0
What else can I help you with?
What is the difference between obedience and conciliation?
Obedience is the act of following orders or commands without question, while conciliation is the act of resolving conflicts or disagreements through compromise and reconciliation. Obedience typically involves authority and submission, while conciliation involves negotiation and understanding.
Is advocacy the same as conciliation?
No, advocacy and conciliation are different concepts. Advocacy involves actively supporting a particular cause or idea, while conciliation involves mediating between parties to help them reach agreement or resolve a dispute. Advocacy aims to promote a specific viewpoint, whereas conciliation aims to facilitate communication and understanding between conflicting parties.
What are the Functions of ccma?
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in South Africa primarily functions to resolve disputes between employers and employees regarding labor issues. It facilitates conciliation and mediation processes to help parties reach amicable agreements. Additionally, the CCMA can conduct arbitration hearings to make binding decisions on unresolved disputes and offers training and resources to promote understanding of labor laws and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Where is the stress mark in amicable?
Amicable is stressed on the first syllable.
When a dispute is referred to a council is it an arbitration or a conciliation?
conciliation
What is conciliation in workers comp?
In a workers compensation case a conciliation is a meeting between the employee, the employee's attorney, the employer and a conciliator from the Department of Labor. It is an informal meeting during which there will be an attempt to reach an agreement between all parties.Ê
What is the difference between advocacy and mediation?
To me, a mediator, one who does the mediation, seeks to bring conciliation and reconciliation to both sides and a advocate, one who brings advocacy, represents the plaintiff in one side of the argument.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of conciliation?
Conciliation offers several advantages, including fostering open communication between parties, which can lead to mutually beneficial solutions without the need for formal litigation. It is typically a quicker and less expensive process than going to court, promoting amicable resolutions and preserving relationships. However, disadvantages include the potential for power imbalances, where one party may dominate the process, and the lack of legally binding outcomes, which may lead to unresolved issues if agreements are not honored. Additionally, not all disputes are suitable for conciliation, particularly those involving significant legal complexities or deeply entrenched positions.
What is bank conciliation?
Bank conciliation is when a bank receives money
What types of conciliation methods are available?
The types of conciliation methods available are Meditation, Conciliation, Arbitration and counseling. Conciliation is apparently like counseling but is run by the government and people are referred by their employers.
What is the difference between conciliation and mediation?
Though the two terms have a number of similarities, there are also some differences between conciliation and mediation, no matter which definition is used. In both cases, a neutral third party seeks to help two, or possibly more, opposing sides find a suitable resolution to a conflict. In some cases, the differences between conciliation and mediation definitions will determine how that neutral third-party acts. No universal definition currently exists for these alternative forms of dispute resolution, but there are still some distinct differences. In some cases and jurisdictions, the differences between conciliation and mediation are determined by the amount of power the third party has. In mediation, the mediator will facilitate a discussion between the parties, and may or may not offer opinions on the strength of each side's argument. When no opinion is offered, it is called facilitative mediation. In cases where an opinion is offered, it is evaluative mediation. Overall, no matter which method is chosen, the mediator still does not have the right to impose his or her will on the two parties. This could be the major difference based on some definitions of conciliation and mediation. For example, a conciliator will not only offer an opinion on the relative strengths of the case, but also issue a binding opinion, if the parties agree to that ahead of time. The opinion offered is likely to be based on the law, but may factor in other less concrete considerations if the parties agree. This type of dispute resolution process is often more formal, simply because the decision will be binding, at least on a temporary basis. In some localities, the difference between conciliation and mediation is the same as the difference between facilitative mediation and evaluative mediation. In other words, under this definition of conciliation, the conciliator can still offer an opinion, but that opinion has no legal weight, though it may be based on legal concepts. Therefore, unless the parties agree, the conciliator's opinion makes no difference, but it may be used by one party or the other in court to bolster a case. No matter what definition is used, the major difference between conciliation and mediation ultimately is the power of the third party. In all cases, conciliation gives slightly more power to the third party than the mediation. Conciliation or mediation may be ordered by the court system as a way of resolving disputes and relieving some of the pressure on court calendars. This is especially true in the case of marriage dissolution in some countries, though it could also be used for labour disputes, or nearly any type of contract disagreement.
What is difference between mediation and conciliation?
Though the two terms have a number of similarities, there are also some differences between conciliation and mediation, no matter which definition is used. In both cases, a neutral third party seeks to help two, or possibly more, opposing sides find a suitable resolution to a conflict. In some cases, the differences between conciliation and mediation definitions will determine how that neutral third-party acts. No universal definition currently exists for these alternative forms of dispute resolution, but there are still some distinct differences. In some cases and jurisdictions, the differences between conciliation and mediation are determined by the amount of power the third party has. In mediation, the mediator will facilitate a discussion between the parties, and may or may not offer opinions on the strength of each side's argument. When no opinion is offered, it is called facilitative mediation. In cases where an opinion is offered, it is evaluative mediation. Overall, no matter which method is chosen, the mediator still does not have the right to impose his or her will on the two parties. This could be the major difference based on some definitions of conciliation and mediation. For example, a conciliator will not only offer an opinion on the relative strengths of the case, but also issue a binding opinion, if the parties agree to that ahead of time. The opinion offered is likely to be based on the law, but may factor in other less concrete considerations if the parties agree. This type of dispute resolution process is often more formal, simply because the decision will be binding, at least on a temporary basis. In some localities, the difference between conciliation and mediation is the same as the difference between facilitative mediation and evaluative mediation. In other words, under this definition of conciliation, the conciliator can still offer an opinion, but that opinion has no legal weight, though it may be based on legal concepts. Therefore, unless the parties agree, the conciliator's opinion makes no difference, but it may be used by one party or the other in court to bolster a case. No matter what definition is used, the major difference between conciliation and mediation ultimately is the power of the third party. In all cases, conciliation gives slightly more power to the third party than the mediation. Conciliation or mediation may be ordered by the court system as a way of resolving disputes and relieving some of the pressure on court calendars. This is especially true in the case of marriage dissolution in some countries, though it could also be used for labour disputes, or nearly any type of contract disagreement.
