Kindness in conciliations: enhancing the experience of neurodivergent litigants in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission

Abstract

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (‘QIRC’) undertakes dispute resolution processes, including conciliations, to promote early resolution of workplace issues and help parties avoid protracted, costly litigation. However, established processes may present barriers to effective participation of neurodivergent litigants, including those on the autism spectrum, or those with conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, or tic disorders. These challenges may involve difficulties with communication, sensory sensitivities, and emotional stress, which can undermine the litigant's ability to fully engage and resolve disputes. The application of kindness – broadly conceived as an empathetic and respectful mindset, expressed through proactive and kind actions – has the potential to support neurodivergent litigants in overcoming these barriers. By embedding kindness in conciliation processes, we argue that neurodivergent litigants will be better able to participate, leading to more successful and efficient resolutions. This paper offers practical strategies that QIRC Commissioners can adopt immediately to respond to the needs of neurodivergent litigants. It also recommends a collaborative legal design approach involving key stakeholders to develop institutional or policy-based strategies for the future. Ultimately, kindness has the potential to improve both the litigant experience and overall efficiency of conciliation processes, enhancing accessibility, fairness, and trust within the QIRC.

Keywords

Dispute resolution kindness legal design neurodivergence Queensland Industrial Relations Commission

Introduction

Kindness, often regarded as a personal virtue, has the potential to be a transformative tool in legal processes or public policy when applied deliberately and strategically, although its value is often underestimated (Forester, 2021: 64; Unwin, 2018: 18). The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (‘QIRC’) plays a key role in resolving workplace disputes through processes such as conciliation, aimed at facilitating early resolution and preventing prolonged, costly litigation. However, traditional processes may inadvertently create barriers for neurodivergent litigants – such as those on the autism spectrum or with conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (‘ADHD’), dyslexia, or tic disorders – who may experience challenges with communication, sensory overload, or emotional stress. Addressing these barriers is essential for improving accessibility, inclusivity, and fairness, and ensuring all litigants can meaningfully participate in the process. Embedding kindness in conciliation processes offers the potential to better support neurodivergent litigants and may also improve outcomes for the QIRC by creating a more equitable and effective framework for dispute resolution.

In this article, we address the research question: How can the application of kindness, supported by legal design principles, be effectively embedded into QIRC dispute resolution processes to better support the needs of neurodivergent litigants? We explore the concept of kindness – including cognitive kindness and emotional kindness – and argue for its relevance and applicability in conciliations. We then examine the unique needs and challenges faced by neurodivergent litigants in QIRC conciliation processes and consider how these barriers can hinder effective participation. Drawing on these two modes of kindness, we propose a range of strategies that individual Commissioners may implement during conciliation proceedings to better anticipate and respond to the needs of neurodivergent litigants. Finally, we recommend the QIRC undertakes a legal design project to refine and develop institutional or policy-based strategies that would allow it to better support the needs of neurodivergent litigants.

What is kindness?

The application of kindness in the context of QIRC dispute resolution presents a novel avenue for critical analysis. While traditionally viewed as a personal virtue or soft skill, kindness – particularly when framed within the principles of legal design – serves as a tool to enhance accessibility, fairness, and efficiency in legal processes and public policy (Forester, 2021: 64; Unwin, 2018: 18). Legal design is a framework that prioritises empathy, user experience, and accessibility, aiming to simplify processes and promote fairness (Quintanilla, 2016; Sossin, 2017). From this foundation, kindness has the potential to support a shift in legal processes away from rigid formalities towards a human-centred process that fosters trust and inclusivity. In this section, we consider definitions of kindness and acknowledge the potential for harm and unintended consequences.

Definitions of kindness

While there is no single and widely accepted definition of kindness, one of the earliest concepts of kindness can be found in the philosophical, spiritual or ethical Golden Rule, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ (Gensler, 2013). Kindness is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as ‘the quality or state of being kind; kind nature or disposition, or the demonstration of this in action or conduct’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2024). It may include random, relational or radical acts of kindness, ranging from simple gestures like picking up a dropped pen to challenging long-standing organisational norms and driving transformative changes in the delivery of services, activities and engagement (Unwin, 2018: 20). From an ethics of care perspective, kindness is said to be ‘a concerned empathic responsiveness to the needs and interests of others’ (Comer, 2024: 112). It has also been described as involving a psychological source of kindness based on empathy and moral principles, which is expressed through kind activity (Comer, 2024: 107; Youngs et al., 2023: 5429, 5437). Regardless of the definition used, it is generally accepted that kindness involves taking action and that the recipient encounters some benefit as a result (Hake and Post, 2023: 5).

The notion of kindness can be broadly conceived as the proactive application of empathy, respect, and generosity through actions that consider the unique needs of others, creating an environment where individuals feel supported, valued, and understood. It can include both cognitive kindness and emotional kindness (Youngs et al., 2023: 5428) and can be distinguished from the associated concepts of empathy and compassion in that it extends beyond simply feeling and requires taking action (Hake and Post, 2023; Haskins et al., 2018: 10, 22; Rappaport, 2019: 2; Ross, 2021: 5).

Empathy and compassion have been the focus of increasing attention in legal contexts due to their roles in encouraging understanding and support (Feenan, 2017; Gerdy, 2008; Herring, 2017). Empathy involves ‘stepping into the shoes of another’ and deeply understanding their emotions and experiences, while compassion extends sympathy and a desire to alleviate suffering (Hake and Post, 2023: 4–5; Haskins et al., 2018: 10, 22; Rappaport, 2019: 2; Ross, 2021: 5). The concepts of empathy and compassion have been widely explored in the legal field for their potential to improve interactions and promote fairness. However, kindness – which involves not just being considerate, generous and understanding, but also taking action to support others (Hake and Post, 2023: 4–5; Haskins et al., 2018: 10, 22; Rappaport, 2019: 2; Ross, 2021: 5) – is equally important yet often overlooked (Forester, 2021: 64; Unwin, 2018: 18). Unlike empathy and compassion, kindness is an active, deliberate response that can significantly enhance outcomes in the provision of public services by improving relationships and promoting trust, engagement, and improved participation (Unwin, 2018: 20).

For the purposes of this article, we have adopted a framework developed by Youngs et al. (2023) to explore and understand kindness. This framework categorises kindness into four distinct ‘modes’, each of which provides a unique perspective on how kindness can manifest and be understood in various contexts (Youngs et al., 2023: 5432, 5433). The first two modes – Principle-Socially Prescribed Kindness and Principle-Proactive Kindness – are classified as ‘cognitive’ forms of kindness. These types are primarily driven by thought processes, social expectations, and moral principles. Principle-Socially Prescribed Kindness involves a form of kindness grounded in cognitive processes where the individual engages in prosocial thinking, such as supporting particular individuals or communities in accordance with socially prescribed norms. This form of kindness, while altruistic, is primarily motivated by a sense of duty or responsibility. On the other hand, Principle-Proactive Kindness goes beyond the boundaries of socially prescribed ‘good’ behaviour or norms and involves proactive and intentional actions to benefit others. This type of kindness is not just about meeting expectations but actively taking steps to support others in ways that may challenge or expand beyond conventional societal behaviour norms (Youngs et al., 2023: 5433).

In applying cognitive modes of kindness, Commissioners may adopt practices, actions or social norms because it is the ‘right thing to do’ for a group of litigants (Comer, 2024: 107). When provided with professional development or emerging knowledge about neurodivergence and support strategies, Commissioners may adopt a proactive, intentional approach to implementing changes that benefit neurodivergent litigants, aligning with the sentiment of Maya Angelou, ‘when you know better, you do better’ (Angelou, 2020). Cognitive adjustments tend to relate more to the conciliation process. For example, Commissioners can demonstrate Principle-Socially Prescribed Kindness by providing clear, accessible documents and allowing additional time for neurodivergent litigants to process information or respond to questions. Proactive actions under Principle-Proactive Kindness might include offering tailored accommodations such as providing visual aids, simplifying legal jargon, or offering alternative communication methods, like allowing a litigant to submit written responses instead of speaking during the conciliation.

In contrast, Youngs et al.'s other two modes – Affective-Proactive Kindness and Affective-Socially Prescribed Kindness – are categorised as ‘emotional’ forms of kindness. These are driven by feelings, empathy, and emotional connections. Affective-Proactive Kindness is characterised by emotionally driven decisions to help someone that arise from an individual's genuine concern for another's ‘feelings as a human being … and what might be right for them’ (Youngs et al., 2023: 5433). It is autonomous, meaning the individual takes action because they empathise with the emotional needs of another person, regardless of social expectations. It focuses on an intrinsic desire to help others out of an emotional understanding of their situation. Affective-Socially Prescribed Kindness, however, is more reactive in nature. It involves emotional responses that align with social norms and expectations. It's an emotionally reactive kindness driven by ‘an empathetic response to circumstances rather than principles’ (Youngs et al., 2023: 5433–5434). This type of kindness is often seen in everyday interactions where people act out of empathy but still conform to widely accepted behaviours and standards, like offering comfort to someone in distress because it is seen as the right or expected thing to do.

Emotional adjustments tend to relate more to the emotional and physical experience of the litigant. They are context-specific, relying on the Commissioner's observations and experiences during proceedings. They may include autonomous, emotionally driven actions (Affective-Proactive Kindness) that consider a litigant's feelings and needs, and empathetic, reactive responses to circumstances (Affective-Socially Prescribed Kindness). For example, Affective-Proactive Kindness might involve a Commissioner intuitively recognising a litigant's anxiety and offering reassurance to help reduce their emotional burden. In Affective-Socially Prescribed Kindness, Commissioners might acknowledge a neurodivergent litigant's emotional state and respond with compassion, offering a moment to collect themselves or showing understanding during a particularly difficult part of the process.

For neurodivergent litigants, kindness is particularly important as it helps reduce cognitive and emotional barriers, builds trust, promotes understanding, and enhances their ability to fully participate in proceedings. The benefits for neurodivergent litigants include an improved user experience through reduced anxiety and clearer communication, as well as enhanced trust and engagement in the conciliation process. Any process that reduces anxiety and improves communication has the capacity to improve participation for all litigants. For the QIRC, kindness may lead to increased resolution rates at conciliation, allowing Commissioners to focus on more complex matters, improving efficiency, reducing strain on resources, and encouraging a positive perception of the QIRC's accessibility and fairness.

Potential harm and unintended consequences

This study focusses on the potential benefits of kindness, but we note there is also the potential for harm and unintended consequences. In applying kindness, it is critical that the QIRC is conscious of the need to maintain the autonomy of neurodivergent litigants, which is essential to ensuring accommodations are empowering rather than paternalistic (Ryan et al., 2024; Shogren and Raley, 2022). Approaches that impose decisions or assume a ‘fix-it’ mentality risk perpetuating harmful power imbalances, undermining trust, and disregarding the lived experiences of neurodivergent individuals (Acevedo and Stolz, 2024). These risks are rooted in a history of medicalisation and deficit-based narratives that have often sought to ‘correct’ neurodivergence, stripping individuals of their agency and reinforcing systemic barriers (Acevedo and Stolz, 2024). Further, uninvited acts of kindness, while often well-intentioned, can inadvertently make neurodivergent individuals feel like they are a problem (Acevedo and Stolz, 2024), or cause them to experience humiliation, shame, victim blaming, pity, condescension or dependency (Forester, 2021: 73). They may feel patronised, different, or like ‘passive recipients of support without the ability to make their own choices and decisions’ (Unwin, 2018: 14).

In establishing a set of potential adjustments or accommodations, it is crucial that the QIRC adopts a thoughtful, respectful and informed approach that empowers neurodivergent litigants (Ryan et al., 2024; Shogren and Raley, 2022). Ideally, the QIRC would have the opportunity to engage directly with each litigant to understand their unique needs. Commissioners can take a leadership role in ensuring that neurodivergent individuals are active participants in identifying their preferred adjustments or accommodations, acknowledging their capacity to determine their own needs (Acevedo and Stolz, 2024). This can be achieved by creating space for neurodivergent litigants to guide their own accommodations and create an environment where their input is valued and acted upon. In this context, the application of kindness may involve Commissioners being attuned to observable behaviours or traits of neurodivergent litigants, as well as any specific accommodations or adjustments they request. It is important to note that the ability for litigants to make such requests could be supported by the QIRC introducing a formal mechanism, similar to those already in place for language interpretation or remote appearances, to ensure that neurodivergent litigants have an accessible way to communicate their needs (O’Connor, 2021a, 2021b).

Neurodivergent litigants and dispute resolution

We begin by discussing key terms essential to understanding the experiences of neurodivergent individuals: neurodiversity, neurotypical, and neurodivergent. These definitions provide the foundation for examining how neurodivergence manifests in the context of dispute resolution, specifically within conciliations at the QIRC. We then examine the prevalence of neurodivergence in the Australian population. Finally, we consider the unique challenges that individuals with specific forms of neurodivergence – autism spectrum, ADHD, dyslexia, and tic disorders – may face in navigating the conciliation process, and highlight how these conditions can affect communication, engagement, and participation.

Neurodiversity, neurotypical, and neurodivergent

The language related to neurodiversity is constantly evolving (Doyle, 2024: 26–27; Hamilton and Petty, 2023: 3). ‘Neurodiversity’ is a term that includes both ‘neurotypical’ and ‘neurodivergent’ individuals (Wise, 2023: 16–17). It refers to the whole human species and recognises that everyone's brain develops and works in different ways (Doyle, 2024: 15). The term ‘neurotypical’ refers to individuals who are not neurodivergent and who appear to conform with societal norms in terms of brain and behavioural function (Doyle, 2024: 15; Wise, 2023: 18). In contrast, ‘neurodivergent’ is generally used as an umbrella term referring to individuals with diagnosed or undiagnosed autism (Lewis, 2018: 14–16), and/or a broad spectrum of neurocognitive conditions such as ADHD (Able et al., 2007: 98), dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, epilepsy, Tourette syndrome, tic disorders, and other learning, emotional or behavioural disorders (Colombo-Dougovito et al., 2020: 500; Doyle, 2024: 17; Lollini, 2018: 71; Wise, 2023: 17). Neurodivergence can be invisible or hidden, in that symptoms or behaviours may not be observable to others, or may not be observable in all contexts, and this brings challenges for employers supporting employees, and to the way courts or tribunals, like the QIRC, can ensure effective participation in dispute resolution (Ahtoy, 2024; Bérubé, 2023).

In this article, parties appearing before the Commission who may be on the autism spectrum or have conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or tic disorders, regardless of whether they have a formal diagnosis, are referred to as ‘neurodivergent litigants’. Neurodivergent litigants may struggle to effectively participate in dispute resolution processes for many reasons, including emotional (dys)regulation, environmental sensitivities, sensory issues, stress associated with formal legal processes, and barriers related to communication styles or preferences (Doyle, 2024; Hirsch et al., 2018: 41–42; Hutchinson and Hutchinson, 2020; Patton and Santuzzi, 2024). While the term ‘neurodivergent’ is adopted in this article as a broad and inclusive descriptor, we note ‘there is a vast spectrum of disability types and functional limitations’ represented by the term (Dahunsi et al., 2024: 208), and there may also be ‘diversity of ability within the [neurodivergent] individual as well as between the individual and their peers’ (Doyle, 2024: 16).

This article focusses on the challenges faced by neurodivergent litigants, but it is important to acknowledge that neurodivergence also brings valuable strength-based characteristics and perspectives (Patton and Santuzzi, 2024: 3). Neurodivergence may be ‘both a talent and a burden’; while neurodivergent individuals may experience social, learning or communication difficulties, they are often ‘highly intelligent, honest, authentic, hyper-focused, innovative, skilled in various forms of perception, reliable and resilient’ (Doyle, 2024: 16).

Neurodivergence and QIRC dispute resolution

Limited data exists on the prevalence of neurodivergence in the Australian population, but as awareness increases and access to diagnoses improves, the number of identified neurodivergent individuals continues to rise (Lollini, 2018: 80). Estimates include the Australian Bureau of Statistics (‘ABS’) report in 2018 that 20% of Australians identified as having a mental or behavioural condition, including (but not limited to) neurodivergence (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). In 2022, the ABS reported that 11% of the more than 120,000 workers surveyed in the Australian Public Service Employee Census identified as neurodivergent (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Other figures suggest one in eight Australians (12.5%) is neurodivergent (Monash Health, 2023). Given the prevalence of neurodivergence in the general population (Australasian ADHD Professions Association, 2022: 6; Hutchinson and Hutchinson, 2020; Law Council of Australia, 2017: 1; Peterson and Seligman, 2004: 2, 9), it is likely that a considerable number of individuals who appear before the QIRC will be neurodivergent.

Most dispute resolution proceedings at the QIRC are compulsorily required by law (see, e.g. Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 318, 507C, 547C, 262(3); Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) Ch 7 Pt 1 Div 3; Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Pt 4 Div 2 Sd 4) and generally follow a traditional facilitated structure (Boulle and Field, 2018: 67–95; QIRC, 2022). Conciliations take place in a formal conference room setting, providing a comfortable and neutral environment for all parties. These conference rooms are modern, professional and spacious, and typically include traditional fluorescent lighting, neutral walls, neutral carpet, conference tables and chairs, and additional natural lighting through windows. An example of a typical conference room used for conciliation at the QIRC in Brisbane is shown in Figure 1. While there is nothing inherently wrong with these spaces, they have not been specifically designed with neurodivergent individuals in mind, meaning certain aspects, such as sensory stimuli or the physical layout, may not fully accommodate the needs of those with neurodivergent conditions.

Figure 1.

Example of a conference room used for QIRC conciliations.

The presentation of neurodivergent litigants in the dispute resolution context varies greatly. As there is generally no intake process, the first opportunity for a Commissioner to engage with litigants, and anticipate or respond to their needs, is when meeting the parties at the start of a conciliation conference (Boyle, 2024: 71). Effective communication is fundamental to the success of dispute resolution proceedings; however, cognitive differences may pose challenges for neurodivergent litigants, affecting their ability to communicate, manage emotions, and stay engaged in the process. Additionally, these litigants may face difficulties in meeting the expectations of the other party or the Commissioner regarding appropriate conduct. This may present challenges for all persons involved in the dispute resolution. If neurodivergent litigants are unable to effectively participate in a conciliation, they may experience poor outcomes, abandon the system, or become entangled in lengthy litigation (Law Council of Australia, 2017: 3).

The wide range of neurodivergent conditions makes it challenging to pinpoint consistent traits or behaviours among individuals who may appear before the QIRC, as these traits can present differently depending on the person's specific condition and the context in which they are interacting. As described earlier, for the purposes of this article we have focussed on four of the most common neurodivergent conditions: autism spectrum, ADHD, dyslexia, and tic disorders (Colombo-Dougovito et al., 2020: 500–502; Lollini, 2018: 71).

Autism spectrum

Individuals on the autism spectrum may face unique challenges in dispute resolution settings due to difficulties with social communication and understanding others’ perspectives. They may face challenges including difficulties expressing emotions, predicting outcomes, maintaining sustained attention, not interrupting during the process, and maintaining impulse control (Doley, 2016: 150). These challenges can hinder their ability to interpret the ‘beliefs, desires, intentions, and thoughts’ of themselves and others, which is essential for predicting behaviour and navigating the interpersonal dynamics of conciliation (Doley, 2016: 150). These difficulties may lead to misunderstandings or perceptions that they lack empathy or fail to appreciate the interests of the other party. Additionally, struggles with social communication may result in behaviours such as interrupting or talking over others, which could disrupt proceedings and create tension (Doley, 2016: 150). Anxiety, particularly in new situations, can further exacerbate these difficulties, making it harder for individuals on the autism spectrum to navigate the unspoken social rules governing dispute resolution processes (Doley, 2016: 150). These factors, individually or combined, can impact all litigants’ capacity to participate effectively, engage meaningfully, and for the process to achieve an equitable outcome.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Litigants with ADHD may encounter significant challenges in dispute resolution proceedings, stemming from characteristics such as impulsivity, inattentiveness and hyperactivity (ADHD Aware, 2024; Australasian ADHD Professions Association, 2022). Impulsivity and rapid decision-making may make it difficult for them to thoughtfully consider a range of alternatives or evaluate options generated during conciliation (Australasian ADHD Professions Association, 2022: 49). Hyperactivity and restlessness can interfere with their ability to stay present and focused throughout lengthy discussions, while inattentiveness may cause them to miss key details or instructions. Emotional dysregulation, which is increasingly recognised as a core symptom of ADHD (Doyle, 2024: 15; Hirsch et al., 2018: 42, 46), may heighten their frustration or stress levels in contentious or high-pressure situations, potentially derailing the resolution process. Other traits may include ‘restlessness, … lack of time awareness, poor working memory, disorganisation, forgetfulness and distraction’, all of which have the potential to affect the way a neurodivergent litigant engages with dispute resolution processes (Australasian ADHD Professions Association, 2022: 13). Together, these challenges can undermine the ability of a litigant with ADHD to engage effectively in dispute resolution, advocate for their position, and for the process to achieve a fair outcome for all.

Dyslexia

Dyslexia, which primarily impacts reading, writing, and language processing, can also present significant challenges for individuals participating in dispute resolution proceedings. Individuals with dyslexia, who are often described as having ‘intrinsic challenges in reading, spelling, time awareness, and rote memory’, may face significant obstacles in effectively engaging with the heavily text-based materials commonly presented during conciliations (Fung, 2024: 50). Documents such as applications, affidavits, and statements of facts and contentions often require precise comprehension, retention, and analysis, which can be particularly challenging for those with dyslexia. Struggles with reading fluency and accuracy may slow down their ability to process complex legal documents, while difficulties with rote memory can make it harder to recall details or follow procedural steps. Additionally, time awareness challenges may affect their ability to meet deadlines or maintain focus during proceedings, further impacting their capacity to participate fully and advocate for their position. These barriers can lead to increased stress and frustration, potentially compromising the fairness and effectiveness of the conciliation process for both individuals with dyslexia and other parties.

Tic disorders

Individuals with Tic disorders, such as Tourette syndrome, may also encounter distinct challenges in dispute resolution proceedings due to the nature of their condition. Involuntary motor or vocal tics, twitches or noises (Doyle, 2024: 18) may draw unwanted attention, disrupt the flow of discussions, or be misinterpreted by others as intentionally disruptive behaviour. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2024), tics can be classified as simple or complex, with simple tics being brief, repetitive movements such as eye blinking, laughing, facial grimacing, shoulder shrugging, or throat clearing. Complex tics involve coordinated patterns of movement or vocalisations, such as hopping, jumping, twisting, or repeating words or phrases, including potentially offensive language. Some tics may also result in self-harm, such as punching oneself in the face, and may be accompanied by an urge or sensation compelling the individual to complete the movement in a certain way or number of times (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2024).

A litigant with a tic disorder may find traditional seating arrangements challenging if, for example, their tic is complex and involves the lower limbs or involves movements such as hopping or jumping. A litigant who has a tic disorder may also struggle with processing verbal or visual information, or need more time to respond to questions, due to the compulsion to complete a tic to relieve the urge or decrease the sensation (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2024). The effort required to suppress or manage tics during proceedings can be mentally and physically exhausting, detracting from the litigant's ability to focus on dispute resolution. Further, emotional stress, which is a common trigger for tics, may exacerbate tics and make it harder for a litigant to engage fully, articulate their perspectives, or respond effectively to complex or contentious discussions (Martino and Pringsheim, 2018: 126).

A litigant with a Tic disorder may also feel anxious or embarrassed about how their tics are perceived by other parties or the Commissioner, and feel vulnerable to discrimination or victimisation (Martino and Pringsheim, 2018: 127–128). The other party in a dispute resolution process may find the presentation of tics uncomfortable due to their unpredictable and involuntary nature, which can be distracting or startling. This can lead to misunderstandings or stigmatisation (Martino and Pringsheim, 2018: 127), potentially straining the dynamics of the conciliation and creating discomfort or negative perceptions that make it more difficult for the individual with the tic disorder to fully participate in the process. These factors can impact their capacity to achieve equitable outcomes in a process that demands sustained attention and effective communication.

Embedding kindness in QIRC conciliations

In this section, we provide an overview of the role of the QIRC and consider practical strategies for embedding kindness into QIRC conciliations. We focus on both adjustments Commissioners can implement immediately and longer-term measures that the QIRC might consider. By examining the potential adjustments that can be made in the short term, such as providing sensory accommodations or creating a more flexible approach to communication, the QIRC can begin immediately to provide a more supportive environment for neurodivergent litigants. We will also discuss longer-term strategies, including a legal design approach, to help the QIRC develop a more comprehensive framework for accommodating diverse needs in future. The QIRC is a high-volume jurisdiction and Commissioners have extensive caseloads meaning that there is limited time for individual case management. However, this article aims to make recommendations that are simple, effective, high-yield strategies that individual Commissioners may consider, acknowledging that some adjustments may require further consideration as part of our recommended legal design project or broader academic research.

Building on this, while the proposed strategies are intended to improve accessibility and promote cognitive and emotional kindness, we acknowledge that invisible or undisclosed disabilities present practical challenges for Commissioners and other legal service providers. Conciliation and hearing processes operate within practical and procedural boundaries, for example, the time allocated for conciliation is typically 2.5 hours, and adjustments that extend proceedings may affect the rights, waiting times, and costs borne by other parties.

Accordingly, we do not assert that all adjustments are possible or that Commissioners should identify needs in the absence of disclosure or observable cues; nor do we suggest that kindness alone can remedy every barrier experienced by neurodivergent litigants. Rather, the article focuses on neurodivergent participants who are aware of their preferred communication or adjustment needs and are willing to disclose them, while recognising that some litigants may be undiagnosed, choose not to disclose, or present without outward indicators of cognitive difference. In these situations, the role of the Commissioner is not to diagnose, but to remain attuned to opportunities where small acts of cognitive or emotional kindness may assist any party. Many of the design features we propose align with universal design principles, meaning that even when applied without specific diagnosis or disclosure, they hold potential to benefit all litigants (Cole et al., 2024; Leshkov et al., 2024).

Broader questions concerning how Commissions should respond where no cues are present, or how adjustments might be systematised without compromising procedural fairness, are beyond the scope of this article; however, they form a critical foundation for the legal design research project we recommend.

Role of the QIRC

The QIRC is established as a court of record in Queensland pursuant to s 429 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (‘the Act’). It performs a range of functions aimed at ensuring fair and just employment conditions, promoting productive workplace relations, and resolving employment disputes. Under the Act, its key responsibilities include establishing and maintaining modern awards, supervising and certifying agreements, assisting parties in negotiating and resolving industrial matters, addressing dismissal claims, and resolving disputes through conciliation and arbitration. Each year, the QIRC conducts approximately 1000 dispute resolution proceedings (Justice Peter Davis, 2024: 12). In 2023–2024, there were 1253 listings for proceedings, including 263 hearings and approximately 990 conciliations (Justice Peter Davis, 2024: 12). While specifically relating to Fair Work Claims, section 507C(6) of the Act provides a helpful description of the purposes of conciliation, being to promote agreement between the parties by resolving as many issues as possible, narrowing the scope of disputes, and striving for a timely, cost-effective, and proportionate resolution of the fair work claim whenever possible. Conciliations allow the QIRC to assist parties in resolving conflicts by encouraging open dialogue and facilitating negotiated outcomes. As opposed to an arbitration, or a hearing where the Commission determines an outcome and makes orders, conciliation offers an opportunity to explore options and for parties to determine a mutually satisfactory outcome or to agree on certain aspects of the dispute leaving only those matters still in contention to be decided by the Commission.

The dispute resolution processes at the QIRC, like many other systems and institutions, have developed on the (probably unconscious) assumption that litigants are neurotypical (ADHD Aware, 2024). Recognising that many litigants may be neurodivergent, even without a formal diagnosis, and embedding kindness in proceedings may reduce both attitudinal and environment barriers to participation (Owren and Stenhammer, 2013: 33). While there is some debate about the role of empathy, compassion, and kindness in the law (Feenan, 2017: 134–137), dispute resolution offers an ideal context for their application, as it occurs at a stage of proceedings where no binding legal decisions are being made. It is also a stage when the facilitator has wide discretion in their approach, allowing the conciliator to ‘adopt any procedure that will, in the conciliator's opinion, enable the conciliator to perform the conciliator's functions’ (see, e.g. Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 507E and 547E). In this context, kindness is not particularly controversial, rather it sits comfortably with the well-established concepts of building empathy, trust, and rapport in dispute resolution (Boyle, 2024: 36, 47, 51; Duffy, 2010: 44; Poitras, 2009: 307, 309; Richards, 2023: 222).

The introduction of kindness in the context of conciliations has the potential to transform the dispute resolution experience for neurodivergent litigants by improving access to justice, reducing stress, and encouraging greater participation and engagement in the conciliation process. As well as improving the user experience for neurodivergent litigants, the application of kindness has the potential to resolve more employment disputes at an early stage, or at least narrow the issues in dispute, freeing Commissioners to address more complex matters at formal hearings. As mentioned earlier, in 2023–2024 there were 263 hearings at the QIRC (Justice Peter Davis, 2024: 12). If the number of hearings can be reduced, the Commission is likely to be more efficient in delivering outcomes of arbitrated matters.

What can Commissioners do now?

When facilitating dispute resolution with individuals who have social communication challenges or atypical thinking, Commissioners may need to adapt their approach to better meet the needs of those involved (Doley, 2016: 157). There are several strategies Commissioners can implement now to create a more inclusive and supportive environment for neurodivergent litigants. Commissioners are already skilled in responding to people and events within proceedings as they unfold. To enhance their ability to support neurodivergent litigants, they could be provided with a toolkit of strategies, which could evolve over time.

The QIRC might explore ways to better support neurodivergent litigants, including providing the option for litigants to self-identify as neurodivergent, voluntarily disclose relevant information, and request any adjustments they feel would be helpful. It may be preferable for this to sit within a broader suite of adjustment options, for example, by including a question to litigants such as: ‘Do you require accommodations for a physical disability, neurodivergence, language interpretation, remote appearances, or any other support needs?’ We acknowledge more broadly that issues associated with privacy or sensitive information, such as those related to self-identification, ought to be investigated during the proposed QIRC legal design project or further academic research. Further, the QIRC may provide information about possible accommodations to litigants ahead of time, allowing them to understand their options in advance, and reducing the chance they will either overlook potential accommodations or assume the QIRC cannot meet their needs. Through proactive strategies that prioritise collaboration and respect, the QIRC can create an inclusive, non-paternalistic framework that both respects and supports the autonomy of neurodivergent litigants.

A list of strategies is provided below as a starting point, offering practical approaches for Commissioners to consider when engaging individuals who present with traits that suggest neurodivergence or when a litigant self-identifies as neurodivergent. Ideally, the list may be treated as a QIRC living document, with additional adjustment options added by Commissioners over time. The list of strategies below includes examples of both cognitive and emotional kindness set out as a suite of possible adjustments or ‘helpful acts’ that might better support neurodivergent litigants in the conciliation process (Hake and Post, 2023: 5; Youngs et al., 2023: 5428).

The first list outlines adjustments grounded in the principles of cognitive kindness that Commissioners can use to provide immediate, practical support by ensuring clear communication practices, flexible, inclusive processes, and procedural transparency. These include simple, readily applicable strategies, as well as examples of adjustments that, while requiring some additional preparation or coordination, could be implemented relatively quickly to enhance inclusivity and accessibility:

Set the scene: provide clear pre-conciliation information about what to expect in conciliation, including non-text-based information such as images or videos;

Pre-conciliation self-identification: consider the inclusion of a section in QIRC pre-conciliation forms with options for self-identification as neurodivergent, along with a space for litigants to outline any other specific needs or adjustments they may wish to request;

Litigant input: create ‘space’ for neurodivergent litigants to guide their own accommodations by inviting their input at the beginning of the conciliation or during the days or weeks leading up to the conciliation (Acevedo and Stolz, 2024);

Visual schedule: provide flowcharts, timelines or visual aids to support the Commissioner's oral opening statement and explain the process step-by-step;

Set communication expectations: provide clear boundaries and expectations about aspects of dispute resolution ‘that are typically left implied’ (Doley, 2016: 156), such as expected behaviours during discussions, turn-taking in conversation, non-verbal communication cues, levels of formality, personal space and physical boundaries, emotional responses, or use of technology or aids;

Inclusion statement: provide an inclusion statement at the commencement of proceedings (ABC iview, 2024: 12:25–12:45). An inclusion statement is a formal declaration of an organisation's commitment to recognising, respecting, and accommodating neurodivergent individuals. It affirms their right to equitable participation, outlines supportive practices, and promotes a culture of understanding and accessibility;

Document accessibility: review conciliation-related documents that are provided to litigants to ensure they are clear and accessible, use plain language, and avoid legal jargon;

Alternative communication options: offer alternative communication methods, like allowing a litigant to submit a written response instead of speaking during a conciliation or employing visual aids to represent various aspects of the matter in dispute and potential outcomes;

Clarify through repetition: repeat instructions, questions or parts of discussions as necessary;

Ongoing checking for understanding: provide opportunities throughout the conciliation for parties to reflect and explain in their own words (verbal, written, visual) what they understand as to what is being said and agreed;

Summarise key points: provide written summaries of key points discussed during the conciliation on, for example, paper, a whiteboard, or sticky notes;

Use multiple formats: present information in multiple modes (i.e. orally and visually);

Adjust pace: slow down the conciliation process to address breakdowns in communication (Doley, 2016: 156);

Prioritise breaks: allow for regular breaks or additional processing time to reduce stress and cognitive fatigue;

Private guidance: provide guidance in a private session regarding social communication aspects of a formal conciliation (Doley, 2016: 156). This may be possible during existing private sessions between the Commissioner and each party;

Debriefing: offer brief post-conciliation follow-ups to ensure parties understand outcomes and next steps; and

Specialised dispute resolution: establish a specialised list where matters are allocated to Commissioners with an interest in working with neurodivergent litigants. For example, the Melbourne Magistrates Court operates a specialised court list designed to meet the needs of persons including those with autism spectrum disorder and/or neurological impairment (Law Council of Australia, 2017: 3, 55).

This second list highlights adjustments rooted in the principles of emotional kindness, aimed at fostering a supportive and empathetic environment for neurodivergent litigants. These adjustments include actions that Commissioners can apply immediately to create a sensory-friendly environment, build trust and reduce anxiety, as well as measures that may take additional planning but could be implemented over time to create a more emotionally inclusive and understanding dispute resolution process:

Lighting: adjust lighting (noting conference rooms at the Commission have both natural light and adjustable lighting);

Furniture: consider the presence and organisation of furniture, and offer breakout spaces if needed (noting litigants will be introduced to a breakout room that they may use when the Commissioner meets privately with the other party);

Noise: reduce background noise and allow noise-cancelling headphones, noting that many headphones or earbuds are adjustable to cancel out background noise or other distracting sounds to allow the wearer to focus on what is being said by the speaker (Bruyère and Colella, 2024);

Snack breaks: provide snack or drink breaks (noting water is readily available), particularly given some medications, such as those used for ADHD, may cause stomach upset and a dry mouth (Mannion, 2023);

Sensory supports: allow fidget toys or drawing/sketching during proceedings (this could occur by invitation or by making items available at the side of the room for litigants to access if they wish);

Devices: approve the use of technological devices (which may require an amendment to existing QIRC practice directions) (Davis, 2021) to support participation, for purposes such as note-taking or reminders, assistive communication, calming tools, and viewing or interacting with visual aids, questions or forms;

Emotional support: offer emotional reassurance and compassion to a litigant who appears to be anxious, confused or experiencing a sensory overload. This might include offering them a moment to collect themselves or simply showing understanding; and

Highlight strengths: focus on identified strengths of those with neurodivergent conditions by, for example, acknowledging a litigant's creative problem-solving, honest and direct communication, intense focus, empathy, attention to detail, or resilience.

Next steps for the QIRC

To improve its ability to support neurodivergent litigants in the future, we recommend the QIRC adopt a legal design approach. Legal design is a ‘human-centred approach to legal problem-solving and legal innovation’ (Kohlmeier and Klemola, 2021: 6). With its human-centred approach grounded in empathy, legal design can be used to identify creative and innovative ways to embed kindness in dispute resolution processes at the QIRC. It offers a rigorous methodology that is well suited to developing, testing and refining fuzzy concepts like acts of kindness, which involve a psychological state based on both empathy and compassion, and actions or the expression of kindness (Peterson and Seligman, 2004: 325, 334; Youngs et al., 2023: 5429). Legal design follows an iterative process, beginning with empathy to understand both the people involved and the challenges they face, then defining the problem that needs to be addressed (Brown, 2009: 18, 52; Hagan, n.d.: 3; Schuck and Fung, 2024: 5). This is followed by ideation, where designers apply curiosity and creativity to identify innovative ways to address the problem, and then developing prototypes and testing them with users (Brown, 2009: 18; Hagan, n.d.). As a human-centred approach, the legal designer centres their mindset and the design process around the user(s), making the users’ ‘needs and goals [the] lodestar for decision making’ (Hagan, n.d.).

To explore how the QIRC might provide further support to neurodivergent litigants, we propose undertaking a legal design project aimed at establishing a clear policy position. This initiative would focus on how kindness, in both cognitive and emotional forms, might inform meaningful reforms, adjustments or accommodations, or additional resourcing. Initially, we recommend members of the QIRC convene to define the project's scope and clarify objectives, timelines and the desired outcomes of embedding kindness in dispute resolution processes. As part of this process, it would be helpful to undertake an internal review to identify any existing gaps, constraints or barriers in supporting neurodivergent litigants.

Beyond this, we propose the QIRC undertake a legal design session, run as a collaborative workshop involving a range of stakeholders, including Commissioners, other QIRC staff, neurodivergent individuals, union or employer advocates, and legal practitioners or interested parties. It is particularly important that a selection of neurodivergent individuals are included in this process, as not only are they the ‘users’ in this context, but it is essential to allowing a sense of agency, autonomy and humanity in allowing potential recipients of support to have a voice and be actively engaged in making choices and decisions about services, rather than treated as passive recipients of support (Acevedo and Stolz, 2024; Unwin, 2018: 14).

In line with the legal design methodology, the legal design session would involve identifying ‘pain points’ faced by neurodivergent litigants within the QIRC (empathise and define), co-designing practical tools, accommodations, communication strategies or procedural enhancements (ideation), then developing solutions for creating more inclusive conciliation practices. Participants would then develop prototypes (where relevant) for processes or tools that accommodate neurodivergence, such as communication frameworks, adaptable procedural guidelines, suggested changes to practice directions, or even recommend legislative reform (prototyping). As a high-volume jurisdiction with limited resources, the QIRC must ensure that proposed reforms are practical, feasible and viable. As ideas are developed, trialling prototypes with neurodivergent individuals involved in the legal design session, in ‘moot’ style conciliation conferences, or by integrating select prototypes into actual conciliations on a pilot basis, would provide valuable opportunities for testing and refinement (testing).

As a first step, we recommend the QIRC convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders to define the project's scope, establish terms of reference, set a clear timeline for implementation, and identify key priorities, resources, and potential challenges. This meeting should include Commissioners, union or employer advocates, legal practitioners or interested parties, neurodivergent individuals, and experts in legal design to ensure a diverse range of perspectives. By adopting a collaborative approach, the QIRC can lay the groundwork for meaningful and sustainable improvements that will strengthen Commissioners’ capacity to deliver just and inclusive outcomes.

The authors foreshadow a further research agenda in workplace and industrial matters coming before courts and tribunals. For example, it is possible that neurodivergent persons may be over-represented in QIRC conciliations, as either employers or employees, however, there is no existing data in relation to this. It is also possible that neurodivergent persons may be more likely to be part of particular types of disputes, and more data is needed to understand how effectively employers are able to accommodate and support neurodivergence. Beyond the QIRC, the application of kindness in legal contexts has many potential benefits and requires further research.

Conclusion

The QIRC conducts a significant number of dispute resolution proceedings each year. As neurodivergence becomes more recognised throughout the general population, there is an increasing need to ensure that neurodivergent litigants are adequately accommodated in conciliations. These litigants often face barriers – such as communication difficulties, sensory activities, and emotional stress – that hinder their full engagement in the dispute resolution process.

This article has argued that kindness – conceived as an empathetic and respectful mindset, expressed through proactive and kind actions – can transform the conciliation process for neurodivergent (and all) litigants. Embedding kindness within the QIRC's dispute resolution processes offers dual benefits: enhancing the accessibility and fairness of the process for litigants, while also increasing administrative efficiency by facilitating earlier and more successful resolutions at the conciliation stage.

We have proposed a range of practical strategies for Commissioners and the QIRC to embed kindness in practice. While some strategies may be adopted immediately by individual Commissioners, it is recommended that the QIRC consider undertaking a collaborative legal design project involving key stakeholders to further refine and develop these strategies. Ultimately, kindness serves as a foundation for creating a more accessible, fair, and effective system for resolving employment disputes, benefiting both neurodivergent (and all) litigants and the broader QIRC process.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Samantha Pidgeon

Rachel Hews

Consent to participate

Not applicable. There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not required.

Consent for publication

contains two images of a QIRC conference room. The authors have received written informed consent from QIRC Registrar Madonna Shelley to publish these images.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The article does not contain empirical data. Data in relation to QIRC listings is available publicly and has been referenced.

Author biographies

Samantha Pidgeon is an Industrial Commissioner at the QIRC and a QUT Law graduate with First Class Honours (2024). This article builds on work initiated with Rachel in 2023, developed further through her supervised research project in 2024, and later expanded collaboratively for publication. It forms the foundation of ongoing and important work Samantha is progressing within the QIRC.

Rachel Hews is a Senior Lecturer in the Law School, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology (QUT). She established Australia's first undergraduate unit in Law and Design Thinking in 2019 and has a long-standing interest in embedding kindness and empathy into legal process, system design and public policy. She and Samantha began this project in early 2023 and have taken great delight in developing it through research, collaboration and refinement into the article now published.

References

ABC iview (2024) The assembly: Series 1 episode 1 Sam Neill. 1. Available at: https://iview.abc.net.au/show/assembly/series/1/video/DO2333H001S00 (accessed 19 December 2024).

Able

Johnston

Adler

, et al. (2007) Functional and psychosocial impairment in adults with undiagnosed ADHD. Psychological Medicine 37(1): 97–107.

Acevedo

Stolz

(2024) On the misuses of neurodiversity: Critical approaches and counter-narratives. Autism in adulthood. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. Epub ahead of print 5 December 2024. DOI: 10.1089/aut.2024.0016.

ADHD Aware (2024) ADHD symptoms. Available at: https://adhdaware.org.uk/what-is-adhd/adhd-symptoms/ (accessed 19 December 2024).

Ahtoy

(2024) Behind the hidden struggles linked to invisible disabilities. Understanding their impact to increase mental health awareness for enhanced professional care. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 32: 101016.

Angelou

(2020) Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/MayaAngelou/posts/do-the-best-you-can-until-you-know-better-then-when-you-know-better-do-better-ma/10159851479639796/ (accessed 20 December 2024).

Australasian ADHD Professions Association (2022) Australian evidence-based clinical guideline for attention deficity hyperactivty disorder (ADHD). 1st ed. Available at: https://adhdguideline.aadpa.com.au/(accessed 18 December 2024).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Mental health. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/mental-health/mental-health/latest-release (accessed 18 December 2024).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022) APS employee census 2022 |. Australian Public Service Commission, 10 November. Available at: https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/workforce-information/research-analysis-and-publications/aps-employee-census-2022 (accessed 18 December 2024).

10.

Bérubé

(2023) Hidden challenges: An invisible disabilities learning activity. Organization Management Journal 21(1): 19–25.

11.

Boulle

Field

(2018) Mediation in Australia. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Available at: https://store.lexisnexis.com.au/product?product=mediation-in-australia-ebook&meta_F_and=9780409347371 (accessed 18 December 2024).

12.

Boyle

(2024) Court-annexed mediation: Why it works and the implications for case management. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 33(1): 61–72. Thomson Reuters.

13.

Brown

(2009) Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins - US.

14.

Bruyère

Colella

(2024) Workplace accommodations and neurodiversity. In: Patton

Santuzzi

(eds) Neurodiversity and work: Employment, identity, and support networks for neurominorities. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 181–205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55072-0_9 (accessed 19 December 2024).

15.

Cole

Graham

Norvell

, et al. (2024) Universal design for learning principles impact on students with neurodiverse learning styles. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education 8: 2.

16.

Colombo-Dougovito

Dillon

Mpofu

(2020) The wellbeing of people with neurodiverse conditions. In: Mpofu

(eds) Sustainable community health: Systems and practices in diverse settings. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 499–535. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59687-3_15 (accessed 18 December 2024).

17.

Comer

(2024) Because it’s the right thing to do: Autism in the workplace as an ethical imperative. In: Patton

Santuzzi

(eds) Neurodiversity and work: Employment, identity, and support networks for neurominorities. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 107–128. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55072-0_6 (accessed 19 December 2024).

18.

Dahunsi

Robinson

Parks

, et al. (2024) How a DEI climate can enable allies and support people who are neurodivergent. In: Patton

Santuzzi

(eds) Neurodiversity and work: Employment, identity, and support networks for neurominorities. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 207–230. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55072-0_10 (accessed 18 December 2024).

19.

Davis

(2021) PD 5 of 2021: Electronic devices in courtrooms. QIRC. Available at: https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/practice-directions (accessed 19 December 2024).

20.

Doley

(2016) Working in ADR with disputants on the autism spectrum. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 27(3): 150–157.

21.

Doyle

(2024) Defining neurodiversity and identifying neurominorities. In: Patton E and Santuzzi AM (eds). Springer Nature, pp. 13–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55072-0_2 (accessed 18 December 2024).

22.

Duffy

(2010) Empathy, neutrality and emotional intelligence: A balancing act for the emotional Einstein. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 10: 44.

23.

Feenan

(2017) Law and compassion. International Journal of Law in Context 13(2): 121–142.

24.

Forester

(2021) Our curious silence about kindness in planning: Challenges of addressing vulnerability and suffering. Planning Theory 20(1): 63–83. SAGE Publications.

25.

Fung

(2024) Strengths-based models and neurodiversity. In: Patton

Santuzzi

(eds) Neurodiversity and work: Employment, identity, and support networks for neurominorities. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 39–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55072-0_3 (accessed 19 December 2024).

26.

Gensler

(2013) Ethics and the golden rule. New York: Routledge.

27.

Gerdy

(2008) Clients, empathy, and compassion: Introducing first-year students to the ‘heart’ of lawyering. Nebraska Law Review 87(1): 1–61.

28.

Hagan

(n.d) Law by design. Online. United States. Available at: https://lawbydesign.co/ (accessed 20 December 2024).

29.

Hake

Post

(2023) Kindness: Definitions and a pilot study for the development of a kindness scale in healthcare. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0288766. Public Library of Science.

30.

Hamilton

Petty

(2023) Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1–9. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290.

31.

Haskins

Thomas

Johri

(2018) Kindness in leadership. Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

32.

Herring

(2017) Compassion, ethics of care and legal rights. International Journal of Law in Context 13(2): 158–171.

33.

Hirsch

Chavanon

Riechmann

, et al. (2018) Emotional dysregulation is a primary symptom in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Affective Disorders 232: 41–47.

34.

Hutchinson

(2020) It’s time we started talking about neurodiversity in dispute resolution resolution resources. Available at: https://resolutionresources.com.au/our-publications/its-time-we-started-talking-about-neurodiversity-in-dispute-resolution/ (accessed 18 December 2024).

35.

Justice Peter Davis (2024) 2023–2024 annual report of the president of the Industrial Court of Queensland. Annual Report, 23 August. Available at: https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/annual-reports (accessed 17 December 2024).

36.

Kohlmeier

Klemola

(2021) The legal design book: Doing law in the 21st century, 1st ed. United States: Self-published.

37.

Law Council of Australia (2017) The Justice Project: People with disability. Consultation Paper, August.

38.

Leshkov

Dekoninck

Brosnan

, et al. (2024) Evaluating commonalities and variances in inclusive design principles for neurodivergent individuals. In: Gero

(eds) Design computing and cognition’24. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 149–164.

39.

Lewis

(2018) Identifying autism spectrum disorder in undiagnosed adults. The Nurse Practitioner 43(9): 14.

40.

Lollini

(2018) Brain equality: Legal implications of neurodiversity in a comparative perspective. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 51: 69.

41.

Mannion

(2023) Distracted and dehydrated: The link between ADHD and drinking enough water. Available at: https://www.getinflow.io/post/adhd-and-dehydration#adhd-stimulants-and-dehydration (accessed 19 December 2024).

42.

Martino

Pringsheim

(2018) Tourette syndrome and other chronic tic disorders: An update on clinical management. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 18(2): 125–137. Taylor & Francis.

43.

Monash Health (2023) We need you: How neurodivergent people are key to future innovation and positive change. Available at: https://monashhealth.org/latest-news/2023/03/16/we-need-you-how-neurodivergent-people-are-key-to-future-innovation-and-positive-change/ (accessed 18 December 2024).

44.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2024) Tourette syndrome. Available at: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/tourette-syndrome (accessed 19 December 2024).

45.

O’Connor D (2021a) PD 8 of 2021: Taking evidence by telephone or video link. QIRC. Available at: https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/practice-directions.

46.

O’Connor D (2021b) PD 10 of 2021: Interpreters. QIRC. Available at: https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/practice-directions.

47.

Owren

Stenhammer

(2013) Neurodiversity: Accepting autistic difference. Learning Disability Practice 16(4): 32–37.

48.

Oxford English Dictionary (2024) kindness. Available at: https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=kindness (accessed 19 December 2024).

49.

Patton

Santuzzi

(eds) (2024) Neurodiversity and work: Employment, identity, and support networks for neurominorities. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://qut.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma991010786558504001&context=L&vid=61QUT_INST:61QUT&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Neurodiversity%20and%20Work%20Employment,%20Identity,%20and%20Support%20Networks%20for%20Neurominorities&offset=0 (accessed 18 December 2024).

50.

Peterson

Seligman

MEP

(2004) Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

51.

Poitras

(2009) What makes parties trust mediators? Negotiation Journal 25(3): 307–325.

52.

QIRC (2022) Unfair dismissal and reinstatement application guide. Available at: https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/unfair-dismissal (accessed 18 December 2024).

53.

Quintanilla

(2016) Human-centered civil justice design. Penn State Law Review 121: 745.

54.

Rappaport

(2019) ‘Smile more’: Kindling for kindness in the practice of law. Law & Psychology Review 44: 171.

55.

Richards

(2023) Facilitative mediation: An exploration of mediator effectiveness, interventions and available evidence. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 32: 222–231.

56.

Ross

(2021) The kind leader: A practical guide to eliminating fear, creating trust, and leading with kindness. New York: Productivity Press.

57.

Ryan

Brown

Borden

, et al. (2024) Being able to be myself: Understanding autonomy and autonomy-support from the perspectives of autistic adults with intellectual disabilities. Autism 28(12): 3092–3104. SAGE Publications td.

58.

Schuck

Fung

(2024) A dual design thinking – Universal design approach to catalyze neurodiversity advocacy through collaboration among high-schoolers. Frontiers in Psychiatry 14: 1–14. 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1250895.

59.

Shogren

Raley

(2022) Autonomy-supportive environments. In: Shogren

Raley

(eds) Self-determination and causal agency theory: Integrating research into practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 77–84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04260-7_7 (accessed 20 December 2024).

60.

Sossin

(2017) Designing administrative justice. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 34(1): 87–111. Faculty of Law, University of Windsor.

61.

Unwin

(2018) Kindness, emotions and human relationships: The blind spot in public policy. 1 November. United Kingdom: Carnegie UK Trust. Available at: https://carnegieuk.org/publication/kindness-emotions-and-human-relationships-the-blind-spot-in-public-policy/ (accessed 20 December 2024).

62.

Wise

(2023) We’re all neurodiverse: How to build a neurodiversity-affirming future and challenge neuronormativity. London, United Kingdom: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

63.

Youngs

Yaneva

Canter

(2023) Development of a measure of kindness. Current Psychology 42(7): 5428–5440.