Conciliation is highly effective if parties are deadlocked and cannot agree in mediation. The practitioners may propose recommendations and actions that are agreeable to all parties, to achieve a durable resolution.
It can take the considered OBJECTIVE recommendations of an unbiased third party (in this case the conciliators) who, having worked impartially with both sides, may put their ideas forward to help break the stalemate.
Conciliation as a process, needs to be agreed by both parties and the mediators/conciliators prior to the mediation session.
Parties need to understand that in whatever process they choose (or in the case of court, are subjected to) they are unlikely to get 100% of what they want and may have to give a little, to get what they really need. The aim is to craft an agreement that both parties can live with.
Conciliators suggestions, recommendations and proposed actions are not legal advice or enforceable decisions and the parties are not obliged to agree with them.
InterMEDIATE Dispute Management has a co-conciliation model, which means there are two conciliators - usually a male and a female for gender balancing, and greater use of processes. Having two conciliators who objectively consider each party's issues, needs and interests to then make suggestions to resolve a contentious issue, can provide more confidence and trust in the appropriateness of the agreement than that of a single conciliator.
If parties reach an agreement during the InterMEDIATE Dispute Management conciliation process, copies of that agreement will be printed at the end of the session for checking and signing.
It is up to the parties to decide whether this agreement will be legally binding, if they wish to take it to a court to become orders by consent, or if they would like their lawyers to have it made legally binding.
.
|
What is Conciliation 
