Mediator training

OxCHEPS Higher Education Mediation Service

Mediator training

We hope to have 10-15 potential OxCHEPS mediators at each training day, usually on a Saturday in Oxford and repeated three or so times a year. It is hoped to have a mix of existing expertise so that the day involves a pooling of relevant high-level skills. Those invited will be sent brief notes in advance covering the key points to be dealt with during the day: for non-lawyers, this will involve some serious reading up of the essentials of consumer/contract law and employment law as applicable specifically to HEIs.

The philosophy of our training days is that of a high-level seminar in which participants contribute from their existing expertise and experience, as well as learn from others. The training days will cover the core principles of all mediation, but against a background of discussion of the special features of disputes in HE. Those with existing qualifications or training as mediators are still expected to attend an OxCHEPS training day in order to familiarise themselves with the distinctive needs to be met in this type of mediation. Whilst the first few training days will be by invitation only, the OxCHEPS Higher Education Mediation Service welcomes enquiries from those interested in attending a subsequent training day: please contact David Palfreyman via kate.hunter@new.ox.ac.uk. Serving or recently retired academics, research scientists, senior administrators, solicitors and barristers, and students’ union officials are particularly welcome.

The training day will cover:

1. The place of mediation in the range of ADR options.

2. Mediation: the basics (role of the mediator, and the sequence of the process) – see ‘What is ‘mediation’?’ | View |.

3. Special features of mediation in HE, such as
*the relationship of the student to the institution (membership/contract/pastoral aspects of the HEI’s duty of care);
*the relationship of the academic employee to the institution (academic freedom, professional standards, misconduct in research);
*the relationship of other categories of employee to the institution;
*the complexity of research contract disputes involving third parties; and
*the potential for staff-student, student-student, and staff-staff conflict (as opposed to student or staff disputes directly with the HEI).

4. Short papers from invited participants with specialist knowledge

(for example, as a senior university administrator, an academic, a research scientist, a specialist HE solicitor or barrister, an in-house HEI solicitor) will be welcomed and circulated to OxCHEPS mediators attending prior training as well as used at the training session attended by the contributor.

5. Discussion of leading HE cases and disputes: how could mediation have been used and at what stage(s)? Some such cases are already at the ‘Law casebook’ Page [LINK] and also at the ‘Law Update’ Page | View | of this web-site, notably:

Cavendish v. University of East London: the student who claims that the University did not provide the course it promised | View |

Clark v. University of Lincolnshire and Humberside: note the judicial encouragement of mediation! | View |

Rycotewood College: the students who convince the Court that their car restoration HND course was under-resourced and failed to live up to its recruitment material, and are duly awarded damages including £2500 for ‘disappointment’ | View |

University of Nottingham v. Fishel: re the duties of an academic | View |.

6. The types of dispute commonly arising in HEIs, such as alleged failure to provide the course as advertised or to an appropriate standard/with adequate facilities; staff-student conflict/harassment/abuse of power/unfair treatment/inappropriate relationships; student residences (unpaid rent, noise, abuse of property); campus vandalism/drunkenness/violence/disturbance of the peace; meetings on university property/freedom of speech/demonstrations; conditions of employment/unfair dismissal; discipline/grievance procedures; intellectual property disputes; misuse of computing resources/data protection; academic judgement questions (students); selection for promotion (academic staff); selection for upgrading (non-academic staff); equal opportunities; whistleblowing; failures to follow published procedures (due process)…

| Top |