Employee grievance programs: Understanding the nexus between workplace justice, organizational legitimacy and successful organizations

Public Personnel Management

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 329-342

  Haraway III, William M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29844441101     PISSN: 00910260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009102600503400405     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (78)

1. See O'Neil, Robert M. (1993). The Rights of Public Employees 2ed. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL for a discussion of the legal rights of public employees and the basis of the public employment relationship.
2. Lee, Yong S. (1992). Public Personnel Administration and Constitutional Values. Quorum, CT: 15. This statement refers to the tension between formal and substantive rationality-formal legal procedures (procedural due process) versus just outcomes (substantive justice).
3. Morton Deutsch (2000) suggests that "whether the participants in a conflict have a cooperative or a competitive [perspective] is decisive in determining [the] course and outcomes [of conflict]." Cooperation and Competition." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, Theory and Practice. Deutsch, Morton and Coleman, Peter T. eds. Sage, CA: 19-52.
4. Sheppard, Blair H., Lewicki, Roy J., and Minton, John W. (1992). Organizational Justice. Lexington, New York: 54.
5. Also, see Sitkin, Sim B. and Bies, Robert J. eds. (1994). "The Legalistic Organization: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective." In The Legalistic Organization. Sitkin, Sim B. and Bies, Robert J. eds., Sage, CA: 19-52.
6. Sitkin, Sim B. and Bies, Robert J. eds. In The Legalistic Organization.Ibid, 56.
7. Brockner, Joel and Siegel, Phyllis. (1996). "Understanding the Interaction Between Procedural and Distributive Justice: The Role of Trust." In Trust in Organizations, frontiers of Theory and Research. Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R. eds. Sage, CA: 391. For a comparison of procedural due process and procedural justice,
8. see Posthuma, Richard A. (2003). "Procedural Due Process and Procedural Justice in the Workplace, A Comparison and Analysis." Public Personnel Management 32, 181-195.
9. Nonet, Philippe and Selznick, Philip. (1978). Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. Harper and Row, NY: 67.
10. Lan, Zhiyong. (1997). "A Conflict Resolution Approach to Public Administration." Public Administration Review 57, 27-35;
11. and Mauer, G.W and Flores J. (1986). "Peer Review and Employee Advocacy in the Conflict Resolution Process." Personnel Administrator 31, 53-58.
12. Haraway, III, William M. (2002). "Rediscovering Process Values in Employee Grievance Procedures." Administration and Society 34, 499-521.
13. Selznick, Philip. (1992). "Institutionalism 'Old' and 'New'." Administrative Science Quarterly 41, 270-271.
14. The following discussion derives from the interdisciplinary research in grievance programs and related justice issues. It applies to public and private sector organizations.
15. See Youngblood, Stuart A., Klebe, Linda, and Favia, Monica. (1992). "Reactions to Unjust Dismissal and Third-Party Dispute Resolution: A Justice Framework." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 5: 283-307;
16. and Klaas, Brian S. (1989). "Determinants of Grievance Activity and the Grievance System's Impact on Employee Behavior: An Integrative Perspective." Academy of Management Review 14: 445-457.
17. Substantive due process rights are founded in the Doctrine of Substantive Due Process that should not be confused with the terms "substantive justice or substantive outcomes" as used herein. Philip Selznick (1992) notes "rules and legal principles are not ends in themselves and have no intrinsic worth. They are judged according to their contribution to substantive justice, which is the ultimate criterion. [It] is, therefore, concrete, not abstract. It is fairness made good for particular litigants, taking all of their circumstances into account. It is the just outcome, not the fair procedure." The Moral Commonwealth. The University of California Press, CA: 198.
18. Public safety officers, police and fire, also have the option of using specific public safety officer grievance procedures that are mandated by state statutes. However, they may only elect to use one or the other system.
19. Peterson, Richard B. and Lewin, David (1990). "The Nonunion Grievance Procedure: A Viable System of Due Process?" Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 3, 3.
20. A formal grievance is an employee or union complaint or dispute originating from some question of rights in the employment relationship. Formal grievance resolution is primarily an adversarial process "not unlike civil court proceedings." Bonfield, Arthur E. and Asimow, Michael (1989). State and Federal Administrative Law. West Publishing, St. Paul: 10.
21. See Posthuma, Richard A. (2003) for a discussion of procedural due process pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
22. The terms organizational and workplace justice are used interchangeably in the following discussion.
23. Brockner and Siegel, 1996, 391.
24. For example, see Deutsch, Morton (2000). "Justice and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, Theory and Practice. Deutsch, Morton and Coleman Peter T. eds. Jossey-Bass, CA: 41-64;
25. and Deutsch, Morton (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Analysis. Yale University Press, CT.
26. Brockner and Siegel, 1996, 391.
27. Ibid.
28. Brockner, Joel and Wiesenfeld, B. (1991). "The Interactive Impact of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favorability: The Effects of What You Do Depend Upon How You Do It." Unpublished. Presented in Brockner, Joel and Siegel, Phyllis. "Understanding the Interaction Between Procedural and Distributive Justice: The Role of Trust." In Trust in Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research. Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R. eds. Sage, CA: 392.
29. Brockner and Siegel, 1996, 398.
30. Ibid, 401.
31. Youngblood, et al. 1992, 286.
32. Klaas, 1989, 453.
33. Ibid.
34. See Westin, Alan F. and Feliu, Alfred G. (1988). Resolving Employment Disputes Without Litigation. BNA, Washington, DC: 223.
35. Powell, Walter W. (1996). "Trust-based Forms of Governance." In Trust in Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research. Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R., eds. Sage, CA: 57.
36. Taylor, Raymond G. "Trust and Influence in the Workplace." Organization Development Journal 8, 35.
37. McClelland, Valorie (1987). "Communication, Mixed Signals Breed Mistrust." Personnel Journal 66, 24.
38. Demon, Keith D. and Boyd, Charles (1990). Employee Complaint Handling. Quorum, NY: 59-60.
39. Mauer and Flores, 1986.
40. Ibid, 53.
41. Ibid, 54.
42. Lan, 1997, 31.
43. Ibid, 455.
44. Ibid.
45. Carnevale, David G. (1993). "Root Dynamics of Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Illustrative Case in the U.S. Postal Service." Public Administration Review 53, 456. In this respect, formal, adversarial grievance procedures that mimic law-like procedural due process are used to attempt resolution of employment disputes only after alternative dispute resolution methods have been rejected or failed.
46. Lan, 1997, 31.
47. Ibid.
48. Cogan, Evelyn, B. (1994). "Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Immunity: A Potential Pitfall?" Labor Law Journal, 722.
49. See Preiser v. Rosenweig 614 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super 1992). A Pennsylvania appellate court held that statements made by counsel in the process of a bar association fee dispute arbitration were not judicially privileged. Therefore, a defamation cause of action against counsel for statements made during the arbitration was actionable.
50. Piskorski, Thomas J. and Ross, David B. (1993). "Private Arbitration as the Exclusive Means of Resolving Employment-Related Disputes." Employee Relations 19, 209-210.
51. See Haraway, III, 2002; Sitkin and Bies, 1994; and Selznick, 1992.
52. Lewin, David and Peterson, Richard B. (1988). The Modern Grievance Procedure in the United States. Quorum, NY: 207.
53. Westin and Feliu, 1988, 24-25.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid, 208.
56. Pulhamus, Aaron R. (1991). "Conflict Handling - A Common Sense Approach to Appraising Supervisory Performance." Public Personnel Management 20, 488.
57. Klaas, Brian S. and DeNisi, Angelo S. (1989). "Managerial Reactions to Employee Dissent: The Impact of Grievance Activity on Performance Ratings. "Academy of Management Journal 32, 713.
58. McClelland, 1987, 26.
59. For a contemporary discussion of the role of trust in interpersonal relationships in the workplace, see Lewicki, Roy J. and Bunker, Barbara Benedict (1996). "Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships." In Trust In Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research. Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R. eds. Sage, CA: 114-139.
60. Creed, W.E. Douglas and Miles, Raymond E. (1996). "Trust in Organizations, A Conceptual Framework Linking Organizational Forms, Managerial Philosophies, and the Opportunity Costs of Controls." In Trust in Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research. Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R. eds. Sage, CA: 20.
61. Youngblood, et al. 1992, 301.
62. Pulhamus, 1991, 488. For example, grievance data between the years 1988 and 1992 for local governments in the Commonwealth of Virginia indicate that grievance procedure handling training for first-line supervisors and managers at all levels is a low priority or does not exist. Of 106 local government respondents to a grievance survey, only 19 (17,92 percent) reported providing grievance training and only 15 (14.15 percent) reported providing grievance handling training to first-line supervisors and managers at all levels. Haraway, III, William M. (1993). Unpublished. The Virginia Grievance Program Project. Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University, 56.
63. Kalish, David (1986). "The New-Collar Workers And Unions' Changing Roles." Personnel Journal 65, 19-20.
64. Sheppard, et al., 1992, 104.
65. Here workplace justice means "substantive justice: [f]airness made good for particular litigants, taking all of their circumstances into account. It is the just outcome, not the fair procedure." See Selznick, 1992, 198.
66. Haraway, III, (2002);
67. and Haraway, III, William M. (2000). "Internal Dispute Resolution: The Legal Environment of Complex Public Organizations." Unpublished. Paper presented at the Southeastern Conference of Public Administration (SECoPA), Greensboro, NC: 1-32. The identities of stakeholders and geographic locations in the case study are limited to the use of generic terms and acronyms. The paper does not contain or disclose the identity of individuals. The following thick description reports the exact words of the informants, with exceptions noted.
68. Other employees report that (1) "(s)ome managers don't attempt to resolve issues. They have a bureaucratic rubber-stamp mentality," and (2) "[t]hey follow rules blindly and.are more concerned with rule-following."
69. In this respect the formal procedure refers to all face to face grievance resolution steps as "meetings" between the employee and management, so as not to infer that a formal "hearing" is taking place. It cautions that "[t]he meeting is not to be conducted as a hearing with arguments and cross-examination; the purpose is for fact-finding. The meeting shall not be recorded" (1995, 4).
70. See Sitkin and Bies, 1994. The authors argue that in the legalization of organizations a power paradox exists where, although law-like policies and procedures are designed to ensure workplace justice, they are developed, implemented, and administered by managers who know how to use them to protect the status quo.
71. See Deutsch, 2000, 27.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid, 27.
75. Ibid, 25.
76. Selznick, 1992, 330-331.
77. Scott, Richard W. (1998). Organizations, Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5ed. Prentice Hall, NJ: 211.
78. Selznick, 1992, 151.