Question

Back in July 2012, the NHL opened negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement with an aggressive proposal to reduce players' percentage of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 43%, among other demands. After waiting a month, the NHLPA put forth an offer that separated player salaries from league revenue, slowing the growth of player salaries, and dividing revenues saved among financially struggling teams. Emotions escalated on both sides of the negotiation. The league lockout came after the September 15, 2012 expiration date of the parties' existing contract came and went. Weeks of cancelled games turned into months. Both parties were extraordinarily angry at one another. Meetings quickly escalated to shouting matches, and fear was it could turn physical. Given the highly emotional nature of the disputing parties what would you recommend doing?

Question 3 options:

A. Bring in a third party, unrelated to either side, to be salient and visibly present in the room.

B. Separate them into different rooms.

C. Ask them to (please) control themselves and act professionally.

Answer 1

A. Bring in a third party, unrelated to either side, to be salient and visibly present in the room.

Given the situation that is almost out of hand, a third party needs to be brought in with the aim to resolve conflicts that will help the cause accordingly in order to be successful and effective accordingly.