Lauded as one of the most significant practices of industrial relations, a grievance-handling procedure is a medium for a worker to file his grievances. Indian organizations usually adhere to the Model Grievance Procedure that ensures speedy and full investigation of a grievance, leading to settlement. This study compares the grievance-handling procedure of a case study firm with the Model and measures its effectiveness by analyzing the satisfaction of the individual worker as a subjective measure. Comparison with qualitative analysis on the basis of dimensions such as time, stakeholders, decision given and structure show that the firm has made special efforts to reduce the levels in the procedure, thereby increasing the speed of grievance settlement, though a lack of provision of arbitration was also observed. Satisfaction has been assessed with constructs such as speed, decision, structure and stakeholders, by applying factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. Attitude of supervisors, time taken in giving decision and follow-up mechanism emerge as the most important predictors. This study is expected to add value to the existing literature on grievance handling by making a departure from previous studies on satisfaction measures of grievance procedures, in which the predominant issue has been perceived fairness. The findings may be useful for the improvement of workers’ satisfaction with grievance-handling procedures in any organization.
AdikaramA. S.RupasiriI. T. D.2008. ‘How Effective are Grievance Handling Practices of Sri Lankan Banks?’The Fifth International Conference on Business Management 2008. Sri Lanka: University of Sri Jayewardenepura.
2.
AlexanderS.SinclairR. R.TetrickL. E.1995. ‘The Role of Organizational Justice in Defining and Maintaining the Employment Relationship’ in TetrickL. E.BarlingJ. (eds). Changing Employment Relations: Behavioral and Social Perspectives. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, 61–89.
3.
AllenR. E.KeavenyT. J.1985. ‘Factors Differentiating Grievants and Non-Grievants’, Human Relations, 38(6): 519–34.
4.
AntcliffV.SaundryR.2009. ‘Accompaniment, Workplace Representation and Disciplinary Outcomes in British Workplaces—Just a Formality?’British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(1): 100–21.
5.
BacharachS.BambergerP.2004. ‘The Power of Labor to Grieve: The Impact of the Workplace, Labor Market, and Power-Dependence on Employee Filing’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57(1): 518–39.
6.
BalfourA.1984. ‘Five Types of Non-Union Grievance Systems’, Personnel, 61(2): 67–76.
7.
BemmelsB.1991. ‘Attribution Theory and Discipline Arbitration’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44(3): 548–62.
8.
BemmelsB.1994. ‘The Determinants of Grievance Initiation’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(2): 285–301.
9.
BemmelsB.FoleyJ. R.1996. ‘Grievance Procedures Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations’, Journal of Management, 22(3): 359–84.
10.
BemmelsB.LauD. C.2001. ‘Local Union Leaders’ Satisfaction with Grievance Procedures’, Journal of Labor Research, 22(3): 653–67.
11.
BemmelsB.ReshefY.Stratton-DevineK.1991. ‘The Roles of Supervisors, Employees and Stewards in Grievance Initiation’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(1), 15–30.
12.
BrocknerJoelWiesenfeldB.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 KramerRoderick M.TylerTom R. (eds). Trust in Organizations, Frontiers of Theory and Research, p. 392. California, CA: SAGE.
13.
BuddJ. W.ColvinA. J. S.2008. ‘Improved Metrics for Workplace Dispute Resolution Procedures: Efficiency, Equity, and Voice’, Industrial Relations, 47(3): 460–79.
14.
ChaykowskiR. P.SlotsveG. A.1992. ‘A Simultaneous Analysis of Grievance Activity and Outcome Decisions’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(4): 724–38.
15.
D’CruzM. N.1999. A Practical Guide to Grievance Procedure, Misconduct and Domestic Inquiry. Kuala Lumpur: Leeds Publication.
16.
DastmalchianA.BlytonP.AdamsonR.1989. Industrial relations climate: Testing a construct, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(1), 21–32.
DaveyH. W.1973. ‘What’s Right and What’s Wrong with Grievance Arbitration’, The Arbitration Journal, 28(4): 209–23.
19.
DavyJ. A.StewartG.AndersonJ.1992. ‘Formalization of Grievance Procedures: A Multi-Firm and Industry Study’, Journal of Labor Research, 13(3): 307–16.
20.
DoyleS. C.1999. The Grievance Procedure: The Heart of the Collective Agreement. Ontario: IRC Press.
21.
EatonAdrienne E.GordonMichael E.KeefeJeffrey H.1992. ‘The Impact of Quality of Work Life Programs and Grievance System Effectiveness on Union Commitment’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(3), 591–604.
22.
FischerB.1972. ‘Arbitration: The Steel Industry Experiment’, Monthly Labor Review, 95(11): 7–10.
23.
FrancoisV. L.2004. ‘An Assessment of Grievance Procedures in Austin and large Texas City Governments’, Masters of Public Administration, Research Project, Texas State University—San Marcos.
24.
FreemanR. B.MedoffJ. L.1984. What Do Unions Do?New York, NY: Basic Books.
25.
FryxellG. E.GordonM. E.1989. ‘Workplace Justice and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Satisfaction with the Union and Management’, Academy of Management Journal, 32(4): 851–56.
26.
GamageN.HewagamaG. V.2007. ‘An Empirical Study of Grievance Settlement and Labour Management Relationship of Apparel Industry in Sri Lanka’, Kelaniya Journal of Human Resource Management, 2(2): 170–86.
27.
GordonM. E.BowlbyR. L.1988. ‘Propositions about grievance settlements: Finally, consultation with grievants’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41(1), 107–123.
28.
GordonM. E.BowlbyR. L.1989. ‘Reactance and Intentionality Attributions as Determinants of the Intent to File a Grievance’, Personnel Psychology, 42(2): 309–29.
29.
GordonM. E.MillerS.1984. ‘Grievances: A Review of Research and Practice’, Personnel Psychology, 37(1): 117–46.
30.
HairJ.AndersonR.TathamR.2007. Multivariate Data Analysis (6th edn.). New Delhi: Pearson Education.
31.
HarawayW. M.2002. ‘Rediscovering Process Values in Employee Grievance Procedures’, Administration and Society, 35(5): 499–517.
32.
HarawayW. M.2004. Employee Grievance Programs: Understanding the Nexus between Workplace Justice, Organizational Legitimacy and Successful Organizations. Presented at The 2004 Southeastern Conference on Public Administration (SECoPA). Charlotte, NC.
33.
HirschmanA. O.1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
IvancevichJ. M.2001. Human Resource Management (8th edn.). New York: McGraw Hill.
35.
KaiserH. F.1974. ‘An Index of Factorial Simplicity’, Psychometrika, 39(1): 31–36.
36.
KnightK. G.LatreilleP. L.2000. ‘Discipline, Dismissals and Complaints to Employment Tribunal’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(6): 533–55.
37.
LabigC.HelburnL.1986. ‘Union and Management Policy Influences on Grievance Initiation’, Journal of Labour Research, 7(3): 269–84.
38.
LewinD. (1983). Theoretical Perspectives on the Modern Grievance Procedure, New Approaches to Labor Unions, Research in Labor Economics, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Supplement 2, pp. 127–147.
39.
LewinD.1999. ‘Theoretical and Empirical Research on the Grievance Procedure and Arbitration: A Critical Review’ in EatonA. E.O’KeefeJ. H. (eds). Employment Dispute Resolution and Worker Rights in the Changing Workplace, pp. 137–86. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.
40.
LewinD.PetersonR. B.1988. The Modern Grievance Procedure in the United States. New York, NY: Quorum Books.
41.
LoewenbergJ. J.1984. ‘Structure of Grievance Procedure’, Labour Law Journal, 35(1): 44–51.
42.
Mante-Meija, EnidA.1991. ‘Designing an Instrument for Resolving Individual Conflict in “Total” Institution’, Knowledge & Policy, 4(3): 58–73.
43.
MeyerD.1994. ‘The Political Effects of Grievance Handling by Stewards in a Local Union’, Journal of Labor Research, 15(1): 33–51.
44.
MillsD. Q.1994. Labor-Management Relations (5th edn.). Singapore: McGraw Hill Book Co.
45.
National Commission on Labour1969. Report, Ministry of Labour, Government of India.
46.
NgI.DastmalchianA.1989. ‘Determinants of Grievance Outcomes: A Case Study’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42(3): 393–403.
47.
NurseL.DevonishD.2007. ‘Grievance Management and its Links to Workplace Justice’, Employee Relations, 29(1): 89–109.
48.
Olson-BuchananJ. B.BoswellW. R.2008. ‘An Integrative Model of Experiencing and Responding to Mistreatment at Work’, Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 76–96.
49.
OpathaH. H. D. N.P.IsmailZ.2001. ‘Towards Effective Worker Grievance Handling: Some Reflections’, Analisis, 8(1&2): 111–27.
50.
OpathaH. H. D. P.1994. ‘Employee Grievance Settlement Procedure: A Case Study of Two Corporations’. Management Review. Sri Lanka: Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Sri Jayewardenepura.
51.
OxenbridgeS.BrownW.2004. ‘Achieving a New Equilibrium? The Stability of Co-operative Employer–Union Relationships’, Industrial Relations Journal, 35(5): 388–402.
52.
PetersonR. B.LewinD.2000. ‘Research on Unionized Grievance Procedures: Management Issues and Recommendations’, Human Resources Management, 39(4): 395–406.
53.
Polster, JoshuaC.2011. ‘Workplace Grievance Procedures: Signaling Fairness but Escalating Commitment’, New York University Law Review, 86(2): 638–71.
54.
PonakA.ZerbeW.RoseS.CorlissO.1996. ‘Using Event History Analysis to Model Delay in Grievance Arbitration’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 50(1): 105–21.
SalamonM.2000. Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice (4th edn.). Great Britain: Prentice Hall.
58.
SeeYoungblood, S. A.KlebeL.FaviaM.1992. Reactions to Unjust Dismissal and Third-Party Dispute Resolution: A Justice framework, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(4), 283–307.
59.
SelznickP.1996. ‘Institutionalism “Old” and “New”’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2): 270–71.
60.
SinghB. P.ChhabraT. N.TanejaP. L.1990. Personnel Management and Industrial Relations. Delhi: Dhanpat Rai & Sons.
