This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Gramberg, B. Articles by Teicher, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Managing neutrality and impartiality in workplace conflict resolution: The dilemma of the HR manager

Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, Bernadine.VanGramberg{at}vu.edu.au

Julian Teicher

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Human resource managers are expected to resolve workplace disputes and deliver workplace justice. The primary mechanism by which this occurs is the workplace dispute resolution procedure which generally calls for a neutral third person to assist in resolving the dispute. We argue that ethical decision-making to resolve conflict is challenged both by the inherent nature of human resource management and the changes to Australian industrial relations legislation. Human resource managers perform a range of roles, such as ‘strategic partner’, which can be at odds with that of the ‘employee champion’ role, and as they represent the firm, they cannot be considered neutral mediators of workplace conflicts. The tensions in the role raise ethical questions. Given that the new industrial relations legislation will place greater pressure on human resource managers to resolve conflict within the workplace, while at the same time increase their power over their employees, it is timely to consider the development of an ethical code for human resource practice.

Key Words: ethics • human resource management • impartiality • neutrality • workplace dispute resolution • workplace justice

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?