Search results

To date, grievance research has made little use of behavioural concepts developed in the literature on organisational conflict. Such concepts form the basis for a model of grievance behaviour that relates the sources of grievances to grievance actions and outcomes. Sources of grievance conflict are explored by analysing interviews with Belgian and American employees concerning their complaints in the workplace. As an alternative to the limiting substantive classifications traditionally used, a categorisation of grievances is presented that corresponds to grievants′ own formulations of the causes of conflict. Applying this categorisation scheme to the interview data revealed that most grievances have multiple sources and that a grievant typically distorts public statements concerning the sources of the grievance. Behavioural analysis of grievances can benefit researcher and practitioner by providing insight into the organisational function of conflict and into employees′ most basic beliefs about their organisation′s values.

Prior work has demonstrated that management enjoys a substantive edge in many grievance cases largely as a function of its discretion to pursue or dismiss these cases as it chooses. Conversely, organized labor has far less discretion in as much as it must pursue serious grievances which may be less viable. It is argued here that grievances “filed in the name of the union” may provide an important exception to this principle. This field assessment of format grievances (N = 538) indicates robust differences in the outcomes of grievances between those “filed in the name of the union” and those filed in the more traditional manner. This tendency may provide some countervailing influence for the grievant to the advantages posited for management.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of workers' demographic characteristics on their perceptions of procedural justice from grievance management. A related aim is to determine whether procedural justice perceptions have an impact on perceptions of distributive justice.

The study is based on a survey of 660 employees across the public and private sectors. Perceptions were measured with the use of a dichotomous scale, and logistic regression analysis was applied to test the relationships between the dependent and independent variables.

Except for education, demographic characteristics made no significant difference to workers' perceptions of procedural justice afforded by grievance procedures. Perceptions of procedural justice, however, had an impact on perceived distributive justice.

The use of dichotomous response sets prevented the use of factor analysis. Logistic regression analysis compensated for the inability to use ANOVA. Further research is needed to explain why education moreso that any other demographic characteristic would influence procedural justice perceptions of grievance management. Research is also required to isolate the effects of justice perceptions on satisfaction with the trade union and organizational citizenship behaviours.

Failure to pay careful attention to procedural justice can create problems for managers, workers and unions.

This paper highlights the need to pay due attention to procedural justice. It continues a line of inquiry on workplace justice that has only recently been initiated in Barbados.

Prior research has argued that management has an advantage in many grievance cases largely because it enjoys the discretion to pursue these cases or otherwise as it chooses. Conversely, organized labor has far less discretion inasmuch as it must pursue serious grievances for which positive outcomes cannot reasonably be expected It was recently demonstrated that grievances “filed in the name of the union” may provide an important exception to this principle. This empirical assessment of arbitration cases (N = 520) extends these arguments from the context of the grievance to that of arbitration, an arguably more valid and generalizable context for such an assessment. The results indicate that “filing in the name of the union” does provide a substantive edge in arbitration outcomes, even while controlling for the various types of arbitration cases.

Presents the first of two reports which research into the handling styles of supervisors and managers when dealing with disciplinary and grievance situations. Compares the handling styles that they use when dealing with discipline and grievance situations and finds that differences exist in the styles used for the two types of issue. The less serious disciplinary cases seem to attract a fairly prescriptive autocratic style, whereas those which are potentially more serious to the organization tend to be handled with less prescriptive approaches that involve the employee to a greater extent, and it is this approach which theory suggests is more likely to bring about the desired change in the behaviour of the employee. With the exception of cases which pose some threat to managerial authority, the general pattern that emerges for grievances is that they tend to be explored in a less prescriptive way. Describes the research methodology and sets the scene for a further research report.

By focusing on grievants′ formulation of their grievances, behavioural analysis can further our understanding of grievants′ actions and their assessment of grievance outcomes. Building on concepts reported in the preceding issue of this journal and examining the grievance reports of over 200 Belgian and American employees, a multi‐episodic model of grievance formulation, actions, outcomes and reformulation is developed and examined. Persistence in pursuing a grievance through several episodes, while risky for the grievant, was positively related to the grievant′s satisfaction with outcomes. This effect is explained by increased opportunities for reformulation, including learning which action strategies are most likely to lead to success. Successful action strategies differed between Belgian and US contexts, in ways consistent with their structural and institutional characteristics. Implications for researchers and third party intervenors include the need to manage grievances in a manner that favourably influences grievants′ beliefs about the organisation.

Using the Leader‐Member Exchange (LMX) model as a guide, this study examined the relationship between the quality of information exchange between an employee and his or her immediate supervisor and the intention to file grievances. One hundred twenty‐five unionized automotive employees completed a measure of quality of information exchange and responded to eight vignettes representing hypothetical work situations. Employees rated each vignette in terms of their intention to file a grievance if faced with that situation. It was hypothesized that employees who perceived a high quality information exchange relationship with their supervisors would be less likely to file grievances than employees who perceived a low quality information exchange relationship. When the intent to file measure was aggregated across all vignettes, the hypothesis was supported When the vignettes were categorized into three different types of grievance situations through a principal components analysis, quality of information exchange was related only to grievance filing over issues pertaining to time at work. Implications of these findings for both employee grievance research and grievance prevention are discussed.

This paper examines the relation between several attitudinal and performance measures and the decision to file a grievance in an organizational simulation. Results were consistent with predictions derived from previous research. Employees who valued their compensation and were satisfied with their performance were likely to file a grievance against their manager. Conversely, employees who were highly satisfied with their job and judged the selection process and performance evaluation systems to be fair were not likely to file a grievance. Implications of these results for future research are discussed.

Presents the legal framework and functioning of grievance arbitration in Quebec, demonstrating how this method of conflicgt resolution emerged and, with time, has managed to free itself from both civil law and the court of general jurisdiction. Presents an overall assessment of the grievance and arbitration procedure. Takes account of the three objectives that are traditionally sought in establishing alternative mechanisms of conflict resolution in the field of labour, accessibility, speed and expertise. Summarises the merits and drawbacks of the system.

This paper reports the results of a follow‐up study to two linked articles appearing in earlier issues of this journal. It examines the relative influence of factors affecting the approach of supervisors or managers to dealing with disciplinary or grievance incidents. For discipline the most influential factors are identified as: the inconvenience of the employee rule transgression and the length of an employee’s service, with comparatively minor effects for employee gender, manager gender, prior training and experience in handling issues, and whether an organization is unionised. With grievance the most influential factors are: the challenge to management authority of an issue, length of employee service, employee gender and to a lesser extent the age and gender of the manager, and whether the organization is unionised. Implications for future research and the training of supervisors and managers are then outlined.