Harper vs. Jones: Employee
Harper vs. Jones: Employee
As the plaintiff in the case of Hall Harper, the most important issues present are, first, I have been performing my duties as assigned with due diligence, and even introduced very lucrative ideas that can boost the company’s profitability. Secondly, Jones has been making discourteous remarks about Middle East countries. Thirdly, I made a formal complaint to the division supervisor about harassment and agreed to meet up for negotiation. Finally, it is possible the outburst towards Jones was under the influence of marijuana.
My BATNA is that after the negotiation, I should get back my job, and seek assistance in refraining from excessive marijuana use, especially as stimulation for creativity. In addition, Jones should be compelled to avoid insults against the Middle East.
The most important issue to jones is the fact that he is offended by inappropriate behavior during working hours. Secondly, I have a negative attitude towards him.
The ultimate goal of Jones is claiming credit for divisional achievements after I am fired on unfair grounds of attitude.
If Jones has more power in the case, I have psychological power due to my achievements and recognized creativity. However, His major source of power is his position as a manager and, therefore, undermines other workers under him.
In getting into the negotiation process, I will follow the procedure of the company, making complaints to the supervisor and the human resource function as I await further direction. Interaction with Jones will be through the divisional supervisor.
Volk vs. pollard: Landlord/tenant
The mediation process involves being impartial in making suggestions for two negotiating parties. It is, therefore, prudent to have the ability and experience of resolving conflicts for the best interests of the two parties (Honeyman and Yawanarajah 1).
As the mediator in the case of landlord vs. the tenant, the following are the preferences Firstly, the legal perspective on the relationship between tenants and the landlords. Again, seeking to understand why the two parties decided on their actions.
The target of mediating between the parties is to assist them in developing a solution themselves.
To the tenant, the important thing is that the landlord has refused to refund the security deposit amid other violations of the law. On the other hand, the landlord has to present the sincere facts of the case.
The target of the target of the tenant is to get his security deposit refunded while that of the landlord is to withhold the said money for some allegations.
The property owner has the power as the current custodian of the money in dispute while the tenant has power in that the landlord has broken the law and must seek redress.
As the mediator, I wound convene a meeting with the parties and let them present their cases. Secondly, I would objectively offer unprejudiced advice to both parties and allow them time to come up with amicable solutions to the current problem.
Smith vs. Acme: Roofing services
As the defendant, the most important issues to consider are the following. At the outset, Mac bid for the job as a member of a crew I employed. Again, the roofing hatch was sealed as an instruction from Smith and was not an act of negligence. Next, the cost of the job was less $100 what it should have actually cost. Lastly, I am willing to fix the job at my own expense.
My target for the situation is to get $500 in damages for having being misled to do the wrong job by the client. However, the case could as well be dropped as I do the fixing job at my cost because I am too busy for court.
The imperative factor to Smith is getting his roof hatch unsealed.
Smith’s intention is to sue for negligence and performance of the wrong job. He seeks to have the problem fixed without even paying for the original bid.
I have an advantage over Smith using psychological power. This is because he settled for a lower bid than the actual amount and was seeking to evade any payments after all. Nevertheless, he is so influential and has the power to sway the fact to his side.
The preliminary strategy is to keep a record of the dealing to create substance at the negotiating table. This will be backed up by familiarizing with the legalities around contracts and agreements. For interaction with Smith, I will restrict myself to the roofing deal and only in the presence of the mediator.
In the defendant position, this case revolves around the ethical issues. As the company software manager, there are core values that govern us as an employee of VIMREX Company. The company aim is to treat its employees fairly for better performance. Mr. Harper is a bright young employee who has joined the company recently. He is creative, but his attitude is wanting in following rules. Also, his disrespectful nature to his seniors has cost him the job. On the material day, he looked unstable and under the influence of some substance. Afterward, I have agreed to a mediation process to look into the issue.
My BATNA after the mediation process is to lay off Mr. Harper since he does not represent the image of the company. The ultimate goal will be to set a good example when it comes to following the company ethics and values irrespective of performance
In my opinion, the opponent is basing his case on discrimination, that this was the reason for being sacked. He also views himself as a key person in the department and other as non-performer.
My ultimate opponent price is to get his job back and allowed to have freedom, and he targets the manager to lose his job.
Of course, as a manager, I have all the powers but I do not intend to abuse my position to intimidate my juniors. The powers of Harper are well stipulated in the employment guideline. Moreover, he has psychological power with respect to creativity, which makes him relevant to the organization
My first strategy will be to agree on the mediation process. Then apply the Rogerian approach to answering my opponent (McLeod 1). I will interact with him face to face so that I can still assess his soberness.
I am the plaintiff and the landlord of the apartments. The tenant usually pays two months deposit though it is contrary to the city ordinance, which requires a one-month deposit. The tenant vacates the house two months prior to the end of the lease without reporting. During this period, the house was broken into, and materials worth $5000 were destroyed. The two months deposit will stand for the rent and tenant will have to pay for damages.
Although I have violated the city ordinance, I should get substantial compensation from the tenant. I also anticipate that the violation of the ordinance will not take the center stage for the matter.
My opponent issues will be: first, I request huge deposits, which are against the city law. Secondly, the lease agreement was ending, so vacating two months earlier was in order since the landlord even had the two months deposit.
The opponent BATNA will be to cater for any damages before vandals destroyed the apartment. His target will be to pay as little as possible and not guilty for disappearing without notice.
None of ours has power over the other. This is because the landlord had first violated the ordinance, which could have given him more power to sue the tenant. On the other hand, the tenant ceases to have power since he vacates the apartment without reporting.
My first move in the mediation process will be to read the agreement signed by the landlord and the tenant. Then objectively explain each clause to the opponent face to face in the presence of the mediator.
As a mediator and the neutral party in the dispute, my main role will be to facilitate the process of mediation, ensure all the necessary preparation are complete, stimulate the disputants to open on the issue, and ensure that personal bitterness does not engulf the process.
In this case, of Acmay roofing company and Mr. Smith I would listen to the ultimate goal of both parties and establish a common ground for both parties.
The first strategy in the process will be to introduce myself, give the rules that will govern the mediation and the make it clear to both parties that you will establish a comprise and not a ruling after the end of the process.
Honeyman, Christopher, and Nita, Yawanarajah. “Mediation.” Beyondintractability.org. Sept. 2003. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. <www.beyondintractability.org/essay/mediation>
McLeod, Saul. Personal Centered Therapy.simplypsychology.org. 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. <www.simplypsychology.org/client-centered-therapy.html>