Collective labor disputes based on the differences in economic interests between workers and employers can be effectively resolved exclusively through conciliation procedures. Contemporary alternative methods arose mostly due to the necessity to resolve collective labor disputes; mediation for this purpose is applied differently in various countries. National legislation equally provides various means for collective labor dispute resolutions and determines relevant intermediary procedures. An intermediation in a collective labor dispute resolution can be private and/or state-appointed and mandatory or alternative and remains a very perspective means of alternative dispute resolution. An analysis of different countries’ legislation distinguishes several common features of intermediation in collective labor disputes, concerning mainly the goals, objectives and principles. For bodies and persons conducting intermediation, the degree of compulsion in their decisions varies greatly from country to country. However, the obtained experience reveals common and distinctive procedural features and provides the possibility to classify existing approaches, having combined them into groups. The analysis also follows general development trends of collective labor dispute intermediation in different countries and identifies several shortcomings that are characteristic to different systems of intermediation legal regulation. Further research on the most effective ways of collective labor dispute conciliation is necessary for establishing new harmonious labor relations as the grounds for social progress.