Employment rights disputes: what is the role of HR professionals?

Abstract

This study explores the role of human resource specialists in the handling of employee grievances. Most studies of HRM devolution have drawn only on the perceptions of managers and have neglected the area of grievances. The research highlights the employee experience of grievances under different levels of HRM devolution. The progression of fourteen grievance cases was investigated, accessing the full set of parties to each one. Data were gathered using a triangulated method involving seventy interviews, direct observation and written submissions. The findings suggest grievance handling is not readily accommodated within devolved HR structures. The role of HR staff in grievance processes can be ill-defined and show wide variation, causing problems for both line managers and employees. This can lead to negative outcomes and damage the credibility of the HR department. The insights from this study are intended to initiate debate concerning the potential roles of HR practitioners in grievance handling.

The evolution of devolution in HR

“…First, it is useful to discuss the individual, HRM team, and organizational levels of devolvement contingencies in more detail. Bainbridge ( 2015), Kulik and Perry (2008), Ryu and Kim (2013), Link and Müller (2015), Darwish and Singh (2013), Mitchell et al (2013), Walker andHamilton (2011), Renwick (2003), Budhwar (1997Budhwar ( , 2000, Cunningham and Hyman (1999), Hadjisolomou (2015), Walker and Hamilton (2011) Individual This level considers how personal characteristics of the individuals involved may impact devolvement. The goal of this micro-level research is to understand how variance across individuals can affect the success or failure of devolvement (Wright and Boswell, 2002).…”

“…According to the strategic contingency theory (Hickson et al, 1971), the benefit of devolvement is that it can allow for HR departments to concentrate on strategically important initiatives. The problem is that devolving HR responsibility has not been easy to Link and Müller (2015), Darwish and Singh (2013), Mitchell et al (2013), Walker andHamilton (2011), Renwick (2003), Budhwar (2000), Cunningham and Hyman (1999), Budhwar and Sparrow (1997) (Larsen and Brewster, 2003;McGovern et al, 1997) and studies of its impact have not always considered the relative effectiveness of organizational devolvement implementation efforts when evaluating the phenomenon. Through this study, we highlight critical contingency factors that set the stage for successful HR devolvement and suggest a reconsideration of the overall phenomenon based on data from research settings where these conditions are met.…”

“…Lack of training is a commonly reported organizational contingency with the power to affect devolvement (Budhwar, 2000;Budhwar and Sparrow, 1997;Cunningham and Hyman, 1999;Darwish and Singh, 2013;Link and Müller, 2015;McGovern et al, 1997;Mitchell et al, 2013;Renwick, 2003). For example, Walker and Hamilton (2011) specifically identified a lack of line manager training as a contributing factor to the failed devolvement of grievance handling in their study site.…”

“…,McGovern et al (1997) Gollan et al (2015,Mitchell et al (2013),Walker and Hamilton (2011),Cunningham and Hyman (1999),Ryu and Kim (2013),Reichel and Lazarova (2013),Budhwar (2000),Op de Beeck et al (2015),Gooderham et al (2015),McDermott et al (2015),Cunningham and Hyman (1999),Hall and Torrington (1998),Larsen and Brewster (2003),Budhwar and Sparrow (…”

Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource practitioners' implementation of anti‐bullying policy

“…As a consequence of the HRPs' emphasis on the business partner role, it appears from our data at least that raising allegations directly with managers is almost impossible for the HRPs. However, recasting targets' claims against managers as performance management issues has significant implications for employees: the HRM policies likely to be instigated by this reframing – performance management, grievances and disciplinaries – are predominantly devolved to line managers (Walker and Hamilton, ). Repackaging bullying claims as performance management, albeit inappropriately delivered, effectively privileges management voice while denying that of employees in the context of bullying, laying HRM practice bare to its critical dissenters (Keenoy, ; Keegan and Boselie, ).…”