CONFIDENTIALITY, REPRESENTATION AND EVIDENCE IN ADR IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES IN TURKEY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

In the world, ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) methods are becoming increasingly popular because of a heavy caseload of tribunals/courts, and the resolution of individual employment disputes through ADR is part of this trend. However, there have always been concerns regarding the use of ADR for the resolution of employment disputes, particularly due to the potential power imbalance between the disputants. These concerns are mutual in the comparison countries of this research: the United Kingdom (UK), with its long and honourable history of ADR in individual employment disputes, and Turkey, which has recently started to employ ADR methods for these disputes. The concerns revolve around: (i) whether confidentiality acts as a ‘curtain’ that prevents stakeholders from assessing whether the procedure is justly managed or whether employees have been pressured to settle; (ii) whether representatives are accessible, whether there are providers of legal counsel for employment disputes, and whether the governments offer legal aid for individuals who cannot afford the cost of representation; (iii) the types of evidence that can be submitted in ADR processes and whether there is an enforcement mechanism in case of resistance to providing necessary documents for ADR meetings. Consequently, it must be highlighted that the same set of rules should not be applied to all kinds of disputes. Due to the potential power imbalances in employment disputes, necessary precautions must be taken to ensure access to justice. On this basis, this research illustrates how ADR regulations in Turkey and the UK should be adjusted to align with the unique structure of employment disputes.