Restorative process at work does justice to all concerned

The efficiencies of an restorative approach are obvious in terms of time and savings on legal fees in many areas in society. PHOTO/FILE

The cost of employment disputes to the New Zealand economy, not counting loss in production during strikes and lost work days, is $280 million per year. It seems like a real waste.

What we have found internationally is that when these disputes are handled by discussion, negotiation and mediation - by a restorative approach rather than running off and lawyering up - they are cheaper to deal with for both parties and the resolutions are enduring.

We have to wonder why more restorative approaches are not taken in the workplace. They have been instituted in schools - and we have some great examples locally - for when, for instance, kids get into scraps in the playground. It is not unusual to see the children themselves collect in a circle and restoratively resolve the reason for the fight.

There have been examples from home when parents have been having an argument and the young child of the household has intervened and called a restorative conference between mum and dad and led through to a successful resolution.

I have attended a number of events recently to promote the use of restorative practices in our communities. The efficiencies of such a practice are obvious in terms of times and savings on legal fees.

It is not that the parties aren't represented or that cost isn't expended in getting background enquiries done or that conferences don't have the obvious expenses incurred. The savings comes from the speed of the resolution.

When the Human Rights Commission in Halifax, Nova Scotia, instituted the restorative approach to complaints, the average time from complaint to resolution went from three years to seven months.

There were still findings against parties and reparations were still payable, but the reasons behind the offending were understood and avoided because they did not want to cause the same infractions in the future.

And it is not "soft-soap" - the admissions and concessions made in the conference are "with prejudice", which means a party cannot admit behaviour in one forum and deny it in another, such as a court, should the restorative process fail and be followed by litigation. Every incentive is given to deal with the matter once and for all at the conference.

What if our region became an example of this approach to employment and other complaints and disputes resolution - not only in employment, but in complaints against the police, the district council processes, and other government agencies?

Imagine if we could get government agencies, local and central, to allow for a trial period in our region that provides for speedier and more equitable results. They might exhibit more seemly behaviours than just who has the biggest and most expensive lawyer, and the heaviest precedent to thump the other side with. The thought then would be that other governing bodies, such as the elected officials to Parliament and councils, would have to follow suit and display similarly inclusive and grown-up behaviour.

Now that would be a turn-up for the books.