Search results

This paper aims to examine the prospects of a dispute resolution framework for the Islamic banking industry in Tanzania under the existing legal framework.

This paper is based on comparative study by drawing significant lessons from other jurisdictions, and argues that to avoid some of the initial drawbacks in the dispute resolution framework for Islamic banking transactions in more advanced jurisdictions like Malaysia and United Kingdom, it is important for Tanzania to get it right from the onset to effectively manage Islamic banking disputes.

The study finds that apart from the court system which provides the main avenue for Islamic finance litigation, other processes such as arbitration and mediation which are deemed to be more sustainable could also be developed for effective dispute management.

The study focuses on Tanzania banking system with comparison to other jurisdictions.

An increase of Sharī’ah-compliant products in Tanzania has led to the establishment of a number of Islamic banks. This study demonstrates the need for Tanzania to make use and/or make adjustment of its laws for effective dispute settlement of banking-related disputes.

This study appears to be the first paper to draw significant experiences from other jurisdictions to resolve Islamic banking disputes in Tanzania. It is expected to provide a good policy framework for the stakeholders in the Islamic banking industry in Tanzania.

This study compares dispute resolution strategies of workers in hierarchical, conventional businesses with those of members of worker cooperatives – organizations in which all workers co-own and co-manage the business. Drawing on data from three industries (coal mining, taxicab driving, and food distribution), this study finds some support for predictions in the literature that assert that the cooperative's flattened structure and egalitarian ideology will affect workers’ grievance resolution. Although the data do not indicate a single pattern in dispute resolution strategies (i.e., with all members of the cooperatives resolving their disputes one way and all non-cooperative employees using a different strategy), the data do demonstrate that, when comparing matched cooperative and conventional businesses within each industry, the worker cooperative members possess more dispute resolution strategies than their conventionally employed counterparts.

The phenomena of arbitral forum shopping to resolve a commercial investment dispute is still under development and more complicated in many states. However, for Pakistan, it seems in an evolutionary phase, where the country is struggling hard to adopt the best practice of dispute resolution through forum shopping clauses. This struggle is even more inflated with huge Chinese investment through China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) projects in Pakistan, which come alongside with commercial investment disputes. For this purpose, the current treaty or contract-based system between China and Pakistan and litigation based domestic civil court structure look obsolete, hence, appear to require reinstatement of forum shopping clauses under concerned treaties or contracts for CPEC investment-related issues.

The authors choose a legal research method. The research design is a comparative analysis between CPEC contracts and dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan and also the domestic civil court’s litigation system. This analysis selected by the authors due to inefficient bilateral investment arrangements and efficient resolution of future commercial disputes in CPEC. While the international arbitration system is included in the assessment were particular in the time and space context. The comparison comprises on dispute resolution clauses in free trade agreement (FTA) and bilateral investment treaties (BIT) between China and Pakistan and the system of resolving disputes by CPEC clauses.

The authors finds that in the absence of CPEC forum shopping clause under dispute resolution system, Pakistan is highly at risk to lose foreign investors, and therefore, set back the goal of long term economic sustainability in the region. However, China has already made its investment policies safer with establishing three international commercial courts (also referred to as Belt and Road courts), one in Xi’an for the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt, one in Shenzhen for the Maritime Silk Road and one in Beijing that will serve as the headquarters. These courts will be offering litigation, arbitration and mediation services. According to one view, China aims to have all belt and road initiative (BRI) disputes resolved by these courts. This makes Pakistan position more awkward and needs proactive measures, as CPEC investment is based on Pakistan foreign direct investment policies and legal structure. Therefore, it will be complicated and less favourable for Pakistan to deal with such cases under Chinese Courts.

The paper’s primary contribution is finding that comprehensive analysis of alternative dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan over CPEC investment is inevitable. A socio-legal research combine with an examination of Singapore International Commercial Court functions and mechanism and CPEC plans further contributes to ascertain the best model of the settlement of commercial disputes under investments in Pakistan. This research paper anticipates future economic and legal problems, which Pakistan may encounter.

This chapter explores the adoption and implementation of a conflict management system (CMS) in a hospital setting. In particular, it uncovers the different motivations and challenges associated with a CMS across various stakeholders within the organization.

The chapter is based on qualitative research conducted in a large American hospital that adopted and implemented a CMS over the course of 15 months. The author conducted extensive interviews with stakeholders across the organization, including top management, union leaders, middle managers, clinicians, and frontline staff. Findings are also based on an array of observations, including stakeholder meetings and conflict management sessions.

The case study demonstrates the centrality of underexplored, generalizable, and industry-specific pressures that may lead organizations to reconsider their use of traditional dispute resolution practices and to institute a CMS. It also highlights the inherent organizational ambivalence toward the design and adoption, initiation and implementation, and routine use of a CMS and it documents the different types of outcomes delivered to various stakeholders.

The chapter provides a nuanced portrait of the antecedents to and consequences of the transformation of conflict management within one organization. It contributes to the existing body of research exploring the 30-year rise of alternative dispute resolution and CMSs in a growing proportion of firms in the United States. The use of an in-depth case-study method to examine this CMS experience offers a number of important insights, particularly regarding different stakeholder motivations and outcomes.

Although different facets of managerial third‐party intervention in organizations have been explored, we know little about how managers should intervene in different disputes for resolving them successfully. In this study, a prescriptive model of intervention strategy selection proposed by Elangovan (1995) is tested. Data on successful and unsuccessful interventions were collected from senior managers in different organizations. The results show that following the prescriptions of the model leads to a significant increase in the likelihood that an intervention would be successful as well as in the degree of success of the intervention, thereby supporting a contingency view of dispute intervention.

The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical framework for assessing the effects representatives have on their client's perceptions of justice, outcome and satisfaction, as well as the treatment received by clients from other stakeholders, in workplace dispute resolution processes.

Research propositions are advanced based on constructs and theories drawn from the literature on organizational justice, in particular, as well as social psychology in general.

Representatives are hypothesized to have a profound effect on their client's perceptions of voice, participation and satisfaction as well as on the treatment accorded the client by the other side and third‐party neutral. Representation, per se, is heralded as neither a positive nor a negative force in workplace dispute resolution processes.

The framework of a representative's effects is limited by a focus on individual employees who pursue disputes arising out of the employment relationship against management and, therefore, excludes disputes involving groups as well as non‐employment related disputes.

Suggestions for expanding or contracting the role of representatives in workplace dispute resolution are discussed.

Although it is ubiquitous in US jurisprudence and is a growing presence in alternative dispute resolution, the representative‐client dyad has been unexplored. The impact representatives have on the client's perceptions of justice, and the effects representatives have on other stakeholders in the process, bear scrutiny.

This study aims to examine the prospects of using an online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for resolving relevant Islamic banking disputes in the usual banker–customer relationship in Malaysia. It is argued that through proper regulation, such innovative dispute management mechanism would not only address some legal risks associated with banking disputes but could also prevent reputational risks in the Islamic financial services industry.

Based on an internet survey, responses were obtained from about 109 respondents in Malaysia. The data obtained were subjected to multivariate statistical analyses considering factors such as access to justice, attitude of stakeholders, resolving disputes, practical issues and understanding of ODR.

The results obtained showed that “access to justice”, “attitude of stakeholders” and “resolving disputes” are the most influencing factors affecting the intention to use ODR among stakeholders, particularly customers and bankers in the Islamic financial services industry in Malaysia.

This study provides a way in which the recently introduced Islamic Financial Services (Financial Ombudsman Scheme) Regulations 2015 can be better enhanced to cater for internet banking disputes which might require an ODR framework.

Though there have been numerous studies on the dispute resolution framework in the Islamic banking industry in Malaysia generally, the current study focuses on a less explored framework – ODR– a new framework for handling banking disputes.

Human interaction gives rise to conflict. This paper addresses general characteristics of Korean and United States culture relative to conflict resolution. In general, in the United States, conflict resolution is characterized by a win‐lose philosophy. Americans approach disputes with an attitude that one party is wrong, one is right and the purpose of dispute resolution is to decide who is right. Americans also believe that though the legal system is time‐consuming and expensive it can (for the most part) determine right and wrong. As a general statement most Americans respect the legal system and the law, though they find the process of litigation time consuming and expensive. In general, Koreans approach disputes with an attitude that all parties are partly wrong and partly right. Disputes are to be resolved in indirect and nonconfrontational ways so that harmony is restored and the relationship between the parties returns to one of harmonious interaction. Koreans have little respect for the law and the legal system and tend to depend upon non‐legal techniques to resolve disputes.

In general, all differences between the Employer and the Contractor are firstly addressed by the Engineer, usually under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination]; if the Parties have confidence in the Engineer’s capability to act fairly, many differences will be finally settled under the Sub-Clause 3.7 procedure. However, if either of the Parties is dissatisfied with a determination by the Engineer, a Notice of Dissatisfaction (a NOD, see Sub-Clause 1.1.57) can be filed; thereafter, either Party may proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision], see Sub-Clause 3.7.5 [Dissatisfaction with Engineer’s determination]. The dispute resolution procedure under the 2017 edition is outlined in Figure 20B. The first two Sub-Clauses of Clause 21 [Disputes and Arbitration] deal with the formation of the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (Sub-Clause 21.1 [Constitution of the DAAB]), including how to move forward with the DAAB if either of the Parties fail to appoint a member of the DAAB (Sub-Clause 21.2 [Failure to Appoint DAAB Member(s)]). Sub-Clause 21.3 [Avoidance of Disputes] describes the DAAB’s role in avoiding the escalation of any issues or disagreements into Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision] outlines the procedure before the DAAB in respect of the resolution of Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.5 [Amicable Settlement] includes an invitation for the Parties to resolve disagreements about a decision from the DAAB amicably, while Sub-Clause 21.6 [Arbitration] provides the ultimate procedure for resolution of Disputes, arbitration. Sub-Clause 21.7 [Failure to Comply with DAAB’s Decision] entitles either Party to refer the failure of the other Party to comply with a decision from the DAAB. Finally, Sub-Clause 21.8 [No DAAB In Place] outlines the procedure to follow if no DAAB is in place when a Dispute arises (the Dispute may be referred directly to arbitration).

It is over 25 years since the Hancock Report recommended that Australian enterprises implement workplace level procedures for the resolution of disputes and grievances. Legislation now requires that all enterprise agreements contain dispute settlement procedures (DSPs). While most large organisations have enterprise agreements – and therefore DSPs – there is very little empirical research into how and whether Australian organisations use these DSPs – let alone what broader role they may play in regulating the employer–employee relationship. This chapter seeks to provide answers to these questions.

This chapter presents the results of three case studies of large organisations: a bank, a retailer and a state government agency. These organisations have been chosen from a larger group of case studies to illustrate three approaches to the management of workplace disputes. The organisations share certain features such as: the effective use of workplace procedures to resolve the great majority of workplace disputes; and the adoption of a ‘dual system’ with internal grievance procedures playing a role alongside DSPs. However they vary considerably in their approach to dispute resolution. The Bank's ‘strategic’ approach involves a comprehensive conflict management system. The State government agency's ‘reactive’ approach to workplace conflict resolution gives a much greater role for third parties, while the Retailer's ‘pragmatic’ approach incorporates elements from both the other two approaches.

The chapter discusses the implications of this diversity of approach for human resource management, organisational justice and workplace relations.