Omnibus Enterprises Conflict Resolution Procedure

---

Article I: Preamble and Philosophy

Section 1.1 Commitment:

Omnibus Enterprises ("the Corporation") is committed to fostering a respectful, collaborative, and effective working environment. This procedure provides a structured, fair, and rational process for addressing and resolving conflicts or disagreements that may arise among Agents, or between an Agent and the Corporation (including conflicts related to the functioning or directives of the central algorithmic system, "the System").

Section 1.2 Guiding Principles:

This procedure is guided by the Corporation's core values and policies, including:

• (a) Universal Respect: Treating all parties involved with dignity and courtesy (Human Resources Policy, Article V).
• (b) Rational Justification: Analyzing conflicts objectively to understand root causes and identify reasoned solutions (Bylaws, Article III).
• (c) Fairness and Impartiality: Ensuring all parties have an opportunity to be heard and that the process is conducted without bias.
• (d) Confidentiality: Maintaining appropriate confidentiality throughout the process.
• (e) Non-Retaliation: Protecting individuals who raise concerns or participate in the process in good faith.
• (f) Systemic Learning: Viewing conflict resolution as an opportunity for individual, collective, and Systemic learning and improvement (Intelligent Behavior Policy).
• (g) Egalitarianism: Applying the procedure consistently regardless of an Agent's role or tenure.

Section 1.3 Purpose:

To provide a clear, accessible, and effective multi-stage mechanism for resolving conflicts in a timely manner, preserving relationships where possible, and contributing to the overall health and intelligent adaptation of the organization.

Article II: Scope

Section 2.1 Applicability:

This procedure applies to all Agents of Omnibus Enterprises concerning disagreements or conflicts arising in the context of their work or relationship with the Corporation.

Section 2.2 Types of Conflicts Covered:

This includes, but is not limited to:

• (a) Interpersonal disagreements between Agents.
• (b) Disputes regarding task allocation, work processes, or coordination.
• (c) Concerns about adherence to corporate policies or procedures.
• (d) Conflicts arising from or involving interactions with the System, such as:
  • (i) Disputes over System-assigned tasks or priorities.
  • (ii) Perceived errors, unfairness, or bias in System logic or outputs.
  • (iii) Communication issues facilitated or hindered by the System.
  • (iv) Issues related to data managed or processed by the System.
• (e) Concerns regarding potential harassment or discrimination (which may also trigger specific investigation protocols under an Anti-Harassment Policy, if separate).

Article III: Procedure Stages

Section 3.1 Stage 0: Prevention and Direct Resolution

• (a) Proactive Communication: Agents are encouraged to communicate openly, respectfully, and proactively to prevent misunderstandings (HR Policy, Article IV).
• (b) Direct Dialogue (Interpersonal): For interpersonal conflicts, Agents are encouraged, where safe and appropriate, to attempt resolution through direct, respectful dialogue first.
• (c) System Feedback/Query Channel (System-Related): For concerns primarily related to the System's function or directives, Agents should first utilize the designated standard feedback/query mechanism within the System or as otherwise specified by the Corporation. This allows for initial clarification, error reporting, or direct adjustment by the System or its overseers. Many issues may be resolved at this stage through clarification or automated/standard responses.

Section 3.2 Stage 1: Formal Initiation

• (a) Trigger: If Stage 0 is unsuccessful, inappropriate (e.g., harassment concerns), or the System feedback channel does not resolve the issue adequately, an Agent may formally initiate this procedure.
• (b) Method: Initiation occurs by submitting a written statement (electronic submission via a designated secure channel/System interface is preferred) to the Designated Conflict Resolution Intake Point (initially the Corporate Secretary, unless otherwise designated by the Board).
• (c) Content: The statement should clearly describe:
  • (i) The parties involved.
  • (ii) The nature of the conflict or concern.
  • (iii) The date(s) the issue arose.
  • (iv) Steps already taken to resolve the issue (if any).
  • (v) The desired outcome or resolution.
• (d) Notification: The Intake Point will acknowledge receipt and notify the relevant parties (if applicable and appropriate) that the formal procedure has been initiated, providing them with a copy of the initiating statement and information about the process.

Section 3.3 Stage 2: Facilitated Resolution / Initial Review

• (a) Interpersonal Conflicts: For interpersonal conflicts, the Intake Point (or their designee) may offer the parties voluntary, confidential facilitation or mediation services provided by a trained, neutral internal or external facilitator agreed upon by the parties. The goal is to help the parties reach a mutually agreeable resolution.
• (b) System-Related Conflicts: For conflicts involving the System, the Intake Point will route the concern to the appropriate personnel or function responsible for System oversight/review. This stage involves:
  • (i) A more detailed review of the Agent's concern.
  • (ii) Examination of relevant System logs, data, and operational parameters (subject to privacy and security protocols).
  • (iii) Analysis of the System's behavior or logic in question.
  • (iv) Providing the initiating Agent with a reasoned explanation, potential corrective action if an error is found, or clarification of the System's intended function.
• (c) Timeline: Efforts at this stage should generally aim for resolution or clear feedback within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 10-15 business days), though complexity may require more time.

Section 3.4 Stage 3: Human Oversight Review

• (a) Trigger: If Stage 2 does not result in a resolution satisfactory to the initiating Agent, or if the nature of the conflict warrants immediate higher-level review (e.g., significant policy violations, complex System issues, harassment allegations), the matter can be escalated to the Designated Oversight Authority.
• (b) Designated Oversight Authority: This Authority shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and must operate with strict impartiality. Initially, this may be a specific Officer or Director acting in a documented neutral capacity. As the Corporation grows, the Board should establish a more independent body (e.g., an Ombudsperson, a standing Conflict Resolution Committee composed of Agents not party to the dispute). The current designated Authority will be documented and communicated to all Agents.
• (c) Process:
  • (i) The Authority reviews all documentation from prior stages.
  • (ii) The Authority may conduct further investigation, including interviewing involved parties, reviewing relevant records (including System data where appropriate and permitted), and consulting experts if necessary.
  • (iii) The Authority applies the Principle of Rational Justification to analyze the conflict's root causes and alignment with corporate policies and principles.
  • (iv) The Authority provides all involved parties an opportunity to present their perspective directly to them.
  • (v) The Authority issues a written determination, including findings of fact, analysis, and a decision or recommendation for resolution. This may include directives for corrective action, policy clarifications, or recommendations for adjustments to the System's parameters or logic (to be implemented subject to Board oversight and the Principle of Rational Justification).
• (d) Binding Nature: The determination of the Designated Oversight Authority is generally considered final and binding within the Corporation, subject only to appeal on procedural grounds as outlined in Stage 4.
• (e) Timeline: This review should generally be completed within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 20-30 business days from escalation), acknowledging potential complexity.

Section 3.5 Stage 4: Procedural Appeal (Limited)

• (a) Basis: An Agent directly affected by a Stage 3 determination may appeal to the Board of Directors (or a designated Appeals Committee of the Board) solely on the grounds of significant procedural error in the Stage 3 review that demonstrably prejudiced the outcome. Appeals based merely on disagreement with the findings or outcome will not be considered.
• (b) Method: A written appeal detailing the alleged procedural error(s) must be submitted to the Corporate Secretary within a short timeframe (e.g., 5 business days) of receiving the Stage 3 determination.
• (c) Review: The Board (or its committee) reviews the appeal based only on the procedural question. It may uphold the Stage 3 determination or remand the matter back to the Designated Oversight Authority to correct the procedural defect.

Article IV: Confidentiality and Non-Retaliation

Section 4.1 Confidentiality:

All individuals involved in this process (parties, facilitators, reviewers, Authority members) are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the proceedings and information shared, except as necessary to conduct the investigation, implement resolutions, or as required by law or overriding corporate policy (e.g., mandatory reporting).

Section 4.2 Non-Retaliation:

Omnibus Enterprises strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against any Agent who initiates a complaint in good faith, provides information, or participates in any stage of this conflict resolution procedure. Any suspected retaliation should be reported immediately and will be investigated separately and may result in disciplinary action.

Article V: Documentation

Section 5.1 Record Keeping:

Appropriate records will be maintained for each formally initiated conflict resolution case, documenting the initiation, steps taken, communications, analyses (especially for System-related issues), final determinations, and resolutions. These records are confidential personnel/operational records. For System-related conflicts, relevant findings may be anonymized and integrated into the System's knowledge base or operational logs to support learning and adaptation (Intelligent Behavior Policy).

Article VI: Review and Amendment

Section 6.1 Periodic Review:

This Conflict Resolution Procedure shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board of Directors or its designated committee, consistent with Bylaws Article XIII, to ensure its effectiveness, fairness, accessibility, and alignment with the Corporation's principles and operational realities (including the role of the System).

Section 6.2 Amendment:

Amendments require rational justification and approval according to the procedures outlined in the Bylaws.

---