THE ORGANISATIONAL OMBUDS: IMPLICATIONS FOR VOICE, CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND FAIRNESS AT WORK

Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations

Volumn 13, Issue , 2004, Pages 97-135

  Fernie, Sue ^a   Metcalf, David ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18144394089     PISSN: 07426186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0742-6186(04)13004-7     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. American Bar Association (2000, July). Standards for the establishment and operation of Omubdsman offices . Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice and Section of Dispute Resolution. Report to the House of Delegates.
2. Bemmels, B. (1997). Exit, voice and loyalty in employment relationships. In: D. Lewin, J. B. Mitchell & M. A. Zaidi (Eds), The Human Resource Management Handbook (Part II). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
3. Bies, R., & Moag, S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard & B. Bazerman (Eds), Research on Negotiation in Organisations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4. Charlwood, A. (2003). Light at the end of the tunnel? Unionisation preferences of non-union workers: A review of theory and evidence. In: H. Gospel & S. Wood (Eds), Representing Workers: Trade Union Representation and Membership in Britain . London: Routledge.
5. Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A., & Dix, G. (1999). Britain at work . London: Routledge.
6. Department of Trade and Industry (2001a, June). Routes to resolution: Improving dispute resolution in Britain .
7. Department of Trade and Industry (2001b, June). Dispute resolution in Britain: A background paper .
8. Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In: K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9. M.E. Gordon G.E. Fryxell Voluntariness of association as a moderator of the importance of procedural and distributive justice Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19 1993 993 1009
10. Gospel, H., & Willman, P. (2003). Dilemmas in worker representation: Information, consultation and negotiation. In: H. Gospel & S. Wood (Eds), Representing Workers (Chap. 8). London: Routledge.
11. Howard, C., & Furtado, T. (1999). The United States sentencing guidelines . Dallas, TX: Ombudsman Association.
12. Kaminski, M. (1999). New forms of work organization and their impact on the grievance procedure. In: A. Eaton & J. Keefe (Eds), Employment Dispute Resolution and Worker Rights in the Changing Workplace (Chap. 7). Champaign, IL: IRRA.
13. Lewin, D. (1999). Theoretical and empirical research on the grievance procedure and arbitration: A critical review. In: A. Eaton & J. Keefe (Eds), Employment Dispute Resolution and Workers Rights in the Changing Workplace . Champaign, IL: IRRA.
14. Lewin, D., & Peterson, R. (1988). The modern grievance procedure in the United States . New York: Quorum Books.
15. Metcalf, D. (2003). Unions and productivity, financial performance and investment: International evidence. In: J. Addison & C. Schnabel (Eds), International Handbook on Economics of Trade Unions (Chap. 5). London: Edward Elgar.
16. R. Moorman Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology 76 6 1991 845 855
17. Ombudsman Association (1995). Standards of practice . Dallas, TX.
18. M. Rowe What is it like to be an organizational ombudsman? Perspectives on Work 1 2 1997 60 63
19. Shackleton, J. R. (2002). Employment tribunals . London: IEA
20. Tremlett, N., & Banerji, N. (1994). The 1992 survey of industrial tribunal applications . Employment Department Research Series, 22.
21. TUC (2002, November). Union reps – winning respect at work . London: TUC.
22. Ury, W., Brett, J., & Goldberg, S. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing disputes to cut the costs of conflict . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. R. Walton From control to commitment in the workplace Harvard Business Review 63 2 1985 57 74