Understanding the differences are important when selecting a mediator.

 Employment mediation is usually utilized when the employment relationship has ended and they are mediating damages, how much money is to be paid. Workplace mediation usually takes place when the employment relationship is likely to continue, but there is conflict, or claims have been made, and those issues need to be resolved.

 Employment mediations are usually conducted differently than a workplace mediation. In an employment mediation attorneys will be present. Everyone meets together, then each attorney and their client separate to different rooms. The mediator shuttles back and forth and caucuses with each side.

 In workplace mediation, attorneys usually do not participate. The mediator may meet with each person individually before the commencement of mediation. Once mediation commences, the parties and the mediator work together in the same room to resolve the issues. Workplace mediation is successful over 70% of the time.

 It is important to select the correct type of mediator for the situation. Employment mediators negotiate with the parties and help them assess their situation from a legal standpoint so they can achieve fair results. Workplace mediators manage the emotions of the parties to assist them in achieving a greater understanding of the conflict and where each person is coming from. The goal is to resolve the conflict and enable them to work together in the future.

 I once shadowed a mediation where the parties were separated and the mediator shuttled back and forth. In the caucus the employer said they did have grounds for the discipline, they had records to back it up. That was not communicated to the employee. The employee said they were targeted, treated unfairly. The mediator did not get into the details of the allegations, she just negotiated a resolution based on the discipline being reduced so the employee would drop the complaint. They achieved a resolution in mediation, but the employee did not understand where the employer was coming from, and the employer did not really understand where the employee was coming from. When they returned to the workplace, the employee probably continued doing the same actions, but alleged retaliation when he was written up. If the parties had stayed in the same room, the employee could have understood why the employer did not believe they were they were being unfair. And the employer could have understood why the employee thought they were being unfair. They could have reached an agreement on how they would work together in the future so they could have the same expectations. That could have been done if they had stayed in the same room. Keeping people in the same room can be more difficult for a mediator to manage, but it leads to better results for people who plan on continuing to work together.

 I have mediated cases after an investigation had taken place and there was no finding of harassment. The parties had no hope they would be able to work together. Yet through mediation at the same table they were able to work out their issues and get along and have positive relationships. Employers have told me how amazed they were when the employees were not only getting along, but were friendly with each other, and how positive and productive the workplace had become.

 Sometimes employers utilize workplace mediation before a formal investigation is conducted. A formal investigation can cause division in the workplace. Workplace mediation tends to reduce conflict and tension, so it is a good first step in addressing workplace issues.

 Employment mediators are effective when employment has ended or monetary claims are being settled. They need to understand employment law and and be effective at negotiating. Workplace mediators are effective when employment will likely continue. Although they need to understand the law, they really need to be skilled at managing the emotions, and getting people to open up and talk about where they are coming from.