THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT The Role of Third-Party Intervention in Trade Dispute in Nigeria: A Study of Selected Universities Obialor, Donatus Chukwuemeka Lecturer, Department of Business Management University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria Abstract: The study investigated the role of third-party intervention in trade dispute. Litigation is one of the popular ways of disputes settlements. Hence, there are other appropriate pragmatic and adaptive models of resolving disputes apart from litigation, such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation. The study examined the challenges before the third party by way of conciliation, mediation and arbitration and conclude that motives of the third parties in disputes resolution are to prevent disputes, resolve it if it has developed, or manage it from being dysfunctional. Again, the choice of alternation/appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) model(s) to be employed depends on the peculiarities of the disputes. A sample size of 631.7 was determined from a population of 2,021 employees using Taro Yamme’s approach. Data obtained from pilot survey were committed to test of reliability using Cronbach alpha statistic and computed using SPSS version 19 and the result reported a Cronbach alpha of 0.771. In analyzing the data, the descriptive statistics of simple percentage, mean, Variance and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were adopted to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. To further this research, F- value was used to calculate the test statistics, treatment mean square (TRMS), Error mean Square (EMS), and Treatment Sum of Squares (TRSS) at 5% significant level. The study however concludes that the role of third Party and the resolution model(s) it uses have significant impact in dispute resolution. Thus, recommended these model(s) in settling disputes because it is convenient, cheap, flexible, adaptive, dignity-protecting, less time-consuming, friendly enhancing, among others. Immediate and remote causes of dispute should be properly addressed and substantive effort should be made towards reducing disputes in the institutions because of its negative consequences. Keywords: Third party intervention, trade dispute, resolution, conciliation, mediation, arbitration 1. Introduction Third party intervention is a typical response to destructive and persistent social conflict and comes in a number of different forms. The strong correlation between poverty and employment is unquestionable, and these are mainly the cause of most of the labour disputes (ILO, 1999). The importance of employment in the context of poverty stems from the fact that the majority of people, particularly the poor, rely mainly on the use of their labour to earn their livelihood. The Director-General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) would not have captioned the position any better way in his exposition: ‘It is the world of work that holds the key to progressive and long-lasting eradication of poverty in that it is:  Through work that people are able to make choices to a better quality of life;  Through work that wealth is created, distributed and accumulated, and  Through work that people find a dignified way out of poverty’ ILO (1999). It is on the premises of employment and decent work wages, conditions of workplace and forms of employment that conflicts arise between employer and labour, and employers and employees’ unions. The third party will be at rest, if employers and employees and the unions do the right things as stated in the regulatory books. However, because somebody, somewhere wants to have much more than others, conflict will always arise, (Fisher &Keashly, 1991). Third party, therefore is somebody who is selected or appointed by the parties or appointed by the government to reconcile, mediate or arbitrate in a dispute involving two parties. Third parties may be consultants, industrial arbitration courts, government agencies and other interested third parties, (ILO, 2008). With this background, the study will look at the role of third party as conciliators, mediators and arbitrators in trade disputes in Nigerian universities. The researcher’s interest in Nigerian Universities is as a result of frequent disputes in the system and the ways these various disputes are resolved. In every organization, interests abound, consisting of the employer’s interests and the employee’s interests, and when these interests’ conflicts and the organization fails to manage them, disputes will subsequently arise. This trend has been observed over the years in the Nigerian University System; hence a study of third-party mechanism in dispute resolution and the roles played by the third party to achieve the desired goals will be helpful. 299 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com It is based upon the realization that employers enjoy greater social and economic power than individual workers. The contract of employment is by nature imbalanced due to the fact that its content is largely determined by the employer by virtue of his owing the means of production and this place him/her in a stronger bargaining position, (ILO, 2008). As employees need work more than the employers, they tend to accept any terms and conditions offered to them even if the work turns out to be exploitative. This is especially true of employees who enter the labour market without special skills. The high unemployment rate facing most countries also leaves employees with very high choice but to accept whatever is on offer. As individuals, workers are unable to counteract management’s economic strengths. Remarking on this position, Mr. Justice Taft, former President of the United States of America pointed out that labour unions were organized out of the necessity of the situation. A single employee is helpless in dealing with an employer. He is dependent ordinarily on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and his family. If the employer refuses to pay him the wages that he thought fair, he is nevertheless unable to leave the employment and to resist arbitrary and unfair treatment (ILO, 2008). Nigerian Universities are public sector organizations in Nigeria with large labour force that has experienced disputes, collective bargaining, resolutions and strikes of all sorts and so could offer a good case for considering the role of the third party in dispute resolution through mediation, conciliation, arbitration or any other. Grievances and disputes are an inevitable part of the employment relationship. Thus, the objective of public policy is to manage conflict and promote sound labour relations by creating a system for the effective prevention and settlement of labour disputes. (Teague, 2013). In these Universities, it is inevitable that disagreements arise between workers and employers regarding issues related to interests and rights (Teague; 2013). Thus, the term ‘dispute resolution’ has been described as ‘a process by which two or more disputing parties improve their situation by cooperative action . . . (allowing) the parities to expand the pie, or to prevent it from shrinking, giving each party a larger slice’ (Chandraskhan 1997). 1.1. Statement of the Problem It is people that make up the various institutions and as such, interests may clash. But when they clash, how can they be resolved so that the universities growth and employer’s prosperity be ensured? It is the challenge before the third party by way of conciliation, mediation and arbitration of disputes among Nigerian universities. Today in our universities, there have always been strikes and negative attendant consequences resulting in disagreements among union executives and employees. The disagreements between employers and employees cause problems that often lead to wrongful discharge or dismissal of employees, withdrawal of any concession or privilege and unnecessary retrenchment of employees. Differences in opinion among employers and employees often encourage the grape vine which destroys relationships. When disputes are resolved, problem solving workshops or systems are not created for the effective prevention and settlement of future labour disputes. There has not been a good medium of resolving these problems and even when there is one, parties involved may not agree. The third party comes in by way of conciliation, mediation and arbitration. The question of which one does it better is also a question that requires an answer. The problem before this study is therefore to investigate and find out the impact of third-party intervention in the resolution of disputes in the selected Universities by way of mediation, conciliation and arbitration. 1.2. Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study is to look at the role of third-party intervention in trade disputes. Thus, the following specific objectives are:  To find out if disputes are resolved mostly by Arbitration  To find out if disputes are resolved mostly by conciliation  To find out if disputes are resolved mostly by mediation  To find out if a joint use of arbitrators, conciliators, and mediators are more effective in dispute resolution than individual applications. 1.3. Research Questions The following research questions are asked to elicit responses to assist the study.  Is industrial dispute always resolved through arbitration?  Is industrial dispute always resolved through conciliation?  Is industrial dispute always resolved through mediation?  What is the joint role of arbitrators, conciliators and mediators in dispute resolution? 1.4. Research Hypotheses The following null hypotheses are derived from the research questions.  HO1: Arbitrators are not significantly effective in dispute resolution  HO2: Conciliators do not significantly play effective role in dispute resolution.  HO3: Mediators do not have significant role in dispute resolution.  HO4: Arbitrators do not significantly enhance dispute resolution 300 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com 2. Review of Related Literature Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Source: The Researcher’s Desk (2020) 2.1. Origen of Trade Dispute Historically, Ubeku, (1975) and Johnson (2001), argue that the civil service unions came into existence in 1912; other unions soon followed, and the trade union movement came into being. The general strike of 1915 was the turning point. Although, the union was unsure of its role at the early stages of the 1940s, the improvement of conditions of service for its members was its major assignment. Clearly, the personnel manager and his assistant who have not been trained in handling union’s grievances could no longer cope. A full-time person had to be employed and so began the period of human resources managers. At the initial stage, those who occupied these positions were expatriates, since there was no qualified Nigerian to occupy these positions. In general, Nigerians who had good education preferred their security and apparently rosier future of the civil service. This was the position until the late 1950s (Johnson 2001).It can be seen from the above, that historically the human resources function came to be recognized as machinery with which to pacify the union. Dispute has been defined as a situation between two or more parities who see their perspectives as incompatible (Larry- Cohen, Rachel -Davis and Manal 2006). However, the contract of employment is by nature unbalanced due to the fact that its contract is largely determined by the employer by virtue of him owing the means of production. 2.2. The Rationale behind Dispute Resolution In determining whether dispute resolution is appropriate, an important consideration is whether it results in a better situation than if the dispute is allowed to take its natural course. Conflict is not always negative; it may be a necessary stage in progress towards a better state of affairs. As noted by Brown, Marginson, and Walsh 2003, conflict is the inevitable accompaniment of change. The challenge is therefore not to prevent conflict from arising, but to identify the outcome of the conflict and the best ways to manage it. It is also important to distinguish between the underlying causes of dispute/conflict and the symptoms of the dispute. Sometimes a dispute may appear to have been resolved, when in fact only the manifestation of the dispute has been removed. If the police break up a violent demonstration, for example, they are removing the manifestation of a dispute between the demonstrators and the object of their demonstration, but the root causes of the conflict remain, possibly to re-emerge at a later stage. To resolve a dispute properly, it is necessary to address the concerns of the conflicting parties and seek solutions that will maximize the benefits to them in the long as well as the short term. The term ‘dispute resolution’ has been described as ‘a process by which two or more disputing parties improve their situation by cooperative action (allowing) the parties to expand the pie, or to prevent it from shrinking, giving each party a larger slice’ (Chandraskhan 1997). This definition highlights the fact that dispute resolution aims to bring about benefits for the parties. It does not simply mean the cessation of conflict; if it did, it could include war and litigation, but war and litigation usually leave one, if not both parties, worse off. A common way of conceptualizing the process is to ask whether the dispute is a ‘zero-sum game’, which creates the possibility of ‘win-win’ solutions in which both parties gainoverall through collaborative effort (Chandraskhan 1997). 2.3. Arbitration It is a dispute settlement model or technique in which the parties in dispute appoint dispute settlement expert(s) referred to as arbitrator(s) to hear the party’s evidence and decide the dispute for them, based on the evidence weight(s) and concessions of the parties. The parties retain control over the arbitration process. However, from outcome, the arbitrator(s) have the power to give binding decision on the parties. Actually, arbitration is based on the personal agreement of the parties, who can appoint or remove arbitrator(s) and choose the arbitration venue (Nwakoby, 2007). By employing arbitration, the parities lose their ability to participate directly in the process. In addition, parities in arbitration are confined by traditional legal remedies that do not encompass creative, innovative or forward-looking solutions to business disputes. 301 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com Ultimately, the power of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators is granted directly by the parties. By including contractual arbitration clauses, parties are agreeing to the resolution of their disputes through a process that consists of very simple proceedings, which are similar, but not equal to the traditional route of litigated settlements. 2.4. Mediation This is a process whereby a third party known as a mediator is invited or allowed to intervene in facilitating the settlement of the dispute, with the agreement of the parties in dispute. Mediation becomes very imperative when the parties are emotionally attached to their perceived justified rights and benefits in the dispute, the objective and joint search for settlement/solution is hampered. Essentially, the mediator should not suggest solutions to the parties but rather facilities communication, promotes understanding and dialogue. A mediator as well enhances problem-solving creativity of the parties towards reaching mutually agreed solution. Thus, a mediator should not render personal opinions or decision. He is a neutral intervener (third party) who is only interested in the peaceful resolution/settlement outcome of dispute. Mediatory process is very effective in settling dispute when the mediator could resist or withstand pressures cum influence from interested parties (Mejida, 2007). A mediator assists the parties in identifying and articulating their own interests, priorities, needs and wishes to each other. Mediation is a ‘peaceful’ dispute resolution tool that is complementary to the existing court system and the practice of arbitration. Mediation just like arbitration both promote the same ideals, such as access to justice, a prompt hearing, fair outcomes and reduced congestion in the courts, however, is a voluntary and non-binding process (Mejida, 2007).The mediation process is both informal and confidential. In contrast to arbitration and its relative rules of practice and procedure, mediation is flexible in terms of evidence, procedure, and formality. 2.5. Conciliation Conciliation is another dispute resolution process that involves building a positive relationship between the parties of dispute. However, it is fundamentally different from mediation and arbitration in several respects. (Italian Civil Code 2004 cited in ILO, 2008). Conciliation is distinguished from mediation with the following characteristics; a conciliator may be government personnel, who may officiate with reference to government policy. Hence, a conciliator is expected to work in compliance to regulating obligation or laws. Thus, conciliation is statutorily provided for as regards dispute settlements. Again, a conciliator could make personnel opinions or suggestions for the parties. This later quality makes conciliation a peculiar dispute resolution model for settling disputes. When a dispute involves a large segment of the society that it carries a socio-political perception, a modified conciliation known as Reconciliation is adopted. Here, a reconciliatory commission is instituted and managed by well knowledgeable reconciliatory personnel. The aim is to assist aggrieved individuals and groups communicate their grievances, seek compensation, or render forgiveness (Nnedum, Ezeokana and Egwu 2006). The ‘conciliator’ is an impartial person that assists the parties by driving their negotiations and directing them towards a satisfactory agreement. It is unlike arbitration in that conciliation is a much less adversarial proceeding; that seeks to identify a right that has been violated and searches to find the optimal solution. (Nnedum, et ‘al 2006). Conciliation tries to individualize the optimal solution and direct parties towards a satisfactory common agreement. Although this sounds strikingly similar to mediation, there are important differences between the two methods of dispute resolution. In conciliation, the conciliator plays a relatively direct role in the actual resolution of a dispute and even advises the parties on certain solutions by making proposals for settlement. The conciliator, not the parties, often develops and proposes the terms of settlement. The parties come to the conciliator seeking guidance and the parties make decisions about proposals made by conciliators. In this regard, the role of a conciliator is distinct from the role of a mediator. 3. Methodology The study employed the survey research design in examining the role of Third-Party Intervention in Trade Dispute in Nigeria. The instruments of questionnaire, observations, and interviews were used for employees in the selected study institutions. The population figure of 2,021 was obtained from three study institutions from the South East, Nigeria. A sample size of 631.7 was determined for the study using Taro Yammeh’s approach. The purposive sampling method was also adopted in the study since some subjects were fit for the research compared to other individuals. The validity of the instrument was done by showing the instrument to Management research experts for their inputs and by making sure that the items in the instrument were strictly based on the research questions. The use of pilot study was adopted for determination of the reliability of the research instrument. The essence was to determine consistency in responses. Data obtained from pilot survey were committed to test of reliability using Cronbach alpha statistic and computed using SPSS version 19. The result reported a Cronbach alpha of 0.771, the instrument was therefore confirmed reliable. For the data analysis, the descriptive statistics of simple percentage, mean, Variance and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were adopted to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. To further this research, Fvalue was used to calculate the test statistics, treatment mean square (TRMS), Error mean Square (EMS), and Treatment Sum of Squares (TRSS) to enable the study draw conclusion of whether to accept or to reject the null or alternative hypotheses at 5% significant level. In computing the percentage distribution, the mean score was used in measuring the degree of agreement. The mean attitude score is defined as the sum of scores of all respondents on a given item on the scale divided by the number of respondents. The means scores were determined by assigning values as; Strongly agree=5, Agree=4, Undecided=3, Disagree=2, and Strongly disagree=1. 302 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com 4. Data Presentation and Analysis This section presents the analysis of the data on the role of third-party intervention in trade dispute in Nigeria. The 632 copies of questionnaires were distributed to the employees in the three study institutions out of which only 564 were validly returned. This represented a total of 89% responses. The Abia State University Uturu Okigwe topped the responses with a total of 388 representing 69%. The Federal University of Technology, Owerri with 92 responses representing 16% and the Imo State University Owerri with 84 responses representing 15% out of the entire responses. In analyzing the role of third-party intervention in trade dispute in Nigeria as the case study. Questions in the questionnaires were analyzed using the simple percentage approach. The hypothesis was tested with analysis of variance at 5% significant level RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 26 20 40 86 15 %AGGR TOTAL 15 46 12 8 40 18 6 308 22 18 394 52 32 70 9 6 70 9 6 92 84 388 564 100 Table 1: Conciliators Significantly Play Effective Role in Dispute Resolution Source: Field Survey, 2020 100 The above table indicated that 394 respondents agreed that conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution, 86 respondents representing 15% strong agreement, 52 respondents representing 9% disagreement and 32 representing 6% were in strong disagreement. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 22 14 30 66 12 % AGGR TOTAL 12 62 8 2 48 13 9 299 43 18 405 64 29 72 11 5 72 11 5 84 388 564 100 Table 2: Conciliators Play Major Role in Dispute Resolution Source: Field Survey, 2020 100 92 The analysis of the above table showed that a total of 405 respondents representing 72% agreed that conciliators play major role in dispute resolution in Nigeria, 66 representing 12% strongly agree, 64 representing 11% disagreed while 29 representing 5% strong disagreement. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 5 7 9 21 4 % AGGR TOTAL 4 15 51 21 13 36 28 17 271 93 45 356 142 8 63 25 8 63 25 92 84 388 564 100 Table 3: Third Parties’ Solution are Limited and Cannot Resolve All the Disputes Source: Field Survey, 2020 100 The above table was used in analyzing the research question, third parties’ solutions are limited and cannot resolve all the disputes. The analysis of the above table indicated that total of 356 respondents disagreed that third parties’ solutions are limited and cannot resolve all the disputes in Nigeria. A total of 142 respondents representing 25% were in strong disagreements while 45 respondents representing 8% agreed and 21 respondents representing 4% indicated a strong agreement. 303 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU ISSN 2321–8916 TOTAL www.theijbm.com %TOTAL % AGGR TOTAL 15 76 7 2 Strong Agreement 27 15 40 82 15 Agreement 54 56 318 428 76 Disagreement 8 11 22 417 7 Strong 3 2 8 13 2 Disagreement Total 92 84 388 564 100 100 Table 4: Joint Use of Mediators and Conciliators are More Effective in Dispute Resolution than Individual Applications Source: Field Survey, 2020 The above table was used to analyze the research objective. The analysis of the table above indicated that a total of 428 respondents representing 76% agreed with the research objective while 82 respondents representing 15% strongly agreed. On the aggregate a total of 54 respondents representing 7% or (41) were in disagreement while 13 or (2%) representing strongly disagreed. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong 2 6 27 35 6 Agreement Agreement 8 12 31 51 9 Disagreement 46 59 297 387 69 Strong 36 22 33 91 16 Disagreement Total 92 84 388 564 100 Table 5: Conciliators Communicate Effectively to Distressed Parties than Mediators Source: Field Survey, 2020 % AGGR TOTAL 6 9 69 16 100 The above table was used to analyze the question ‘Conciliators communicate effectively to distressed parties than Mediators’. The analysis of the table above indicated that a total of 387 respondents disagreed that conciliators communicate effectively to distressed parties than mediators, while 91 or (16%) respondents strongly disagreed. On the aggregate a total of 86 respondents representing 9% agreement and 65 were in strong agreement. RESPONSES FUTO Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 42 39 9 2 92 IMSU ABSU TOTAL 44 302 388 25 66 130 11 14 34 4 6 12 84 388 564 Table 6: Disputes Are Mostly Resolved by Mediation Source: Field Survey, 2020 %TOTAL 69 23 6 2 100 %AGGR TOTAL 92 6 2 100 The analysis of the table above that was used to analyze the research objectives in the questionnaire, indicated that a total of 388 respondents strongly agree that disputes are mostly resolved by mediation, while 130 respondents agreed. On the aggregate a total of 46 respondents representing 6% disagreement and 25 strong disagreement. The 92% strong agreement indicated an agreement that dispute is mostly resolved by mediation. RESPONSES Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 304 Vol 8 Issue 8 FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL 49 50 278 377 67 35 21 92 148 26 6 9 11 26 5 2 4 7 13 2 92 84 388 564 100 Table 7: Mediatory Roles Are Very Effective in Dispute Resolution Source: Field Survey, 2020 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 % AGGR TOTAL 93 5 2 100 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com The table above analyzed the statement that mediatory roles are very effective in dispute resolution. The analysis of the statement showed that 377 and 148 represents 67% and 26% agreement. On the aggregate a total of 39 respondents represented 5% disagreement while 2% strongly disagreed. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 47 49 323 419 74 38 6 1 25 7 3 47 12 6 110 25 10 20 4 2 94 4 2 100 100 92 84 388 564 Table 8: Disputes Are Mostly Resolved by Arbitration Source: Field Survey, 2020 % AGGR TOTAL The analysis of the table above indicated that a total of 419 respondents strongly agree that disputes are mostly resolved by arbitration while 110 agreed. On the aggregate a total of 35 respondents representing 4% were in disagreement while 2% strongly disagreed. On the basis of the acceptance region formulated, the 94% indicated a strong agreement of the respondents on the research statement: disputes are mostly resolved by arbitration. This statement was further tested using ANOVA to verify the authenticity of the statement. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL % AGGR TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 20 16 61 97 17 68 3 1 57 7 4 307 13 7 432 23 12 77 4 2 94 4 2 92 84 388 564 100 Table 9: Disputes Are Better Resolved by Arbitration and Mediation Source: Field Survey, 2020 100 The table above analyzed the statement ‘Disputes are better resolved by arbitration and mediation’. The analysis of the statement showed that 432 and 97 respondents representing 77% and 17%, aggregating 94% were in agreement that disputes are better resolved by arbitration and mediation. However, 35 respondents representing 4% and 2% were in disagreement and strong disagreement respectively. The 94% agreement indicated an agreement that disputes are better resolved by arbitration and mediation. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 27 19 74 120 21 55 7 3 49 11 5 276 27 11 380 45 19 67 8 4 92 84 388 564 100 Table 10: Mediators Have Significant Role in the Resolution of Disputes Source: Field Survey, 2020 % AGGR TOTAL 88 8 4 100 The above table was used in analyzing the research question that mediators have significant role in the resolution of disputes. The analysis of the table above indicated that an aggregate total of 500 respondents representing 88% strongly agree with the statement, while 45 and 19 respondents representing 12% were in disagreement. On the basis of the acceptance region formulated, the 88% indicated a strong agreement by the respondents. 305 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 54 30 5 3 46 26 7 5 295 54 29 11 394 110 41 19 70 20 7 3 92 84 388 564 100 Table 11: Arbitrators Are Effective in Dispute Resolution Source: Field Survey, 2020 % AGGR TOTAL 90 7 3 100 The table above was used in analyzing the research statement: arbitrators are effective in dispute resolution. The analysis of the table above indicated that a total of 394 respondents strongly agree that the role of conciliators, mediators and arbitrators are effective in dispute resolution while 110 agreed. On the aggregate, a total of 60 respondents representing 7% were in disagreement while 5% strongly disagreed. On the basis of the acceptance region formulated, the 90% indicated a strong agreement of the respondents on the research statement, arbitrators are effective in dispute resolution. RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 1 2 7 10 2 3 26 62 5 18 59 9 47 325 17 91 446 3 6 79 92 84 388 564 100 Table 12: Disputing Parties Do Not Accept the Proposals of Mediators Source: Field Survey, 2020 % AGGR TOTAL 5 6 89 100 The analysis of the table above was carried out using the research statement, disputing parties do not accept the proposals of mediators. The table showed that a total of 446 respondents strongly disagreed with the statement while 91 respondents merely disagreed. On the aggregate a total of 537 respondents representing 95% were in strong disagreement. However, 17 and 10 respondents representing 3% and 2% respectively were in agreement on the basis of acceptance region formulated, the 95% indicated a strong disagreement by the respondents on the research statement that disputing parties do not accept the proposal of mediators. 4.1. Test of Hypotheses The hypotheses are to be tested to find out their validity or otherwise and thus determine if significant differences occur in the statement to enable the researcher draw a conclusion. 4.1.1. Test of Hypothesis One  Ho1: The role of arbitrators is not significantly effective in dispute resolution.  H 1: Arbitrators are significantly effective in dispute resolution. This hypothesis was tested with the responses from table 4 306 RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 27 54 8 3 15 56 11 2 40 318 22 8 82 428 417 13 15 76 7 2 91 7 2 84 388 564 Table 13: Observed Frequency Table 1 Source: Table 4 100 100 Vol 8 Issue 8 92 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 % AGGR TOTAL August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU Strong Agreement 27 15 40 Agreement 54 56 318 Disagreement 8 11 22 Strong Disagreement 3 2 8 FX 92 84 388 X 23 21 97 EX2 8464 7056 150544 Table 14: Contingency Table for Testing Hypothesis One Source: Table 4 564 141 166064 When n=12 TSS = = (Ex)2 Ex2- n 166064 - (564)2 = 166064 - 318096 12 TRSS = = = ESS Fcal = = = 12 166064 – 26508= 139.556 n1x12+n2x22+n3x32 -(EX)2 n 4(23)2+4(212)+(972) - (564)2 n 41516-26508= 15008 TSS-TRSS 139556-15008= 124.548 SOURCES OF VARIATION Treatment Error DFGREE OF FREEDOM (r-1) 2 (n-r) 12-3=9 Total 11 = TRMS = EMS From F. table F2, 9.0.025 =4.26 MS F-VALUE (TRSS) 15008 (TSS-TRSS) 124548 7504 ESS n-1-11.003 139556 Table 15 7504 11.322 = 662.78 4.1.1.1. Decision Since F- calculated which is 662.78 is greater than F- table which is 4.26, reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative, concluding that arbitrators are significantly effective in dispute resolution, this means that third party intervention by way of arbitration in dispute resolution is effective. 4.1.2. Test of Hypothesis Two  HO2: Conciliators do not significantly play effective role in dispute resolution  H12: Conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution The hypotheses were tested with the responses from table .1 307 RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 32 40 12 8 14 46 18 6 40 308 22 18 86 394 52 32 15 70 9 6 85 9 6 84 388 564 Table 16: Observed Frequency Table 2 Source: Table 1 100 100 Vol 8 Issue 8 92 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 % AGGR TOTAL August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT RESPONSES Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement FX X EX2 ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com FUTO IMSU ABSU 32 14 40 40 46 308 12 18 22 8 6 18 92 84 388 23 21 97 8464 7056 150544 Table 17: Contingency Table for testing hypothesis 2 Source: Table. 1 564 141 166064 When n =12 TSS = = (Ex)2 Ex2- n 166064 - (564)2 = 166064 - 318096 = 166064-26508 = 139.556 = n1x12+n2x22+n3x32 = 4(23)2+4(212)+(972) - = = = 41516-26508= 15008 TSS-TRSS 139556-15008= 124.548 12 12 TRSS ESS Fcal (EX)2 n (564)2 n SOURCES OF VARIATION Treatment Error DFGREE OF FREEDOM (r-1) 2 (n-r) 12 – 3=9 Total 11 = TRMS = EMS From F. table F2, 9.0.025=4.26 7504 11.322 = MS F-VALUE (TRSS) 15008 (TSS-TRSS) 124548 7504 ESS n-1-11.322 139556 Table 18 662.78 4.1.2.1. Decision Since F-calculated which is 662.78 is greater than F-table 4.26, reject null hypothesis and accept the alternative and conclude that conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution in our universities. 4.1.3. Test of Hypothesis Three  HO3: Mediators do not have significant role in the dispute resolution  H13: Mediators have significant role in the dispute resolution The hypothesis was tested with the responses from table .10 308 RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement Total 27 55 7 3 19 49 11 5 74 276 27 11 120 380 45 19 21 67 8 4 88 8 4 92 84 564 100 100 Vol 8 Issue 8 388 Table 19 Source: 4.10 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 % AGGR TOTAL August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT RESPONSES Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement FX X EX2 ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com FUTO IMSU ABSU 27 19 74 55 49 276 7 11 27 3 5 11 92 84 388 23 21 97 8464 7056 150544 Table 20: Contingency Table for Testing Hypothesis 3 Source: Table .4 564 141 166064 When n=12 TSS = = (Ex)2 Ex2- n 166064 - = 166064-26508 = 139.556 = n1x12+n2x22+n3x32 = 4(23)2+4(212)+(972) - = = = 41516-26508= 15008 TSS-TRSS 139556-15008= 124.548 (564)2 12 TRSS ESS (EX)2 n (564)2 n SOURCES OF VARIATION Treatment Error DFGREE OF FREEDOM (r-1) 2 (n-r) 12-3=9 Total 11 Fcal = TRMS = EMS 11.322 = From F. table F2, 9.0.025 = MS F-VALUE (TRSS) 15008 (TSS-TRSS) 124548 7504 ESS n-1-11.322 139556 Table 21 7504 662.78 4.26 4.1.3.1. Decision Since F-calculated which is 662.78 is greater than observed F-table 4.26, reject null hypothesis and accept the alternative and conclude that mediators have significant role in the disputes resolution. 4.1.4. Test of Hypothesis Four  H04: Arbitrators do not significantly enhance dispute resolution  H14: Arbitrators significantly enhance dispute resolution The hypotheses were tested with the responses from table .9 309 RESPONSES FUTO IMSU ABSU TOTAL %TOTAL Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement TOTAL 20 68 3 1 16 57 7 4 61 307 13 7 97 432 23 12 17 77 4 2 94 4 2 92 84 564 100 100 Vol 8 Issue 8 388 Table 22 Source: 4.9 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 % AGGR TOTAL August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT RESPONSES Strong Agreement Agreement Disagreement Strong Disagreement FX X EX2 ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com FUTO IMSU ABSU 20 16 61 68 57 307 3 7 13 1 4 7 92 84 388 23 21 97 8464 7056 150544 Table 23: Contingency Table for Testing Hypothesis 4 Source: Table .9 564 141 166064 When n=12 TSS TRSS = = (Ex)2 Ex2- n 166064 - = = 139.556 n1x12+n2x22+n3x32 (564)2 12 = -(EX)2 n 4(23)2+4(212)+(972) -(564)2 = = = = 15008 TSS-TRSS 139556-15008 124.548 n ESS Fcal SOURCES OF VARIATION Treatment Error DFGREE OF FREEDOM (r-1) 2 (n-r) 12-3=9 Total 11 = TRMS = EMS From F. table F2, 9.0.025 =4.26 7504 11.322 = MS F-VALUE (TRSS) 15008 (TSS-TRSS) 124548 7504 ESS n-1-11.322 139556 Table 24 662.78 4.1.4.1. Decision Since F-calculatedis greater than F-table, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis which states that ‘Arbitration significantly enhance dispute resolution. Using the percentage distribution approach, the research statement having scored 94% which falls between 75%-100% for strong agreement also confirmed a strong positive agreement that arbitrators significantly enhance dispute resolution. 5. Discussion and Findings The first research question analyzed was ‘the role of conciliators in dispute resolution’. Table 4 was used in interpreting the findings. A total of 510 respondents or (91%) out of the 564 respondents were in agreement. 41 or (7%) disagreed and 13 (2%) strongly disagreed. A further analysis using the percentage distribution approach revealed that 91% which falls between 75%-100% for strong positive agreement confirmed the roles of conciliators in dispute resolution. A further test of the hypothesis with analysis of variance (ANOVA) at 5% indicated that Fcal at 0.025 = 662.78 is greater than F- table 4.26 at 5% significant level, thus confirming the result of the role of conciliators in dispute resolution. The responses gathered from table .1 showed that conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution. The analysis of the response in table .1 indicated that 480 or (85%) respondents were in agreement that conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution, 52 or (95) agreed and 32 or (6%) disagreed, while 32 or (65) were in strong disagreement. The mean value which was 141 also was within an acceptance region. To further confirm the result, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to find out that F-cal 662.78 was greater than F-table 4.26 at 5% level of significance, thus necessitating the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis which state ‘conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution’. The researcher’s findings based on the responses on table.1 and table.4 shows strong agreement with the work of Fisher (2001) that conciliators significantly play effective role in dispute resolution. 310 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com Table.10 demonstrated that the mediators have significant role in the resolution of disputes in Nigeria. The hypothesis was confirmed through an agreement of 500 or (88%), disagreement 45 or (8%) and strong disagreement 19 or (4%). The result of the hypothesis tested showed that F-cal = 662.78. Since the F-cal at 0.025 = 662.78 is greater than Ftable 4.26 at 5% significant level, the research thus reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis which states that mediators have significant role in the resolution of hypothesis which states that mediators have significant role in the resolution of disputes in Nigeria. The responses in table 10 are in agreement with the work of Nwankwo et’ al (2012). The result of table 9 showed that arbitration significantly enhances dispute resolution. A total number of 529 respondents representing 94% were in affirmative, 23 or (4%) disagreed and 12 or (2%) in strong disagreement. The Fcal at 0.025=662.78 is greater than Ftable 4.26 at 5% significant level, necessitating the rejection of the null hypothesis and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis which states ‘arbitrators significantly enhance dispute resolution. The responses in table.9 are in agreement with the work of Felix Steffek and Hannes Unberath (2010). 6. Recommendations On the basis of the research findings, the researcher recommends the following:  Disputes should be resolved as quickly as possible and should not be allowed to linger for a very long period of time.  The immediate and remote causes of dispute should be properly addressed.  During the course of dispute resolution, the resolution body should create an atmosphere whereby the disputing parties should be free to air their views.  Substantive effort should be made towards reducing disputes in the institutions because of its negative consequences  Effort should be made to ensure that dispute should not be dysfunctional 7. References i. Brown, W, Marginson, P. and Walsh J (2003). The management of pay as the influence of collective bargaining diminishes, in P. Edwards (ed), Industrial Relations; Theory and Practice 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. ii. Chandraskhan (1997). The nature of conflict: Conceptual framework for conflict resolution. iii. Felix. S and Hannes. U (2010) in Co-operation with Hazel Genn, Reinhard Greger and Carrie Menkel-Meadow. iv. Regulating Dispute Resolution, ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads, first edition. v. Fisher, R. J and L. Keashly (1991). The potential complementarity of mediation and consulation with a contingency model of third-party intervention. Journal of Peace research, 28:29-42. vi. Fisher R. J (2001). Interactive conflict resolution, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. vii. ILO (1999) Decent work/report of the Director-General of the ILO international Labour Conference, 97 Sesses. viii. ILO, (2000), ‘Your Right at Work’. A global report under the follow-up to the declaration on fundamental Right at Work. ix. ILO, Geneva (2008). Dialogue working paper No. 48 x. Larry Cohen, MSW, Rachel D, and Manal (2006). Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention from Misunderstanding to Understanding. http://www. Preventioninstitute.org/pdf/conflict.pdf2006 xi. Mejida, M.M (2007). The Bassa and Egbura Conflict: Challenges to democratic government Journal Arts and xii. Humanities. Vol 4, No. 4, P.15 Uyo, AkwaIbom State, International Research and Development Institute. xiii. Nnedum, O.A.U., Ezeokana, O.J., and Ugwu, J.U (2006).Stigmatization of ethic identities, traumatization and conflict in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Management and Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No.1, pp.74-75.Facultyof Management and Social Scieneces; Abakaliki, Nigeria. xiv. Nwakoby, G.C. (2007), The choice of place arbitration: the issue of applicable law UNIZIK Law Journal, Vol. 6, No.1, Awaka, Nigeria: Igke ventures production, Faculty of Law, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, xv. Anambra State, Nigeria. xvi. Nwankwo, D.O.M, Obikeze. N, and Akam G.U. (2012). Alternative/Appropriate dispute resolution (ADR). The psychological facilitators, Research Journal in Organization Psychology and Educational Studies 1(2) 83-89. xvii. Teague P. (2013) ‘Resolving workplace disputes in Ireland. The role of the Labour Relations Commission, DIALOGUE working paper No. 48 (ILO Geneva). xviii. Ubeku, A.K. (1975, 2004), Personal Management in Ireland. The Publishing Corporation, Benin. 311 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ISSN 2321–8916 www.theijbm.com Appendix S,NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Q.6 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 Q.D 4 4 5 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 1 1 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 Q.8 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 Q.9 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 2 4 5 5 4 2 1 1 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 Q.10 3 5 5 5 5 4 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 5 2 2 4 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 5 1 5 4 4 Q.11 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 5 Q.12 Q.13 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 3 5 2 4 2 3 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 Table 25 Q.14 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 Q.15 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 Q.16 3 5 5 4 4 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 5 Q.17 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 Q.18 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 Q.19 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 Q.20 51 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 GET DATA/TYPE=XLS /FILE=‘C/Users/360’/Desktop/donates.xis’ /SHEET=name ‘Sheet2’ /CELLRANGE=FULL /READNAMES=on /ASSUMEDSTRWIDTH=32767. DATASET NAME DataSetl WINDOW=FRONT. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=Q.6 Q.7 Q.8 Q.9 Q.10 Q.11 Q.12 Q.13 Q.14 Q.15 Q.16 Q.17 Q.18 Q.19 Q.20 /SCALE (‘ALL VARIABLS’) ALL/MODEL=ALPHA Reliability: {DataSetl} Scale: ALL VARIABLES N % Cases Valid 30 100.0 Excluded 0 0 Total 30 100.0 Table 26: Case Processing Summary a. Listwise Deletion Based on All Variables in the Procedure Cronbach’s Alpha N of items 771 15 Table 27: Reliability Statistics 312 Vol 8 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijbm/2020/v8/i8/BM2008-061 August, 2020