The employer should communicate basic suggestions concerning the alternative dispute resolution program to employees. In this regard, employees should be very careful in the resolution of conflicts that emerge in the course of disputes with employees but the involvement of employees in the process of the development of the alternative dispute resolution program helps to prevent conflicts and minimize the resistance of employees to the introduction of the new program
After the employer has the project of the alternative dispute resolution program communicated to employees, employees should consider the project of the program and provide their feedback concerning the program. In such a way, employees will have an opportunity to analyze the project of the program and understand how the alternative dispute resolution program can affect their position. They can identify possible weaknesses or drawbacks of the program that put them in a disadvantageous position. In such a way, employees can make their own suggestions and to provide the employer with the feedback on the suggested project of the alternative dispute resolution program.
The employer should take into consideration suggestions of employees concerning changes in the program and introduce them in the final project of the alternative dispute resolution program and communicates it to employees. As soon as the employer receives positive feedback from employees about the project of the program, the alternative dispute resolution program can be introduced in the organization. In such a way, the elaboration of the alternative dispute resolution program is grounded on the close collaboration of the employer and employees to meet interests of both parties, to minimize the risk of the resistance of employees to the change and to make the program effective and functioning successfully to help both parties to find plausible dispute resolutions fast.
On analyzing the case of Jones v. TR, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the case involves the dispute between Jones and the company that refers to the fee that were never disclosed or agreed upon. However, the parties have different view upon the resolution of the dispute. On the one hand, Jones refers to the state arbitrary authority to resolve the dispute, whereas, on the other hand, TR insists that the case should be resolved at the federal level. In such a way, the diverse views on the parties on the resolution of the dispute refer to the problem of the jurisdiction of either state or federal arbitrary body.
At this point, it is important to define that the judge should take a decision on the ground of facts from the case. In this regard, the suit should not be dismissed because TR just attempts to hide behind the FAA to avoid suits and legal liability. This means that Jones has the legal ground filing the suit to the local arbitrary authority, whereas TR’s position is unreasonable. Therefore, the suit should be tried at the state level and it can be transferred to AAA only, if the decision taken at the state level is appealed to the federal authority. In such a way, the dispute should pass through all stages before the final decision is taken. The dispute cannot be resolved at the federal level surpassing the state level. In this regard, the case should pass through each stage and the state level is the first stage in the resolution of the dispute between Jones and TR. In fact, it is only if either party disagrees with the resolution taken at the federal level, either party can refer to the arbitrary authority at the federal level.
The arbitration clause was challenged by TR because the company attempted to transfer the case to the AAA but Jones disagreed on such a transfer. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the challenge of the case by either party may influence the decision to be taken in the case. To put it more, precisely, the judge should take the decision on the case because it is in the authority of the judge to take the decision, when either party challenges the arbitration clause. At the same time, the judge should be very careful while taking the decision in this case because the position of either party should be taken into consideration. The judge should be objective and take into consideration arguments of both parties to take the right decision in this case. The decision on the case should be taken at the state level first. Only after that, the TR may refer to the AAA at the federal level. Otherwise, the immediate appeal to the AAA without trying the case at the state level would lead to the violation of the jurisdiction because the case undergoes the state jurisdiction first and only after that can go to the federal jurisdiction, where the jurisdiction of the AAA, as the federal agency, is valid.