In any organization or enterprise, regardless of its scale, the occurrence of internal disputes between departments is inevitable. In order to maintain a healthy working environment and ensure smooth business operations, establishing clear regulations on the resolution of internal disputes between departments is essential. NPLaw hereby provides an in-depth analysis of the importance, resolution methods, and relevant legal considerations relating to internal departmental disputes within an organization. 

I. Current situation of resolving internal disputes between departments

In the workplace, conflicts or disputes between departments within an organization are unavoidable. Such disputes may arise from unclear job assignments, differing working methods, or a lack of coordination in performing shared tasks. In addition, disparities in interests, pressure related to deadlines, or incompatible working styles may also contribute to internal disputes.

At present, many organizations haven’t established clear procedures for resolving internal disputes yet. In practice, disputes are often handled through the intervention of immediate supervisors or management. However, if managers fail to fully grasp the nature of the issue or lack impartiality, dispute resolution may become ineffective, allowing conflicts to persist and negatively affecting overall job performance. 

If not promptly addressed, such situations may reduce work efficiency, undermine internal unity, damage the organization’s reputation, and erode employees’ trust in leadership.

II. Legal regulations on the resolution of internal disputes between departments

1. Why it is necessary to resolve internal disputes between departments

Resolving internal disputes between departments constitutes an important aspect of organizational management. Based on practical operations, such necessity arises for the following reasons:

  • Internal disputes disrupt collective work, adversely affecting progress, quality, and outcomes of inter-departmental tasks.
  • Prolonged conflicts between departments may create an ineffective working environment.
  • The absence of an effective dispute resolution mechanism may lead to a loss of confidence in leadership, negatively impacting organizational culture and internal solidarity.
  • Untimely resolution may result in wasted resources and trigger broader consequences, such as reduced overall productivity or the loss of capable personnel.

Accordingly, resolving internal disputes not only helps address conflicts between departments but also contributes to building a professional, stable, and sustainable working environment, while enhancing the overall operational efficiency of the organization.

2. Common methods for resolving internal disputes between departments

In management practice, when internal disputes arise between departments, organizations commonly apply the following methods:

  • Direct discussion between the parties concerned: It is the most common and straightforward approach. Representatives of departments meet to engage in discussions, clarify the causes of the disputes, and jointly identify appropriate solutions. Such a method is effective when the parties maintain a cooperative and constructive attitude.
  • Mediation through intermediate management: When the parties are unable to reach an agreement on their own, higher-level managers (such as department heads or deputy directors) may act as mediators. Their role is to assess the situation objectively, balance competing interests, and propose an appropriate resolution.
  • Application of internal procedures or regulations: Some organizations have established formal procedures for handling internal conflicts, such as submitting incident reports, forming internal mediation teams, or organizing official dialogue sessions. Such an approach ensures a structured, objective, and transparent resolution process.
  • Intervention by senior leadership or the board of management: In cases of serious, prolonged disputes or disputes involving significant interests, senior leadership may directly intervene to make a final decision.
  • Court intervention: Where internal disputes involve legal rights and obligations of company members or managers, or relate to the establishment, operation, dissolution, division, separation, transfer of assets, or conversion of the organizational form of a company, the parties may initiate legal proceedings and request resolution by a competent court in accordance with Clause 4, Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015. It is considered a last plan when internal mediation fails or when the dispute exceeds the organization’s internal authority.

Accordingly, depending on the severity of the conflict and the organizational culture, selecting an appropriate resolution method will help promptly ease tensions, maintain effective coordination among departments, and ensure overall work efficiency.

3. Competent authorities to resolve internal disputes between departments

The authority to resolve internal disputes between departments is generally determined based on the management structure and the seriousness of the dispute, specifically as follows:

  • Heads of the relevant departments: In simple disputes, the departments involved may proactively coordinate and discuss to reach a mutual resolution. Department heads are authorized to handle such matters within the scope of their respective responsibilities.
  • Direct management level (heads of divisions, departments, or superior units): Where the parties are unable to resolve the dispute themselves or where the issue exceeds their professional authority, mid-level management is responsible for intervening, mediating, and proposing an appropriate resolution.
  • Board of directors or highest leadership of the organization: For serious or prolonged disputes that significantly affect overall operations or involve financial or personnel interests, the board of directors or the head of the organization has the authority to make the final decision.
  • Competent People’s Court: Where internal disputes arise between company members, between the company and its managers (such as the director, general director, or members of the board of directors), and relate to the establishment, organization, operation, dissolution, merger, division, separation, conversion of organizational form, or transfer of company assets, such disputes may be brought before a competent court for resolution in accordance with Clause 4, Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Therefore, correctly identifying the competent authority not only facilitates effective dispute resolution but also ensures objectivity, transparency, and consistency with the organizational structure.

III. Questions regarding the resolution of internal disputes between departments

1. Is it possible to request court resolution of internal disputes between departments?

A court may be requested to resolve internal disputes between departments within a company if such disputes fall within the scope prescribed under Clause 4, Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015. Specifically, the law permits courts to resolve disputes between a company and its members, between a company and its managers (such as directors, general directors, or members of the board of directors), or among company members themselves, provided that such disputes relate to the establishment, operation, dissolution, merger, consolidation, division, separation, transfer of assets, or conversion of the company’s organizational form.

2. Main considerations when resolving internal disputes between departments

When resolving internal disputes between departments, in order to ensure effectiveness and maintain organizational unity, the following considerations should be taken into account:

  • Maintaining objectivity and neutrality: The person responsible for resolving the dispute (typically a manager or leader) should understand both parties impartially and avoid bias or personal influence. The objective is to achieve a common solution rather than determine winners and losers.
  • Ensuring transparency and fairness: The resolution process should be based on established regulations and the defined functions and duties of each department, avoiding subjective judgment. 
  • Focusing on solutions: Priority should be given to identifying corrective measures and preventing recurrence, rather than criticism or personal accountability, unless clear violations are established.
  • Timely resolution: Prolonged internal disputes may exacerbate tensions and negatively affect morale and inter-departmental cooperation.
  • Documenting outcomes if necessary: In serious cases or matters involving critical responsibilities, written records or agreements should be prepared to confirm the resolution and prevent future disputes.
  • Maintaining internal confidentiality: Internal disputes should be handled within the management framework to avoid unnecessary dissemination of information that could harm the organization’s reputation or create negative internal sentiment.

Thus, effective resolution of internal disputes requires not only impartiality and timeliness but also a constructive mindset and cooperation from all parties, with a view toward the organization’s common interests.

IV. Legal consulting services on the resolution of internal disputes

The above constitutes NPLaw’s legal insights regarding the resolution of internal disputes between departments. Should you require further consultation or clarification on the above matters, please contact NPLaw for professional legal advice.