There are many ways to solve work disputes, writes Diana Clement.
Woody Allen once said: "One of my problems is that I internalise everything. I can't express anger; I grow a tumour instead."
When it comes to employees that's often the case. They have a grievance and it turns into something apparently insurmountable.
But there are procedures for solving disputes,
which, if followed correctly, can repair and rebuild relationships.
The Department of Labour's website is a great place to start for anyone with a grievance or problem at work.
The website is a real fount of information with sensible advice on everything from how to cope with bullying (record incidents and follow up discussions with formal letters), to compensation for humiliation and resolving parental leave problems.
If your company has a good HR department or even an industrial chaplain or counsellor, their assistance can be invaluable. They should be unbiased.
Barbara McCulloch, spokesperson for LEADR, the Association of Dispute Resolves, and also independent principal mediator at the University of Auckland, says best practice for organisations is to have a policy and a number of processes to solve disputes.
These can be written into collective employment agreements and will include the steps and alternatives that can be taken when an employment dispute arises.
McCulloch is a great believer in mediated dispute resolution, where the mediator takes a facilitative role - rather than an arbitrated decision-making role.
"In my experience, it is highly effective and it has the ability to repair and restore relationships." At the University, this is offered in house where appropriate.
The solution to a dispute depends greatly on the problem and the personalities behind an issue, says McCulloch.
When staff members contact McCulloch and her team with issues, they will be invited into a session where they are listened to. The mediator will then talk to them about possible solutions.
Typically the outcome will be one of four when the University's mediation service is used:
1. They will be coached and helped to go away and deal with the problem themselves.
2. There will be in-house joint sessions of mediation - after the other party has had the opportunity to meet on his or her own with the mediators.
3. Where someone doesn't want to do mediation - perhaps because of bullying in-house - investigators will be appointed to look into the issue and make a decision.
The investigators may be law school lecturers or professors, a dean from a different faculty, HR mangers or a member of the University mediation team, or
4. The staff member can choose to do nothing.
Where staff members choose to be coached and solve their own problem, they are taught to concentrate on the communication aspect, says McCulloch.
Saying "you're a bully" will simply elicit a response of "no I'm not". Whereas focusing on the act - such as being excluded from three meetings - can lead to a reasonable conversation where the issues are explored.
McCulloch's team will work with the employees for anything from one to six sessions in small groups or one on one. They will be equipped with strategies to deal with the problem.
They will learn to describe the problem in terms of observable behaviour, rather than being emotive or personal.
For example, says McCulloch, "I am sick of working with people who don't pull their weight", is less likely to lead to an open discussion about the problem than, "I have noticed in the last month I have asked you to do three tasks for me and on each of those occasions you have avoided those tasks, missed the deadline or declined to complete them".
Staff members are also coached to ask questions based on what the problem is, how it happened, the impact and how it could be resolved.
These approaches work best in the case of a bad manager whose actions are a result of being stressed or overworked, but are well-intentioned, says McCulloch.
That's not the case with psychopathic bullying, where the perpetrator isn't anxious or stressed and is definitely not well-intentioned.
Whatever the situation, McCulloch recommends documenting everything if you find yourself in an employment dispute.
This may help you remember things later, but will also give you evidence should you got to mediation, the ERA or Employment Court.
If you do need assistance outside of the workplace to deal with a dispute there is plenty of free assistance available. The Department of Labour's Workplace Contact Centre on 0800 20 90 20 can give guidance, but not advice, on workplace matters.
Free legal advice is available from community law centres.
If your complaint relates to your minimum employment rights, such as conditions, health and safety, minimum pay, break entitlements, public holidays, sick leave and union membership rights, then you might be able to get a DOL labour inspector to investigate.
There are other situations an inspector can investigate, so it's worth checking out the "minimum rights" information in the Employment Relations section of the DOL website.
Eventually, you'll need to take action to solve a dispute. The best way, if possible, is to solve the dispute amicably.
It's worth making sure you're clear about the facts before any discussion or exchange of letters takes place. You also need to know your employment rights and responsibilities, as well as employment law.
If the in-house route fails, then it's worth trying the mediation service offered by the DOL. From there, the next step is taking the problem to the ERA, for a fee of $70. And if that fails then there is the Employment Court.
Another alternative, where sexual or racial bullying is involved, is the Human Rights Commission.
There are many different types of dispute. At one end of the scale they can be caused by a genuine lack of understanding by an employer - especially a small-business owner - and at the other end plenty of toxic managers and corporate psychopaths are responsible for employment disputes.
When it comes to a lack of understanding, a small employer concentrating on day-to-day concerns may not be well-versed in HR practice and employment law.
He or she may not know, for example, that the Employment Relations Authority can penalise businesses for failing to provide breastfeeding facilities for their employees.
On that subject, the DOL has a Code of Employment Practice on Infant Feeding available on its website.
Corporate psychopaths make up as much as 5 per cent of the working population and infest many workplaces - especially in management.
These managers often lack empathy and a conscience. They could be superficially charming yet aggressive and manipulative, but have no remorse for their actions.
It may be difficult to resolve issues with them without going to an outside organisation.
Lawyers can become involved at virtually any stage of the process, says Bridget Smith, senior associate at Minter Ellison Rudd Watts Lawyers.
Sometimes a lawyer will ghost-write a letter on behalf of an employee without the employer ever knowing. This would typically cost from $250 to $550 from a city law firm, says Smith.
Smaller firms sometimes operate on a no-win no-fee basis - although not everyone finds that satisfactory.
Another option could be sending a letter on a law firm's letterhead if employees want it known they have lawyers on the case, says Smith.
Lawyers can represent both employees and employers at mediation and the Employment Relations Authority.
Smith says in the case of mediation a lawyer might outline the case to the mediator and then the employee may explain how he or she has been affected.
Employees need to be aware they can't shortcut the process by using a lawyer. The Employment Relations Act is focused on low-level resolutions where possible.
Employees and employers may go through in-house dispute procedures and formal mediation only to find that the ERA investigation meeting is postponed and the parties sent away to try to get a resolution themselves.
Both mediation services and the ERA are usually in the same building and the two operate in a similar way. ERA hearings are not litigious affairs.
Finally, employees also need to ensure that their employers are aware of the problem. To prove a case, the employer ought to have reasonably known that there was a problem, says Smith.
In some cases, employees put on a brave face - which proves to be a double-edged sword for them.
