&nbsp; The employment relationship between employer and employee is a very special type of exchange. One crucial distinguishing feature is that it involves both market and managerial&nbsp; <p>relations: a price is fixed for the labour expended, but management then determines the tasks actually carried out. Another feature is that the relationship is in a state of continuous</p><p>flux. There are constant pressures for one party or another to adjust it: employees or employers may want to adjust the price or the content and manner in which work is carried out. Conflict is thus an inherent feature of the employment relationship and so too, therefore, is conflict resolution, the primary mechanism of which is direct social dialogue. This occurs most commonly between an individual employee and his or her employer, or collectively between one or more employers and their workers, generally through their representatives at workplace, company, regional or national levels.</p><p>Where direct dialogue between the two parties did not lead to dispute resolution and the conflict remained active other means of resolving conflicts developed that involved &lsquo;third parties', individuals or agencies that were substantially independent of the two directly involved opposing parties. This often occurred in situations where &lsquo;a wider public interest' could be invoked - either in terms of direct negative effects (loss or disruption to a service of which the public is a significant consumer or where the state has a strategic interest), or in terms of indirect public effects (where the dispute risked social peace through legitimating unfairness or breaches of social justice). Three principal (and sometimes overlapping) forms of alternatives or supplements to direct social dialogue processes developed:</p><ul><li>conciliation - where a third party would attempt to bring the parties to a dispute together and help them to reach a mutually acceptable solution;</li><li>arbitration - where a third party would make a binding decision on an issue on which the parties cannot agree; and</li><li>mediation - whereby a third party takes an active role (more so than in conciliation), usually making recommendations for the resolution of the dispute.</li></ul><p>The contexts that led to the creation of these alternative dispute resolution systems historically had one or more common characteristics: they could be periods of new and/or comparatively high levels of conflict, and/or they could be periods in which industrial relations institutions, in particular the trade unions and employers' organisations, were relatively immature and/or weak. In each of the five countries being studied one or more of these features applied in the initial moment of enactment of or agreement to procedures that permit third party (generally state agency but also agreed independent) interventions. In France, for example, an individual right to access a conciliator over individual work-related issues was introduced after ten years of exceptionally high strike levels in 1978; while in the UK a dedicated independent conciliation and arbitration service, ACAS, with responsibilities that were later extended to cover both individual and collective disputes was created in 1975 after a similar decade of rising conflict; in Italy, a Guarantee Authority to ensure minimum public services during public sector disputes and to conduct conciliation was established in 1990. While third party intervention processes were made binding on the parties in some countries, in others they were not. In Portugal, for example, when an impasse in collective negotiations occurs, the parties individually or together may request a conciliation intervention by representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity (MTSS). If still no agreement can be reached, the Conciliation may be transformed into Mediation and the negotiating parties may appeal to an arbitrator to act as a mediator, drawing up proposals for consideration by the two parties. In both Conciliation and Mediation processes in Portugal it is the two negotiating parties who decide on the final settlement. If no settlement is reached, they can advance to arbitration. This process is led by three arbitrators, two of them nominated by the negotiating parties and the third agreed upon by the first two arbitrators. The decisions in arbitration in Portugal are the responsibility of the arbitrators and have the legal effect of a collective agreement that is binding upon the negotiating parties who are compelled to carry out the decisions. By contrast, in Poland while parts of the third party intervention procedure are mandatory, the outcomes are not. Thus mediation is obligatory if the social partners fail to reach agreement during collective negotiations. The mediator should be designated jointly by the parties to the dispute and is generally a respected person such as a member of parliament, senator, minister, State Labour Inspectorate employee or member of the clergy. The two parties may also select a mediator from a list maintained by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, and drawn up in agreement with the national-level social partners. If the parties do not agree on a mediator within five days, one of the parties may request the Ministry to choose a mediator from this list. However, if one of the parties to a dispute fails to meet obligations undertaken during the mediation proceedings, there is no legal basis for enforcing compliance by way of administrative decisions or court injunctions.</p>