Sport Officials Canada Dispute Resolution: Helping Both

Teams WinMarie-Claude Asselin, Executive Director Julie Stronach, Education & Communication Coordinator

September 24th, 2011

Welcome

Brief Intro to SDRCC

Mediation Role Play

Case Scenario(s)

Disputes in the Officiating Environment

Question Period

PLAN

Not For Profit Organization

Head Office - Montreal

100% Funded by Sport Canada

Prevention and Resolution of Sport Disputes

Services at the National Level

Services in both Official Languages

WHAT IS THE SDRCC

WHO IS THE SDRCC

5 Full-Time Employees

46 Professional Arbitrators and Mediators (Located Across Canada)

Volunteer Board of 12 Persons (Ministerial Appointments)

Resolution Facilitation (RF)

Mediation

Arbitration

Med / Arb

TRIBUNAL SERVICES

As you move from left to right:

• Costs escalate

• Takes longer to resolve

• More formality

• More complexity

• Greater involvement of third parties

• Greater potential for damaging relationships

• Greater focus on who is right and wrong as opposed to practical solutions

THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SPECTRUM

MED/ARB

TRIALPREVENTION ARBITRATION

ADMINISTRATIVEHEARING

MEDIATION/RESOLUTION FACILITATION

NEGOTIATION

TRIBUNAL PRINCIPLES

• Independence

• Access (low-cost, time-efficient)

• Parties’ Agreement

• Scope of Review: Trial de Novo

• Deference

• Final and Binding

Athlete74%

NSO12%

Official6%

Other5%

Coach2% PSO

1%

Type of Claimants

Dispute Prevention For

Officials

What is a dispute?

Originates from disagreements

A statement/claim by one party that is contradicted by another = disagreement  

Disagreements turn into DISPUTES when a party:

• Cannot live with the consequences

• Insists on having it resolved

Types of situations that may be at the origin of disputes for

officials:

Selection

Accreditation

Field of Play Protest

Disciplinary Sanctions

Discipline

Discipline

Role Play Scenario

An official appealed through her NSO’s internal appeal

mechanism, seeking to over turn a decision not to name her as

an official for the 2004 Olympic Games.

Following the denial of her appeal, she filed a request with the

SDRCC. She failed to do so within the prescribed 21-day period

through no fault of her own: her lawyer had been busy with other

cases. The case was put before a jurisdictional arbitrator to

determine if the claimant’s request was valid.

Scenario #1

Selection

The rules allow for exceptions to be made to time limits under special circumstances. What do you think those special circumstances may be?

What do you think the jurisdictional arbitrator ruled in this case?

What can be done by officials to avoid putting themselves in selection disputes?

Questions for Group Discussion

Selection

Learning

Risks are reduced when:

The selection/accreditation policy provides for a fair process;

The selection/accreditation criteria and policies are clearly communicated in writing and respected;

The officials know and understand the criteria and policies applicable to them.

Selection & Accreditation

You are at a national competition where you find yourself assigned to

a match where one of the competitors is a former athlete of yours,

someone you’ve coached.

You proceed to officiate this match. Your former athlete wins, but the

outcome is not without some controversy. The losing athlete and his

entourage get wind of the fact that you, the official, were once the

coach of the winner. They file a protest on the grounds that you were

not impartial.

Scenario #2

Field of Play

Scenario Discussion

How would you define impartiality? And do you think

that the official in this scenario met your definition?

Under what circumstances can the decision of anofficial be overturned by an appeal panel or tribunal

What are the steps to avoid being found in a situation where someone may perceive bias?

Field of Play

When a decision of the official is contested by a participant risks are reduced when:

Officials avoid putting themselves in situations where their objectivity can be questioned (e.g. conflict of interests);

Officials appointed to an event have the skills and competencies appropriate for the level of competition.

Field of Play Protests

Field of Play

Dispute Resolution

Two roles of officials:

1) An official in a leadership role

2) An official as a 3rd party intervener

Disputes in the Officiating Environment

Reference : SportsQuebec, Multisport Training for Officials, Conflict Management and Resolution

Leadership Role : Conflict Prevention

Disputes in the Officiating Environment

• Lead by example

• Cultivate an atmosphere of confidence and respect

• Recognize common sources of conflict

• Changes cause disruptions; have a plan

• Build conflict management skills among your officials

Reference : SportsQuebec, Multisport Training for Officials, Conflict Management and Resolution

Leadership Role : Conflict Management

Disputes in the Officiating Environment

• Intervene early when possible

• Provide a safe channel for officials to report issues (without fear of punishment)

• Follow up in an impartial, confidential and timely fashion

• Ensure the proper conduct of any proceedings

Reference : SportsQuebec, Multisport Training for Officials, Conflict Management and Resolution

3rd Party Mediator

Disputes in the Officiating Environment

• Be neutral and impartial

– Ignore personal views and opinions

– Keep the process “just” allowing both parties to feel secure

• Facilitate communication

– Manage emotions / be empathetic not sympathetic

– Assist parties to see beyond their personal perspective

– Help clarify issues discussed

Test Your Knowledge :

MEDIATION

Questions?

www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca

www.sdrcc.ca

www.crdsc.ca