Search

This paper investigates mechanisms of settlement of disputes at the Islamic Financial Institutions (IFIs) as it is natural to have disagreements between different parties involved in Islamic banking and finance business. The paper adopts a qualitative methodology where the data are taken from journals, books, websites etc. In analyzing the data obtained from the sources, content analysis was used. It is found that dispute settlement at the Islamic Financial Institutions (IFIs) can be both through litigation as well as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Currently, parties to Islamic banking and finance dispute prefer to settle their dispute amicably through arbitration. Moreover, many arbitration centers on dispute resolution for parties in Islamic banking and finance have been established. However, there are certain challenges in arbitration that need to be overcome for the arbitration to be more effective. The researchers put forward certain recommendations on how to improve arbitration to be more effective in settling dispute between parties in Islamic banking and finance.

Ukrainian institutions that would facilitate alternative dispute resolution have been in the process of establishment since Ukraine's independence in 1991. At present, only the activity of arbitration courts is regulated in Ukraine by law as an alternative way of resolving disputes. Since 2010, there have been repeated attempts to create financial ombudsman institute. The first ideas of creating business ombudsman institute date back to 2013. This type of ombudsman has been in operation since 2014 and can be considered the most successful and effective both now and in the near future. Currently in Ukraine, there are also the following types of specialized ombudsmen: insurance, energy, language and education ones. Dispute settlement with the participation of a judge was introduced in civil litigation as an alternative method of dispute resolution in 2017. This institution provides the parties of the conflict with additional opportunities for faster and more effective settlement of the dispute. At present, this institution is not very widely used in practice, but in the coming years it will become more popular. The example of the activities of specialized ombudsman institutions and dispute resolution with the participation of a judge shows that Ukraine is adopting the world's best dispute resolution practices that will contribute to a faster, more effective resolution of the conflict without trial., As instituições ucranianas que facilitariam a resolução alternativa de litígios estão em processo de estabelecimento desde a independência da Ucrânia, em 1991. Atualmente, apenas a atividade dos tribunais arbitrais é regulada por lei na Ucrânia como uma forma alternativa de resolução de litígios. Desde 2010, tem havido repetidas tentativas de criar um instituto de mediação financeira. As primeiras ideias de criar um instituto de provedoria de justiça empresarial datam de 2013. Este tipo de provedor está em funcionamento desde 2014 e pode ser considerado o mais bem-sucedido e eficaz, tanto agora como no futuro próximo. Atualmente na Ucrânia, existem também os seguintes tipos de provedores de justiça especializados: seguros, energia, línguas e educação. A resolução de litígios com a participação de um juiz foi introduzida no litígio civil como método alternativo de resolução de litígios em 2017. Esta instituição proporciona às partes do conflito oportunidades adicionais para uma resolução mais rápida e eficaz do litígio. Atualmente, esta instituição não é muito utilizada na prática, mas nos próximos anos tornar-se-á mais popular. O exemplo das atividades das instituições especializadas de mediação e resolução de litígios com a participação de um juiz mostra que a Ucrânia está a adotar as melhores práticas mundiais de resolução de litígios que irão contribuir para uma resolução mais rápida e eficaz do conflito sem julgamento.

The article highlights the social significance of administrative mediation, which consists in the organization and development of civil society institutions (for example, public associations of mediators), including their public control over public administration as a system of bodies and organizations designed to implement goals and objectives given by the political (representative) power of the state. With the help of administrative mediation, society can legally «signal» to the representative authorities about certain problems in public relations (for example, on the basis of depersonalized statistical information and reports provided by associations of mediators), eliminate and find compromise in overcoming shortcomings of public administration together with the government and, finally, to move the process of modernization of the executive branch towards finding consensus at all levels of interaction between the state and society. The article proposes the author’s definition of «administrative mediation» as an extra- judicial legal form of voluntary settlement of an administrative dispute involving two or more parties, one of which is a subject of power, and a professional mediator arising from a violation of administrative law. The article presents a number of special features and characteristics of administrative mediation, which, unlike other types of mediation, require the application of specific institutions. For instance: inequality of the parties, the dispute is based on the public interest; the principles of confidentiality and voluntariness are relative; complex structure of the mediator’s financial reward; requires the involvement of independent experts; special requirements for the mediator. The article proposes the criteria according to which an administrative dispute can or cannot be resolved through the procedure of administrative mediation. The article proposes a number of legislative initiatives regarding the institutionalization and development of the institution of administrative mediation in Ukraine. Among them, it is proposed to introduce a special section in the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine «Mediation» (as was done in Poland), where, among other things, clearly define the restrictive framework (criteria) for administrative disputes, according to which the procedure of administrative mediation can be applied., В статті актуалізовано соціальну значущість адміністративної медіації, що полягає в організації та розвитку інститутів громадянського суспільства (наприклад, громадських об’єднань медіаторів), в тому числі здійснення ними суспільного контролю за публічною адміністрацією як системою органів та організацій, покликаних реалізовувати цілі і завдання, поставлені перед нею політичною (представницькою) владою держави. За допомогою адміністративної медіації населення через нейтральну особу медіатора у правовий спосіб може «сигналізувати» представницькій владі про ті чи інші проблеми у публічно-правових відносинах (наприклад, на підставі знеособленої статистичної інформації та звітів, наданих об’єднаннями медіаторів), усувати недоліки публічної адміністрації, спільно із суб’єктами владних повноважень знаходити компроміс у їх подоланні та, врешті-решт, рухати процес модернізації органів виконавчої влади у бік знаходження консенсусу на всіх рівнях взаємодії держави і суспільства. В статті запропоновано авторське визначення поняття «адміністративна медіація» як позасудової правової форми добровільного врегулювання адміністративного спору за участю двох чи більше сторін, одна з яких є суб’єктом владних повноважень, та професійного посередника, що виник на підставі порушення норм адміністративного права. В статті наведено ряд особливих рис та ознак адміністративної медіації, що на відміну від інших видів медіації вимагає застосування до неї специфічних інститутів. Серед них: нерівноправність сторін, в основі спору лежить публічний інтерес; принципи конфіденційності та добровільності носять відносний характер; складна структура фінансової винагороди медіатора; залучення незалежних експертів; спеціальні вимоги до медіатора. В статті запропоновано критерії, за якими той чи інший адміністративний спір підлягає чи не підлягає врегулюванню за допомогою процедури адміністративної медіації. В статті запропоновано ряд законодавчих ініціатив відносно інституціоналізації та розвитку інституту адміністративної медіації в Україні. Серед них, запропоновано внесення спеціального розділу в КАСУ «Про медіацію» (як це вчинено у Польщі), де, окрім іншого, чітко визначити обмеження (критерії) для адміністративних спорів, згідно з якими можна застосовувати процедуру адміністративної медіації.

The present dissertation seeks to analyze the efficiency, potential and best practices in the use of Dispute Boards in Public Administration contracts. Therefore, the work is based on international experience to point out the origin, basic characteristics, and modeling of the use of the mechanism, which is recommended by the main international organizations and associations that are dedicated to its study. Next, an analysis of a vast database with several infrastructure projects that adopted the Dispute Board is carried out, in order to ascertain the concrete results proven by its use. In the second part, the study focusses at the national reality, pointing out the reasons that justify the use of the Dispute Board by the Public Administration, in addition to the estimated costs and types of contract in which its use makes sense. It also assesses the history of its implementation in national contracts, the supporting legislation that currently exists and on-going bills in the National Congress. Closing this part, the study evaluates some real cases in which courts and control agencies analyzed the mechanism. The third part of the work addresses the structuring of Dispute Board clauses in public contracts, with propositional recommendations. Finally, some points with a high potential for dissent are highlighted, suggesting actions to minimize risks. The dissertation follows a hybrid research model based on problem solving and best practices. A presente dissertação busca analisar a eficiência, potencialidades e melhores práticas de uso de Comitês de Resolução de Disputas (Dispute Boards) em contratos da Administração Pública. Para tanto, o trabalho se baseia na experiência internacional para apontar a origem, características básicas, e modelagem de utilização do mecanismo que é preconizada pelos principais organismos e associações internacionais que se dedicam ao seu estudo. Na sequência, é feita a análise de um vasto banco de dados com diversos projetos de infraestrutura que adotaram o Dispute Board, de modo a apurar os resultados concretos efetivamente alcançados com sua utilização. Na segunda parte, o estudo enfoca a realidade nacional, apontando as razões que justificam o uso do Dispute Board pela Administração Pública, além dos custos estimados e tipos de contrato em que seu uso faz sentido. Avalia-se, também, o histórico de sua implementação nos contratos nacionais, a legislação de suporte em vigor e projetos de lei em tramitação no Congresso Nacional. Encerrando esta parte, o estudo avalia alguns casos reais em que Tribunais e órgãos de controle analisaram o mecanismo. A terceira parte do trabalho aborda a estruturação das cláusulas de Dispute Board em contratos públicos, com recomendações propositivas. Por fim, alguns pontos com elevado potencial de dissensão são destacados, sugerindo-se condutas que minimizem os riscos. A dissertação segue o modelo híbrido de pesquisa baseado na resolução de problema e proposição de melhores práticas.

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) covers conflicts settled over the Internet. As it does not rely on face-to-face interactions, ODR plays an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic and may be an important tool for enhancing access to justice. There is, however, scarce literature addressing Brazilian and Japanese cases, which are studied herein. This study aims to present a brief framework on the development of ODR, its use during the pandemic and main advantages and challenges observed. Methodological procedures were developed through a qualitative approach, based on bibliographic and documentary research on ODR. It was found out that ODR is not yet fully implemented, neither in Brazil nor in Japan. Brazil experiences cultural challenges regarding its prevailing culture of litigation, but used ODR thoroughly during the pandemic. Japan faces barriers as ODR costs and lack of enforcement power, while its citizens could not properly access justice during the pandemic.

Mediation becomes relevant nowadays as a way to manage conflicts in the workplace in a nonjudicial way, preventing costly, extensive, and unsatisfying legal procedures. This study tries to systematize the more recent research about mediation, showing the main challenges, questions, and findings. Research suggests the importance of integrating the organizational and societal context in the study of mediation, the use of efficiency, equity, and voice objectives for evaluating mediation effectiveness, and taking into account a contingency approach in mediator strategies. There is an important gap between the large development of professional practice in mediation and the few systematic studies on this topic. This paper offers a model that considers current research and practice for mediation effectiveness. This model could be used to focus the orientation of scholars, practitioners, and governments in search of new developments in the design of mediation. Future research could explore specific combinations of these dimensions to analyze sectors, organizations, or cases of mediation. La mediación está adquiriendo relevancia hoy en día como una forma extrajudicial de gestionar los conflictos, evitando procedimientos legales costosos, largos e insatisfactorios. Este estudio trata de sistematizar la investigación más reciente sobre la mediación, mostrando los principales retos, cuestiones y conclusiones. La investigación sugiere la importancia de integrar el contexto organizativo y social en el estudio de la mediación, el uso de objetivos de eficiencia, equidad y voz para evaluar la eficacia de la mediación y tener en cuenta un enfoque contingente en las estrategias de las personas mediadoras. Existe una importante brecha entre el gran desarrollo de la práctica profesional de la mediación y la escasez de estudios sistemáticos sobre este tema. Este artículo ofrece un modelo que tiene en cuenta tanto la investigación como el ejercicio práctico para entender cómo se producen las mediaciones eficaces. Este modelo podría utilizarse para orientar a la academia, el ejercicio profesional y a los gobiernos en la búsqueda de nuevos desarrollos en el diseño de la mediación. Las investigaciones futuras podrían explorar combinaciones específicas de estas dimensiones para analizar sectores, organizaciones o casos de mediación.

In addition to possessing one of the largest proven gas reserves worldwide, Qatar benefits from a strategic location between the East and West, forming an attractive destination for foreign direct investments. Law No. 1/2019 regulating non-Qatari capital investments provides investors with greater political and social stability along with a full range of benefits. The most significant among these benefits is the freedom offered by the legislator to resolve any dispute by choosing any type of settlement dispute. Hence, Article 16 of Law No. 1/2019 states that ‘unless it is a labour dispute, the non-Qatari Investor may agree to settle any dispute between them and others through arbitration or any other means of settling disputes in accordance with the law’. This article will discuss and analyse the other means of dispute settlement mechanism compatible with Qatar, especially when online dispute resolution has become more significant in the era of COVID-19.

Collective labor disputes based on the differences in economic interests between workers and employers can be effectively resolved exclusively through conciliation procedures. Contemporary alternative methods arose mostly due to the necessity to resolve collective labor disputes; mediation for this purpose is applied differently in various countries. National legislation equally provides various means for collective labor dispute resolutions and determines relevant intermediary procedures. An intermediation in a collective labor dispute resolution can be private and/or state-appointed and mandatory or alternative and remains a very perspective means of alternative dispute resolution. An analysis of different countries’ legislation distinguishes several common features of intermediation in collective labor disputes, concerning mainly the goals, objectives and principles. For bodies and persons conducting intermediation, the degree of compulsion in their decisions varies greatly from country to country. However, the obtained experience reveals common and distinctive procedural features and provides the possibility to classify existing approaches, having combined them into groups. The analysis also follows general development trends of collective labor dispute intermediation in different countries and identifies several shortcomings that are characteristic to different systems of intermediation legal regulation. Further research on the most effective ways of collective labor dispute conciliation is necessary for establishing new harmonious labor relations as the grounds for social progress.

This paper deals with prevention and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in tax matters, particularly in the light of the specific nature of administrative relations, which also include tax procedures. Given the involvement of stakeholders, ADR benefits both the taxpayers and the tax authority, enabling greater legal certainty and speedier finalisation of procedures. Yet, ADR also poses an open threat to the public interest and equality as international and constitutional administrative principles, and must therefore be limited in tax procedures. This also derives from the legal acts of the EU and the Council of Europe. In addition to theoretical frameworks and types of dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms studied by means of scientific literature review, legal sources analysis and comparative insights, the paper presents the Slovenian regulation and practice of the Financial Administration (FURS) over the past years. The aim of this research is to examine the de iure and de facto situation at the national level. The analysis shows that, in tax matters, ADR is noticeably more intensive at the international level than within national tax systems. On the other hand, individual countries prefer to establish regulatory mechanisms for prevention, which should result in even more desired avoidance of disputes. It can be concluded that efficient tax procedures require an integrated approach, including both dispute prevention and ADR, in order to ensure the principles of tax justice and systemic inclusion of all stakeholders in its governance., Ovaj rad bavi se prevencijom i alternativnom rješavanjem sporova (ADR) u poreznim pitanjima, u kontekstu upravnih odnosa. ADR, na temelju sudjelovanja dionika, koristi i poreznim obveznicima i poreznom tijelu, jer donosi osobito veću pravnu sigurnost i brzu konačnu zatvaranje postupaka. Istovremeno ADR znači otvorenu prijetnju javnom interesu i jednakosti po međunarodnim upravnim i ustavnim načelima, zato mora biti ADR u poreznim postupcima ograničeno. Ovo također proizlazi iz akata EU i Vijeća Europe. Osim teorijskih okvira i vrsta ADR na bazi analize znanstvene literature, pravnih izvora i komparativnih uvida u ovom radu bavi se o regulatornom okviru u Sloveniji i praksi Financijske uprave Republike Slovenije (FURS) u posljednjih nekoliko godina. Cilj istraživanja je identifikacija de iure i de facto stanja na nacionalnoj razini. Analiza pokazuje, da je ADR u poreznim pitanjima znatno intenzivnija u međunarodnim odnosima nego unutar nacionalnih poreznih sustava. S druge strane, pojedine zemlje nastoje uspostaviti osobito regulatorne mehanizme za prevenciju, što bi dovelo do još poželjnijeg izbjegavanja sukoba. U zaključku, istaknuto je, da su za efektivne porezne postupke potrebne integrirane metode prevencije kao i ADR, uzimajući u obzir principe pravednog poreznog sustava i uključenosti svih dionika u njegovo upravljanje., Dieser Beitrag bespricht die Vorbeugung des Steuerstreits und alternative Streitbeilegungsmechanismen (ASB-Mechanismen), insbesondere angesichts des spezifischen Wesens der Verwaltungsverhältnisse, welche auch Steuerverfahren einschließen. Sowohl Steuerpflichtige als auch die Steuerverwaltung haben Nutzen von den ASB-Mechanismen, weil sie hohe Rechtssicherheit und schnellere Beendigung der Verfahren ermöglichen. Die ASB stellt aber ein Risiko für das Gemeinwohl und die Gleichheit dar, die völker- und verfassungsrechtlichen Grundsätze. Deshalb muss die ASB bei Steuerverfahren beschränkt werden. Diese Behauptung geht auch von den Rechtsakten der EU und des Europäischen Rates hervor. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die theoretischen Rechtsrahmen und die Arten der Vorbeugung und Beilegung des Streites durch die Analyse der wissenschaftlichen Literatur, der Rechtsquellen und der rechtsvergleichenden Einsichten. Zusätzlich werden im Beitrag die slowenische Regulierung dieses Bereichs und die Praxis der Finanzverwaltung (der sog. FURS) in den letzten Jahren dargestellt. Das Ziel des Beitrags ist es, die de iure und de facto Situation in nationalen Rechtsordnungen zu untersuchen. Die Analyse weist darauf hin, dass die ASB öfter auf internationaler als auf nationaler Ebene verwendet wird. Andererseits geben individuelle Länder der Bestimmung von Regulierungsmechanismen für die Vorbeugung den Vorzug, was zur gewünschten Streitvermeidung führen sollte. Es lässt sich schließen, dass man einen integrativen Ansatz zur Erreichung effizienter Steuerverfahren braucht, welcher sowohl die Vorbeugung des Streits und die ASB einschließt, um die Grundsätze der Steuergerechtigkeit und die systematische Einbeziehung aller Interessenvertreter zu gewährleisten., Il presente lavoro si occupa della prevenzione e della risoluzione alternativa delle liti (ADR) nelle questioni tributarie, nel contesto dei rapporti amministrativi. L’ADR, in base alla partecipazione delle parti, serve anche ai contribuenti ed agli enti tributari, in quanto comporta una maggiore certezza del diritto ed una chiusura rapida e definitiva della lite. Al tempo stesso l’ADR rappresenta una minaccia aperta per l’interesse pubblico e per l’uguaglianza secondo i principi internazionali amministrativi e costituzionali. Pertanto, l’ADR nella materia tributaria incontra dei limiti. Ciò deriva altresì dagli atti dell’UE e del Consiglio d’Europa. Oltre che del quadro teorico e dei tipi di ADR in base all’analisi della letteratura scientifica, delle fonti giuridiche e della rassegna comparata, in questo lavoro ci si occupa anche del quadro regolatore in Slovenia e della prassi dell’amministrazione finanziaria della Repubblica di Slovenia (FURS) negli ultimi anni. Lo scopo della ricerca è quello di identificare de iure e de facto la situazione sul piano nazionale. L’analisi dimostra che l’ADR nelle questioni tributarie è assi più intensa nei rapporti internazionali che all’interno dei sistemi tributari nazionali. Dall’altra parte, i singoli paesi cercano di creare dei meccanismi regolatori di prevenzione, il che porterebbe ad un auspicato scongiuramento del conflitto. Nella conclusione è stato rilevato che per delle procedure tributarie efficienti siano necessari dei metodi di prevenzione integrati come anche l’ADR, tenendo conto dei principi di un sistema fiscale giusto e dell’inclusione di tutte le parti nella sua gestione.

In this paper we describe the steps taken to model expert knowledge within the mediation domain as the basis for the design of the Mediation Core Ontology (MCO), of which we also offer a first outline of its present stage of development. MCO is created from scratch by eliciting practical knowledge from mediation experts to identify the basic working concepts of the domain. MCO offers initial support towards knowledge acquisition and reasoning and, in later steps, will serve as a general basis for the development of different mediation domain and sub-domain ontologies to be used by the ONTOMEDIA mediation platform, currently also under development.

Resumen El conflicto en los entornos universitarios tiene dos estadios. El primero es interno —propio de todas las universidades, tanto públicas como privadas—, que discurre principalmente por las relaciones interpersonales, y cuando no se resuelve, queda latente por el temor a enfrentarlo. El otro conflicto es externo; se da en las universidades públicas a través de los grupos existentes en el claustro en relación con algunos entes externos. Se caracteriza por ser estructural, aunque el nivel que se investiga es microsociológico, es decir, basado en conflictos internos. En este artículo se presenta la revisión del estado del arte (fuentes secundarias), cuyo objetivo consiste en identificar los conflictos internos que se presentan en las universidades públicas y privadas, qué figura o forma de resolución de conflictos emplean y qué método de resolución podría aplicarse en las instituciones de educación superior. Se concluye que hay ausencia de registro de investigaciones sobre el tema, por lo que es necesario explorar la naturaleza de los conflictos en las universidades y sus formas de resolución. Abstract Conflict in university environments has two stages. The first is internal —typical of all universities, both public and private— which is mainly due to interpersonal relationships, and when it is not resolved, remains latent due to the fear of confronting it. The other conflict is external; it occurs in public universities through groups existing in the campus in relation to some external entities. It is characterized by a structural conflict, although the level researched is microsociological, that is, based on internal conflicts. This article presents a review of the state of the art (secondary sources), whose objective is to identify the internal conflicts that occur in public and private universities, what figure or form of dispute resolution they use and what method of resolution could be applied in higher education institutions. It is concluded that there is a lack of research on the subject, therefore it is necessary to explore the nature of conflicts in universities and their forms of resolution. Resumo O conflito nos contextos universitários em duas fases. A primeira é interna —própria de todas as universidades, públicas ou particulares—, que discorre principalmente pelas relações interpessoais e, quando não é resolvido, fica latente pelo medo de enfrentá-lo. O outro conflito é externo e ocorre nas universidades públicas por meio dos grupos existentes no local em relação com alguns entes externos. É caracterizado por ser um conflito estrutural, embora o nível investigado seja microssociológico, isto é, baseado em conflitos internos. Neste artigo, é apresentada a revisão do estado da arte (fontes secundárias), cujo objetivo consiste em identificar os conflitos internos que são apresentados nas universidades públicas e particulares, qual figura ou forma de resolução de conflitos utilizam e qual método de resolução poderia ser aplicado nas instituições de ensino superior. Conclui-se que há ausência de registro de pesquisas sobre o tema, portanto é necessário explorar a natureza dos conflitos nas universidades e suas formas de resolução.

This thesis challenges the arguments against the concept of mandatory investor-state mediation as a precondition to arbitration through doctrinal and quantitative empirical analysis. The thesis first points out that some of the general objections to mediation in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) parallel those initially raised against mediation to resolve domestic and international commercial disputes. Yet users have come around to successfully using mediation quite extensively in those settings. Secondly the thesis challenges the view that better procedural rules and enforcement mechanisms will be enough to increase recourse to voluntary opt-in mediation; and that there is no need to promote mandatory mediation for ISDS. The doctrinal analysis shows that usual treaty wording creates a sort of ‘fork in the road’ when it comes to the choice between conciliation and arbitration in ISDS clauses. Therefore, it is not surprising that investors and their legal advisors almost always choose arbitration over conciliation or mediation. Relatedly, we should question the assumption that improving the enforceability of settlement agreements will result in significantly increased use of voluntary alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Thirdly, the thesis debunks major common arguments against the compatibility of mandatory mediation with ISDS through a pioneering statistical analysis and an econometric study. This is achieved by quantitatively analysing 656 concluded, treaty-based ISA cases through to the end of 2019. Through this dataset, the thesis examines four corresponding research questions regarding mandatory mediation. Each research question is examined separately, first through a descriptive analysis of the relevant data, then using a more elaborate econometric regression method. From this basis, the thesis concludes with recommendations on three main ways forward to integrate mandatory mediation, before arbitration, into the current ISDS regime.

Part of a broader investigation, this research aimed to analyze the practice of labor mediation from the perspective of mediators and the institutional experience developed in the case-unit, the Judicial Center for Consensual Methods of Dispute Resolution (CEJUSC-JT/Olinda). At the secondary level, the aim was to explore the experience of the Center, highlighting the determining factors of performance, as well as the challenges faced in this practice. In this attempt, the triangulation of methods (documentary, case study and Grounded theory) was adopted as a methodological strategy, with an essentially qualitative design, followed by content analysis. The immersion confirmed the success of the model, highlighting the repercussions of initiatives by the CEJUSC-JT/Olinda administration and its team, especially mediators. In fact, the substantive theories formulated led to the identification of success factors, such as the preparation of the environment and the people involved in mediation procedures. The Center's practices differ on the periphery of the legal (mandatory) rite through its policies and actions. Among these policies, the self-care policy stands out, aimed at people involved in the Center's activities, mediators and support staff. With regard to structural challenges, the parties' resistance to the experiences of mediation and conciliation stands out, the bellicose spirit present in some relationships and the very limitations of the practice in cases of conflicts involving existential damages. These results led to the realization of the need to proceed with the screening of conflicts, aiming at more efficient and effective treatment. Como parte de una investigación más amplia, esta investigación tuvo como objetivo analizar la práctica de la mediación laboral desde la perspectiva de los mediadores y la experiencia institucional desarrollada en la unidad de caso, el Centro Judicial de Métodos Consensuales de Resolución de Controversias (CEJUSC-JT/Olinda). En el nivel secundario, el objetivo fue explorar la experiencia del Centro, destacando los factores determinantes del desempeño, así como los desafíos enfrentados en esta práctica. En este intento se adoptó como estrategia metodológica la triangulación de métodos (documental, estudio de caso y teoría fundamentada), con un diseño esencialmente cualitativo, seguido del análisis de contenido. La inmersión confirmó el éxito del modelo, destacando la repercusión de las iniciativas de la administración de CEJUSC-JT/Olinda y su equipo, especialmente los mediadores. De hecho, las teorías sustantivas formuladas llevaron a la identificación de factores de éxito, como la preparación del entorno y las personas involucradas en los procedimientos de mediación. Las prácticas del Centro difieren en la periferia del rito legal (obligatorio) a través de sus políticas y acciones. Entre estas políticas, destaca la política de autocuidado, dirigida a personas involucradas en las actividades del Centro, mediadores y personal de apoyo. En cuanto a los desafíos estructurales, se destaca la resistencia de las partes a las experiencias de mediación y conciliación, el espíritu belicoso presente en algunas relaciones y las propias limitaciones de la práctica en casos de conflictos que involucran daños existenciales. Estos resultados llevaron a la comprensión de la necesidad de proceder con el cribado de conflictos, con el objetivo de un tratamiento más eficiente y eficaz. Parte de uma investigação mais ampla, esta pesquisa teve por objetivo analisar a prática da mediação trabalhista sob a perspectiva dos mediadores e da experiência institucional desenvolvida na unidade-caso, o Centro Judiciário de Métodos Consensuais de Solução de Disputas (CEJUSC-JT/Olinda). Em plano secundário, visou-se explorar a experiência do Centro, evidenciando os fatores determinantes de desempenho, bem como os desafios enfrentados nesta prática. Nesse intento, adotou-se como estratégia metodológica, de design essencialmente qualitativo, a triangulação de métodos (documentário, estudo de caso e Grounded theory), seguido da análise de conteúdo. A imersão ratificou o sucesso do modelo, destacando a repercussão de iniciativas da coordenação do CEJUSC-JT/Olinda e sua equipe, especialmente mediadores. De fato, as teorias substantivas formuladas encaminharam à identificação dos fatores de êxito, a exemplo da preparação do ambiente e das pessoas envolvidas nos procedimentos mediatórios. As práticas do Centro se diferenciam na periferia do rito legal (obrigatório) por meio de suas políticas e ações. Dentre estas políticas, destaca-se aquela de autocuidado, voltado para as pessoas envolvidas nas atividades do Centro, mediadores e equipe de apoio. No que concerne aos desafios estruturais, destaca-se a resistência das partes às experiências de mediação e conciliação, o ânimo belicoso presente em algumas relações e as próprias limitações da prática nos casos de conflitos que envolvem danos existenciais. Esses resultados remeteram à constatação da necessidade de proceder-se à triagem dos conflitos, visando tratamento mais eficiente e eficaz.