Today was a good day for mediation in the UK.

Today was not a good day for BA customers especially those with travel plans from Heathrow to a European destination next Friday. I am one of them.

Photo: A Bucklow

The Court of Appeal decision handed down today may have been a bit of a surprise for some and the appeal story may not yet be over as BA are considering an application to the Supreme Court. Rejecting the early ruling of the High Court on Monday, two Court of Appeal Judges decided that

it would be wrong to thwart the desire of staff to take strike action on the basis of a “technicality”.

A third judge, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, agreed with BA.

However, the most important comment, which has been included in all the reports I have seen today was this:

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, stressed that the strike would have to be resolved by negotiation. He said: “Legal processes do not constitute mediation. On the contrary they often serve to inflame rather than mollify the feelings of those involved.”

Hear! Hear!

I am very encouraged by this and I sincerely hope that both sides will find the courage to close the gap so that BA can get on with rebuilding their business.

For a longer report published in the Independent Newspaper.

I have been watching the negotiations following our elections with great interest. The potential for politicians to work together in the interests of the country is an exciting prospect if one dares to hope they will do what they say they want to do.

There was a significant wobble in my enthusiasm during most of yesterday and by last night I felt a sense of gloom return. Like many, I thought Nick Clegg was acting very honourably until the point it was revealed that the LibDems had started secret discussions with the Labour Party. I was disappointed and it felt important to notice that. Someone once said that ‘a cynic is a disappointed optimist’.

It was important because Clegg seemed to be not doing what he said he would do (put the formation of a stable government first) and doing what he said he would not do (make Proportional Representation a deal breaker) and it seemed a little early in the day for changing minds and empty promises. OK so what’s new about that?

Thankfully, some mature minds in the Labour Party put a stop to that diversion on principle and we have an agreement. Credit where it is due for making that call. Even so, I don’t think the events of yesterday will be forgotten by the press and the political commentators. Arguably, we do now have an arrangement which reflects the votes cast last week.  A government with a decent majority but a tempered mandate and an opposition to provide checks and balances. This was achieved without a drastic change to the voting system. PR has a lot of drawbacks despite the appearance of a fairer system.

The challenge now is for the two parties in government to continue in a sensible and measured negotiations on a daily basis without displaying too much compromise or watering down in the decision making. That is important because we are going to need some tough and difficult decisions over the next weeks and months.

I do not want to see them squabbling; I don’t want to hear backbiting or sneaky briefings against colleagues; I don’t want to hear anymore stories about self-interested and self-serving activities. I want to see them work together, fiercely debate the issues that matter and demonstrate their first interest is public service. Only then can we can hope to maintain our independence and look after our citizens in order to be a strong member of the European Community. The price of not being a strong member is to lose the right to make independent choices, as Greece has recently discovered, and makes a mockery of any voting system if it comes down to ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune.’

To that end this new government could do worse than have the assistance of experienced mediators working alongside keeping the communication and momentum going and marshaling options and choices.

The third eye, perspective, call it what you will, could make all the difference in helping the coalition build strength and trust. The most important of those being trust.

The benefits could be far reaching. Such a lead from the top would give encouragement to companies and organisations to follow and start a new era of agreement.

It is easy to disagree. The act of disagreeing can be addictive. It can also be confused with winning.

Added link: Law Gazette

If anyone likes the idea of a quick trip to Florence then this seminar might be just the reason to go.

Click image to download programme.

21 July 2009 The Serious Fraud Office issued guidance on self reporting of serious fraud overseas.

The approach includes the possibility of negotiated settlement in “appropriate cases” rather than criminal prosecution.

There was a time when people said there was no place for negotiated settlement (mediation) in cases of corruption. I disagreed. I am glad to see a change.

There is a holistic approach to the guidance which seeks to establish a number of things as precursors to civil settlement and they include

is the Board of the corporate genuinely committed to resolving the issue and moving to a better corporate culture?

will the corporate want us, where possible, to work with regulators and criminal enforcement authorities, both in the UK and abroad, in order to reach a global settlement?

is the corporate prepared to work with us on the scope and handling of any additional investigation we consider to be necessary?

at the end of the investigation (and assuming acknowledgement of a problem) will the corporate be prepared to discuss resolution of the issue on the basis, for example, of restitution through civil recovery, a programme of training and culture change, appropriate action where necessary against individuals and at least in some cases external monitoring in a proportionate manner?

does the corporate understand that any resolution must satisfy the public interest and must be transparent? This will almost invariably involve a public statement although the terms of this will be discussed and agreed by the corporate and us.

It raises some interesting questions but on first reading, it seems to be progress.

Thanks to CMS Cameron McKenna – Law-Now for the alert

I am often asked which is the best commercial mediation skills training course. My answer is that you will be hard pushed to find better than the course run by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

At this point I acknowledge a potential bias since I have been part of the faculty since its inception in 2003. However, I can honestly say that I would not be part of the faculty if I did not think it an excellent course.

When enquiring, you might ask for some examples of feedback from previous participants. There may even be some who will be willing to speak with you about their experience.

In terms of success rates for accreditation: The reasons for not being accredited are either lack of confidence or a surfeit of confidence. The former prevents people from being their best and the latter often results in “reverting to type” when under pressure of exam conditions.

In my next post I have some tips for dealing with the assessment.

Title: Mediation Foundation Skills Training
Location: Bloomsbury, London
Link out: Click here
Description: Foundation skills training. 5 day course leading to CIArb Accredited Mediator on successful completion of assessment
Start Date: 2009-11-10
End Date: 2009-11-18