Grievance Procedure Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations

Abstract

This review focuseson the grievance procedure research published in the past decade with specific attention on the application (or lack thereof) of social science theory to grievance research. The review concludes that the theoretical grounding of recent grievance research has improved over the earlier research, but remains quite inadequate. Recommendations on the direction that grievance research should take in the future to further improve on the theoretical content of grievance research are provided. It is argued that theory in grievance research should advance at two levels: the comprehensive systems approach, and the application of specific social science theories to narrower aspects of the grievance process.A common criticism of grievance procedure research is the lack of theoretical grounding for much of the research done prior to 1985. Several earlier reviews of the grievance literature raised the challenge of improving on the theoretical aspects of grievance research. This review focuses on the grievance procedure research published in the past decade with specific attention on the application (or lack thereof) of social science theory to grievance research. We also make recommendations on the direction that we feel grievance research should take in the future to further improve on the theoretical content of grievance research.

What influences the progression of employment rights disputes?

“…Within the grievance literature however, the links between dispute type and their resolution have been ill-defined (Bemmels and Foley, 1996;Klaas, 1989;Lewin, 1999). Boswell and Olson Buchanan (2004) did distinguish between personalised mistreatment, concerning discretionary actions of an individual such as a supervisor, and policy-related mistreatment, involving a dispute over an organisational procedure or the 10 administration of policy.…”

“…As these disputes progressed, the increasing costs for employees included deteriorating health and well-being, adverse effects on their family, and the erosion of trust in the employer. These costs, and the likelihood that they would continue into the future if the problems were not resolved, became so significant that they outweighed the benefits of the employment relationship, forcing the employee to accept termination: (Friedman et al, 2000;Frone, 2000;Jehn, 1995;Spector and Jex, 1998).Within the grievance literature however, the links between dispute type and their resolution have been ill-defined (Bemmels and Foley, 1996;Klaas, 1989;Lewin, 1999). Boswell and Olson Buchanan (2004) did distinguish between personalised mistreatment, concerning discretionary actions of an individual such as a supervisor, and policy-related mistreatment, involving a dispute over an organisational procedure or the 10 administration of policy.…”

Measuring efficiency of the banking industry before and after the recent financial crisis: some international evidence

“…During the last few decades (and especially in the 1990s), a considerable amount of research regarding grievance rates has been conducted (Labig and Greer, 1988;Bemmels & Foley, 1996;Bemmels & Lau, 2001;Peterson & Lewin, 2000, Walker & Hamilton, 2011. Early literature was primarily focused on factors related to the filing and settlement of grievances (Lewin & Peterson, 1999).…”

“…This paper also expands the existing literature by moving away from the individual or micro-level of analysis which has been the more common approach to studying grievance behaviour (with a particular focus on characteristics of grievance filers). Such research historically focused on organizational members and what characteristics, including demographic (Gordon & Miller, 1984, Peterson & Lewin, 2000, Lewin, 2004, Hayward et al, 2004 and attitudinal (Bemmels & Foley, 1996) factors that distinguished grievance filers from those who refrained from initiating a grievance.…”

“…Bemmels and Foley (1996) also examined the influence of such management factors as how strictly performance and disciplinary standards were enforced by management, supervisor behaviours, knowledge of the collective agreement / contract, and the extent to which management monitors employee behaviour and their impact on grievance rates.…”