A NSW tribunal's decision to halt part-time arrangements for dispute resolvers left a group of conciliators, mediators and arbitrators with some spare time on their hands, but also an idea to create something a little different. Angela Priestley reports

The media headlines regarding David Jones publicist Kristy Fraser-Kirk's $36 million sexual harassment lawsuit may have died down following her settlement with the retailer, but for large organisations the case is still raw and deeply concerning.

For a dozen or so dispute resolvers with significant tribunal experience, the matter provides a valuable example of how a national group of arbitrators, mediators and conciliators could assist in simplifying and even preventing such matters for organisations in the future.

"What we see in such matters is that they don't need a judge, they need a team of people to help," says barrister and mediator Derek Minus. "But the problem is where do you get such people? How do you get people who are truly independent?"

Following a restructure of the NSW Workers Compensation Commission last year, in which a number of part-time dispute resolvers were let go in favour of a permanent full-time workforce, the answer to such questions may be a little easier.

With a dozen or so self-confessed "tribunal junkies", as Minus describes them, suddenly finding themselves with a little extra time on their hands, the group quickly realised an opportunity to organise themselves into a unique service offering for organisations.

They established Dispute Resolvers, a group of investigators, mediators, arbitrators and conciliators organised virtually, available nationally, and crossing a diverse range of backgrounds. The individuals involved, including former deputy president of the NSW Workers Compensation Commission Gary Byron AM, barrister Dr John Keogh and investigator and dispute resolver Rosemary Dupont, carry decades of experience in dispute resolution.

While all members of the group are engaged in their own individual work, Minus says they can be quickly mobilised into dispute teams that offer a range of skills to lead a dispute through all facets of alternative dispute resolution, including investigation and even a training phase in order to change people and processes in organisations and avoid such disputes emerging again.

"What we usually find dealing with a dispute is that because of a style of work or behaviour or lack of processes in an organisation, the organisation is going to have the same problems again and again unless they put in appropriate dispute resolution processes," says Minus.

"We see the problem at the time it gets into litigation, but we also have the ability to advise clients and assist the client, through other people who might get involved, [with] how they can improve their processes so they can make sure these things don't happen again."

Dispute Resolvers is a completely new concept, claims Minus, but one that builds on the expertise of people who have been in the business a long time. The group also helps clients enter into dispute resolution at an earlier point, thus potentially making the matter easier to resolve.

"We're usually at the pointy end where it all starts to fall apart. To have us involved earlier is a great advantage," he says.

And Minus adds that Dispute Resolvers can offer a real alternative to litigation. "People go to mediation and if it fails they go back into litigation, but arbitration with mediation and conciliation really does provide an alternative route," he says.

"I still experience shock at how badly we treat matters when they go to litigation. Most people just want a decision. They're not looking for a career as a witness in a matter going on and on."

Minus says the new service is a natural fit for the needs of dispute resolution in Australia, and that the "virtual chambers" aspect of the group provides an easy entry point for organisations and solicitors to source from experts with decades of experience behind them, who have been working either full-time or part-time, on a number of different tribunals.

"What you really want [in a dispute] is something that looks like a law firm, that can basically consult with you, but [which] also has independence because they are not employees," says Minus.

He also maintains the group, without a physical presence and operating virtually, will be able to offer a cost-effective solution.

For disputes of similar size to that faced by David Jones, such cost-effective solutions could surely provide some relief.