The Relationship between Employee Involvement and Workplace Dispute Resolution

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between employee involvement programs and workplace dispute resolution using data from the Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) conducted by Statistics Canada. The results provide support for a link between employee involvement and lower grievance rates in unionized workplaces. This link existed for establishments in both the goods and service sectors, but the practices involved differed between industrial sectors. By contrast, in nonunion workplaces, results of the analysis provided support for a link between the adoption of employee involvement programs and formal grievance procedures, but not between employee involvement and lower grievance rates.

Collective and individual voice: convergence in Europe?

“…Individual voice may be expressed through briefing groups, Brewster et al: Collective and individual voice 1247 problem-solving teams, regular meetings between management and the workforce at large, written forms of communication including newsletters and via notice boards, electronic communication including intranet and emails (including e-mail-administered employee surveys) and suggestion schemes (Bryson, 2004). Although these are sometimes categorized into union or management friendly forms (Colvin, 2004), practices exist that are harder to demarcate outside of power relations contexts. However, practices may be grouped by dimension (whether based on collective or individual voice) and depth (i.e.…”

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

“…Colvin (2004) found a relationship between employee involvement programs and lower grievance rates in unionized workplaces but this relationship was not found in non-union workplaces. Colvin (2003) also found that non-union grievance procedures were used more when the procedures, including nonunion arbitration and peer review, involved non-managerial decision makers.…”

“…These include putting pressure on management, the role of union stewards, and the role that a collective agreement has in bringing forward grievances. Research indicates that nonunion employees may fear retaliation if they file grievances (Boroff & Lewin, 1996, Lewin & Peterson, 1999Lewin, 1999;Colvin, 2004). …”

“…Early literature was primarily focused on factors related to the filing and settlement of grievances (Lewin & Peterson, 1999). However, studies also examined other areas including the relationship between grievance initiation and firm performance (Kleiner, Nickelsburg & Pilarski, 1995), the use of grievance procedures as one element of high performance work systems (Huselid, 1995), behavioral outcomes of grievance activity (Klaas, Gainey & Dell'Omo, 1999;Lewin & Peterson, 1999), assessing an employee's decision-making for filing a grievance (Klass, 1989, Cappelli & Chauvin, 1991 and, more recently, the influence of employee involvement programs (Colvin, 2004).…”

Flexibility and Fairness in Liberal Market Economies: The Comparative Impact of the Legal Environment and High‐Performance Work Systems

“…Whereas much of the initial HPWS research was limited to their effects on organizational performance (Godard and Delaney 2000;Handel and Levine, 2004;Godard 2004), a growing body of work has begun to examine the effects of these practices on worker outcomes such as: wages (summarized in Handel and Levine 2004); job satisfaction (Batt 2004); worker voice (Bryson 2004); layoffs (Osterman 2000); and turnover (Batt, Colvin andKeefe 2002, Morissette andRosa 2003). Some of the HPWS literature has suggested that adoption of these systems should be associated with stronger protections for fair treatment of employees in the workplace, such as adoption of formal grievance procedures (Arthur 1992;Huselid 1995;Colvin 2003Colvin , 2004. The rationale for expecting stronger fairness protections in workplaces adopting HPWS is that these systems are premised on obtaining high levels of commitment from employees, which may be undermined if management takes full advantage of the flexibility to fire or discipline the workforce.…”