuals, or potential employees.
The annual turnover of the industry is currently estimated at €710 million (The Private Security
Authority, 2018). This is a substantial, people-intensive industry, of which my five employer
representative interviewees are drawn from.

The Workplace Relations Act 2015

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) replaced four statutory bodies and became a
Single Body of First Instance with the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act in June 2015
(Government of Ireland, 2015). The role of the WRC is to fulfil the previous functions carried
out by the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA), Equality Tribunal (ET), Labour
Relations Commission (LRC), Rights Commissioners Service (RCS), and the first-instance
(Complaints and Referrals) functions of the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). In doing
so, the WRC’s core services include the provision of early dispute resolution, mediation,
conciliation, facilitation and advisory services, adjudication on complaints and disputes
(Workplace Relations Commission, 2019).

3
The Mediation Act 2017
The Mediation Act 2017 (Government of Ireland, 2017) came into force on 01 January 2018,
with its primary objective to promote mediation as a viable, effective and efficient alternative
to court proceedings, thereby reducing legal costs, hastening the resolution of disputes and
reducing the disadvantages of court proceedings (Law Society of Ireland, 2018). This Act
introduces an obligation on solicitors and barristers to advise parties to consider using
mediation as a means of resolving disputes (Government of Ireland, 2017).

The Researcher
In reflective of previous experience, both in international conflict and workplace dispute, and
recently having gained new insight to conflict intervention processes, I feel that in many
instances the particular aspects of mediation involving confidentiality, informal and voluntary
nature, and mutual agreement towards a satisfactory outcome facilitated by but not decided by
a third party could have been the most-suited, -productive and -sustained method of conflict
resolution to use. Specifically, from my experience in the Irish Private Security Industry, I
recognise the potential benefits that mediation can achieve. For this reason, I have availed of
this opportunity by way of research to explore the challenges and opportunities that may exist
within this context.

1.3 Purpose and Aim

The purpose of this mini-thesis is to explore independent external mediation as a workplace

dispute resolution option for employers of the Irish Private Security Industry in the light of
recent legislation in order that to identify challenges and present opportunities which can lead
to greater engagement of independent external mediators with organisations of this industry
and the wider economy.

1.4 Significance and Scope

The significance of this research centres in the identification of the level of independent
external mediation engagement that is currently being conducted in the Irish Security Industry,
identifying the barriers, challenges and consequent recommendations which can permit the
option to gain greater consideration, particularly in the light of recent legislation. In so doing,
benefits arising from this research can be provided to employers, independent external
mediators and the greater economy.

4
The research will focus purely on the observations of employers of the security industry, their
professional bodies and independent external mediators regarding workplace mediation in
general and in the light of recent legislation.

1.5 Thesis Outline

This mini-thesis is comprised of six chapters.

Chapter 1 has introduced the theme, context, purpose, significance and scope of this research.

Chapter 2 reviews the literature regarding workplace conflict and the trend toward alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) methods, workplace mediation, the Workplace Relations Act 2015,
the Mediation Act 2017, and current related research.

Chapter 3 describes the methodology used, why it was used and aspects of the methodology
that were incorporated to ensure that the research’s findings could achieve the research
objectives.

Chapter 4 details the research findings and interpretation of the data gathered from the
interviewees.

Chapter 5 presents a discussion based upon a critical analysis of the research’s findings in the
light of the literature review in regard to the level of independent external engagement that is
currently being conducted in the Irish Security Industry, identifying the barriers, challenges
and opportunities that exist that can permit the option to gain greater consideration, particularly
in the light of recent legislation.

Chapter 6 of the mini-thesis concludes the discussion and presents a number of

recommendations that may permit greater engagement of the independent external option to
employers of the Irish Security Industry for the purpose of workplace dispute resolution.

5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an exploration of available literature which is applicable and reflects the
purpose of the research. Beginning with an examination of literature relating to workplace
conflict and the apparent trend towards alternative dispute resolution methods, the chapter
focuses on workplace mediation and relating aspects which will provide support to my
research, discussion and consequent analysis of the research subject. In doing so, the researcher
has additionally reviewed literature relating to recent legislation enacted in Ireland that may
have an impact on employers, mediators in the context of engagement of the independent
external mediation option.

2.2 Workplace Conflict: the trend toward alternative dispute resolution

(ADR) methods
Workplace conflict is a certainty and is unavoidable, although not essentially a bad thing (Fox,
1973; Salamon, 2001; Rose, 2001). The management of this conflict is the crucial element
which can lead to positive outcomes such as creativity, improved decision-making and
enhanced employee relations (Curran, 2015).

The trend towards high-performance workplace and quality-focused competitive strategies has
motivated innovation in conflict management systems (Lipsky, et al., 2016). These alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) methods have developed in the US, growing since the 1970s, as an
option for resolving disputes outside of the courtroom and in response to the weaknesses of the
adversarial legal system (Struthers, et al., 2005; Lipsky & Avgar, 2004). McKenzie (2015, p.
54) cites ADR methods include processes such as; Ombudsman, peer review, employment
arbitration, negotiation, and mediation (Bingham, 2004; Mahony & Klaas, 2007; Vickers,
2006). Schneider (1999, p. 1086), states that ADR differs distinctly from the court-based
adversarial system in that it seeks a mutually satisfactory resolution to a dispute. Other
advantages cited by researchers include that it is more time-efficient and flexible, and less
costly than litigation (McKenzie, 2015).

Notwithstanding that Ireland possesses one of the most globalised economies, the
organisational uptake of ADR in Ireland is comparatively low and have not been adopted in an
integrated manner (Roche & Teague, 2012; Teague, et al., 2015, p. 294). However, Teague et
al. (2012) found that US-owned multinationals were more likely to incorporate individual
ADR practices than their Irish counterparts and other multinationals. McKenzie (2015)
6
surmises that this might reflect the institutional framework for conflict resolution that has
traditionally existed.

Recent prevailing trends suggest that ADR methods will continue to grow. The move to high-
performance, team-based work towards the latter stages of the 20th Century imposed change in
employment relationships (Lipsky & & Seeber, 1998; Barrett & O'Dowd, 2005; Lipsky, et al.,
2003; Quinn, et al., 2002; Pfeffer, 2002). Additionally, increased legislation and the
corresponding ‘legalisation’ of workplace conflict, particularly in the US, UK, and Ireland,
inspired organisations to implement more appropriate mechanisms for resolving workplace
disputes (Barrett & O'Dowd, 2005; Lipsky, 2007; Roche & Teague, 2011; Roche, et al., 2013).
Consequently, an evolving view of conflict in the workplace as a natural and healthy
phenomenon that requires effective management, rather than avoidance, caused a move
towards interest-based processes and the use of ADR mechanisms (Avgar, 2010; Barrett &
O'Dowd, 2005; Lipsky, 2007; Lipsky & & Seeber, 1998; Lipsky, et al., 2003; Roche, et al.,
2013).

Invariably, mediation can be defined as a process of dispute resolution in which a neutral,

acceptable third party, being the mediator, uses a structured process to ‘facilitate disputing
parties to voluntarily reach a mutually acceptable settlement’ of the issues of their dispute
(Moore, 2003, p. 15; Curran, 2015, p. 175). The essential feature of mediation is that it
facilitates the parties’ control over the process of their own dispute and the customising of
outcomes to suit their own needs and expectations (Bush, 1989; Saundry & Wibberley, 2015).
Researchers have detailed the advantages of mediation as being; easily organised, not requiring
input from managers, representatives or witnesses (Bingham & Pitts, 2002; Colvin, 2003;
Latreille & Saundry, 2013; Nesbit, et al., 2012) and; more likely to result in a positive outcome
and is more cost-effective than lengthy grievance or disciplinary procedures whilst reducing
the inclination towards long-term absence and litigation (Bingham, et al., 2002; Bingham,
2004; Latreille, 2011; Latreille & Saundry, 2013). Furthermore, it has been argued that the
mediation process ensures that it is more likely to uphold any agreement made (Reynolds,
2000).

2.3 Workplace Mediation

Mediation is an increasingly prevalent element of a systems approach to the innovative
management of workplace conflict and is now seen ‘as a way of dealing with a broad range of
issues’ (Kenny, 2014; Curran, 2015; Teague, et al., 2015, p. 111). Kenny (2014, p. 59) cites

7
that UK organisations registered an increase in the use of mediation from 42.7% in 2008 to
57.3% in 2011, with an even higher usage among public sector employers at 82.8% (CIPD,
2008; CIPD, 2011) . Extending this, a CIPD survey of its members in the UK records that in-
house mediation was used by 24% of organisations in formal employee grievances and external
mediation was in used 9% (CIPD, 2015, p. 11).

Currie et al. (2017) wonders that if mediation brings such positive benefits, why is it adopted
only by a minority of organisations. Available literature identifies “context” as an important
factor in relation to both the use and the effectiveness of mediation (Curran, et al., 2016b, p.
10), these being organisational size, culture, ethos and inherent attitudes, and sectoral change.

Research suggests that organisation size, type and sector is a factor (Banks & Saundry, 2010;
Latreille, 2011; Wall & Dunne, 2012). Kenny (2014) and Banks & Saundry (2010) cite that
larger organisations in the UK, particularly in the public sector, integrate mediation as part of
their procedures when dealing with individual conflict (CIPD, 2008; CIPD, 2013). Small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) considered mediation as an effective process for resolving
disputes but only a small minority have used it, as the cost of external mediation is seen as
prohibitive (Harris, et al., 2008; Johnston, 2008; Latreille, et al., 2012; Latreille & Saundry,
2013). Costs, linked to organisational size and level of financial resource, is a restricting factor
(Latreille & Saundry, 2013), with workplace mediation appearing to be used mostly large UK
and US organisations which seem to have the financial, technical and human resources to either
provide and internal mediation service or contract external mediators (Banks & Saundry,
2010).

The attitude of members of an organisation to conflict may affect its responsiveness to

mediation (Banks & Saundry, 2010) as it may be influenced by the collective strategies
identified as contend, settle and prevent (Seeber & Lipsky, 2006). Those organisations that
recognise the link between conflict, employee behaviour and work outcomes tend to identify
more willingly with mediation as a process for dispute resolution (Suliman & Abdulla, 2005;
Banks & Saundry, 2010).

From research, it seems HR management has a pivotal role to play: trust and confidence in
mediation may be developed through discussions between senior HR managers, operational
managers and trade union representatives (Banks & Saundry, 2010; Bingham, 2004; Saundry,
et al., 2013; Bleiman, 2008) however; organisational resistance can occur when there is a lack
of confidence, particularly amongst senior management and HR managers, in developing and

8
implementing informal procedures (Roche & Teague, 2012) and mediation (Kokaylo, 2016;
CIPD, 2015; Saundry & Wibberley, 2015).

Similarly, resistance to the mediation process within organisations can also derive from line
managers who perceive mediation as a threat to their authority (Seargeant, 2005; Saundry, et
al., 2013) and whose uncertainty and/or incapability of the mediation process, even after
completing appropriate training and coaching, lends them towards invoking formal procedure
in preference to early dispute resolution methods such as mediation (Saundry & Wibberley,
2012). Furthermore, another obstacle that may hinder workplace mediation process uptake is
“commercial priorities”, causing line managers to give priority of their efforts towards
operational- and customer-related needs in preference to committing time to mediation
(Saundry & Wibberley, 2012, pp. 20-22).

Other factors impeding the acceptance of workplace mediation in organisations are evident
from research, including a lack of awareness and understanding of the process (Latreille, 2011;
Kokaylo, 2016). Particular to Ireland, litigation costs are not as substantial as in the US,
employers in Ireland, as in the UK (Banks & Saundry, 2010), are not compelled or strongly
incentivised to use mediation and union density in Ireland averages 28 percent in the Irish
private and commercial State-owned sector (Teague, et al., 2012). Information on
employer/employee procedure bias is outlined by Saundry et al. (2018).

Workplace mediation in Ireland is provided by the Workplace Relations Commission, private

mediation providers, and internal mediation schemes established in large and private sector
organisations (Curran, et al., 2016b; Kenny, 2014; Curran, 2014). The number of people trained
in mediation and offering mediation services has expanded dramatically in Ireland (Teague, et
al., 2015).

In Ireland, the professional association of mediation practitioners, the Mediation Institute of

Ireland (MII) currently has over 700 members and has 35 mediation training programmes
nationwide, of which 180 members claim to specialise in workplace disputes (Curran, 2015, p.
178). Private facilitators, including external mediators, are practitioners engaged by employers,
trade unions and state agencies to assist the process of collective bargaining in various ways,
or to support dispute resolution (Roche, 2015). Research states that a number of organisations
in the US and UK have incorporated in-house mediation services into their conflict
management structures, whilst others use external mediators, with some using a combination
of both (Kenny, 2014). Using internal mediators provides the advantage of greater insight into

9
the context of a dispute and potential solutions (Nabatchi & Bingham, 2010), and is less costly
than external mediation (Latreille, 2011). Conversely, neutrality and credibility can be real
challenges (Sherman, 2003; Bingham & Pitts, 2002) and the use of line managers for internal
mediation can result in benefits and negative outcomes (Banks & Saundry, 2010).

Other literature accessed for this study concerned the inability to both communicate mediation
benefits (Banks & Saundry, 2010, p. 11) and mediation outcomes (Bollen & Euwema, 2013b)
in a structured result framework, with further literature from Hollett et al. (2002) and Curran
et al (Curran, et al., 2016b). The issue of mandatory mediation was aided by literature sourced
from Quek (2010), European Parliament (2008), LIBRALEX (2014), Wissler (1995) and
Winston (1996).

2.4 The Workplace Relations Act 2015

Increased employment regulation and its associated legalisation of workplace conflict are
identified as influencing a move towards more innovative conflict management practices in the
US (Curran, et al., 2016b). Teague et al contests that this shift has not followed through in
Ireland despite the presence of US multinational organisations in this jurisdiction (Teague, et
al., 2015). It is argued that the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (Government
of Ireland, 2015) and the separate provision for mediation within the Workplace Relations
Commission (WRC) is a significant advancement for promoting mediation on a statutory basis
(Curran, et al., 2016b). Kerr (2016) states that the WRC Act seeks to lessen the confusion when
seeking to resolve individual workplace-related conflict dispute in Ireland and outlines the key
points that will indicate its success. The WRC Annual Report 2018 outlines its mission and
objectives, and details its workplace mediation services performance (Workplace Relations
Commission, 2019).

2.5 The Mediation Act 2017

Schneider (1999) argues that ADR processes serve both the client and their lawyers in that they
reduce the workload on the justice system and provide greater opportunities for dispute
resolution to the broader community. Currie et al (2017) cites that throughout the Anglo-
American world governments have been actively encouraging organisations to adopt
mediation, as witnessed in the Law Reform Commission Report (2010), as they consider that
it facilitates the early resolution of disputes, thus preventing these progressing into litigation
(Colvin & Darbishire, 2013). The Mediation Act 2017 (Government of Ireland, 2017) came
into force on 01 January 2018, with its primary objective to promote mediation as a viable,

10
effective and efficient alternative to court proceedings, thereby reducing legal costs, hastening
the resolution of disputes and reducing the disadvantages of court proceedings (Law Society
of Ireland, 2018).

This Act introduces an obligation on solicitors and barristers to advise parties to consider using
mediation as a means of resolving disputes (Government of Ireland, 2017). It also brings into
question the aspect of confidentiality, traditionally inherent in the mediation process (Prigoff,
1988). Schneider (1999) suggests that lawyers, having been focused on adversarial processes,
may be resistant to the use of ADR by the courts. In the Irish context, this area of mediation
engagement remains unresearched.

Curran (2015) states that the legal and institutional context for mediation in Ireland has evolved
towards promotion and encouragement of the use of mediation as a mechanism for dispute
resolution (Industrial Relations Ireland, 2014). The Department of Public Expenditure and
Reform states that government policy is the promotion of the use of mediation and places an
obligation on managers in the civil and public service to first consider the suitability of
mediation as a means to resolve a dispute prior to referral to a third party (Department of Public
Expenditure and Reform, 2017), advocating that internal or external professionally qualified
mediators, where suitable, should be utilised.

2.6 The Private Security Industry in Ireland

The Private Security Industry in Ireland is governed by The Private Security Services Act 2004
(Government of Ireland, 2004). The Private Security Authority (PSA) is the statutory body
with responsibility for licensing and regulating the private security industry in Ireland (The
Private Security Authority). According to the PSA, the number of licensed contractors,
otherwise employers, has risen from 730 across seven sectors to 1,320 across twelve sectors,
with 30,400 licensed individuals, or potential employees. The annual turnover of the industry
is currently estimated at €710 million (The Private Security Authority, 2018).

2.7 Current Related Research

Internationally, the research on workplace mediation has been scant (Bollen & Euwema,
2013a). Although ongoing research is being conducted, there is little empirical evidence
regarding the extent of use of workplace mediation in Ireland (Curran, et al., 2016b). Curran
(2015) notes that mediation research in Ireland is sparse, although much work relating to
conflict management systems and ADR processes within workplaces in Ireland has been
achieved (Roche & Teague, 2011; Roche & Teague, 2012; Teague, et al., 2012; Teague, et al.,

11
2015; Roche, 2015; Currie, et al., 2017). Recently, there has been increased interest in
mediation research emanating from the Kennedy Institute Workplace Mediation Research
Group (KIWMRG). Roche (2015) cites that although there has been much international
research about the work of state conflict resolution agencies in industrial relations, little is
known about the work of private facilitators. Specific to the context of this mini-thesis, as
Bouchier (2017) states, more in-depth research is required into the adoption of mediation in
the workplace.

2.8 Summary and Implications

Having fulfilled the purpose of this chapter, the researcher has identified aspects through this
literature review that, with the addition of findings, will assist, support and guide the direction
of focus throughout the remainder of the study. The researcher notes that much has been
published regarding alternative dispute resolution methods and mediation in general,
particularly from North America and the UK, but available literature relating to workplace
mediation, particularly in Ireland, has been scant and has only emerged in the past two decades.
Literature dealing with the impact on workplace mediation in Ireland in the light of recent
legislation is negligible. Chapter 3 will present the study’s findings from employers,
professional body representatives and independent external mediators in relation to this theme.

12
Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design
3.1 Introduction
In order to develop a research design, it is necessary to choose the most appropriate methods
for this research question. The hypothesis of the question infers that there may have been recent
changes in the way employers view independent external mediation as an option for workplace
dispute resolution, principally in the light of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (Government
of Ireland, 2015) and The Mediation Act 2017 (Government of Ireland, 2017). To ensure that
the researcher collects information to satisfy this question, methods of investigation must be
implemented that are suitable for gathering responses and are both analytical and clear, can
answer the research question sufficiently, and can be assessed as possessing both validity and
reliability.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research methodology for this qualitative
grounded theory study with a constructionist approach in order that the study can explore
independent external mediation as a workplace dispute resolution option for employers of the
Irish Private Security Industry in the light of recent legislation in respect of current level of
awareness and engagement and identify the challenges. In doing so, the research will permit
the researcher examine opportunities which can lead to greater engagement of independent
external mediators with organisations of this industry. The research objectives are to;

• identify the current Independent External Mediation options currently available,

• discover whether employers have considered Independent External Mediation options

and, if so, identify the incidence rate of implementation,

• answer why and at what stage employers choose Independent External Mediation
options,

• reveal the obstacles/barriers for employers when considering Independent External

Mediation options,

• explore whether the WRC is meeting employers’ needs at present,

• ascertain employers’ perceptions regarding the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC,

• examine the effect The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and The Mediation Act 2017
have upon independent external mediation,

13
 • examine whether Independent External Mediation worth promoting to employers,

• explore how this can be achieved, and

• discuss further any salient findings that might emerge.

The chapter will explain the applicability of the chosen methodology and the research plan
followed including study participants, procedures, analysis method, and ethical concerns and
limitations.

3.2 Methodology
A qualitative study is appropriate when the goal of research is to explain a phenomenon(s)
through the perception of a person’s experience in a given situation (Stake, 2010). A
quantitative study is appropriately used when seeking to understand the relationships between
variables (Creswell, 2007). Hence, as this research is to examine the experiences and
perceptions of employers, independent external mediators, and professional body
representatives the research has chosen to apply a qualitative approach.

Specifically, the qualitative research performed uses grounded theory methodology, as it is a

means of moving from individual knowledge to collective knowledge (Stake, 2010, p. 17). This
entails that interviews are methodically coded so that each phrase, line and word can be
summarised (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Charmaz (2006, p. 127) notes that grounded theory
contains both positivist and constructivist elements. The positivist philosophical position
comes from human experience with complete objectivity, whereas the constructivist
philosophical position comes from the human experience relative to their circumstances, being
influenced by society, culture and other external factors (Birks & Mills, 2015). Hence, this
study will apply a constructivist grounded theory approach to its qualitative methodology.
Consequently, as the study’s theories based on the original hypothesis evolved, the procedural
steps used in applied grounded theory ensured that the perspective of gathering data changed
constantly, allowing new theories to emerge.

3.3 Study Participants

Participants were selected from three group sets; employers (representatives) of the Irish
Private Security Industry, employer professional body representatives of the Irish Private
Security Industry, and independent external mediators (otherwise known as ‘private
mediators’). Criteria for selection for the study’s research was dependent upon each group set.

14
As employers of the Irish Private Security Industry, each participant had to be a high-ranking
member of an organisation which carried out a substantial portion of its business in the security
services sector, was compliant with the PSS Act (Government of Ireland, 2004), possessed
availability and acceptance to participate in the study and was established for a sufficient length
of time that allows for broad perspective on the research topics under question. Of the five
employers interviewed, two were multi-national and three were Irish-owned organisations.
Their representatives comprised of three Heads of HR Management, one General Manager and
one Senior Employee Relations Manager.

Regarding the two employer professional body representatives, the researcher selected the two
largest bodies which represent Irish private security employers in Ireland and caters for the vast
majority of employers within this sector.

In selecting independent external mediators, the criteria used was that each participant was
qualified and affiliated to the Mediators’ Institute of Ireland (The Mediators' Institute of
Ireland), was actively involved in workplace mediation, and had a known reputational standing
in mediation practice. Of the six independent external mediator participants, all were
additionally involved in the provision of other services to clients, these being in HR
management, business management consultancy, quasi-legal services and other alternate
dispute resolution (ADR) services. All participants have experience in delivering their services
to both the public and private sectors, to multi-national and Irish-owned organisations, and to
large, medium and small companies involved in numerous industries.

3.4 Data Collection

Following an epistemological, qualitative methodology (King & Horrocks, 2010; Kane, 1985)
and the constructivist grounded theory approach as outlined above, this study used semi-
structured interviews, found in Appendices A, B and C, as the main instrumentation for data
collecting. All interviews were scheduled by mutual agreement during the months of May to
July 2019.

Care has been given to the presentation, content, order and question structure (Miller, 1983,
pp. 112-115). The flow of the question set was given particular attention, ensuring that initial
questions were both general and promoted engagement, allowing an atmosphere where the
researcher seeks to put the participant at ease and to create a climate of trust (Legard, et al.,
2003), with more focused questions thereafter in a quest for new knowledge (p. 142). Along

15
with this, all stages of the interview were prepared, from introduction to closure, to ensure
integrity in the interview contract (pp. 144-147).

Before commencing with data collection, ethics approval was sought from the National
University of Ireland, Maynooth. On approval, the researcher emailed each of the thirteen
participants regarding the nature of the study (refer to Appendix E) along with an informed
consent form (refer to Appendix D), prior to participating in the study. All participants accepted
and signed the content form before commencement of interviews.

Interviews were conducted either through face-to-face, Skype or by telephone. The overriding
determinants were convenience and an environment that lent towards confidential and effective
transfer of information. Each interview was recorded electronically through Google Voice
Recording App with prior consent from each participant. No interview commenced without
confirmation the written consent of the participant. Each interview was conducted in a single
interview session. The researcher stated to all interviewees that follow-up engagement may be
requested in the event that findings required more clarification. Memos were kept to capture
any research thoughts during and after each interview. During the conduct of each interview,
the underlying semi-structure approach ensured that some additional questions could be added
and that proposed interview questions could be modified (Birks & Mills, 2015).

Each interview recording was subsequently transcribed either manually or by means of Google
Docs Voice App. Each interview transcription was then transferred to Microsoft Word version.
The transcripts were then sent by email to each respective participant for their invitation to
clarify if required, and to reply with their approval that the transcript was an accurate reflection
of the interview’s content. Importantly, no participant was aware of the content of other
transcripts and therefore could not contribute to the collective effort.

3.5 Data Analysis

Qualitative data was generated through the semi-structured interviews. The aim of qualitative
research is to provide an explicit rendering of the structure, order and patterns found among a
set of participants (Lofland, 1971, p. 1). Noting patterns and themes from data gathered,
explaining and developing theories based on this data and being able to present this theory
ensures the subsequent sharing of any useful information gathered from the study and benefit
stakeholders, these being employers, mediation professionals, and related practitioners (Miles
& Huberman, 1994, pp. 245-246) (Neuman, 1997, p. 425).

16
Thematic analysis is a structured technique whereby repeated themes, topics, trends and
patterns of meaning relevant to the research question are searched for in the transcripts or are
predefined (Clarke and Braun, 2013; King and Horrocks, 2010). The researcher employed this
technique to accomplish as outlined in Figure 2. Having become familiar with the content of
the transcripts, the research used open coding, coding line-by-line and labelling each line when
proceeding in an effort to gain greater focus on each data item (Birks & Mills, 2015).
Completing this, the researcher searched for and identified themes from the coding, with each
coded data relevant to predefined themes as reflected in the research objectives (Figure 2), but
also identified new themes such as ‘mandatory mediation’ and ‘need for a mediation
success/outcome framework’. Reviewing these themes, defining and naming the themes and
finally writing up the identified themes and their related content were all stages used in this
research (Clarke & & Braun, 2013).

Research Objective Analysis Source

Identify the current Independent External Mediation App A Q8 App B Q8

options currently available
App C Q1, Q2, Q3

Discover whether employers have considered Independent App A Q1 App B Q1, Q2

External Mediation options and, if so, identify the
App C Q1,
incidence rate of implementation

Answer why and at what stage employers choose App A Q2, Q3 App B Q3
Independent External Mediation options
App C Q4, Q5

Reveal the obstacles/barriers for employers when App A Q4 App B Q4

considering Independent External Mediation options
App C Q6, Q12

Explore whether the WRC is meeting employers’ needs at App A Q5, Q6, Q7 App B Q5, Q6, Q7
present App C Q7, Q8, Q9

Ascertain employers’ perceptions regarding the benefits App A Q5, Q6, Q7 App B Q5, Q6, Q7
and pitfalls of the WRC App C Q7, Q8, Q9

The effect has the Mediation Act 2017 had upon App A Q5 App B Q5
independent external mediation
App C Q10

Examine whether Independent External Mediation worth App A Q9 App B Q9

promoting to employers
App C Q11

Explore how this can be achieved App A Q10 App B Q10

App C Q13

Figure 2 Question Mapping and Thematic Analysis Preparatory Chart

17
Lastly, the researcher considered the use of NVivo as a software based qualitative data analysis
tool but decided that the gathered data was not sufficiently voluminous to necessitate such an
approach. Consequently, the entire thematic process was manually executed by the researcher.

3.6 Reliability and Validity

Reliability, or trustworthiness, and validity of qualitative research is a critical element of any
academic study. Credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are important in
establishing this trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Mindful of this, the researcher set
selection criteria for all participants as outlined above. Enhancing credibility, the research
inserted many direct quotations recorded from participants within interviews, mainly in
Chapter 4 – Findings and Data Interpretation (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015).

Accurate receptibility of all information items conveyed by participants is another element that
ensures reliability. Of the thirteen interviews, eleven were conducted as face-to-face interviews
and one interview was conducted through the medium of Skype. These interviews facilitated
the fullest receptiveness of communicated information, both verbal and non-verbal. The
remaining interview was conducted by telephone, limiting communication conveyance to
verbal exclusively. To counteract this limitation, the researcher practised greater focus of
attention to overcome the impact that missing non-verbal cues can potentially produce (Birks
& Mills, 2015). Furthermore, the use of memos by the researcher ensure for enhanced
accountability by aiding reflection to the content and linking to the established themes (Birks
& Mills, 2015)

3.7 Ethics and Limitations

The nature of this study and the consideration of the researcher ensures that there is minimal
risk to human subjects and there is little risk of sensitive information being included within the
study or during the preliminary and conducting stages of information/data gathering. As the
sources of the information has been anonymised the sharing of the study’s contents will not be
seen as a sensitive or harmful matter.

Throughout, the research setting has not been considered particularly unsafe, nor will the
conduct of the research cause political or social discomfort, additionally findings have been
treated with discretion and appropriate sensitivity. Time and cost had been considered and have
been within practical boundaries.

18
Considerations for both consent and confidentiality have been assured to each participant as
per Appendices E and F. Furthermore, names and contact details along with audio recordings
has been registered with identification coding stored by the researcher only. Primary data has
been anonymised and will be retained for a period of ten years from publication as outlined in
the University’s Research Integrity Policy. All participant information and information
contributions will be stored securely in digital format only until the prerequisite duration as per
Data Protection and Ethics General Polices, NUI Maynooth.

3.8 Summary
The goal of this chapter was to outline the research methodology for this qualitative grounded
theory study with a constructionist approach in order that the study could explore independent
external mediation as a workplace dispute resolution option for employers of the Irish Private
Security Industry in the light of recent legislation in respect of current level of awareness and
engagement and identify related challenges and opportunities. Methodology, research design,
data collection and analysis, measures for reliability and validity, and ethics and limitations
considered were detailed. Chapter Five will present findings and data interpretation arising.

19
Chapter 4: Findings and Data Interpretation
4.1 Introduction
The following information has been gathered through semi-structured interviews (Appendices
A, B and C) with three sets of interviewees; independent external mediators, employer
representatives of the Irish Private Security Industry, and representatives of two professional
bodies of the Irish Security Industry. Having collected appropriate data, the purpose of this
chapter is to present the findings in a structure that assists thematic analysis and confirms that
the researcher is achieving the research objectives, which are to;

• identify the current Independent External Mediation options currently available,

• discover whether employers have considered Independent External Mediation options

and, if so, identify the incidence rate of implementation,

• answer why and at what stage employers choose Independent External Mediation
options,

• reveal the obstacles/barriers for employers when considering Independent External

Mediation options,

• explore whether the WRC is meeting employers’ needs at present,

• ascertain employers’ perceptions regarding the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC,

• examine the effect The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and The Mediation Act 2017
have upon independent external mediation,

• examine whether Independent External Mediation worth promoting to employers,

• explore how this can be achieved, and

• discuss further any salient findings that might emerge.

4.2 Independent External Mediators

Question 1: What type of organisations in the context of nature, size, and HRM/Mediation
organic resource engage with you in relation to external mediation services?

The majority of independent external mediators interviewed state that their engagement with
organisations covers a broad variety of organisations; public bodies, semi-state bodies, large

20
multi-national companies, SMEs, and voluntary and charity organisations. There is no trend
regarding whether the organisation is unionised or non-unionised, or whether the organisation
has an internal HR management resource or not, “It’s a very broad spectrum of clients”. There
are varying degrees of HRM sophistication. It is found, however, that there is a growing
awareness of mediation in the HR community, predominantly from dealing with Employment
Equality Act 1998 and onwards.

Engagement of independent external mediators within the public bodies is often when dealing
with workplace issues for employees at higher level, when the organisation requires
confidentiality. Since the advent of a stronger mediation framework within the Public sector,
one mediator mentions a lessening of demand for his services. Multi-national organisations
usually engage independent external mediators when reputation is at stake. Throughout all
sectors and types of organisations, independent external mediators are usually called upon
when “relationships have broken down and these relationships are with people who are valued
customers or valued employees. They want the situation to be restored or, if the person is going
to depart from the organisation, “that it’s done amicably”. Of the six interviewees, one
independent external mediator has conducted one workplace mediation within the Irish private
security industry.

From the data presented, the independent external mediators engage with organisations of
every nature and size. Additionally, HR management resource neither deters nor promotes
engagement. Due to the promotion of internal mediation within the Public Sector, independent
external mediation has reduced. The distinction between multi-national and Irish-owned
organisations is interesting as to the reason for engagement, with the communality of
‘relationship restoration’ being the collective objective.

Low engagement with organisations within the Irish private security industry indicates either
mutual lack of awareness of the demand for external mediation or a lack of demand for the
independent external mediation option on behalf of the industry.

Question 2: What level of operation are you committed to per annum?

None of the independent external mediators are employed exclusively as workplace mediators.
Most extend their services to other mediation disciplines such as family, commercial,
agricultural and the like. Additionally, within the mediation spectrum, they conduct coaching
and training. They offer a wider pallet of services, such as strategy management and financial
consultancy, organisational psychology services, ADR services, and HR management services

21
such as investigations and auditing. At present, mediation by itself cannot provide a sustainable
income “unless you can accelerate through reputation or referral in commercial”.

In case numbers, the majority of interviewees quoted from 10 to 25 workplace cases per annum,
although one independent external mediator observed that in the current year that figure will
be closer to 40-50 cases.

From the information presented, it is clear that it is highly unlikely that independent external
mediators can maintain a livelihood exclusively dependent on current levels of independent
external mediation engagement, although there are indications of growth in its demand.

Question 3: Through what means have you become known to your client?

All mediators report that they are sourced predominantly by referral, “reputation would
adhere”. Another source arises due to clients knowing the mediator through other services
being provided to their organisation. For many, referrals will come through previous
engagement with legal firms and HR companies. For larger organisations the point of contact
will be with the HR manager/director, whereas with smaller companies this contact will come
from the business manager or principal. Client contact can arise from mediator participation at
public forums such as IBEC and MII. Some referrals will develop due to online platforms such
as the MII website, mediators’ own websites or blogs.

Question 4: At what level of workplace dispute/conflict are you usually contacted?

The majority of mediators reply that they are engaged “at the middle to end of the seriousness
spectrum”, usually before it proceeds to the WRC or courts. The workplace dispute has
escalated to a high level of conflict. Mediators are contacted when the organisation’s HR or
inner resolution functionaries can deal with the issue no more and local attempts have failed.
From all mediators’ experience, the dispute would have matured to a threat of formal
proceedings in the majority of cases.

Specifically, one mediator reports that multi-national organisations usually contact for his
services at post-investigation but pre-WRC stages. He also notes that SMEs would also contact
him at pre-investigation stage. He claims, from his experience, that if a service agreement exists
the initial contact will be earlier. It appears that the pre-investigation stage represents a decision
point in many ‘issue-handling’ processes. Proceeding with a formal investigation is viewed as
“too destructive and damaging” and “expensive and might not result in anything”.

22
All mediators comment that they would rather be conducted by clients at the earliest possible
stage instead of “being too much in the trenches”.

Question 5: What reasons do employers present as their reason for engaging with an
external mediator?

Mediators reply that the main reasons revolve around issues with capacity, conflict of interest,
and either external advice or internal recommendation. Lack of capacity may result from not
having a suitably qualified person to take mediation internally, having already availed of and
consumed all suitable persons during earlier stages of the process, or recognising that their
internal efforts have failed and the organisation needs external assistance in order to
limit/resolve the issue. Mediators additionally mention that they are engaged due to real or
potential conflict of interests within the organisation and an external mediator can provide
confidentiality and impartiality. Mediators are often engaged by clients on the advice of their
solicitor. On occasion, this external advice can emanate from a trade union which seeks a more
trusting facilitator. Internal recommendation for seeking external mediation may arise for
compliance with their policy and procedure, particularly at multi-national and larger
organisations, and, generally, through recommendations arising from the conduct of internal
investigation.

Furthermore, it is mentioned that organisations will seek to engage as they decide that external
mediation may be less costly that protracted, expensive legal proceedings. One mediator
speculates that clients view mediation as a speedier process, and that acceleration in the
economy may be a contributing reason for increased popularity of the external mediation
option.

Question 6: In your opinion, what are the main barriers/obstacles deterring employers
from engaging with external mediators?

Mediators provide an array of barriers which deter employers from engaging with independent
external mediators as outlined in Figure 3 (next page);

23
 Barriers identified
Lack of awareness, knowledge and
understanding of the mediation process.
Loss of control, or the perception of same.
Provision of adequate trust within an
organisation for an external mediator.
Voluntary nature of the mediation process.
Cost of mediation service.
Lack of authority.
Context of barriers
Although awareness has significantly increased,
there is still difficulty amongst employers in
how to source an external mediator, indicating
lack of promotion by mediators themselves
The outcome of the issue is outside of the
client’s control.
HR practitioners can “feel aggrieved that they
have to bring somebody in rather than being
allowed to proceed with trying to resolve it
themselves”.
External mediators may not know the nuance
of their business, and may additionally have
concerns relating to the confidentiality of the
process.
Invariably, employees need more persuasion
than employers to engage in the mediation
process.
Particularly for smaller organisations, as with
larger organisations “they realise how much
they’re gaining financially by resolving this
issue…”.
Particularly when dealing with larger
organisations, the representative related to the
organisation may not have the requisite
authority to make decisions within the
mediation process.

Figure 3 Barriers deterring external mediators from engagements

As gleaned from Figure 3, lack of awareness and knowledge of the mediation process indicates
the inability of all agents, whether that be the State, professional bodies, the communication of
recent legislation or the individual mediators themselves, to deliver this concept to the mass of
the economy. Loss of control is an omni-present barrier as is trust or the lack of it. The
voluntary nature of the mediation process is a barrier that has become quite topical and will
feature later in this research. Referring to barriers generated by cost and lack of authority as
outlined above, there is again a clear distinction between larger/multi-national and smaller
organisations

Question 7: From your perspective, how has the introduction and implementation of the
Workplace Relations Act 2015 impacted upon your engagement with employers?

The majority of external mediators interviewed state that there has been little or no impact
arising from the Workplace Relations Act 2015 regarding their engagement with employers.

24
Two mediators note that the WRC Act may have impacted in how employers engage with
external mediators; the WRC provides employers with “valid state-backed approaches to
mediation. It allows them to protect against the risk of going to a private mediator that they
might not know the quality of”. Conversely, one mediator highlights that because cases are
being heard more quickly under the WRC forum, it follows that these disputes retain “more
rawness” and consequently would be more difficult to defend. With this is mind, it is probably
in the interest of the employer to take ownership of the dispute and try to resolve it without
going to the WRC. This may create more opportunities for external mediators.

One mediator interviewed comments that much of external mediation work is “relationship-
based” and that this type of resolution platform is not conductive to being resolved at WRC,
where “if it isn’t adjudicating, it’s certainly facilitating a negotiated settlement”.

With the majority of interviewees stating little or no impact arising from the WRC Act in
relation to their engagement of employers with their services, it is interesting to consider the
minority comments. Interpreting the information presented, it appears that the advent of the
WRC, with its free state-funded external mediation service, may have resulted in a reduction
of potential demand for independent services. Mediators take heart in the view that the earlier
hearings of disputes at WRC makes it more difficult for employers to defend their position,
creating an increased consideration of independent external mediation engagement at pre-WRC
stage in order to remain control of the dispute.

Question 8: What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC?

The following benefits of the WRC were reported by the interviewed independent external
mediators (next page);

25
 Benefits identified Context of benefits

Provides one single entity as a mechanism for “It has somewhat simplified the avenue of
resolving workplace disputes. recourse of employers and employees when
they’re seeking redress in employment
disputes”.

Transparency of its findings. It facilitates easy access to previous decisions

and allows employers and employees a sense
of where their own situations may sit.

Accountability, speed, consistency and provides Through the nature of its process for dispute
determinations. resolution.

Free service. It facilitates easier access to a recourse for

justice and, from the employees’ perspective,
ensures that employers “take an issue
seriously”.

Increases awareness of the mediation process. “Mediation has become normal parlance in
workplace relations talk and terms”.

The owners of the dispute will get their

resolution themselves, leaving no legacy issues
and very few appeals.

Figure 4 WRC benefits identified by independent external mediators

The benefits as displayed above are benefits in the context of overall workplace dispute
resolution facilitation for both employers and employees. Increased awareness of the mediation
process brings benefit to independent external mediators also. Conversely, with the free WRC-
provided external mediation services, as mentioned before, this may well be of disadvantage
in respect of independent external mediators.

The following pitfalls of the WRC were reported by the interviewed independent mediators
(next page);

26
Figure 5 WRC pitfalls identified by independent external mediators

Clearly there is dissatisfaction with the method of anonymisation of case determinations, with
the current system failing to allay concerns on two aspects; it encourages employers to leap
towards the WRC hearing stage without consideration for prior dispute resolution processes
such as independent external mediation, and, although society needs to know justice outcomes
there is not enough anonymisation as parties can be identified. The latter point is also further
referred to by a professional body representative.

Question 9: From your perspective, is it operating successfully?

From an overall perspective, most mediators believe that the WRC is operating successfully;
“it seems to be working, there seems to be high levels of satisfaction”. All mediators agree it
is a substantial improvement in relation to the previous systems.

Some mediators mention that they would like to see more emphasis being placed on mediation
and less on adjudication, believing that it would lead to more successful outcomes and be better
for both organisations and employees alike.

One mediator interviewed reports that employers inform him of the biases they feel when
relating to the WRC, adding that there may be no way around this perception.

Although deemed successful in many aspects, the perceived inclination towards adjudication
to the detriment of mediation is opined by some interviewers, supporting comments in reply to
Question 7. The biases reported against employers will also be referred to in Employers
Representative Question 5.

27
Question 10: For your perspective, how has the introduction of The Mediation Act 2017
impacted upon your engagement with employers?

Mediators differ as to the affect that The Mediation Act has had on their engagement with
employers. Figure 6 refers to positive impacts reported;

Positive Impact Response from Comment

Level of awareness of Majority of Raised the level of awareness of mediation as a

Mediation Process
mediators workplace dispute resolution option, “it has
probably increased their confidence in mediation as
a service, because they see it as something that is
being promoted by the State as a very valid, valued
process”.

Obligation on Legal
Profession to advise
Some mediators Not all of the employers that they engage with are
even aware of The Mediation Act.
One mediator Referring to the growth in the popularity of
mediation, “..I can’t put it down to The Mediation
Act”.
One mediator The obligation now placed on a solicitor or barrister
to advise their client towards mediation before
embarking down the conventional legal path,
stating that the level of enquiries received from
employers and employees alike has increased as a
consequence

Figure 6 Positive impacts of The Mediation Act identified by independent external mediators

The Mediation Act seems to have raised the level of awareness for the mediation process as a
valid, trusted dispute resolution methodology, but this runs contrary to reports that many
employers encountered have no knowledge of The Mediation Act itself. The obligation on the
legal profession to advise clients to enter mediation is seen as a positive impact.

Figure 7 refers to non-positive impacts reported by independent external mediators (next page);

28
 Non-Positive Impact Response from Comment

Level of awareness of Some mediators Not all of the employers that they engage with are
Mediation Process. even aware of The Mediation Act.

One mediator Referring to the growth in the popularity of

mediation, “I can’t put it down to The Mediation
Act”.

The Mediation Act has One mediator A more regulated structure is required as non-
not fully impacted yet. certified practitioners are still providing workplace
dispute mediation

One mediator A stronger compulsion for mediation should be

considered

Additional burdens One mediator The amount of compliance and new documentation
placed on them arising required is significant
from the Act.

Confidentiality is One mediator Reporting requirements contained within the Act

threatened. raise issues around confidentiality

Increased legalistic Some mediators Onus on legalistic writing with the formulation of
environment mediation agreements, the settlement agreements
and contracts arising from the mediation process.

Increased level of formality required by the Act

regarding ground rules, process formalities and
mediation agreements.

Favours mediators with a legal background over

those mediators from other backgrounds.

Figure 7 Non-positive impact of The Mediation Act identified by independent external mediators

Significantly, it is reported that The Mediation Act has not fully impacted on the general
economy yet, with mediators favouring a more regulated structure of certification for practising
mediators and a more robust compulsion on clients to engage mediation when advised. The
latter comment suggests a more mandatory form of mediation.

Mediators are most aware of the impact the Act is generating from a legalistic perspective. The
level of confidentiality traditionally inherent in the mediation process is in question.
Additionally, mediators note that a more legalistic, ‘risk-adverse’ approach is required
regarding conduct and documentation of cases. Importantly, mediators state that the advent of
The Mediation Act has brought the mediation process closer to the legal profession, and with

29
more legal professionals taking interest in mediation, they foresee those mediators with a legal
background being favoured over those without.

Question 11: In your opinion, what are the main benefits for employers when they choose
to engage external mediation services?

Independent external mediators cite the following benefits for employers when they choose to
engage in external mediation services;

Figure 8 Benefits of independent external mediation to employers identified by mediators

The information above highlights the main benefits provided by mediators to employers, with
some but not all voiced by the Employer Representatives. As can be seen throughout the
findings, costs can be identified as either a benefit or a pitfall.

30
Question 12: In your view, what are the most salient challenges facing the expansion of
external mediation in the private sector?

The interviewed independent external mediators cite numerous challenges facing the expansion
of external mediation in the private sector, some of which also feature as barriers from a
previous;

Figure 3 General challenges to expansion of external mediation identified by independent external mediators

For the holistic perspective, the lack of awareness of mediation is a challenge, as is the
perception of the process and its practitioners as nouvelle and quirkily unconventional. Again,
the slowness of change within legislation, government and HR community are identified.
Significantly, and repeating findings from Question 2, low volume of referrals is a challenge
towards sustained involvement as an independent external mediator.

31
Figure 10 Process-related challenges identified by internal external mediators

Mediators have identified (Figure 10) two critical, yet controversial, features of the mediation
process which are salient challenges towards its expansion; the inability to communicate
successes in a structured result framework, and the voluntary nature of the process. Both
present challenges to the mediator-client relationship and to the enablement of the process
itself.

Figure 11 (next page) highlights recent legislative-related challenges identified by independent

external mediators;

32
Figure 11 Recent legislative-related challenges identified by independent external mediators

As explained above, the challenges presented by recent legislation to independent external

mediators is substantial, particularly with the potential development a ‘two-tiered mediator
pool’ that may favour those with a legal professional background. The obvious challenge of
free services as provided by the WRC also occurs.

33
Question 13: From your perspective, how can the independent external mediation option
be further promoted?

Independent external mediators provide the following suggestions;

Figure 12 Sources of promotion identified by independent external mediators

The majority of mediators comment that the responsibility of promotion of independent

external mediation largely rests with the mediators themselves and their professional bodies.
Mediators comment that, in general, many are deficient in their promotion of their credentials
and experience in mediation, claiming “we’ve got to market and promote it in the same way
we would promote any profession”.

A minority perspective is provided by one mediator, who wonders whether external mediation
in its own right should be should, suggesting that “it’s culturally helpful that organisations are

34
building that competence internally”, and explains that organisations should focus on ‘conflict
competency’ as part of their leadership team skills.

Legislative change, potentially controversial, is urged by some mediators, particularly in the

areas of creating mediation as a mandatory obligation in some instances and in the development
of a ‘results framework’.

4.3 Employers – Employer Representatives

Question 1: Has your organisation ever considered independent external mediation
options for workplace dispute or conflict?

All employers have considered and have used independent external mediation to resolve
workplace disputes but there is variation to the extent and reasons why they would use it. To
date, the use of such a facility has been sporadic in all cases, with only one or two instances
recounted by all respondents. Therefore, it could be deemed an irregular method for resolution
of their disputes.

Figure 13 Consideration by multi-national employers of independent external mediation option

The information above (Figure 13) presents a clear contrast between the two multi-national
companies in how they embrace independent external mediation, with Employer 2 displaying
little enthusiasm for the concept and Employer 5 exploiting the benefits of both internal and
external mediation in a more wholehearted manner.

35
Figure 14 Consideration by Irish-owned employers of independent external mediation option

As detailed in Figure 14, surprisingly little consideration or evidence by Irish-owned employers

of engagement with independent external mediators. It is viewed as not needed or that it could
be utilised in exceptional circumstances. One employer confirms that their company has
embraced internal mediation. Common to two employers is the instance of the offer of
mediation being rejected.

Question 2: In your view, would you choose the independent external mediation option?

Notwithstanding the findings of Question 1, employers offer the following views (next page);

36
Figure 4 Multi-national employer reasons for independent external mediation option

The contrast above between the two multi-national companies may be explained by the fact
that Employer 2’s head office is located in the UK and therefore ‘managerial resistance’ may
exist. Employer 5 is more confident and less reserved about the prospect of choosing
independent external mediation, as seen above.

Figure 16 Irish-owned employer reasons for independent external mediation option

As detailed in Figure 16, Employer 3 would utilise the independent external option in specific
circumstances as explained above, whereas Employer 4 has reservations due to time, cost, and
a belief that he can rely on internal resources.

37
Question 3: At what stage in a conflict/dispute would you consider engaging an
independent external mediator?

The following tables present an array of findings regarding;

Figure 17 Multi-national employer – what stage to engage independent external mediation

From the information presented in Figure 17, Employer 2 portrays the importance of their
relationship with trade union, and their willingness towards mutual compliance in the area of
workplace dispute resolution. This acts as a potential barrier for the external mediation option.
Employer 5 explains the occasions/stages when the option is seen as most effective and
correlates with findings in Question 4 – Independent External Mediators.

38
Figure 18 Irish-owned employer - what stage to engage independent external mediation

Referring to Figure 18, all Irish-owned employers relate their reliance on internal dispute
management, with Employer 3 reporting its inclusion of the mediation option in its grievance
policy. The independent external option would only be used if internal efforts proved futile.

Question 4: From your perspective, what obstacles/barriers arise when considering

independent external mediation options?

Obstacles and barriers as viewed by Employers are presented below;

Barriers Response from Comment

Multi-national Employers

Trade Union Employer 2 The main barrier “is the relationship we have with
Relationship our Union”. Any new development in handling
workplace resolution would have to receive their
tacit agreement.

Management Employer 2 The company has at its disposal huge resources and
Resistance expertise from a legal HR and IR perspective; “I’m
not saying that we never need external assistance….
but we like to keep things in house”.

Voluntary nature Employer 5 The process is not mandatory and therefore refusal
by one or both parties exists

Employees seeking Employer 5 Employees are increasingly seeking to have

representation representation present for all meetings, the
opportunity to mediate can be stymied on
occasions.

Figure 19 Barriers to engagement identified by multi-national employers

39
From Figure 19, and as inferred in earlier comments, Employer 2 presented its trade union
relationship and management resistance as major barriers to consideration of the independent
external option. Employer 5 highlights, in correlation with Questions 6,12,13 – Independent
External Mediators, the voluntary nature of the process as a significant barrier, whilst also
stressing the obstacles posed by employee representative attendance.

Figure 205 Barriers to engagement identified by Irish-owned employers

Not mentioned by the multi-nationals, cost is cited as a significant barrier. Loss of control and
the voluntary nature are also expressed and explained as depicted in Figure 20.

Question 5: In the light of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (WRC) and The Mediation
Act 2017, from your opinion has workplace mediation become more relevant, or not, as
a process for resolving workplace dispute and conflict?

The following observations were gleaned regarding (next page);

40
Figure 21 Recent legislation-related relevance of mediation identified by multi-national employers

From the information provided in Figure 21, Employer 2 is not positive towards the WRC,
probably reflecting the perceived bias felt by employers from the framework. Employer 5
expresses the generated interest in workplace mediation since the enactment of The Mediation
Act.

41
Figure 22 Recent legislation-related relevance of mediation identified by Irish-owned employers

Referring to Figure 22, Employer 3 expresses positive impacts from recent legislation, noting
that mediation has been incorporated into its policies and encourages employees to avail of the
process. Employer 4 highlights his lack of awareness of the legislation, correlating with
findings in Question 12 – Independent External Mediators.

Question 6: What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC?

Benefits and pitfalls of the WRC resolution framework are detailed in the following (next
page);

42
Figure 23 WRC-related benefits identified by employers

For the information contained in Figure 23, Employer 2 states that the WRC resolution
framework works well with collective disputes but cautions that flexibility of position and
willingness to partake should be identified from all parties beforehand. The provision of
Subject Matter Experts in the form of WRC mediators is highlighted as a benefit. Additionally,
the aspects of it being a free service, voluntary in nature, independent and not legally binding
are cited as such. Importantly, the presence of the WRC is viewed as a catalyst towards
enhanced employment governance and compliance.

43
Figure 64 WRC-related pitfalls identified by employers

Referring to Figure 24, prejudice towards the employee is seen as a major pitfall, and correlates
with an observation from Question 9 – External Independent Mediators. The time factor as
outlined above is interesting, with mediation seen as being too time-consuming and all hearings
taking too long to be heard. The over-accessibility of the WRC resolution framework to
employees is seen as a pitfall and very resource-taxing to employers.

Question 7: Is it operating successfully for your company?

Employer 2 believes it is, in general, successful, but also has reservations. He cites the
significant amount of time spent in order to protect the company’s reputation just because
someone has “independently, off their own bat, pressed the button”. He believes that prior
mediation before entering the WRC process is much needed in order to avoid time-wasting and
costs. Employer 5 assesses that the company’s experience of the WRC is that it has its benefits
and its downfalls.

44
Employer 3 is very positive regarding the success of the WRC in relation to the company, citing
three collective disputes that have been successfully resolved by availing of WRC mediation
services, stating “It’s a more-gentle process, relationships are not strained as a result of it
because of its confidential and voluntary nature”. Employer 4 explains that, due to their internal
dispute resolution measures, the company may only have “one WRC case a year” but once it
proceeds to WRC “we would generally feel it’s going to cost us something”.

Question 8: From your knowledge, what are the current independent external mediation
options currently available?

Please note employers’ knowledge of current independent external mediation options

currently available;

Figure 25 Current independent external mediation options currently available identified by multi-national employers

From the data summarized in Figure 25, it can be concluded that Employer 2 has minimal
knowledge of current available, reflecting their resistance towards independent external
mediation. Conversely, Employer 2 is quite knowledgeable through his HR team’s network
and other mediums.

45
Figure 26 Current independent external mediation options currently available identified by Irish-owned employers

For the information gathered (Figure 26), Employers 3 and 1 have minimal to no knowledge
of current available options whereas Employer 3, reflecting its proactive stance towards
mediation, is aware of several.

Question 9: In your view, is independent external mediation worth promoting for your
organisation?

Employer 2 states a categorical “No”, qualified by his previous comments and emphasising his
company’s efforts to reduce dispute incidence through internal means. Employer 5 believes
that independent external mediation is worth promoting, especially at a very senior level. He
highlights, however, that it is better to resolve issues internally without resorting to the external
option, but additionally saying “external mediation has a massive part to play within
organisations, if it’s utilised correctly…and is absolutely necessary”.

Employer 3 states that independent external mediation is worth promoting for our company if
all internal means of conflict resolution have been exhausted, or if the dispute exists at a quite
senior level of the organisation. Continuing, Employer 3 adds “it’s well-worth investing in
rather than going to a WRC or Labour Court hearing”. Employer 4, on the basis of his focus
on our interview topic, now believes it is a service worth promoting. He adds that the option
should be promoted by emphasising what added values can be provided to the company that
hitherto haven’t existed within the internal workings of the company and what costs benefits
can be gleaned. Employer 1 reasons that an independent external mediation option is worth
promoting within the company as it is a “good addition as a duty of care facility” and is

46
compatible with their existing company ethos as a face-to-face type company which stresses
that “people aren’t just a number”.

Question 10: If so, how do you achieve this?

To promote independent external mediation, Employer 5 believes that this can achieved
through the company’s internal communications structures, such as townhall meeting, Skype
sessions and roadshows. He also adds that a group email could be sent to all personnel from
HR, outlining the use of external mediation and when to avail of the service, accompanied by
a list of institutes and organisations from which they could chose certified mediators.

Employer 3 informs that their company has already inserted into their policy and procedures
that the option of external mediation is available if internal mediation is deemed not workable.
Employer 4 feels that it justifies promotion through presentation from external mediators that
can identify how the option will make a difference to present internal measures already in use.
Employer 1 believes that employees within the company should be made aware of the
independent external option at Induction stage, adding “if people know that external mediation
worked, they wouldn’t be so afraid”.

4.4 Employer Professional Bodies

Composite Finding

Of the two employer professional bodies, neither would formally monitor the level of
workplace conflict/dispute within the member companies nor would they have knowledge of
members availing of independent external mediation.

Both respondents speculated on the obstacles/barriers which arise when member companies
consider the independent external option as follows; lack of awareness, the loss of control to
decide upon an internal dispute, the issue of trust and confidence mediator before engaging
with them, whether all parties would agree to enter the mediation process and whether the costs
of external mediation would be more than the cost of the claim.

4.5 Summary
This chapter has presented the study’s findings in in a structure that assists date interpretation
and thematic analysis. Chapter 5 will present a discussion based upon a critical analysis of the
research’s findings in the light of the literature review in regard to the level of independent
external engagement that is currently being conducted in the Irish Security Industry, identifying

47
the barriers, challenges and present opportunities that exist in order to permit the option to gain
greater consideration, particularly in the light of recent legislation.

48
Chapter 5: Discussion and Analysis
5.1 Introduction
Curran (2015) mentions that mediation is becoming an increasingly popular mechanism for
dispute resolution in Ireland. In 2014, an Industrial Relations News article stated;

“Mediation is being strongly promoted by the legal and political establishment…. The signs
are that it is catching on as a means of addressing conflict in the workplace…” (Industrial
Relations Ireland, 2014).

Conversely, Teague et al. (2015), referring to the engagement of Alternative Dispute

Resolution in Ireland, highlights that ‘firms located in Ireland are not travelling this radical
innovation pathway’ (2015, p. 294). Significant findings have been identified in the previous
chapter. Although all employers have considered independent external mediation to resolve
workplace disputes, there is variation to the extent and reasons why they would use it. To date,
the use of such a facility has been sporadic in all cases, with only one or two instances recounted
by all respondents. There is a clear contrast between the two multi-national companies in how
they embrace independent external mediation. One organisation displays little enthusiasm for
the concept, mainly due to organisational attitude (Bingham & Pitts, 2002), employee relations
climate (Latreille, 2011), relationship with and potential opposition of trade unions (Bleiman,
2008) and threat to their authority (Saundry & Wibberley, 2015). The other multi-national
company exploits the benefits of both internal and external mediation in a more wholehearted
manner. Surprisingly, there is little consideration or evidence by Irish-owned employers of
engagement with independent external mediation as it is viewed as not needed or that it could
be utilised in exceptional circumstances. In this aspect, the researcher agrees with McKenzie
(2015), in that it reflects the institutional framework for conflict resolution that has traditionally
existed.

Indicatively, only one of the six independent external mediators interviewed has conducted a
workplace mediation within the Irish private security industry. Low engagement with
organisations within the Irish private security industry indicates either mutual lack of
awareness of independent external mediation or a lack of demand for the independent external
mediation option on behalf of the industry. Engagement of the interviewed Irish Private
Security organisations with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the statutory body

49
which offers free state-funded mediation services, is much higher with four of the five
organisations availing of this method of workplace dispute resolution/settlement.

Workplace disputed resolution, with the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act in 2015
(Government of Ireland, 2015) , has now entered a ‘dual systems’ framework where, referring
to Roche (2015, p. 306), State agencies and private facilitators of various types engage in
conflict resolution. Along with the introduction of The Mediation Act in 2018 (Government of
Ireland, 2017), the environment within which independent external mediators operate has
changed and will continue to evolve into the future. Related challenges need to be resolved in
order to ensure the future viability and greater expansion of the independent external mediation
option to organisations in the private sector.

This discussion, with reference to the research’s findings and available literature, initially
explores whether independent external mediation is worth promoting and then outlines the
barriers currently preventing the option for greater engagement in general and in the light of
recent legislation. Thereafter, the discussion will highlight salient issues that are current
challenges which, if surmounted, can present as potential opportunities towards expansion of
the independent external option into the broader marketplace.

5.2 Is it worth promoting?

For any service worth promoting, it must present unique benefits to the client and be seen by
the client in a positive light. Researchers have detailed the advantages of mediation as being:
easily organised, not requiring input from managers, representatives or witnesses (Bingham &
Pitts, 2002; Colvin, 2003; Latreille & Saundry, 2013; Nesbit, et al., 2012) and; more likely to
result in a positive outcome and is more cost-effective than lengthy grievance or disciplinary
procedures whilst reducing the inclination towards long-term absence and litigation (Bingham,
et al., 2002; Bingham, 2004; Latreille, 2011; Latreille & Saundry, 2013). Furthermore, it has
been argued that the mediation process ensures that it is more likely to uphold any agreement
made (Reynolds, 2000). Another benefit identified by human resource professionals is that the
process of mediation enhances bottom-up communication by allowing employees to speak out
about workplace issues in a confidential, non-retaliatory manner (Bush, 1989). Moreover, in
the context of an ever-increasingly diverse Irish workforce, it is argued that mediation supports
workplace diversity by placing value on the opinions and issues that women and minorities
raise, and in cases of alleged discrimination, deal with claims quickly and fairly (Romero,

50
2004). Finally, adding to this list of benefits is the belief that instituting a workplace mediation
programme can change the organisational culture (Bush, 1989).

The study’s findings of benefits cited by independent external mediators reflect many as
outlined above and more are summarised as: confidentiality, provision of; expertise,
independence, neutrality, focused service, damage limitation, reputational protection,
demonstration of duty of care, building of employer-employee trust, and cost-efficiencies.

The main reasons independent external mediators cite for engagement with organisations in
workplace dispute resolution revolve around issues with capacity when the dispute cannot be
resolved internally, conflict of interest, and either external advice or internal recommendation.
From an employer’s perspective, and echoing Saundry et al. (2018), the process needs to
‘absolutely guarantees impartiality and neutrality, because “employees are more concerned
about biased procedure within organisations”. Furthermore, they report that independent
external mediators are engaged when there is a dispute between parties at a senior level.

Specifically, when asked whether the independent external option is worth promoting, most
employers responded positively;

• “External mediation has a massive part to play within organisations, if it’s utilised
correctly…and is absolutely necessary”.
• “It is worth promoting for our company if all internal means of conflict resolution have
been exhausted, or if the dispute exists at a quite senior level of the organisation”.
• “It’s well-worth investing in rather than going to a WRC or Labour Court hearing”.
• “It is a “good addition as a duty of care facility” and is compatible with existing
company ethos as a face-to-face type company which stresses that “people aren’t just a
number”.

From this research, therefore, it can be concluded that there are benefits for employers when
they engage independent external mediators to resolve workplace disputes, and there is scope
identified by employers where such an option can be considered.

5.3 Barriers and challenges preventing its engagement

Having established that independent external mediation is worth promoting, an exploration of

barriers and challenges preventing the option from becoming more mainstream needs
discussion. Referring to the low volume of referrals, none of the independent external
mediators are employed exclusively as workplace mediators. Beyond the field of mediation,

51
they engage in the provision of services such as strategy management and financial
consultancy, organisational psychology services, ADR services, and HR management services
such as investigations and auditing. Business viability exclusively dependent on current levels
of independent external mediation engagement is highly unlikely. A combination of findings
from both independent external mediators and employers provides the following;

General Barriers and Challenges

Lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding of the mediation process. Although

awareness has significantly increased, there is still difficulty amongst employers in how to
source an external mediator, indicating lack of promotion by mediators themselves as
highlighted by Latreille (2011) and, more recently, Kokaylo (2016). Some mediators comment
that many employers are unaware of The Mediation Act. The employer or client “needs to
know what mediation is and what a good mediator should be”. Additionally, similar to findings
by Saundry et al. (2018), there exists a misperception of mediation and the capabilities that this
newer methodology of conflict resolution possesses.

Organisational and Management Resistance. Echoing Latreille and Saundry (2013), one
employer representative mentioned that their organisation had huge resources and expertise
from a legal HR and IR perspective, suggesting “I’m not saying that we never need external
assistance…. but we like to keep things in house”. External mediators may not know the
nuance of their business, and may additionally have concerns relating to the confidentiality of
the process (Latreille, 2011). Furthermore, referred to by Bleiman (2008) and cited by one
employer, the main barrier “is the relationship we have with our Union” stating that any new
development in handling workplace resolution would have to receive their tacit agreement.

Voluntary nature of the mediation process. Invariably, employees need more persuasion than
employers to engage in the mediation process (Saundry, et al., 2018). Employers cite that the
process is not mandatory and therefore refusal by one or both parties exists. Some mediators
recommend that, specifically for the workplace dispute scenario, there is a case for mandatory
mediation.

Costs are a significant factor in deterring employers from engaging external mediation
particularly for smaller organisations (Latreille & Saundry, 2013, p. 4). They view an
independent external mediator as another financial overhead. Larger organisations “realise how
much they’re gaining financially by resolving this issue…”.

52
Employees seeking representation. Employees are increasingly seeking to have representation
present for all meetings, the opportunity to mediate can be stymied on many occasions.
However, this can be viewed as a potential enhancer for successful outcomes (Bingham, et al.,
2002).

Inability to both communicate mediation benefits (Banks & Saundry, 2010, p. 11) and
mediation outcomes (Bollen & Euwema, 2013b) in a structured results framework presents a
barrier towards generating confidence and developing trust in the service.

Slowness of change within legislation, government and HR community. Mediators believe

there are remedies to obstacles impeding the expansion of mediation that could be actioned
more quickly.

Barriers and Challenges created due to recent legislation

Curran (2015) states that the legal and institutional context for mediation in Ireland has evolved
towards promotion and encouragement of the use of mediation as a mechanism for dispute
resolution (Industrial Relations Ireland, 2014). The Department of Public Expenditure and
Reform states that government policy is the promotion of the use of mediation and places an
obligation on managers in the civil and public service to first consider the suitability of
mediation as a means to resolve a dispute prior to referral to a third party (Department of Public
Expenditure and Reform, 2017), advocating that internal or external professionally qualified
mediators, where suitable, should be utilised. Such promotion of the mediation process augurs
well for the mediation practitioner community, but the study’s findings reveal that the
enactment of The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and The Mediation Act 2017 has resulted in
additional obstacles, reinforcing existing challenges and creating new predicaments.
Highlighting these, the discussion focuses on both Acts as they relate to both employers and
independent external mediators within the discussion theme.

5.4 The Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the WRC Resolution
Framework
Increased employment regulation and its associated legalisation of workplace conflict are
identified as influencing a move towards more innovative conflict management practices in the
US (Curran, et al., 2016b). Teague et al contests that this shift has not followed through in
Ireland despite the presence of US multinational organisations in this jurisdiction (Teague, et
al., 2015). It is argued that the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (Government
of Ireland, 2015) and the separate provision for mediation within the Workplace Relations

53
Commission (WRC) is a significant advancement for promoting mediation on a statutory basis
(Curran, et al., 2016b). Kerr (2016) states that the WRC Act seeks to lessen the confusion when
seeking to resolve individual workplace-related conflict dispute in Ireland and outlines the key
points that will indicate its success.

Analysing the research findings, there are mixed reflections on the success of the
implementation of the Act. From the employers’ perspective, the WRC resolution framework
works well with collective disputes but cautions that flexibility of position and willingness to
partake should be identified from all parties beforehand. The provision of Subject Matter
Experts in the form of WRC mediators is highlighted as a benefit. Additionally, the aspects of
it being a free service, voluntary in nature, independent and not legally binding are cited as
such. Importantly, the presence of the WRC is viewed as a catalyst towards enhanced
employment governance and compliance. Mediators concur with these findings, citing
additionally that the WRC provides one single entity as a mechanism for resolving workplace
disputes, presents determinations and transparency in its findings, and enhances accountability,
speed and consistency.

There are also negative observations, with employers citing prejudice towards the employee as
a major pitfall. Furthermore, time delay is viewed as a significant obstacle, with mediation seen
as being too time-consuming and all hearings taken too long to be scheduled. The accessibility
of the WRC resolution framework to employees is seen as a pitfall and very resource-taxing to
employers. Independent external mediators, echoing their disappointment with the time delays,
also present dissatisfaction with the method of anonymisation of case determinations, with the
current system failing to allay concerns on two aspects; it encourages employers to leap
towards the WRC hearing stage without consideration for prior dispute resolution processes
such as independent external mediation, and, although society needs to know justice outcomes
there is not enough anonymisation as parties can be identified.

Kerr (2016) argues that the success of The Workplace Relations Act will depend on whether
its execution can;

(a) Promote a culture of compliance,

(b) Reduce the number of workplace disputes,
(c) Provide fair and expeditious resolution of such disputes, and
(d) Ensure maximum compliance with employment law (p141).

54
Employers and mediators alike believe that the WRC has been, in general, successful, with
reservations as outlined above. In the recent WRC Annual Report (2019), the WRC claims that
almost all adjudication complaints are now processed within nine months. Furthermore, from
its commissioned customer survey, it notes levels of satisfaction with the Conciliation Service
were very high (c.90%) and overall ratings of the inspection process were high; 91% of
respondents were very impressed with the professionalism of the Inspectorate, 85% viewed it
as impartial, 83% said they had a better understanding of employment legislation post-
inspection and over half of non-compliant employers became compliant voluntarily shortly
thereafter (WRC, 2019, p9).

Specifically, the incidence of mediation has increased dramatically, demonstrating a clear

promotion of this workplace dispute methodology within the WRC; year-on-year increase in
telephone-conducted mediation of 330% to 1,241 cases and in face-to-face mediation of 306%
to 603 cases. However, agreeing with Roche (2016, p. 81), cases conducted through mediation
remain comparatively low when one considers that adjudication accounted for 5,312 cases
heard (WRC, p6).

With the majority of mediator interviewees stating little or no impact arising from the WRC
Act in relation to their engagement of employers with their services, it is interesting to consider
the minority comments. The research’s findings suggest that the advent of the WRC, with its
free state-funded external mediation service may have resulted in a reduction of potential
demand for independent services. Mediators take heart in the view that the earlier hearings of
disputes at WRC make it more difficult for employers to defend their position, creating an
increased consideration of independent external mediation engagement at pre-WRC stage in
order to remain control of the dispute.

5.5 The Mediation Act (2017)

Schneider (1999) argues that ADR processes serve both the client and their lawyers in that they
reduce the workload on the justice system and provide greater opportunities for dispute
resolution to the broader community. Currie et al (2017) cites that throughout the Anglo-
American world governments have been actively encouraging organisations to adopt
mediation, as they consider that it facilitates the early resolution of disputes, thus preventing
these progressing into litigation (Colvin & Darbishire, 2013). The Mediation Act 2017
(Government of Ireland, 2017) came into force on 01 January 2018, with its primary objective
to promote mediation as a viable, effective and efficient alternative to court proceedings,

55
thereby reducing legal costs, hastening the resolution of disputes and reducing the
disadvantages of court proceedings (Law Society of Ireland, 2018).

This Act introduces an obligation on solicitors and barristers to advise parties to consider using
mediation as a means of resolving disputes (Para 14(1)(b)). Although seen as falling outside
the applicability of workplace mediation (Para 1(b)), the conduct and implementation of
mediation in other spheres influences the perception of mediation in general for society as a
whole. Schneider (1999) suggests that lawyers, having been focused on adversarial processes,
may be resistant to the use of ADR by the courts. In the Irish context, this area of mediation
engagement remains unresearched.

From the interviewed mediators’ perspective, the Act seems to have raised the level of
awareness for the mediation process as a valid, trusted dispute resolution methodology, but this
runs contrary to findings that many employers encountered have no knowledge of The
Mediation Act itself, an observation that is qualified by the interviewed employers. The
obligation on the legal profession to advise clients to enter mediation is seen as a positive step
by the study’s mediators but many seek a more robust level of obligation or mandate to emerge.

Notwithstanding the above, mediators are most aware of the impact that the Act is generating
from a legalistic perspective. The level of confidentiality, as expounded in the Law Reform
Commission Report (2010), which is traditionally inherent in the mediation process is in
question (Prigoff, 1988). Additionally, mediators note that a more legalistic, ‘risk-adverse’
approach is required regarding conduct and documentation of cases. Importantly, mediators
state that the advent of The Mediation Act has brought the mediation process closer to the legal
profession, and with more legal professionals taking interest in mediation, they foresee those
mediators with a legal background being favoured over those without, thus creating a potential
‘two-tiered’ mediator pool.

Significantly, it is reported that the Mediation Act has not fully impacted on the general
economy yet, with mediators favouring a more regulated structure of certification for practising
mediators and a more robust compulsion on clients to engage mediation when advised.
Regarding regulation of mediators, the Act states in Para 8 (b);

(b) furnish to the parties the following details of the mediator that are relevant to mediation in
general or that particular mediation:

(i) qualifications;

56
 (ii) training and experience;

(iii) continuing professional development training (p. 10).

Mediators favouring this more regulated structure of certification for practising mediators
highlight instances of non-qualified mediators accepting cases through the Act who do not
possess the pre-requisite criteria above and continued in Para 9 of the Act. They conclude that
the implementation of aspects of the Act is progressing at a disappointingly slow pace. Another
significant issue reported by many mediators is the condition set out in the Act within Para 6
as follows;

(2) Participation in mediation shall be voluntary at all times (p. 9)

This pre-condition of voluntary participation by disputing parties is not favoured by most

mediators interviewed in this research and they prefer a more robust compulsion on clients to
engage mediation when advised.

5.6 Salient Issues Arising as Challenges and Potential Opportunities

Salient issues that are current challenges can present as potential opportunities if surmounted
and assist towards expansion of the independent external mediation option into the broader
marketplace.

Mandatory Mediation
The principle of voluntarism within the mediation process and in the context of disputing
parties committing to enter mediation has arisen frequently in the findings as a barrier for
employers and independent mediators alike. At first glance, mandatory mediation appears to
be a glaring contradiction and indeed an oxymoron, as any attempts to impose a formal and
involuntary process on a party may potentially undermine the raison d’etre of mediation (Quek,
2010). Within the EU, the European Mediation Directive (European Parliament, 2008) allows
for a largely free approach to the issue of voluntariness, with the only mandatory stipulation
being that it must be possible for the mediation parties and the mediator to end the procedure
at any time. Article 5 provides that the court may invite the parties to use mediation to settle a
dispute, as reflected in The Mediation Act (2017). However, the EU Directive also provides
that Member States could elect for mediation to be compulsory before recourse to the courts.
The UK has chosen for mediation to be voluntary, with the exception of family law cases where
it is necessary to seek to resolve the dispute by mediation first in order to obtain legal aid. Italy,
briefly elected to make it mandatory to mediate many civil and commercial disputes before

57
initiating proceedings, but this rule has now been abolished in favour of voluntary mediation
(LIBRALEX, 2014).

The principal objection is that mandatory mediation impinges upon the parties’ self-
determination and voluntariness, thus undermining the very essence of mediation (Quek, 2010,
p. 484). Conversely, a majority of the studies show that mediated cases have a higher rate of
settlement than cases that did not undergo mediation (Wissler, 1995). Hence, the full benefits
of mediation are not reaped when parties are left to participate in it voluntarily (Quek, 2010, p.
483).

The crucial dilemma of the issue is whether coercion into mediation, as cited in Halsey v.
Milton Keynes General NHS Trust (Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, 2004), may
realistically be distinguished from coercion within mediation (Quek, 2010, p. 485). Winston
(1996, pp. 190-192) argues that mandatorily entering into mediation results in the parties’
access to court as being only temporarily delayed; the parties have the liberty to pursue
litigation once again if mediation.

Quek (2010, p. 580) recommends certain parameters that allow for the integrity of both the
mediation process and the course of justice;

1. Categorical referral very readily leads to coercion unless parties are allowed to
request an exemption from mediation. The criteria for opting out should not be couched
in vague terms.

2. Disproportionate sanctions for failure to participate in mediation may also result in

coercion and undermine the nature of mediation as a voluntary process. This may cause
the parties to enter the mediation process with an acute consciousness and fear of court
sanctions, resulting in less than candid and autonomous participation in the mediation
process. Quek suggests that a programme should be tempered by other ways of
increasing the parties’ autonomy (Selection of mediators; mediator grievance system).

3. If the courts, in determining whether the parties have complied with the order to
mediate, examine their conduct within the mediation session, the parties may feel that
their communications in mediation are under rigorous scrutiny by the courts, and that
there is no genuine voluntariness in the entire process. Quek believes that the sanctions
to be imposed for noncompliance should not be draconian to the extent they
overshadow the informal and voluntary nature of mediation.

58
With such pre-conditions, the researcher argues that mandatory mediation should be considered
in Irish legislature in order to give the process more meaningful standing. Extending this to the
workplace mediation realm, further consideration of such pre-conditions could promote
mandatory mediation for dispute cases at pre-WRC and post-WRC stages before entering or
on greater incidence of behest of The Labour Court (Roche, 2015), thus eliminating a major
challenge to the expansion of workplace mediation.

The issue of Trust

All interviewed groups have stated the importance of trust when engagement of internal
external mediation is being considered. Employers need readily available information as
workplace dispute resolution decision points occur, information such as; dispute nature and
stage appropriateness, potential successful outcomes, and most-suited mediator. Within the
context of workplace dispute resolution, the Law Reform Commission (2010, p. 32) describes
mediation as leading to ‘better results: higher satisfaction with process and outcomes, higher
rates of settlement and greater adherence to settlement terms’. The presentation of evaluated
results would certainly assist in dispelling a question of trust that exists with prospective clients.

In the broader world of mediation, Wall et al (2001) endeavoured to develop a theory involving
approaches employed by mediators, determinants of the mediation approaches, outcomes of
mediation, and determinants of the mediation outcomes. Hollett et al. (2002) devised an
evaluation framework that can determine the successfulness of mediation sessions in terms of
client satisfaction and perceptions of distributive justice, relationship change, and the overall
resolution of the conflict from a study of mediations involving interpersonal disputes between
adults. A more scientific approach has been completed by Bollen & Euwema (2013b), although
conceding that very little research has been conducted within this field.

Clarity around mediator behaviour is essential if potential clients are to make an informed
decision in relation to the ‘type’ of mediator they wish to engage (Curran, et al., 2016b, p. 19).
At present, according to interviewees, trust is principally built between the client and the
independent external mediation through previous engagement or a willingness by the client to
accept self-presented qualification of expertise and success rates for the most part. The link
between the specific skills used by a mediator and mediation outcomes needs to be explored
and clarified; ‘This represents a significant research gap’ (Curran, et al., 2016b, p. 22). Wall
and Dunne (Wall & Dunne, 2012) have provided an excellent basis from which to broader this
effort with real empirical information. The researcher notes that the findings of such a study

59
specifically based upon workplace mediation outcomes in Ireland could support and generate
initial trust in independent external mediators’ efforts to engage with prospective clients.

Lack of Awareness and Understanding

Throughout the study’s research, the most salient theme was the lack of awareness and
understanding, referred to by Latreille (2011) and more recently by Kokaylo (2016) , of both
employers and their professional body representatives of mediation as a process and as an
option for workplace dispute resolution. Only three of the employers were adequately
acquainted with mediation to the extent that they could input the option into their workplace
dispute resolution decision analysis, and of these, one employer exhibited much organisational
resistance. This demonstrates a clear failure in the promotion of mediation to communicate and
inform the marketplace of its potential benefits and capabilities.

All interviewed independent external mediators acknowledge this deficiency and present
insights towards promotion of awareness and understanding, with the majority commenting
that responsibility for promotion of the option rests largely with the mediators themselves and
their professional bodies. Brand establishment, unique service proposition, target-marketing
through conference attendance, paper publishing and greater engagement through digital and
social-media platform are also muted. Increased personal soliciting to the HR community, the
legal and accountancy professions, business forums, employers, industries and their respective
representative and professional bodies were cited. The universal codification, enhancement of
professional and training standards and increased provision of promotional resources at
national level through the mediation professional bodies were recommended. More
controversially, as highlighted above, most mediators envisage legislative change as a catalyst
toward expansion and promotion of the independent external mediation option.

From the employer’s perspective, and echoing the findings of CIPD (2008), all five interviews
replied positively to the promotion of mediation, either internal or external. Three employers
already had the option of mediation inserted into their company policies, with one employer
suggesting that the concept of mediation should be introduced at induction stage. Presentation
of the concept by an external mediator was recommended, great internal mediator training by
others along with internal promotion of mediation to all employees by means of townhall
meetings, Skype sessions and roadshows. These findings offer encouragement, and this hope
is encapsulated in the following quote;

60
 “If people know that external mediation worked, we wouldn’t be so afraid” (An
employer).

5.7 Summary

This chapter has discussed, with reference to the research’s findings and available literature,
whether independent external mediation is worth promoting, and then outlined the barriers
currently preventing the option for greater engagement in general and in the light of recent
legislation. The discussion highlighted salient current issues such as mandatory mediation, trust
or the lack of it and approaches towards achieving it, and the lack of awareness and knowledge
surrounding the mediation concept and independent external mediation in particular. Next, in
Chapter 6, the study will conclude and present its recommendations which offer potential
opportunities towards expansion of the independent external option into the Irish Private
Security Industry and into the broader marketplace.

61
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore independent external mediation as a workplace dispute
resolution option for employers of the Irish Private Security Industry in the light of recent
legislation in order that challenges are identified and opportunities are presented which can
lead to greater engagement of independent external mediators with organisations of this
industry and the wider economy. Through the study’s literature research, findings, discussion
and consequent critical analysis, significant results have been achieved from which conclusions
and recommendations can be presented.

All employers have considered independent external mediation to resolve workplace disputes
although there is variation to the extent and reasons why they would use it. The use of such a
facility has been sporadic in all cases, with only one or two instances recounted by all
respondents. There is a clear contrast between the two multi-national companies in how they
embrace independent external mediation, with one organisation displaying little enthusiasm for
the concept whilst the other exploits the benefits of both internal and external mediation in a
more wholehearted manner. There is little consideration or evidence by Irish-owned employers
of engagement with independent external mediators as it is viewed as not needed or that it
could be utilised in exceptional circumstances, relying otherwise on the traditional, more-
institutional framework for conflict resolution. In the general context, none of the independent
external mediators are employed exclusively as workplace mediators due to low levels of
engagement and with only one of the six independent external mediators interviewed having
conducted a workplace mediation within the Irish private security industry, it can be concluded
that there is either a lack of awareness of or a lack of demand for the independent external
mediation.

Regarding whether the independent external mediation option is worth promoting, mediators
outlined the option’s benefits and employers responded positively, concluding that there is
scope for expansion of independent external mediation to the private sector if promoted
effectively. The discussion probed the reasons for lack of expansion to date, both pre-existing
and in the light of recent legislation. Cited pre-existing barriers were numerous: lack of
awareness, knowledge and understanding of the mediation process; organisational and
management resistance; voluntary nature of the mediation process; costs; employees seeking

62
representation; inability to both communicate mediation benefits and mediation outcomes, and;
slowness of change within legislation, government and HR community.

The impact of recent legislation was discussed and critically analysed. In general, the
Workplace Relations Act 2015 has promoted a culture of compliance, reduced the number of
workplace disputes, provided fair and increasingly timely resolutions to such disputes and has
propelled a trend towards maximum compliance with Employment Law. Latest figures suggest
that greater resource and use of mediation has occurred. Citing several positive and negative
impacts, employers and mediators alike believe, in general, that the Act and the WRC dispute
resolution framework has been successful. In the context of independent external mediation, it
is concluded that the WRC’s free state-funded external mediation service may have resulted in
a reduction of potential demand for independent services but with the prospect of earlier
hearings of disputes resulting in more difficult defence of employers’ positions, increased
consideration of independent external mediation engagement at pre-WRC stage in order to
remain control of the dispute could emerge.

Negligible research of the impact of The Mediation Act 2017 on mediation itself has been
published. Mediators surmise that the Act has raised the level of awareness for the mediation
process as a valid, trusted dispute resolution methodology, but this runs contrary to reports and
those interviewed which suggests that many employers have no knowledge. Mediators have
expressed that the Act has introduced new challenges both to the process and to the method in
which they implement the process. Concerns about confidentiality and an increasingly
legalistic approach, with the potential to transform the process, favouring mediators with
professional legal qualifications have been revealed. Mediators expressed frustration at the
slowness to implement the regulated framework of qualification for mediators on court
recommendation and, significantly, the level of voluntarism/mandate relating to disputants
offered the mediation option.

Taking into account the pre-existing barriers and the emergent barriers/challenges from the
impact of recent legislation, it is concluded that three deterring factors are significant: lack of
awareness, knowledge and understanding of the mediation process; the voluntary nature of the
mediation process, and; the difficulty in establishing a sufficient level of trust in the mediation
process and its practitioners due to the inability to both communicate mediation benefits in an
empirical manner and mediation outcomes in a structured result framework. Critically
analysing these challenges, the study argued that, if surmounted, it offers potential

63
opportunities towards expansion of the independent external mediation option to the general
private sector.

The discussion, through exploration of current legislation in the EU and Ireland, along with
comparison of levels of mandatory mediation offered by USA and European states and
available academic studies, presented parameters which could allow for the integrity of the
mediation process to exist when courts mandate mediation for resolving disputes between
parties. Further consideration of such pre-conditions could promote mandatory mediation for
dispute cases at pre-WRC and post-WRC stages before entering or on greater incidence of
behest of The Labour Court, thus eliminating a major challenge to the expansion of workplace
mediation.

The difficulty in establishing a sufficient level of trust in the mediation process and its
practitioners has been found to be another significant barrier for engagement of the independent
external mediation option. In this aspect it is concluded, through analysis of related published
studies, that presentation of evaluated results of information such as dispute nature and stage
appropriateness, potential successful outcomes, and most-suited mediator would certainly
assist in dispelling the void of initial trust that currently exists with prospective clients and
consequently support independent external mediators’ engagement.

Lastly, it is concluded that the most salient barrier to engagement of the independent external
mediation option is the general lack of awareness and knowledge of the mediation process as
identified throughout the study’s findings. Both interviewed mediators and employers
contributed their recommendations, reflected hereunder, for the promotion of awareness and
knowledge.

6.2 Recommendations
The study has identified the following recommendations which are hoped to aid the
transformation of barriers and challenges currently experienced by employers and independent
external mediators when considering workplace mediation into opportunities, thus allowing the
option greater levels of engagement in the private sector.

Legislation Change and Progression

• Mandatory mediation should receive further consideration in Irish legislature in order
to give the process more meaningful standing, particularly focused on the implications

64
 of The Mediation Act Para 6(2) and Para 14(1)(a) and in respect of the parameters
outlined in this study’s discussion.
• Following on for the previous recommendation, and directly applicable to workplace
mediation, consideration for more robust compulsion of acceptance of invitation to
mediation towards disputants should be considered by the Workplace Relations
Commission as part of its workplace dispute resolution framework.
• Greater rate of progression in real implementation of the regulation of court mediators
in accordance with The Mediation Act Para 8(1)(b) and Para 9 in order to ensure for
quality, qualification of service, and integrity of the mediation profession.

All Mediation Institutes

• The universal codification, enhancement of professional and training standards and
increased provision of promotional resources at national level through the mediation
professional bodies are recommended.

Mediators’ Institute of Ireland (MII)

• Formulation and execution of employment law certified training should be provided to
workplace mediators in order to meet the challenge of a more legalistic employee
relations environment and lessen the potential prospect of a ‘two-tier’ mediator pool.
• Greater resource, research and formulation of information such as; dispute nature and
stage appropriateness, potential successful outcomes, and most-suited mediator, in an
evaluated and structured format which can be accessible to mediators and prospective
clients in order to enhance trust and diminish the current inability to both communicate
mediation benefits and mediation outcomes currently experienced by workplace
mediators.
• Formulation and provision of marketing planning and strategy training to its members
in order that independent external mediators have the resources and skill to promote
their mediation practice on an equal setting to other professionals.
• A concerted and targeted effort to promote the mediation process to industry employer
professional and representative bodies, coordinated with presentations by mediation
practitioners, is needed.

Individual Mediators
• More focus on marketing planning and strategy, with promotion through brand
establishment, unique service proposition, target-marketing through conference

65
 attendance, paper publishing and greater engagement through digital and social-media
platform.
• Increased personal soliciting to the HR community, the legal and accountancy
professions, business forums, employers, industries and their respective representative
and professional bodies is recommended.
• Up-skilling in legal training in order to meet the emerging challenge of legal-
professional mediators.

Employers
• Continued promotion of inclusion of the option of mediation in company policies and
procedures is advised.
• Presentation through external mediators, increased internal mediation training, and
promotion by means of townhall meetings, Skype sessions and roadshows.

This research has focused on the identification of the level of independent external mediation
engagement that is currently being conducted in the Irish Security Industry, identifying the
barriers, challenges and consequent recommendations which will permit the option to gain
greater consideration, particularly in the light of recent legislation. In so doing, benefits arising
from this research can be provided to employers, independent external mediators and related
interest groups.

For this overall perspective, having explored independent external mediation as a workplace
dispute resolution option for employers of the Irish Private Security Industry in the light of
recent legislation, this study concludes that, although levels of engagement of the option are
currently low and many barriers and challenges have been identified, real and potential
opportunities have been identified which can lead to greater engagement of independent
external mediators with organisations of this industry and the wider economy.

“We’ve got to market and promote it [mediation] in the same way we would promote any
profession”. (An Independent External Mediator)

66
Bibliography
Avgar, A. C., 2010. Negotiated capital: conflict, its resolution, and workplace social capital.
International Journal of Conflict, 21(3), pp. 236-259.

Banks, L. & Saundry, R., 2010. Mediation - a Panacea for the Ills of Workplace Resolution? A
Comprehensive Review of the Literature Examining Workplace Mediation, Preston UK: Institute for
research into organisations, work and employment (iROWE).

Barrett, J. & O'Dowd, J., 2005. Interest-based bargaining: a user's guide. Victoria (British Columbia):
Trafford.

Bingham, L. B., 2004. Employment dispute resolution: The case for mediation. Conflict resolution
quarterly, 1 January, 22(1-2), pp. 145-174.

Bingham, L. B., Kim, K. & Raines, S. S., 2002. Exploring the Role of Representation in Employment
Mediation at the USPS. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 17(2), pp. 341-377.

Bingham, L. B. & Pitts, D. W., 2002. Highlights of Mediation at Work: Studies of the National
REDRESS(R) Evaluation Project. Negotiation Journal, April, 18(2), pp. 135-146.

Birks, M. & Mills, J., 2015. Grounded Theory - A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Bleiman, D., 2008. "Should I Try Mediation" A Discussion Paper for Trade Union Members. [Online]
Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/seedgrant/16
[Accessed 16 February 2019].

Bollen, K. & Euwema, M., 2013a. The role of hierarchy in face-to-face and e-supported mediations:
The use of online intake to balance hierarchy. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1
November, 6(4), pp. 305-319.

Bollen, K. & Euwema, M., 2013b. Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area.
Negotiation Journal, July, 29(3), pp. 329-353.

Bouchier, M., 2017. A study of the role of external mediation in enhancing, Maynooth: KIWMCR.

Bush, R. A. B., 1989. Efficiency and Protection, or Empowerment and Recognition?: The Mediator's
Role and Ethical Standards in Mediation. Florida Law Review, 41(1), pp. 253-286.

Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructed Grounded Theory - A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis.
London: Sage.

CIPD, 2008. Work Mediation - How Employers Do It, London: CIPD.

CIPD, 2011. Conflict Management, London: CIPD.

CIPD, 2013. Megatrends: The Trends Shaping Work and Working Lives, London: CIPD.

CIPD, 2015. Managing Conflict - A Shift in Direction?, London: CIPD.

Clarke, V. & & Braun, V., 2013. Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing
strategies for effective learning. The psychologist, 26(2), pp. 120-123.

67
Colvin, A. J. S., 2003. Institutional Pressures, Human Resource Strategies and the Rise of Non-Union
Dispute Management Procedures. ILR Review, April, 56(3), pp. 375-392.

Colvin, A. J. S. & Darbishire, O., 2013. Convergence in Industrial Relations Institutions: The Emerging
Anglo-American Model?. ILR Review, October, 66(5), pp. 1047-1077.

Creswell, J. W., 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curran, D., 2014. The role of mediation in the resolution of two industrial disputes in Ireland:
Towards a theoretical understanding. Employee Relations, 36(5), pp. 496-515.

Curran, D., 2015. Workplace Mediation in Ireland: Bridging the Research-Practice Gap. Journal of
Mediation and Applied Conflict Analysis, 17 February, 2(1), pp. 175-186.

Curran, D. et al., 2016a. Shaping the Agenda 1: Exploring the Competencies, Skills and Behaviours of
Effective Workplace Mediators, Maynooth: Kennedy Institute Workplace Mediation Research Group
(KIWMRG).

Curran, D. et al., 2016b. Shaping the Agenda 2: Implications for Training, Standards and Practice of
Workplace Mediation in Ireland, Maynooth: KIWMRG.

Currie, D., Gormley, T., Roche, W. & Teague, P., 2017. The Management of Workplace Conflict:
Contrasting Pathways in the HRM Literature. International Journal of Management Reviews,
October, 19(4), pp. 492-509.

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, 2017. Circular Title: Use of Mediation as an
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism in the resolution of workplace, contract and other
disputes.. Dublin: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

European Parliament, 2008. DIRECTIVE 2008/52/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL. Strasbourg: European Union.

Fox, A., 1973. Industrial Relations: A Social Critique of Pluralist Ideology. In: J. Child, ed. Man and
Organisation. London: Allen & Irwin, pp. 185-231.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative
Research. 1st ed. Chicago: Aldine.

Government of Ireland, 2004. Private Security Services Act 2004. [Online]

Available at: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2001/1/
[Accessed 20 April 2019].

Government of Ireland, 2015. The Workplace Relations Act 2015, Dublin: Government of Ireland.

Government of Ireland, 2017. The Mediation Act 2017, Dublin: Government of Ireland.

Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust (2004) Supreme Court.

Harris, L. et al., 2008. Small Firms and Workplace Disputes Resolution, London: Acas.

Hollett, N. L., Herrman, M. S., Eaker., D. G. & Gale, J., 2002. The assessment of mediation outcome:
The development and validation of an evaluative technique. Justice System Journal, 23(3), pp. 345-
362.

68
Industrial Relations Ireland, 2014. The Growing Importance of Workplace Mediation in Ireland.
Industrial Relations Ireland, 28 May, Issue 20.

Johnston, T., 2008. Knowledge and use if mediation in SMEs, London: Acas.

Kane, E., 1985. Doing your own Research. London: Marion Boyars Publishers.

Kenny, T., 2014. Developing the conversation about workplace mediation. Journal of Mediation &
Applied Conflict Analysis, 1(1), pp. 57-74.

Kerr, A., 2016. The Workplace Relations Reform Project. European labour law journal, 1 March, 7(1),
pp. 126-141.

King, N. & Horrocks, C., 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

KIWMRG, 2018. The Kennedy Institute Workplace Mediation Research Group (KIWMRG). [Online]
Available at: http://kiwmrg.ie/
[Accessed 07 December 2018].

Kokaylo, O., 2016. Promoting Workplace Mediation in Ireland: Key Recommendations. Journal of
Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 3(2), pp. 429-438.

Latreille, P., 2011. Mediation: A Thematic Review of the Acas/CIPD Evidence, London: Acas.

Latreille, P. L., Buschac, F. & Conte, A., 2012. Are you experienced? SME use of and attitudes towards
workplace mediation. International journal of human resource management, 1 February, 23(3), pp.
590-606.

Latreille, P. & Saundry, R., 2013. Review of Seminar 3 – ‘Mediation and alternative dispute resolution
– outcomes and Impacts'. Swansea, Acas, pp. 1-6.

Law Reform Commission, 2010. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation, Dublin:
Law Reform Commission.

Law Society of Ireland, 2018. ADR Guide 2018, Dublin: Law Society of Ireland.

Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J., 2015. Practical Research: Planning and Design, Global Edition. 11th ed.
Boston: Pearson Education Limited.

Legard, R., Keegan, J. & Ward, K., 2003. In-depth Interviews. In: J. Richie & J. Lewis, eds. Qualitative
Research Practice - A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications.

LIBRALEX, 2014. EU: The impact of the EU Mediation Directive 2008/52/08. [Online]
Available at: https://libralex.com/publications/the-impact-o-the-EU-mediation-directive
[Accessed 19 September 2019].

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Lipsky, D. & & Seeber, R., 1998. The appropriate resolution of corporate disputes: A report on the
growing use of ADR by U.S. corporations, Ithaca, NY: Institute on Conflict Resolution.

Lipsky, D., Avgar, A. & & Lamare, J. R., 2016. The evolution of conflict management policies in US
corporations: From reactive to proactive. In: R. Saundry, P. Latreille & I. Ashman, eds. Reframing
resolution: Innovation and change in the management of workplace conflict. London: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 291-313.

69
Lipsky, D. B., 2007. Conflict Resolution and the Transformation of the Social contract. Proceedings of
the Fifty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Labor and Employment Relations Association, Presidential
Address.

Lipsky, D. B. & Avgar, A. C., 2004. Commentary: Research on employment dispute resolution: Toward
a new paradigm. Conflict resolution quarterly, 1 January, 22(1-2), pp. 175-189.

Lipsky, D., Seeber, R. & Fincher, R., 2003. Emerging systems for managing workplace conflict: lessons
from American corporations for managers and dispute resolution professionals. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Lofland, J., 1971. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mahony, D. & Klaas, B., 2007. Comparative Dispute Resolution in the Workplace. Journal of Labor
Research, 7 July, 29(3), pp. 251-271.

McKenzie, D. M., 2015. The role of mediation in resolving workplace relationship conflict.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 3 February, 39(March-April), pp. 52-59.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Content Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Miller, D., 1983. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. London: Longman.

Moore, C. W., 2003. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. 3 ed. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Nabatchi, T. & Bingham, L. B., 2010. From Postal to Peaceful: Dispute Systems Design in the USPS
REDRESS® Program. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17 May, 30(2), pp. 211-234.

Nesbit, R., Nabatchi, T. & & Bingham, L. B., 2012. Employees, Supervisors, and Workplace Mediation:
Experiences of Justice and Settlement. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(3), pp. 260-
287.

Neuman, W., 1997. Social Research Methods – Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 3rd ed.
London: Allyn and Bacon.

Pfeffer, J., 2002. Competitive Advantage through People. In: Managing Innovation and Change.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Prigoff, M. L., 1988. Toward candor or chaos: The case of confidentiality in mediation. Seton Hall
Legislative Journal, 22 June, 12(1), pp. 1-16.

Quek, D., 2010. Mandatory Mediation: an Oyxmoron? Examining the feasibility of implementing a
court-mandated mediation program. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19 May, Volume 11, pp.
479-510.

Quinn, J., Baruch, J. & Zein, K., 2002. Intellect, Innovation, and Growth. In: J. Henry & D. Mayle, eds.
Managing Innovation and Change. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Reynolds, C., 2000. Workplace Mediation. In: B. Liebmann, ed. Mediation in Context. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, pp. 166-176.

70
Roche, W., 2016. The development of conflict resolution practices in Irish workplaces.
Administration, 64(3/4), pp. 61-89.

Roche, W. K., 2015. The emergence of a dual system of dispute resolution: private facilitators in Irish
industrial relations. Industrial relations journal, 1 July, 46(4), pp. 293-311.

Roche, W. K. & Teague, P., 2012. Human resource management and ADR practices in Ireland.
International journal of human resource management, 1 February, 23(3), p. 528–549.

Roche, W. K., Teague, P., Coughlan, A. & Fahy, M., 2013. Recession at Work: HRM in the Irish Crisis.
New York: Routledge.

Roche, W. & Teague, P., 2011. Firms and Innovative Conflict Management Systems in Ireland. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 1 September, 49(3), pp. 436-459.

Romero, B. G., 2004. Workplace mediation: Benefits, function and policy. New York: ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.

Rose, E., 2001. Employment Relations. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Salamon, M., 2001. Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. London: Financial
Times/Prentice Hall.

Saundry, R., Bennett, T. & Wibberley, G., 2018. Inside the mediation room - efficiency, voice and
equity in workplace mediation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(6),
pp. 1157-1177.

Saundry, R., McArdle, L. & Thomas, P., 2013. Reframing workplace relations? Conflict resolution and
mediation in a primary care trust. Work, employment and society, 6 March, 27(2), pp. 213-231.

Saundry, R. & Wibberley, G., 2012. Mediation and Early Resolution: A Case Study in Conflict
Management, London: ACAS.

Saundry, R. & Wibberley, G., 2015. Workplace Mediation - Transforming the Culture of Conflict
Management. London, CIPD.

Schneider, A. K., 1999. The intersection of therapeutic jurisprudence, preventive law, and alternative
dispute resolution. Psychology, public policy, and law, 5(4), pp. 1084-1102.

Seargeant, J., 2005. The ACAS Small Firms Mediation Pilot: Research to Explore Parties’ Experiences
and Views on the Value of Mediation, London: ACAS.

Seeber, R. L. & Lipsky, D. B., 2006. The Ascendancy of Employment Arbitrators in US Employment
Relations: A New Actor in the American System?. British journal of industrial relations, 1 December,
44(4), pp. 719-756.

Sherman, M. R., 2003. Mediation, Hype and Hyperbole: How Much Should We Believe?. Dispute
Resolution Journal, August, 58(3), pp. 43-48.

Stake, R., 2010. Qualitative research: Studying how things work. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford
Press.

Struthers, C. W., Dupuis, R. & Eaton, J., 2005. Promoting Forgiveness Among Co-Workers Following a
Workplace Transgression: The Effects of Social Motivation Training. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, October, 37(4), pp. 299-308.

71
Suliman, A. M. & Abdulla, M. H., 2005. Towards a high performance workplace: managing corporate
climate and conflict. Management Decision, 43(5), pp. 720-733.

Teague, P., Roche, W., Gormley, T. & Currie, D., 2015. Managing workplace conflict: alternative
dispute resolution in ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

Teague, P., Roche, W. & Hann, D., 2012. The diffusion of alternative dispute resolution practices in
Ireland. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 6 February, 33(4), pp. 581-604.

The Mediators' Institute of Ireland, 2018. The Mediators' Institute of Ireland. [Online]
Available at: http://www.themii.ie/
[Accessed 13 September 2018].

The Private Security Authority, 2018. Strategic Plan 2019-2021. [Online]

Available at: https://www.psa.gov.ie/en/PSA/Strategic%20Plan%202019-
2021.pdf/Files/Strategic%20Plan%202019-2021.pdf
[Accessed 20 April 2019].

The Private Security Authority, 2019. The Private Security Authority. [Online]
Available at: https://www.psa.gov.ie/en/PSA/Pages/about_us
[Accessed 20 April 2019].

Vickers, M. H., 2006. Towards Employee Wellness: Rethinking Bullying Paradoxes and Masks.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, December, 18(4), pp. 267-281.

Wall, J. A. & Dunne, T. C., 2012. Mediation Research: A Current Review. Negotiation Journal, April,
28(2), pp. 217-244.

Wall, J. A., Stark, J. B. & Standifer, R. L., 2001. Mediation: A current review and theory development.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), pp. 370-391.

Winston, J., 1996. Participation Standards in Mandatory Mediation Statutes: “You Can Lead a Horse
to Water....". Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 11(1), pp. 187-206.

Wissler, R., 1995. Mediation and Adjudication in the Small Claims Court: The Effects of Process and
Case Characteristics. Law & Society Review, 29(2), pp. 323-358.

Workplace Relations Commission, 2019. Workplace Relations Commission Annual Report 2018,
Dublin: Department for Trade, Employment, Business, EU Digital Single Market and Data Protection.

WRC, 2019. What we do. [Online]

Available at: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what-we-do/wrc/
[Accessed 12 September 2019].

72
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview – Employers and Employers
Representatives

Based on your organisation and its mediation experience:

Preliminary Question

Briefly, what are the following characteristics of your organisation (please tick appropriate box);

a. Irish-owned Multi-national
b. Large SME
c. Does your organisation possess a dedicated HRM element? Yes No
Interview / Questionnaire Questions

1. Has your organisation ever considered independent external mediation options for
workplace dispute or conflict? If so, what is the frequency of this use per annum?
2. In your view, would you choose the independent external mediation option?
3. At what stage in a conflict/dispute would you consider engaging an independent external
mediator?
4. From your perspective, what obstacles/barriers arise when considering independent
external mediation options?
5. In the light of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (WRC) and The Mediation Act 2017, from
your opinion has workplace mediation become more relevant, or not, as a process for
resolving workplace dispute and conflict?
6. What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC?
7. Is it operating successfully for your company?
8. From your knowledge, what are the current independent external mediation options
currently available?
9. In your view, is independent external mediation worth promoting for your organisation?
10. If so, how do you achieve this?

73
Appendix B: Semi-structured Interview – Private security Industry
Associations

Based on your organisation and its mediation experience:

Interview / Questionnaire Questions

1. From your perspective, what is the current level and nature of workplace conflict/dispute
being experienced by your body’s members?
2. From your knowledge, what is the level of awareness of your body of independent external
mediation options for workplace dispute or conflict resolution?
3. At what stage in a conflict/dispute would you consider advising engagement of an
independent external mediator?
4. From your perspective, what obstacles/barriers arise when considering independent
external mediation options?
5. In the light of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (WRC) and The Mediation Act 2017, from
your opinion has workplace mediation become more relevant, or not, as a process for
resolving workplace dispute and conflict?
6. What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC?
7. From your knowledge, is it operating successfully for your industry?
8. From your knowledge, what are the current independent external mediation options
currently available?
9. In your view, is independent external mediation worth promoting for your members?
10. If so, how do you achieve this?

74
Appendix C: Semi-structured Interview – Independent External Mediators

Based on your organisation and its mediation experience:

Interview / Questionnaire Questions

1. What type of organisations in the context of nature, size, and HRM/Mediation organic
resource engage with you in relation to external mediation services? And with the Private
Security Industry in particular?
2. What level of operation are you committed to per annum?
3. Through what means have you become known to your client?
4. At what level of workplace dispute/conflict are you usually contacted?
5. What reasons do employers present as their reason for engaging with an external mediator?
6. In your opinion, what are the main barriers/obstacles deterring employers from engaging
with external mediators?
7. From your perspective, how has the introduction and implementation of the Workplace
Relations Act 2015 impacted upon your engagement with employers?
8. What are the benefits and pitfalls of the WRC?
9. From your perspective, is it operating successfully?
10. For your perspective, how has the introduction of The Mediation Act 2017 impacted upon
your engagement with employers?
11. In your opinion, what are the main benefits for employers when they choose to engage
external mediation services?
12. In your view, what are the most salient challenges facing the expansion of external
mediation in the private sector?
13. From your perspective, how can the independent external mediation option be further
promoted?

75
Appendix D: Consent Form for Research Interview
Hugh Anthony Moody
Student Masters in Mediation and Conflict
Intervention
Kennedy Institute
National University of Ireland Maynooth
Email: hugh.moody.2019@mumail.ie

The Independent External Mediation option for employers of the Irish Private Security Industry in
the light of recent legislation.

Consent Form
Issue Respondent’s
initials
I have read the information presented in the information letter about the study -
Independent External Mediation options for employers of the Irish Private
Security Industry: is there an alternative to WRC?

I have had the opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, and
received satisfactory answers to my questions, and any additional details I
requested.
I am also aware that excerpts from the interview may be included in publications
that may arise from this research. Quotations will be kept anonymous.
I give permission for the interview to be recorded using audio recording
equipment.
I understand that relevant sections of the data collected during this study may be
looked at by individuals from National University of Ireland Maynooth under the
supervision of Dr Treasa Kenny, email: Treasa.kenny@mumail.ie. I give
permission for these individuals to have access to my responses.

In this study you feel the information and guidelines that you were given have been neglected or
disregarded in any way, or if you are unhappy about the process, please contact the Kennedy
Institute in Maynooth University at margaret.noone@nuim.ie or +353 (0)1 708 6629. Please be
assured that your concerns will be dealt with in a sensitive manner

With full knowledge of all foregoing, I agree to participate in this study.

I agree to being contacted again by the researcher if my responses give rise to interesting findings or
cross references.
No
Yes
If Yes, my preferred method of contact is:

Telephone ……………………………………… Email……….………………………………………

Other………………………………………………

Participant Name: Consent taken by:

Participant Signature: Signature:

Date: Date:

76
Appendix E: Information Letter about the Study – Interview
Hugh Anthony Moody
Student Masters in Mediation and Conflict
Intervention
Kennedy Institute
National University of Ireland Maynooth
Email: hugh.moody.2019@mumail.ie

Mini-Thesis Topic

The Independent External Mediation option for employers of the Irish Private Security Industry in
the light of recent legislation.

Date

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am undertaking this research as part of my Masters’ course in Mediation and Conflict Intervention
at National University of Ireland Maynooth. The subject of this mini-thesis is organisational and
workplace mediation options for employers. The goal is to determine whether there is an
independent external mediation alternative to WRC in order that employers and employees can
receive a more time- and cost-efficient mediation solution.

I am contacting you to ask if you would be kind enough to participate in a semi-structured interview
at a time and location convenient to you. If you agree to participate in this study, you will be
required to take part in a forty-minute interview focusing on the above topic.

These sessions will be recorded and later transcribed: all data will be anonymized. The data collected
from you will remain confidential and no information will be published in the mini-thesis or in any
other format that will make it possible to identify you. Data will be stored securely and only the
researcher will have access to it. Any tape recordings and transcripts will be securely retained as per
NUI Maynooth Guidelines and destroyed thereafter.

It must be recognised that, in some circumstances, confidentiality of research data and records may
be overridden by courts in the event of litigation or in the course of investigation by lawful authority.
In such circumstances the University will take all reasonable steps within law to ensure that
confidentiality is maintained to the greatest possible extent.’

Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. This study is being conducted independent of your
organisation and your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future
relationship with same. If you do decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time and
request that all the data that you have provided is destroyed.

If you have any questions, please contact Hugh Moody at hugh.moody.2019@mumail.ie.

Kind regards,
Hugh Moody, Student Masters in Mediation and Conflict Intervention, NUI Maynooth

77