Dave, I need your help.” A lieutenant had me on the horn, and I was intrigued by this hint of an opportunity to assist police management. He explained that one of his officers was threatening to file a hostile work environment complaint with HR against one of his sergeants. The lieutenant had attempted to soothe tensions, and now the sergeant was so upset he too was threatening to “go across the street.” “Going across the street” is a phrase we use to describe a police officer who bypasses the police chain of command and chooses instead to take a complaint, like a hostile work environment beef, directly to our city’s human resources department. What a mess. I pictured a circular firing squad … except the guns were loaded with HR complaints, and the poor lieutenant was stuck smack dab in the middle of it.

“I know you have that mediation line in your MOU,” the lieutenant continued. “I think we could use some of that mediation.” I told him I was happy to help. You see, our LEO labor organization recognizes mediation as a powerful tool that can, in situations like these, offer quick and promising resolution. Now look, I’m not saying there aren’t complaints that need to go across the street. There certainly are (think quid pro quo sexual harassment — gross). That being said, we in law enforcement have our own unique culture that can, I’m sure, feel unfamiliar to a human resources employee whose lunch doesn’t routinely consist of a sandwich or other handheld scarfed down on the way to a hot call. And when the rubber meets the road, we’re all in the same foxhole. So, in many cases, I think the idea of HR-types sitting in judgment when members of the LEO labor organization I lead are at odds with each other is, well, unappealing. And the lieutenant was correct — our jurisdiction enjoys an MOU provision that says represented members seeking an HR complaint, barring the egregious scenarios we can all imagine, shall be offered mediation as an alternative. If mediation is accepted, this is our approach:

• The mediator or mediators should be trusted by all parties. If different ranks are involved, consider providing each party with their own representative. A lead mediator should be identified. In our organization, the lead may be a LEO labor organization leader such as myself (I am the president of our Fraternal Order of Police lodge).
• Mediation should occur at mutually agreed-upon, neutral locations. The meeting room should be private and free from distractions.
• Establish ground rules:
  • All parties must be respectful, speaking one at a time
  • All parties should commit to hearing the perspectives of other involved parties and working toward a resolution
  • Dialogue in these settings must remain confidential — no recordings
• The lead mediator must commit to neutrality. The purpose of mediation is to achieve a satisfactory resolution for all involved parties. Don’t take sides. Guide the process and ensure adherence to ground rules.
• Mediation is an informal process where parties, while remaining respectful, can freely discuss concerns from their perspectives.
• The lead mediator should do as little speaking as possible. Your role is to encourage honest, respectful dialogue.

Tip: I start mediation sessions with a personal statement reminding involved parties of the LEO culture we share. I highlight how everyone at the table, even with our differences, shares a willingness to put it all on the line to protect a fellow LEO. I remind each of them that, during the darkest of calls, I would gladly put myself in harm’s way to protect them. And I remind them that in their hearts, I know they feel the same. I plead with them to, regardless of the outcome of the meeting, walk away with that same commitment for each other. When I share this personal request, the room always becomes quiet and I tend to notice affirming nods from participants. Sometimes we all need some perspective, don’t we?

In our experience, mediation guided by the above process will naturally foster resolution. We find that involved parties, after considering alternative perspectives, will usually acknowledge imperfection with respect to their handling of the situation and apologies tend to follow. We hope for a handshake and a fresh start for everyone involved.

So what if it doesn’t work? Ultimately, it’s up to the potential complainant or complainants to decide if they are satisfied with mediation outcomes. If a potential complainant won’t acknowledge resolution, proceed with caution. They retain the right to carry through with a formal HR complaint. And it’s their call. While our MOU allows for an offer of mediation in certain circumstances, we never want to be in a position where we could be accused of discouraging employees from exercising their rights. If, following mediation, the employee wishes to proceed with the complaint, that choice must be respected.

What happened with that mess of a circular firing squad I described at the start? Well, the involved parties disarmed after one mediation session. Not a single HR complaint was filed. And that lieutenant? He was, of course, appreciative. You see, our MOU provisions were, in many cases, secured only through intense negotiations with police management (of which our lieutenants are members). I can’t tell you how many times a member of police management has complained to me about how the “union” has become too powerful given our MOU. Isn’t it ironic that, in this case, that oft-complained-about document was actually used to benefit them? I’m proud of that. And I truly was happy to help. Like I said, we’re all in the same foxhole. And while our folks who work for HR are certainly good and decent people, it just so happens that I’ve never seen one of them down there in that dark, muddy place when the shit’s hitting the fan.