Our company has distributed a new employee handbook that offers mediation as a last step in the policy that addresses grievances. In the past, I have heard about companies, government employees, and sports teams that work out their grievances through arbitration instead of mediation. What is the difference ?

Both mediation and arbitration are often used instead of litigation. These two methods of resolving conflicts and differences fall under the general category of alternative dispute resolution, known as ADR. ADR's popularity grows each year because it is seen as such an effective alternative to the extremely expensive and emotionally draining lawsuit. Lawsuits can also take a very long time to conclude and therefore tend to tie up people's lives and financial resources for years.

Most union collective bargaining agreements contain a grievance procedure, the final step of which is arbitration.

In recent years we have seen an increase in nonunion companies that are choosing mediation as the last step in their internal grievance policies.

These two types of alternative dispute resolutions are widely used to resolve workplace conflicts involving disciplinary actions, executive contracts, terminations, and issues of harassment and discrimination.

The main difference between mediation and arbitration is that in arbitration, the decision is binding on all parties.

The arbitrator functions as a judge, hearing witnesses, reading briefs from lawyers representing the parties, and reaching a decision. This decision cannot be appealed, absent fraud. Both sides approve the arbitrator in advance and agree to honor the decision. This decision is formally written and sent to the parties involved within an agreed-upon timeframe.

Mediation is both voluntary and non-binding. The mediator is highly trained to work with the parties together and separately as they develop a basis for agreement. Mediators are skilled listeners who seek opportunities for compromise and a willingness to bring the matter to closure.

Although one or both parties can choose not to comply with the understandings or pacts reached, most are successfully concluded by mutual agreement.

As we have seen on television and in newspapers, arbitration is frequently more adversarial than mediation. Mediation tends to be more effective in preserving relationships over the long term.

We have a small company with 11 employees. I am the office manager and I wear a lot of other hats including responsibility for payroll. All but two of our employees get their pay through direct deposit. These two employees have to come to my office each week to pick up their paychecks and they complain if I am not there because the checks are locked up. They then use their lunch break to rush to their bank and wait in line to deposit or to cash their checks. In the past employees have lost or misplaced their checks and we have needed to cancel the first one and reissue another. It would be so much easier to have all employees paid by direct deposit. My question is whether a company can require all employees to receive their weekly pay by direct deposit.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 167B, Section 7, prohibits employers from requiring an employee to receive their pay through electronic transfer. Even though a direct deposit of wages is the most efficient way to both pay and receive a paycheck some employees have the need to actually hold a check in their own hand and experience the security of depositing it themselves.

The law also states that if an employee does choose to accept an electronic transfer of wages, the employee is allowed to select the financial institution as long as that institution is capable of accepting the electronic transfer of money.

There are so many advantages of direct deposit for the employee and for the company that I recommend that you consider a communications campaign to encourage those employees who get paychecks to consider their other choice. You can list the advantages of the alternative, such as getting paid and having access to their money when out sick, away on vacation, or on a snow day; avoiding a lost, stolen, or misplaced paycheck; often having your money deposited a day earlier; and any other advantages that you can think of for them.

Your company could experiment with a trial period for direct deposit and tell employees they would have the right to reverse their decision if they no longer wanted it after two or three months. Experience has shown that most people will not change back.

Whenever it is time to vote in a local or a national election, I struggle with the choice of working or voting. Usually I end up having to drive home from the office, which is in Waltham, to get to the polling place in my neighborhood. I then wait in a long line, exercise my right to vote, and then rush home to get dinner ready for my family. A friend of mine works at a company in Boston and she tells me her company allows their employees time to go to the polls to vote. Is there a law or a policy that allows employees to leave work in order to vote during working hours? Is this only a City of Boston ordinance?

Yes, but it's not very well known. It states that an employer must give employees up to two hours off from work to vote. So whether you are in Waltham, Worcester, or in Boston, the law applies. The two-hour absence from work is to be after the polls open in the employee's voting precinct.

Here are some additional details about this law to keep in mind: The employer is not required to pay you for the time that you take off to vote.

Employers are not required to post a notice or distribute the information informing employees of this law and their rights under it. Employers have the right to request that an employee provide the name of the precinct where they cast their vote to confirm that the employee actually used the time to vote. An employee should request the necessary time off, of up to two hours, in advance of the actual voting day.

I have heard that the Department of Employment and Training, which is often referred to as the unemployment office, has changed its name. What is it now called and how can I contact them?

The previous Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training has been divided into two: . the Division of Career Services and the Division of Unemployment Assistance.

The former provides a variety of services to the job seeker, whether unemployed or working, such as training, job search, workforce development, and the One-Stop Career Centers. The latter's primary purpose is to administer and provide unemployment insurance benefits to those who are eligible for that assistance. Both of these departments can be found at www.mass.gov or detma.org.

Got a question for the Job Doc? Tell us what hurts and we'll try and find the remedy for your career woes, every Sunday in the BostonWorks section of the Sunday Globe. E-mail your questions to or mail to Job Doc, The Boston Globe, PO Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.