What influences the progression of employment rights disputes?

Abstract

This study of employment rights disputes in New Zealand accessed all parties to 14 disputes. Despite a legislative requirement to preserve relationships, only three survived. Dispute type, interaction mode and the parties' relative influence affected outcomes. These findings have implications for managers and policy makers regarding alternative dispute resolution systems. IntroductionWhy are some employment rights disputes resolved at a low level while others progress to inevitable termination? This study provides new insights into the progression and resolution of such disputes. As alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems spread through the USA, UK and beyond, there is a dearth of research on how these operate in practice (Ridley-Duff and Bennett, 2011). What little is known comes largely from disputes in unionised and public sector organisations, a line of research dominated by quantitative inquiry that has overlooked the employee perspective (Bennett, 2013). This qualitative study affords detailed insights into the employee experience of disputes.The authors accessed all the parties involved in 14 individual-level employment disputes as they progressed into external mediation in New Zealand, having exhausted all within-organisation efforts to resolve them. The employment relationships were continuing at this point. Although the statutory intent of the Employment Relations Act 2000 is to establish procedures and institutions that support successful employment relationships (s143), only three relationships survived, typical of cases that reach mediation (McAndrew 2010;McAndrew, Moreton and Geare, 2004).Our purpose is to explore the progression of employment rights disputes and not to evaluate the mediation process as such, although we do use data from the mediation 2 events. The interplay of three previously under-emphasised factors: dispute type; interaction mode; and the ability of the employee and their representatives to influence the events, affected how disputes were resolved. These factors should feature in more grounded and dynamic models of grievance disputes.The next section reviews the field to provide the context for our study. We then describe our methodology and the unique data to which we were allowed access. Analysis follows where we derive the key factors of dispute type, interaction mode, and employee influence. The analysis section culminates in a more detailed discussion of one case which gives insight into the relative importance of these factors. We then discuss these findings before concluding the paper with implications for managers and policy makers. The Context of Grievances and Dispute ResolutionIndividual-level disputes 1 between employee and employer are an enduring aspect of human resource management (HRM). While many are resolved informally, an increasing number progress into external resolution procedures such as mediation. While these procedures seek to resolve grievances and preserve employment relationships, many end with termination. Effective resolution processes...

Tracking employee voice: developing the concept of voice pathways

“…In our sample, and indeed because of our sample selection, each case followed a pathway to the external authority, similar to Walker and Hamilton’s work (2015). In the cases that we mapped against our model, the pathways are comparable.…”

“…Procedural justice refers to the extent to which employees perceive they have control over process and how the decision was made, while distributive justice refers to the fairness of the decision outcome (Folger 1977). Walker and Hamilton (2015) found in their study of dispute resolutions that when employees perceived that the internal grievance procedures were not fair, and when they perceived their own influence as low, they would be less likely to resolve issues internally and to seek mediation. They traced the extent to which disputes were resolved and whether employees were terminated, and while their study indicated that there were several different pathways that occurred with the progression of disputes, they note the need to further consider the interactions that occur during the progression stage.…”