NOV 12 2018

Restorative justice in the Ombuds Office

All Posts

 I propose discussing how restorative interventions are a useful tool in the practice of an organisational ombudsman. It is necessary for me to explain something of the particular function of the practice of an organisational ombudsman, using the definition as accepted through the International Ombudsman Association[1]. In New Zealand the term ombudsman has long been restricted to what is known as a classical ombudsman role and restricted specifically by virtue of the Ombudsman Act 1975[2] although outside of New Zealand the profession of organisational ombudsman has grown substantially, initially through many tertiary institutions but more widely within international organisations and larger corporate enterprises.

It is necessary to explain something of the role of an organisational ombudsman so that I can then discuss how they may use restorative interventions as an active tool in their function. The term ombudsman was originally from Sweden and is largely restricted to the Scandinavian countries until relatively recently. New Zealand was one of the first countries to adopt the model in the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962 subsequently replaced by the current 1975 act.[3] However there is an important distinction between the classical and organisational ombudsman, because the organisational ombudsman has a very specific role to work with individuals and groups in an organisation, where there are problems and conflicts and sometimes systemic issues which need investigation. The organisational ombudsman role as defined by the International Ombudsman Association, has particular characteristics of being informal, neutral, confidential and independent. These are in fact the defining features of an organisational ombudsman as defined in the IOA Standards of Practice[4].

The question may arise in reading this essay, as to the relevance in New Zealand. Although the use of the term ombudsman has been restricted by the statutory protection, the use of the concept is being adopted by organisations such as Fairway Resolution Limited, a major dispute resolution provider in New Zealand. In particular, they now offer a service which is called the Employee Liaison Service which has been set up using the IOA Standards of Practice as a model.[5] On their website they specifically refer to the service as being independent with four key elements of neutrality, independence, confidentiality and impartiality. The website says that the Liaison Practitioner, who listens to the visitors[6] specifically practices in accordance with the IOA Standards of Practice.

I suggest therefore that the use of the IOA model of organisational ombudsman is one which is a new form of dispute resolution now entering New Zealand with some unique characteristics as described on the IOA site and on the Fairway site. As a form of dispute resolution, restorative practices certainly have a well established place. The work undertaken about restorative organisations is also another factor which I believe is part of the practice of an organisational ombudsman, because they can encourage the use of restorative practice within an organisation as leaders for change. But the connection between IOA practice and restorative justice is deeper than might be first thought. In the very first volume of the peer reviewed Journal of the International Ombudsman Association[7] there is a review of the Mennonite Conciliation Service Fourth Edition, which has content authored by Howard Zehr, and favourably comments on the models of mediation promoted in the manual as being useful for an ombudsman.

It is necessary to explain the work undertaken by an organisational ombudsman so that the role of restorative practice can be seen as an important and almost integral part of ombudsman practice. It is also important to look at what they do not do. It seems that the term was first used by Mary Rowe[8] in 1995 to describe the specific role now more widely used. One of the seminal papers which set out the principles under which an organisational ombudsman should practice was set out in the then new Journal of the International Ombudsman Association where Erbe and Sebok[9] set out some of the history and discuss the different types of ombudsman. They refer to research which emphasised the key characteristics of independence, confidentiality and impartiality although there was not so much emphasis on the informality, which is now considered also as important.

The question therefore is what does the organisational ombudsman actually do? The Fairway Employee Liaison Service describes how it is an informal support service for employees to deal with conflict resolution within the workplace. This of course carries a wide range of possibilities including bullying, sexual harassment and other harassment, conflict between workers and between workers and management, personal issues affecting work, leadership issues, concerns about performance appraisal and so on. They describe how the service assists visitors by dealing with issues in an informal way, and coaching them to deal with conflict, looking at how it occurred and any contribution which the visitor may have had. They help the visitor evaluate options and look at strategies.

The work undertaken in describing creating a restorative organisation therefore looks directly at similar issues, on an organisation wide basis, with the organisational ombudsman working directly with the people. So the connection between the two must be essential to achieve both goals of the ombudsman and of the goal to achieve a restorative organisation. So the use of restorative justice is a tool for the organisational ombudsman is recognised by Shelton (2011)[10] who discusses the concept of justice in the context of equity and fairness for an ombudsman practice. He says in his conclusion that “a restorative justice approach may sometimes provide steps needed to assure or regain processes of administration within the system that are [11]experienced as “fair” and “equitable”by participants at various levels”[12]

The issue is therefore where the organisational ombudsman fits in as a leader to encourage the use of restorative practice within their organisation. I have found some insight in the article from Paul (2017) where he suggests that restorative practices are more effective than legalistic practices in dealing with detrimental personal and relational outcomes of hurtful behaviour. This is significant because of the emphasis for an organisational ombudsman in the use of independent, informal and neutral assistance to a visitor. The very nature of an organisational ombudsman office is to avoid the use of the more formal processes of investigation and the formal process of discipline within a workplace. Paul discusses the contrast between legalistic management practices using evidential gathering, and formal processes, with the restorative justice approach which encourages personal and direct interaction between stakeholders, often facilitated by a third party. This is again directly the process of an organisational ombudsman, resolving issues by an informal approach rather than engaging in a legalistic approach. The IOA standards provide that an ombudsman does not participate in formal investigations, or play any role in a formal issue resolution process, nor do they make binding decisions or mandate policies.

It is important to examine the research in Paul (2016). The analysis and the use of restorative practice in a school environment are of particular relevance in the context of an organisational ombudsman, because the ombudsman model is frequently found in secondary and tertiary institutions. The IOA does not appear to have statistics as to the specific organisation which use the ombudsman model, but a quick survey of the website and the publications shows a strong membership in educational institutions, which makes the research by Paul particularly relevant.

At page 385 Paul (2016) emphasises that “: Research on restorative justice in the criminal justice suggests that practicing restorative justice within a legal setting could lead to paradoxes as restorative practices become ‘incongruent’ with legalistic practices”. And further at page 391, Paul (2106) says that the staff spoke of the need for restorative practices with goals of relational unity and peace, using face to face dialogue, making things right. He contrasts legalistic dispute management procedures where the victims and offenders surrender their power to management or third parties, with restorative practice where the control is restored to the individuals to restore their sense of voice and dignity.  He points out that where there is bad behaviour the victims tend to turn to management superiors, who then take over the management of the dispute, as there is an acceptance that the administrators should enforce the policies and direct appropriate action. So any action is downward directed and does not take into account the views of the offender or the victim, but is an application of organisation policy. The importance of obeying authority is reinforced, perhaps at the expense of encouraging better behaviour. Authority is to be respected but the issue of the hurt cannot be addressed in that context. In the example used by Paul he notes that the teachers were expected to resolve conflict by interacting and directing power from the authority figures to the parties. He suggest that there is a paradox [13]between using restorative practice by enforcing bureaucratic policies, which he says just reinforce the existing power structures and top down leadership.

The fourth limb of ombudsman practice is informality. This is the issue which enables the ombudsman to handle the issue with bureaucracy and institutional restrictions of restorative practice. The IOA in its journal at Volume 5 (1)[14] discussed the concept in detail in a number of articles.

The starting point is the IOA standards of practice which say-

“4.1 The Ombudsman functions on an informal basis by such means as: listening, providing and receiving information, identifying and reframing issues, developing a range of responsible options, and — with permission and at Ombudsman discretion — engaging in informal third-party intervention. When possible, the Ombudsman helps people develop new ways to solve problems themselves.[15]

And “The principle of informal practice for OOs makes it much easier for employers to provide a lowkey, “universal” access point for conflict management. Ombuds offices provide a near “zero-barrier” option1— a universal access point throughout an entire organization. The principle of informal practice makes it much easier to offer a considerable variety of informal, interest-based options for conflict management. This is otherwise difficult in organizational conflict management systems, where most options are increasingly formal, and often highly specialized.[16]

The theme of the articles in the journal will be familiar to those familiar with restorative practices. For example, after articles discussing informality in general principle, the next article is titled “The IOA Informality Standard As a Support for Creating a Just Culture In Healthcare Organisations”, Patterson (2012). This article discusses informality in the context of a healthcare organisation, where the organisational ombudsman is available to any visitor without any formal requirement before a discussion can take place. She says among other things that “perhaps most importantly, the informality standard supports nonpunitive dialogue that allows for professional and human growth”. She says that “visitors have permission to have a conversation which allows learning from mistakes, either in interpersonal communication or in reaching for clinical best practices. In fact, what we discuss is the connection between those two interpersonal art forms – how we are with each other and the relationship of that to how we are with patients and their family members”. The wording of this strongly suggests restorative practice. She talks about nonpunitive discussions and relationships, themes common to restorative practitioners. She also talks about the Just Culture model, described as an alternative to a punitive system. She says that it can also be described by another name, psychological safety. The informality and confidentiality enable the people in the healthcare organisation to talk freely and openly without being vulnerable.

In another article in the journal[17], Mary Rowe discusses informality and the way in which it became part of the practice of an ombudsman. She discusses the need for a spectrum of of conflict management channels, and the need for people and organisations to have different options to deal with different types of conflict. She points out that in organisations some prefer the more formal, hierarchical, win lose making of decisions. She considers that certain behaviours such as criminal matters may require a formal solution. But she also observes that some hunters who dislike formal channels and simply will not use them. To overcome this she suggests that there is a need for a very accessible office within the organisation, and the informality of the ombudsman office meets that need. She describes the way in which visitors can access the office where the ombudsman can deliver respect, even while staying neutral, actively listening to visitors, reframing and exploring options. She suggests tools such as shuttle diplomacy and mediation within the organisation, to help empower all levels of the organisation to have effective dispute resolution systems. She does emphasise the need to look at the four tenets of ombudsman practice, but that informality is essential so that everyone can gain access to the office.

The use of informality I suggest is an answer to the paradox raised by Paul (2017). It enables the ombudsman to work with the individuals in a way which takes their issues out of the hierarchical approach to solving the problem. Of course there will be some issues which cannot be resolved by this approach, such as serious misbehaviour or criminal acts, and the ombudsman will, like a mediator, need to develop procedure to ensure those issues go to the appropriate place. Paul[18] discusses how in a bureaucratic organisation, when bad behaviour occurs, parties tend to turn to the authorities such as organisational superiors, which he says reflects a belief that the administrators in the higher ranks of the organisation have the legitimate authority to enforce standards and policy. But he suggests that a restorative approach to managing wrongdoing “attempts to redirect power from authority figures and towards participants by facilitating direct communication between the principal parties, thereby increasing the process and decision-making control”. This I suggest, is consistent with the informal approach taken by an organisational ombudsman, who deals directly with the issues between the parties rather than engaging with the hierarchy. The informality enables the ombudsman to confidentially approach the parties without engaging organisational interest, and triggering the need for formal reports and investigation. The direct approach is consistent with what Paul describes as, “such an approach is more closely associated with democratic rather than bureaucratic workplace structures and practices”. It is also consistent with restorative practices which are designed to make things right and reconcile, and the informality and neutrality and confidentiality gives the ombudsman a unique opportunity to apply those restorative practices, and restore feelings of collectivity and community. By the informal encouragement of restorative dialogue, relationships can be repaired and community values reinforced. The ombudsman encourages dialogue and mediation rather than a formal investigation, which enables the parties to then deal with issues such as forgiveness and relationship restoration.

In summary, the use of the organisational ombudsman enables the direct application of restorative practice by cutting through the bureaucratic hierarchy by use of the four tenets and in particular that of informality. Because the ombudsman sits outside of the organisational structure they are in the unique position to apply restorative practice.

Bibliography

Rowe, M. (1995). Options, functions and skills: what an organizational ombudsperson might want to know, Negotiation Journal, 11 (2), 103-114.

Shelton, R (2011) Justice As Basis of Equity and Fairness in Ombudsman Practice, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 4(1)

  Paul, G. D. (2017). Paradoxes of Restorative Justice in the Workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 380–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916681512

International Ombudsman Association (October 2009). IOA Standards of Practice. Hillsborough: IOA (available on the IOA website: http://www.ombudsassociation.o... ioa-best-practices-standards-practice.

Rowe, M (2012) Informality the Fourth Standard of Practice, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 5(1), 6

Patterson, LM (2012) The IOA Informality Standard As a Support for Creating a Just Culture in Healthcare Organisations, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 5(1) 18

Marshall, Chris Lecture Notes on restorative organisation for this course


[2] See 28A Protection of name

(1) No person, other than an Ombudsman appointed under this Act, may use the name “Ombudsman” in connection with any business, trade, or occupation or the provision of any service, whether for payment or otherwise, or hold himself, herself, or itself out to be an Ombudsman except pursuant to an Act or with the prior written consent of the Chief Ombudsman.

(2) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who contravenes subsection (1).







http://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal/Journal-PDFs/Volume1Journal.aspx at page 28

http://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal/Journal-PDFs/JIOA-4(1)_0.aspx Justice as Basis of Equity and Fairness in Ombudsman Practice Shelton R, at page 18

 

Op cit at page 23


https://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal/Journal-PDFs/JIOA-Volume-5,-Number-1.aspx pg 13


Op cit pg 9


Op cit pg 9


Op cit pag12


Op cit pg 394


 I propose discussing how restorative interventions are a useful tool in the practice of an organisational ombudsman. It is necessary for me to explain something of the particular function of the practice of an organisational ombudsman, using the definition as accepted through the International Ombudsman Association[1]. In New Zealand the term ombudsman has long been restricted to what is known as a classical ombudsman role and restricted specifically by virtue of the Ombudsman Act 1975[2] although outside of New Zealand the profession of organisational ombudsman has grown substantially, initially through many tertiary institutions but more widely within international organisations and larger corporate enterprises.

It is necessary to explain something of the role of an organisational ombudsman so that I can then discuss how they may use restorative interventions as an active tool in their function. The term ombudsman was originally from Sweden and is largely restricted to the Scandinavian countries until relatively recently. New Zealand was one of the first countries to adopt the model in the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962 subsequently replaced by the current 1975 act.[3] However there is an important distinction between the classical and organisational ombudsman, because the organisational ombudsman has a very specific role to work with individuals and groups in an organisation, where there are problems and conflicts and sometimes systemic issues which need investigation. The organisational ombudsman role as defined by the International Ombudsman Association, has particular characteristics of being informal, neutral, confidential and independent. These are in fact the defining features of an organisational ombudsman as defined in the IOA Standards of Practice[4].

The question may arise in reading this essay, as to the relevance in New Zealand. Although the use of the term ombudsman has been restricted by the statutory protection, the use of the concept is being adopted by organisations such as Fairway Resolution Limited, a major dispute resolution provider in New Zealand. In particular, they now offer a service which is called the Employee Liaison Service which has been set up using the IOA Standards of Practice as a model.[5] On their website they specifically refer to the service as being independent with four key elements of neutrality, independence, confidentiality and impartiality. The website says that the Liaison Practitioner, who listens to the visitors[6] specifically practices in accordance with the IOA Standards of Practice.

I suggest therefore that the use of the IOA model of organisational ombudsman is one which is a new form of dispute resolution now entering New Zealand with some unique characteristics as described on the IOA site and on the Fairway site. As a form of dispute resolution, restorative practices certainly have a well established place. The work undertaken about restorative organisations is also another factor which I believe is part of the practice of an organisational ombudsman, because they can encourage the use of restorative practice within an organisation as leaders for change. But the connection between IOA practice and restorative justice is deeper than might be first thought. In the very first volume of the peer reviewed Journal of the International Ombudsman Association[7] there is a review of the Mennonite Conciliation Service Fourth Edition, which has content authored by Howard Zehr, and favourably comments on the models of mediation promoted in the manual as being useful for an ombudsman.

It is necessary to explain the work undertaken by an organisational ombudsman so that the role of restorative practice can be seen as an important and almost integral part of ombudsman practice. It is also important to look at what they do not do. It seems that the term was first used by Mary Rowe[8] in 1995 to describe the specific role now more widely used. One of the seminal papers which set out the principles under which an organisational ombudsman should practice was set out in the then new Journal of the International Ombudsman Association where Erbe and Sebok[9] set out some of the history and discuss the different types of ombudsman. They refer to research which emphasised the key characteristics of independence, confidentiality and impartiality although there was not so much emphasis on the informality, which is now considered also as important.

The question therefore is what does the organisational ombudsman actually do? The Fairway Employee Liaison Service describes how it is an informal support service for employees to deal with conflict resolution within the workplace. This of course carries a wide range of possibilities including bullying, sexual harassment and other harassment, conflict between workers and between workers and management, personal issues affecting work, leadership issues, concerns about performance appraisal and so on. They describe how the service assists visitors by dealing with issues in an informal way, and coaching them to deal with conflict, looking at how it occurred and any contribution which the visitor may have had. They help the visitor evaluate options and look at strategies.

The work undertaken in describing creating a restorative organisation therefore looks directly at similar issues, on an organisation wide basis, with the organisational ombudsman working directly with the people. So the connection between the two must be essential to achieve both goals of the ombudsman and of the goal to achieve a restorative organisation. So the use of restorative justice is a tool for the organisational ombudsman is recognised by Shelton (2011)[10] who discusses the concept of justice in the context of equity and fairness for an ombudsman practice. He says in his conclusion that “a restorative justice approach may sometimes provide steps needed to assure or regain processes of administration within the system that are [11]experienced as “fair” and “equitable”by participants at various levels”[12]

The issue is therefore where the organisational ombudsman fits in as a leader to encourage the use of restorative practice within their organisation. I have found some insight in the article from Paul (2017) where he suggests that restorative practices are more effective than legalistic practices in dealing with detrimental personal and relational outcomes of hurtful behaviour. This is significant because of the emphasis for an organisational ombudsman in the use of independent, informal and neutral assistance to a visitor. The very nature of an organisational ombudsman office is to avoid the use of the more formal processes of investigation and the formal process of discipline within a workplace. Paul discusses the contrast between legalistic management practices using evidential gathering, and formal processes, with the restorative justice approach which encourages personal and direct interaction between stakeholders, often facilitated by a third party. This is again directly the process of an organisational ombudsman, resolving issues by an informal approach rather than engaging in a legalistic approach. The IOA standards provide that an ombudsman does not participate in formal investigations, or play any role in a formal issue resolution process, nor do they make binding decisions or mandate policies.

It is important to examine the research in Paul (2016). The analysis and the use of restorative practice in a school environment are of particular relevance in the context of an organisational ombudsman, because the ombudsman model is frequently found in secondary and tertiary institutions. The IOA does not appear to have statistics as to the specific organisation which use the ombudsman model, but a quick survey of the website and the publications shows a strong membership in educational institutions, which makes the research by Paul particularly relevant.

At page 385 Paul (2016) emphasises that “: Research on restorative justice in the criminal justice suggests that practicing restorative justice within a legal setting could lead to paradoxes as restorative practices become ‘incongruent’ with legalistic practices”. And further at page 391, Paul (2106) says that the staff spoke of the need for restorative practices with goals of relational unity and peace, using face to face dialogue, making things right. He contrasts legalistic dispute management procedures where the victims and offenders surrender their power to management or third parties, with restorative practice where the control is restored to the individuals to restore their sense of voice and dignity.  He points out that where there is bad behaviour the victims tend to turn to management superiors, who then take over the management of the dispute, as there is an acceptance that the administrators should enforce the policies and direct appropriate action. So any action is downward directed and does not take into account the views of the offender or the victim, but is an application of organisation policy. The importance of obeying authority is reinforced, perhaps at the expense of encouraging better behaviour. Authority is to be respected but the issue of the hurt cannot be addressed in that context. In the example used by Paul he notes that the teachers were expected to resolve conflict by interacting and directing power from the authority figures to the parties. He suggest that there is a paradox [13]between using restorative practice by enforcing bureaucratic policies, which he says just reinforce the existing power structures and top down leadership.

The fourth limb of ombudsman practice is informality. This is the issue which enables the ombudsman to handle the issue with bureaucracy and institutional restrictions of restorative practice. The IOA in its journal at Volume 5 (1)[14] discussed the concept in detail in a number of articles.

The starting point is the IOA standards of practice which say-

“4.1 The Ombudsman functions on an informal basis by such means as: listening, providing and receiving information, identifying and reframing issues, developing a range of responsible options, and — with permission and at Ombudsman discretion — engaging in informal third-party intervention. When possible, the Ombudsman helps people develop new ways to solve problems themselves.[15]

And “The principle of informal practice for OOs makes it much easier for employers to provide a lowkey, “universal” access point for conflict management. Ombuds offices provide a near “zero-barrier” option1— a universal access point throughout an entire organization. The principle of informal practice makes it much easier to offer a considerable variety of informal, interest-based options for conflict management. This is otherwise difficult in organizational conflict management systems, where most options are increasingly formal, and often highly specialized.[16]

The theme of the articles in the journal will be familiar to those familiar with restorative practices. For example, after articles discussing informality in general principle, the next article is titled “The IOA Informality Standard As a Support for Creating a Just Culture In Healthcare Organisations”, Patterson (2012). This article discusses informality in the context of a healthcare organisation, where the organisational ombudsman is available to any visitor without any formal requirement before a discussion can take place. She says among other things that “perhaps most importantly, the informality standard supports nonpunitive dialogue that allows for professional and human growth”. She says that “visitors have permission to have a conversation which allows learning from mistakes, either in interpersonal communication or in reaching for clinical best practices. In fact, what we discuss is the connection between those two interpersonal art forms – how we are with each other and the relationship of that to how we are with patients and their family members”. The wording of this strongly suggests restorative practice. She talks about nonpunitive discussions and relationships, themes common to restorative practitioners. She also talks about the Just Culture model, described as an alternative to a punitive system. She says that it can also be described by another name, psychological safety. The informality and confidentiality enable the people in the healthcare organisation to talk freely and openly without being vulnerable.

In another article in the journal[17], Mary Rowe discusses informality and the way in which it became part of the practice of an ombudsman. She discusses the need for a spectrum of of conflict management channels, and the need for people and organisations to have different options to deal with different types of conflict. She points out that in organisations some prefer the more formal, hierarchical, win lose making of decisions. She considers that certain behaviours such as criminal matters may require a formal solution. But she also observes that some hunters who dislike formal channels and simply will not use them. To overcome this she suggests that there is a need for a very accessible office within the organisation, and the informality of the ombudsman office meets that need. She describes the way in which visitors can access the office where the ombudsman can deliver respect, even while staying neutral, actively listening to visitors, reframing and exploring options. She suggests tools such as shuttle diplomacy and mediation within the organisation, to help empower all levels of the organisation to have effective dispute resolution systems. She does emphasise the need to look at the four tenets of ombudsman practice, but that informality is essential so that everyone can gain access to the office.

The use of informality I suggest is an answer to the paradox raised by Paul (2017). It enables the ombudsman to work with the individuals in a way which takes their issues out of the hierarchical approach to solving the problem. Of course there will be some issues which cannot be resolved by this approach, such as serious misbehaviour or criminal acts, and the ombudsman will, like a mediator, need to develop procedure to ensure those issues go to the appropriate place. Paul[18] discusses how in a bureaucratic organisation, when bad behaviour occurs, parties tend to turn to the authorities such as organisational superiors, which he says reflects a belief that the administrators in the higher ranks of the organisation have the legitimate authority to enforce standards and policy. But he suggests that a restorative approach to managing wrongdoing “attempts to redirect power from authority figures and towards participants by facilitating direct communication between the principal parties, thereby increasing the process and decision-making control”. This I suggest, is consistent with the informal approach taken by an organisational ombudsman, who deals directly with the issues between the parties rather than engaging with the hierarchy. The informality enables the ombudsman to confidentially approach the parties without engaging organisational interest, and triggering the need for formal reports and investigation. The direct approach is consistent with what Paul describes as, “such an approach is more closely associated with democratic rather than bureaucratic workplace structures and practices”. It is also consistent with restorative practices which are designed to make things right and reconcile, and the informality and neutrality and confidentiality gives the ombudsman a unique opportunity to apply those restorative practices, and restore feelings of collectivity and community. By the informal encouragement of restorative dialogue, relationships can be repaired and community values reinforced. The ombudsman encourages dialogue and mediation rather than a formal investigation, which enables the parties to then deal with issues such as forgiveness and relationship restoration.

In summary, the use of the organisational ombudsman enables the direct application of restorative practice by cutting through the bureaucratic hierarchy by use of the four tenets and in particular that of informality. Because the ombudsman sits outside of the organisational structure they are in the unique position to apply restorative practice.

Bibliography

Rowe, M. (1995). Options, functions and skills: what an organizational ombudsperson might want to know, Negotiation Journal, 11 (2), 103-114.

Shelton, R (2011) Justice As Basis of Equity and Fairness in Ombudsman Practice, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 4(1)

  Paul, G. D. (2017). Paradoxes of Restorative Justice in the Workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 380–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916681512

International Ombudsman Association (October 2009). IOA Standards of Practice. Hillsborough: IOA (available on the IOA website: http://www.ombudsassociation.o... ioa-best-practices-standards-practice.

Rowe, M (2012) Informality the Fourth Standard of Practice, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 5(1), 6

Patterson, LM (2012) The IOA Informality Standard As a Support for Creating a Just Culture in Healthcare Organisations, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 5(1) 18

Marshall, Chris Lecture Notes on restorative organisation for this course


[2] See 28A Protection of name

(1) No person, other than an Ombudsman appointed under this Act, may use the name “Ombudsman” in connection with any business, trade, or occupation or the provision of any service, whether for payment or otherwise, or hold himself, herself, or itself out to be an Ombudsman except pursuant to an Act or with the prior written consent of the Chief Ombudsman.

(2) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who contravenes subsection (1).







http://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal/Journal-PDFs/Volume1Journal.aspx at page 28

http://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal/Journal-PDFs/JIOA-4(1)_0.aspx Justice as Basis of Equity and Fairness in Ombudsman Practice Shelton R, at page 18

 

Op cit at page 23


https://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/IOA-Publications/IOA-Journal/Journal-PDFs/JIOA-Volume-5,-Number-1.aspx pg 13


Op cit pg 9


Op cit pg 9


Op cit pag12


Op cit pg 394