Grievance Procedures in Non-union Firms

Abstract

[Excerpt] This chapter examines the structure, adoption, usage, and impact of non-union grievance procedures. Non-union grievance procedures vary widely in their structure from informal open door policies to elaborate peer review and arbitration based procedures. Adoption of these procedures is driven by a range of factors including union substation, litigation avoidance, and as part of human resource strategies focused on promoting high commitment from employees. Non-union grievance procedures tend to be used less frequently that their union counterparts, but usage levels vary based on the structure of the procedure with those incorporating non-managerial decision-makers exhibiting higher usage levels. Although non-union grievance procedures are often put in place with the goal of enhancing organizational justice, a common problem is retaliation within the organization against grievants who use the procedures.

Organizational Conflict Resolution and Strategic Choice: Evidence from a Survey of Fortune 1000 Firms

“…Interest-based options are informal processes designed, for the most part, to assist the parties in reaching a negotiated settlement that they fashion themselves (Wall and Lynn 1993; Colvin et al 2006; Moore 2014). Interest-based processes, such as mediation, are therefore not designed to adjudicate the merits of a given dispute—to decide which party is right or wrong—and do not involve a third party as a decision maker (Colvin 2014). These options are often appreciated for their potential to increase the likelihood that the parties, with the assistance of a neutral, may be able to achieve creative solutions that not only resolve the conflict but also address the parties’ differing interests and needs uncovered during the mediation process (Kolb 1983; Colvin 2014; Latreille and Saundry 2014).…”

“…Interest-based processes, such as mediation, are therefore not designed to adjudicate the merits of a given dispute—to decide which party is right or wrong—and do not involve a third party as a decision maker (Colvin 2014). These options are often appreciated for their potential to increase the likelihood that the parties, with the assistance of a neutral, may be able to achieve creative solutions that not only resolve the conflict but also address the parties’ differing interests and needs uncovered during the mediation process (Kolb 1983; Colvin 2014; Latreille and Saundry 2014). Interest-based options, accordingly, are often attractive to organizations because they can deliver settlements that reconcile the parties’ differences, serve their mutual interests, and encourage problem solving (Avgar 2016).…”

“…Interest-based options, accordingly, are often attractive to organizations because they can deliver settlements that reconcile the parties’ differences, serve their mutual interests, and encourage problem solving (Avgar 2016). In sum, these options are preferred by disputants who seek informal and often less time-consuming processes that focus on attaining mutually acceptable settlements (Colvin 2014; Latreille and Saundry 2014).…”

Peacemaking at the Workplace: A Systematic Review

“…In practice, people in management positions are often expected to act as third parties in employees’ conflict (Butts, ; Chi, Friedman, & Yang, ; Poitras, Hill, Hamel, & Pelletier, ). They can mediate by focusing on constructive communication, negotiation, and problem‐solving skills (Butts, ; Colvin, ), but sometimes also impose a settlement thanks to their authority. Research on the role of leaders in conflicts and their management has been increasing in recent years (Arnold, ; Chi et al., ; Kozan, Ergin, & Varoglu, , ; Morgeson & DeRue, ; Poitras et al., ; Römer, ; Römer et al., ; Siira, ; Way, Jimmieson, & Bordia, , ).…”

“…Ideally, more empirical research needs to be conducted in a real workplace setting. It could be assumed that peacemaking might be more common in small‐ and medium‐sized organizations than larger‐sized organizations, as conflicts tend to be handled more informally without recourse to a systematic procedure in smaller organizations (Colvin, ).…”