Quixtar's Dispute Resolution Process
Tuesday, September 04, 2007  by Gary VanderVen
Category: , ,

As Director of Business Conduct & Rules for Quixtar, I’m obviously familiar with all the debate that surrounds our rules, the questions often asked about them, and the ways in which they sometimes violated.

But let me say that the vast majority of Quixtar Independent Business Owners operate their businesses ethically and within the bounds of our Rules of Conduct. And the vast majority of those in violation of our Rules often find themselves there unwittingly – they simply didn’t know that they were even breaking a rule. With training and education, we usually easily bring IBOs back into compliance and see them go on to build their businesses stronger than before.

But when Quixtar and an IBO cannot agree on a Rules action, we have a process in place to bring resolution to the situation. We use a comprehensive dispute resolution process that’s shared with all IBOs. In fact, all IBOs must agree to participate in this process to resolve any disputes that may arise relating to their businesses. The process includes comprehensive conciliation and binding arbitration to seek resolution of issues. These provide an effective, timely way for those who feel they have been wronged to have their arguments heard and addressed.

All companies face the potential for disputes - from employees, suppliers, customers, and, in Quixtar's case, the hundreds of thousands of IBOs it supports. Increasingly, companies recognize that arbitration provides an alternative to the time, expense, and adverse business consequences of traditional litigation.

Essentially, arbitration is a contract between two or more parties to settle disagreements in a certain way. Most arbitration agreements are administered by an impartial third party, such as the American Arbitration Association or Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS). The arbitrator reads briefs and documentary evidence, hears testimony, examines evidence, and renders an opinion on liability and damages in the form of an "award of the arbitrator" after the hearing. Once confirmed by a court of appropriate jurisdiction, the award can be subsequently entered as a judgment.

The Quixtar ADR process allows the parties to use a JAMS arbitrator who has received training, and therefore has some familiarity with Quixtar’s MLM business. This allows the parties to save time and money educating the arbitrator on basic elements of an MLM business. However, either party to the dispute can elect to have an arbitrator who has no prior experience with the Quixtar business.

Quixtar's dispute resolution process was created many years ago in cooperation with the Independent Business Owners Association International trade organization representing all Quixtar IBOs.


Comments

oldUNIONdog said:
September 4, 2007 11:10 AM | #

Smoke & Mirrors.

It is purely set up to give an impression that you have an alternative to disputes.  We have the same thing where I work.  I work for the Federal Government.

#1:  It's optional to several different approved avenues to disputes, it's not the only one in town.

However, it is set up so that in the end the resolution can be changed in favor of management if they so choose.  

Please feel free to put some numbers to your wonderful program.  

How many use the ADR, and what is the precentage of complaintants that win the complaint?  

How many resolutions were altered by the corp. after a final decesion?

The ADR, I would guess, was set up for indivdual IBO.  I don't think was ever designed to handle complaints of the IBOA board or entire organizations.  

It is smoke and mirrors.  It makes you look better in the eyes of the court, but it is not designed to actually help dispute resoulutions for the IBO, or now, the IBOA board.

MichMan said:
September 4, 2007 12:46 PM | #

Gary, for the record, here is what Federal Judge Richard E. Dorr had to say two years ago about Amway’s arbitration process:

“It is this Court’s opinion that the procedure utilized by Defendants to screen, train and ultimately hand-pick their panel of arbitrators does not come close to passing any reasonable test of fairness and neutrality required for a legitimate arbitration proceeding.” http://www.webraw.com/quixtar/archives/2005/09/judge_halts_quixtar_arbitration.php

rdknyvr said:
September 4, 2007 5:03 PM | #

Hey MichMan, you know of course that Quixtar revised the process following the above opinion you cite. And it's interesting to read in the Quixtar brief filed today in Califonia that both Orin and Billy willingly served on arbitration panels involving Quixtar's dispute resolution process... I wonder why they would have done something like that!!! :) Oh my. :)

MichMan said:
September 4, 2007 10:19 PM | #

Apparently the Texas judge was not too impressed by AQ's "revisions" in the arbitration process.  I read that he bypassed it and set up his own independent arbitrator.

My hope is that all of this gets settled out in the open, not behind closed doors.

IBOs in all organizations deserve to know more about profit taking on the corporate end (and from the LOA tool leaders).

rocket said:
September 4, 2007 11:32 PM | #

Just a question, were IBO's given a choice whether or not to agree to arbitration?

Or was that a condition of being in business for themselves?

rdknyvr said:
September 5, 2007 3:00 PM | #

Rocket, I'm sure you already know the answer to your own question... it's part of the intitial agreement, that you agree in advance to the arbitration process to settle any future potential disputes, and yes, it is the process that Quixtar set up. If you don't like that, you can decline to sign up in the first place. You will find similar provisions in franchise agreements -- in business for yourself. Or if you are investing  in and funding some kind of start-up entirely from scratch (total and absolute 'independent business ownership), you will still find arbitration clauses in everthing from your leasing contracts, subtrades contracts, supplier contracts, professional services (legal, accounting, etc.) contracts, and so on. Absolutely no surprises there.

It is common business 'best practice' for any contract to contemplate how the parties will proceed in the event of a dispute, and an arbitration process is increasingly built into contracts from the get-go.

jthompson said:
September 5, 2007 5:32 PM | #

I understand and respect Quixtars Dispute Resolution Process.

I also understand Orrin Woodward's Dispute Resolution Process.

1.  Present what you want the other side to do for you (ask them to allow you to break the rules and to break contacts you have agreed for 4 years like the non-compete.

2.  have a backup plan of a 47pg Lawsuit and a Public ANTI "advertising" campaign ready as "LEVERAGE" in case my demands are not met

ok i understand!!  We learned this one in Elementary School!

Tex said:
September 6, 2007 12:16 AM | #

The Quixtar arbitration process was declared "unconscionable" (that means really, really unfair) by Judge Dorr in the Kenny Stewart case. If I were Orrin and Co., I would fight tooth and nail to stay out of that situation. If Orrin and Billy served in those cases, they participated in the "unconscionable" activities.

Their case should be used in part by the courts to determine if the changes made bring the process back into the "conscionable" realm.  

rocket said:
September 7, 2007 12:40 PM | #

It would be pretty much impossible for a new prospect to understand the full gravity of what he/she is signing if only being briefed for a few moments about it.

Basically, what they are agreeing to is if there is ever a dispute, they will each tell their side to a (Quixtar selected and sanctioned) arbitrator, who will decide who is right or wrong.

The arbitrator/arbitrator committee is selected by......?

Anyone is welcome to fill in the blanks, but I'd like to hear the answer from Gary.

Sans the corporate spin to justify it.

Beryl Nichols said:
September 8, 2007 6:10 PM | #
Rocket, The way you choose to think is why attorneys are able to make 450.00 dollars per hour! Don't sign anything unless you run it by an attorney. If common sense doesn't mean anything, find a lawyer and take his twist on life and get him to do it cheap. He'll tell you what to do.....let's see now, they want you to follow their rules and not set your own should you decide to get involved. If you choose to not follow the rules...you can't play anymore. There is a problem?
rocket said:
September 9, 2007 12:39 AM | #

Sorry, I thought Independent Business owner meant independent.  My Bad.

Do you know who selects the arbitrator Beryl?  Most people feel it's set up like a casino.  The house always wins.  Do you think it's because the house is always right?  Did you know the arbitration process was deemed unconscionable by a judge?

Most of the time, lawyers are involved in business startups, FYI.

Don Osborne said:
September 9, 2007 10:26 PM | #

Some people have made a career of posting to this blog and, therefore, I could assume have all their facts and assumptions correct. But, when it comes to the idea of an "Independent" Business Owner being totally and completely "independent" versus things such as a tax standing of "independent" as in 1099, I can't always agree with some of what's expressed.

There is a relationship between an IBO and Quixtar which is and always has been spelled out.

Granted most ignore what is presented with their "kit" from Quixtar and many imply Quixtar is no more than one of many suppliers. But, the reality is Quixtar is the basis for the compensation plan and products from which that compensation is derived. The rules have always arrived with the "kit" and exist as part of relationship. You are not paid as an employee and, therefore, your tax status is "independent" but the rules you play by are not.

There is a place for true, run it as you will, independent business ownership. It's called traditional small business ownership: you capitalize it, expertise it and run it 24/7 at a profit or loss.

Let's stop seeing things as "when it works to my benefit or whim I'll be part of Quixtar" when it doesn’t I’ll claim "I'm an independent business owner so don't ask me to play by the rules".

Things do change in a relationship and there may be room for an argument of current, timely and complete disclosure. But, to fall back on I thought I was "independent" doesn't address the reality that started the business relationship you're in as an IBO.

If you want true Independence in a business relationship capitalize a traditional venture with your money, time and expertise and build it your way. Then the only thing you'll be dependent upon is the marketplace and how well you compete in it.

And, for the record, I'm an IBO since 1978, a traditional independent business owner and an employee. It's always been up to me to make it work in all cases but I do understand the difference between a 1099 independent status with a signed agreement of terms and conditions with rules of conduct, traditional small business ownership with its marketplace dynamics of success and being an employee. Each carries its rights, obligations and consequences of personal responsibility.

Watching and waiting said:
September 13, 2007 5:54 PM | #

More Smoke and Mirrors?

Here's some interesting facts about the "Fair" process Amway has for fixing conflicts.

On Friday September 16, 2005 Missouri Federal District Court Judge Richard E. Dorr ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' Hart and Stewart tools business denying mandatory arbitration in their suit against Quixtar and Alticor for anti-trust claims.  

"While the parties are allowed to choose their own arbitrators, the pool of candidates for this choice is limited by Defendants to those arbitrators whom Defendants have already pre-selected in a process that involves an initial screening, then training with a heavy dose of goodwill for Defendants and their manner of operation, then after personal interviews, being hand-picked to be on the list of arbitrators (so long as Defendants deem them to be acceptable). Arbitrators are to be neutral, and allowing such training and influence over the arbitrators as Defendants have in this situation is both unreasonable and unfair".

"Although this court has found that none of the Plaintiffs have submitted to arbitration, the court also finds that, in the alternative, arbitration with pre-selected JAMS arbitrators as presently set up by Defendants is unconscionable". http://www.amquix.info/quixtar_arbitration_slamed.html

rdknyvr said:
September 14, 2007 6:45 PM | #

W & W, interesting post and interesting point, but old news to those of us who have been paying attention. It's entirely possible that next week or later this month Judge Feess will uphold or strike down portions of the arbitration rules, but either way, Alticor will adjust and move on to greater success already underway with Steve Lieberman at the helm and all the other changes and improvements underway.

rdknyvr said:
September 15, 2007 2:53 PM | #

GARY VANDERVEN QUESTION:

Gary, I was reading through the updated W08 Registration Form. Is there an updated version of the Business Reference Guide SA-1500Q that will be posted in pdf formate? If so, any projected date? The current version is dated June 2006.

With appreciation,

rocket said:
September 19, 2007 9:57 PM | #

The arbitrator/arbitration committee is selected by......?

Just curious

Tex said:
September 25, 2007 10:41 AM | #

rocket,

Me.

Just kidding.

The new rules allow other arbitrators to be selected. If you want to read about it, google Quixtar Compendium and read to your heart's content.

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required- never displayed
 

Subscriptions

How to subscribe

Disclaimer

Search

Go

Archives