WORKPLACE JUSTICE: EQUITY AND THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS

Transcription

1 WORKPLACE JUSTICE: EQUITY AND THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS LISA M. PIÑA, HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES MANAGER RIVERSIDE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT INTRODUCTION A manager of a county department moves an employee s job assignment 150 miles away from where the employee lives. The employee is in a job classification that is one of the lowest paid in the employing county, and management expects that the employee will commute to and from work, across the California desert, each and every day. The employee tells management that he cannot make the commute because he does not have a reliable car and because he cannot afford the requisite gasoline to make that long of a commute. The employee does not show up for work on the first day of his new work location, but calls in that day, and thereafter, to tell his supervisor that he is unable to come to work. The employee is then notified that he will be terminated from his job because the county considers his inability to come to work as job abandonment. From the employee s perspective, the county has constructively discharged him from his job, a job in which he had property rights. From management s perspective, there was simply not enough work for the employee at the former worksite to justify leaving the employee at that worksite, so management had no choice but to relocate the employee s position to the closest location where there was enough work which was 150 miles from the employee s home. The inherent conflict in this scenario is at the heart of workplace justice: How does an organization s management assert its rights and keep its legitimacy in the eyes of its employees? In the above scenario, management asserts it had the right to make the business decision to move the employee s job 150 miles away. However, management may not have considered whether it should assert that right and, perhaps, anticipated the consequences of the action such as creating a perception of unfairness and distrust of management in the eyes of the employee. This type of action also has the potential for a more global adverse impact on the department employees perceptions of management. Separate from any legal issues related to the above scenario, the decision making process for management on issues that impact employees such as hires, promotions, transfers, layoffs, etc., do not often include much discussion about the decision s impact on organizational culture. Certain decisions and/or the manner in which the decisions are communicated can result in an overall perception of unfairness and distrust of management among its employees. The purpose of this paper is to define and describe the concepts associated with workplace justice and to apply those ideas to the most common venue for employee complaints which is the grievance process. The grievance process is an opportunity for management to define its culture and to attempt to maintain legitimacy of its actions via L. Piña 1

2 the three workplace justice concepts: distributive justice; procedural justice; and interactional justice. ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE DEFINED The study of workplace justice, or organizational justice, suggests three concepts: 1) distributive justice, which is the fairness of outcomes; 2) procedural justice, which is the fairness of processes; and 3) interactional justice, which is the way decision makers communicate. 1 The study of organizational justice is really an inquiry into the minds of employees and it refers to perceptions of fairness in the workplace. 2 Employees experience equity when equivalent job inputs (such as education, performance, tenure, etc.) result in equivalent job outcomes (such as compensation, promotions, etc.) in comparison to one s co-workers. 3 It is the build up of perceived inequities that places into question an organization s legitimacy, or its perceived credibility, among employees. Organizational justice can be explicated from the following perspectives: Distributive Justice Distributive justice in the workplace refers to the perceptions of fairness about job outcomes. Job outcomes include compensation, classification, promotional opportunities, worksite transfers, and other employee transactions that impact an employee s workplace wellbeing. These job outcomes are also commonly the subject of grievances, in that employees often file complaints whenever they perceive that a job outcome has created an inequity. Equity sought in the workplace by employees is achieved when one compares his/herself to one s peers to determine whether the job inputs (time on the job, education/training, satisfactory job performance) of employees are equivalent to the job outcomes of those employees. For example, equity is perceived employees with the same or similar work experience and time on the job are promoted or transferred equally. Conversely, inequity occurs when one employee is transferred 150 miles from his home, and no other co-worker is subject to the same job outcome. Procedural Justice Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures that are relied on to make decisions. 4 In the workplace, the fairness of the processes concerning workplace issues such as hiring to fill a position, promoting to a higher position, and processes to address complaints, and other workplace processes related to decisions on job outcomes can sometimes be as important as the job outcome itself. Should the job outcomes become unbalanced in any of the processes, the result could be an overall criticism of an organization s credibility. L. Piña 2

3 More specifically, the grievance process is highlighted in this paper. Aggrieved employees expect procedural due process and fairness when expressing their compaints. 5 With respect to a grievance process, the quality of the attention management provides during the process is really a combination of distributive and interactional justice. The workplace justice concepts are all elements in a grievance procedure: the decisions made as a result of the grievance process is a form of distributive justice; the grievance procedure and processes are a form of procedural justice; and the manner in which employees are treated during the grievance process is a form of interactional justice. Interactional Justice Interactional justice refers to the quality of communication (or interpersonal treatment) when procedures are utilized or when job outcomes are rendered. This is the most complicated of the workplace justice concepts because it involves personality characteristics, different psychological make-ups of individuals involved, and other communication challenges. Interactional justice also has a significant impact on employees. When employees do not experience respect and sensitivity during the interaction with management during a workplace process (such as a promotional process) or during outcome disbursement (such as a promotional decision), they can perceive inequity in the transaction leading to a disintegration of trust of their management. When management has a negative message to relay to employees (such as downsizing or discipline), they often distance themselves from the employees. This distancing can be viewed as disrespectful and results in employees feeling belittled and devalued, which in turn creates hostility toward the employer. In one study, it was found that in workplace violence incidents, the violent behavior was not necessarily as a result of the actual job action (layoff, termination, failure to receive a promotion), but was found to be a result of how the negative message was relayed. 6 This finding is a good example about how interactional justice can impact the credibility of managers and the legitimacy of an organization s actions. EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE (OR LACK THEREOF) Employees expect economic and other rewards as a result of their job inputs such as time on the job, satisfactory performance, and education and training. 7 A just system suggests that when you perform well and abide by company policies, you will be rewarded. Employees continually gauge their work successes to how well other employees are doing. This comparison has to do with the job outcomes of other employees (i.e., employees ask themselves, Am I being treated equitably compared to my peers? ). To experience equity, employees perceive that in comparison to their own job inputs (training, satisfactory performance, tenure), others with same or similar job L. Piña 3

4 inputs have relatively the same job outcomes (such as promotion, training, or other allocation of an employer s resources). 8 Generally, the response by employees to perceived equity in the workplace is upbeat morale, better employee retention, and overall employee satisfaction. However, the consequences of perceived inequity include an increase in job actions against the employer such as grievances or discrimination complaints being filed by unhappy employees; overall cultural negativity in the workplace; and to the extreme, incidents of workplace violence. Employers who work diligently at maintaining equity in their processes and policies--their distributive, procedural and interactional justice--will be perceived as fair minded, resulting in creating a more trusting relationship between the employees and management. These employers are aware of the consequences of having a downbeat environment in their workforce and strive at maintaining their organizational legitimacy in the eyes of their employees. WORKPLACE JUSTICE AND THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS Traditional grievance procedures in the public sector are typically negotiated between the employer and the union, and the procedures are usually documented in the memorandum of understanding, or contract, between the parties. Grievance procedures are geared to ensure equity and fairness in the grievance decisions by defining the issues permitted to be grieved and providing for several steps, with the process ending with a determination by neutral third party. 9 The traditional grievance procedure is a form of procedural justice and its focus is primarily the equity in the process. The challenge with the traditional grievance process is that it is more concerned with the perception of fairness of the process itself rather than being focused on the fairness of the outcomes. 10 Another problem is that the outcomes, the decisions made about the grievance issues, are based on a the employer s interpretation of legal due process rather than being concerned with interpersonal problem solving (or interactional justice). Consequently, employees are expected to put their full faith in the grievance decisions rather than in the individuals facilitating the process. Since trust is earned by demonstrating a genuine care over time (through openness of the parties involved and their competence and integrity) transforming a grievance procedure to one with more attention to interactional justice may bring greater trust between management and employees. 11 Of course it is not suggested that fairness in the grievance process is not appropriate. Both the procedure by which a complaint is heard and the interaction that the employee experiences while his/her issue is moved through the process are not independent. The employee must believe that the process and the interaction experienced are both believable and fair. In addition, the fairness of the grievance decisions (distributive justice) is also tied to the overall equity L. Piña 4

5 in the process as a whole. Achieving organizational justice involves the level of equity of all of the workplace justice themes. The relationship between employee grievance procedures and workplace justice is complex but understanding this relationship is critical to developing organization legitimacy. 12 The nexus between the grievance procedures and workplace justice is also illustrated in the equity of the grievance decisions as well as the procedures themselves. 13 In the County of Riverside, the grievance system is controlled by management in the early steps of the grievance process. The initial part of the process consists of an informal discussion between the employee and the line department and a first step hearing. The first step hearing is a meeting between the employee and the line department management where the manager renders the grievance decision. The second step of the grievance process is an informal hearing where the line department and the employee are represented, and a human resources manager decides on the issue. The majority of the County of Riverside grievances are resolved at the first or second step, and only a few grievances are moved to the third step. The third step of the grievance process is formal hearing before an arbitrator who ultimately decides the issue. Elements of a just grievance procedure include timeliness of the resolution, inclusion of employees, proper comportment of managers, and fair decisions. Many employees file grievances because they are unable to resolve an issue at the lowest level. When management does not process a grievance in a timely manner, employees view this as lack of concern about the issue and the employee. When management does not take a grievance issue seriously and does not respond to a grievance timely, it exacerbates the original complaint and damages the relationship between the employee and the employer. From the employee s perspective, not only has management ignored the issue, management has also ignored (and disrespected) the union contract language. This perceived disrespect of the employee results in the perception that they are devalued, and employees become more distrustful and angry. Conversely, when employers respond quickly to grievance issues, this enhances the employee s feelings of being respected, and adds value to the grievance process. It is also important that employees have opportunity to participate in the process. Having a voice at each stage of the grievance process gives employees the feeling of inclusion by guaranteeing they will be heard at the grievance meetings. Employees want the opportunity to state their concerns and have their point of view be fully heard by management. Sometimes being able to vent in an appropriate venue is all that is needed to resolve an employee issue. Grievance meetings are also an opportunity for employees to have access to managers which may not occur on a day-to-day basis. The one-on-one communication that takes place in a grievance hearing leads to feelings of inclusion and provides the employee with an occasion to be a part of the solution of their own issue and increases trust in the process. The attitude and behavior of management in grievance hearings has a tremendous impact on the legitimacy of a grievance process. A challenge to improving L. Piña 5

6 traditional grievance procedures is, in fact, management itself. It is the behavior of managers and supervisors that impacts the legitimacy of the grievance process. Without a fundamental understanding of the relationship between the grievance process and workplace justice, managers and supervisors will have no idea how their actions and interactions impact the overall perception of the organization s legitimacy. Managers and supervisors often take it personally when a subordinate employee files a grievance. As a result, some managers get defensive and close their minds to the grievance process as an opportunity to problem solve. Managers distance themselves from the employee which becomes a significant barrier to open communication. It is this author s experience that when managers pit themselves against the employee during the grievance process, the union representatives become more aggressive in their approach to resolving the issues and are less likely to work with the manager on a grievance resolution that might be found outside the four corners of the union contract. A negative attitude by management toward employees during the grievance process is contrary to effective workplace justice. Grievance decisions also affect the equity of a grievance process. Employees determine equity in the context of how others grievance issues are decided. Since many employees will not necessarily know the outcome of grievances for other people, it is essential that decision makers fully explain the rationale for the grievance decision. Managers need to ensure that decisions are judicious and reasonable, and remain consistent with similar grievances outcomes. Grievance decisions that are consistent with the provisions of a union contract will certainly enhance the validity of a grievance decision. Additionally, management s response to a grievance decision is equally important. If managers behave in a manner that suggests they are gloating after prevailing at a grievance hearing, or if they behave in a retaliatory manner when losing a grievance, these behaviors have a negative impact on perceptions of fairness in the process and do much to invalidate the grievance procedure in the minds of employees. The reality is that exclusion of employees, untimely grievance responses, negative behavior, and inconsistent decisions from managers and supervisors foster employee distrust of management and grievance procedures. The grievance process itself is supposed to be a fair and equitable procedure. However, supervisors and managers do not necessarily recognize the significant opportunity to influence trust in their employees through grievance programs. 14 Rather than viewing an employee complaint as an opportunity to build trust, managers and supervisors often perceive grievances negatively as in some disgruntled employee making trouble. This frequent management perception has an adverse impact on the process s grievance steps, decisions, and the treatment of the employee during the grievance hearings. It is uncertain whether the grievances in Riverside County are resolved at the first two steps as a result of the employee believing his/her issue has been fully addressed in an equitable manner and understands and concurs with the grievance decision, or if the employee just gives up because he/she is frustrated with the process or feels that they have not been given a fair opportunity to resolve the grievance. However, in one L. Piña 6

7 recent grievance, a union representative told a Human Resources Labor Relations representative that although the employee did not prevail at the Step 2 grievance hearing, the employee believed that the hearing officer (a member of the County s Human Resources Department) treated the employee and the issue in a fair and equitable manner and as a result, the employee opted not to appeal the grievance issue to arbitration. The union representative said that the employee felt respected because the hearing officer had a positive attitude, included the employee in the discussion, and openly held management accountable for some of the conflict. While this may not be the outcome to every grievance, it is certainly an example of successful workplace justice. In order to foster a more positive grievance process, it has been suggested that alternative dispute resolution, consensus building, and joint decision making replace the traditional grievance procedure. 15 This non-adversarial approach to grievance decisions responds to the inherent tension between management and employee rights. Once employees become a part of their own outcomes (or decisions that effect their workplace well-being), research suggests the result is a more efficient and legitimate organization. 16 Additionally, joint decision making practices will result in workplace justice being applied to both management and employees since both parties will be a part of the grievance resolution. The concepts of workplace justice is that all parties come away from a process believing there has been equity in the interactional, distributive and procedural outcomes. A more cooperative approach to the grievance process can lead to more favorable interpersonal relationships between management and employees. 17 Some suggested characteristics of such an approach 18, and ideas on achieving a more collaborative relationship between employees and managers include: More effective communication about job outcomes, especially when the decisions made affects the work life in any negative way. Helping employees to understand the why about an adverse decision may not ease the effect of a layoff, for example, but communicating more effectively and truthfully with employees can result in employees feeling more respected and valued. Openness, helpfulness and friendliness in the process. It hurts nothing to be open and courteous during any employee related process. For example, during the grievance process, the parties may become highly emotional at some point, but maintaining a cordial and respectful demeanor with one another will preserve a valued relationship after the final grievance decision has been rendered. A sense of agreement and consensus building. This can be accomplished through a labor-management cooperation effort. During this process, distributive outcomes are based on consensus, and since both labor and management are represented at the table, the outcomes tend to be more equitable and result in improved interactional justice. The approach to decision making can also reduce the number of grievances filed, and has an added benefit of maintaining a L. Piña 7

8 positive relationship between labor and management between collective bargaining seasons. Settling issues at the labor management meetings enhances the reputation of both the union and management. More supportiveness between the parties to accomplish each other s goals and establishing that conflicting interests are really mutual problems to be solved in a cooperative and collaborative approach. The relationship between labor and management is essentially adversarial. Often the objectives of management are at odds with labor interests, especially when management is asserting a right that can result in an employee take-away (real or perceived) such as a layoff or worksite transfer. As suggested above, employees and management often have the opportunity to team up on issues of mutual interest (such as reducing health care costs or making recommendations on how to save money in lean economic times) in order to foster a more supportive relationship with one another and achieve change in an area of mutual interest. It is clear from the research that the workplace justice concepts are inherent to an employee grievance process. The more equitable the decisions or outcomes, the more legitimate the process is perceived by employees. In addition, the process itself must be perceived as a model of fairness in order to enhance an organization s opportunity to resolve employee complaints because employees tend to shy away from processes they perceive as unfair. However, fundamental to both the distributive and procedural justice concepts is interactional justice. Interactional justice practiced throughout the grievance procedure will have the greatest positive impact on employee and management relations. If organizations move away from the traditional grievance procedure model toward a more collaborative approach to conflict resolution of employee complaints, it is suggested that this would lead to a more efficient and legitimate organization since all parties experience more equitable processes and decisions. CONCLUSION The inherent tension between management prerogatives and employee rights need not lead to the disintegration of organization legitimacy. In fact, when management confronts a decision like transferring an employee s job 150 miles away from the employee s home, there are ways in which management can reduce the totality of the impact of such an adverse job outcome. First, employers can strive for equity in the workplace by improving its distributive justice. Employers can look beyond the specific issue and work to balance the job action decisions by paying close attention to the impact of those decisions and work to ensure more equitable decisions across the board. In other words, management has the responsibility to distribute job actions (positive or negative) equitably. For example, if the department has never moved an employee s job 150 miles away, perhaps they shouldn t. L. Piña 8

9 Second, employers can look for ways to improve procedural justice by finding alternative approaches to traditional processes. As suggested earlier in this paper, employers can work toward more equitable procedural justice in the grievance process by creating a more collaborative approach to conflict resolution. Alternative approaches include labor-management cooperation; mediation or alternative dispute resolution; and advisory arbitration. The labor-management approach provides an opportunity for both labor and management to enter into a dialogue to exchange ideas and to make decisions based on consensus. Both mediation and advisory arbitration results in redefining management s roll in the process because the decisions made by a neutral third party, and can also result in improved perceptions about the fairness and credibility of the grievance process and its outcomes. Finally, and most important, an organization can raise its credibility by simply applying the golden rule: Treat others as you expect to be treated. Interactional justice is fundamental to improving workplace equity and the impact of job actions and work related decisions. When management decides to take an adverse, managers and supervisors should focus their communication efforts on treating employees with respect and dignity in all processes, practicing inclusion of the employee as party to the action, and creating a trust environment by being consistently truthful with their employees. Doing so will result in employees perceiving a more equitable workplace, and organization legitimacy would be improved (even if the employee did not agree with the final decision). So, how does an organization s management assert its rights and keep its legitimacy in the eyes of its employees? First, management ought to second guess any decision to move an employee s job 150 miles away from his/her home (i.e., management should ask, Is this outcome an absolute necessity? Is it truly based on a business need? Can we successfully defend such a decision in court? ) Second, management ought to ensure that any employee impacted by a decision such as this is afforded legitimate interactive due process through a credible and fair procedure. Finally, managers ought to keep in mind that a decision such as this could impact one of them some day, and are encouraged to treat the affected employee with dignity, sensitivity, and with truthfulness and respect throughout the process. Employers should strive for a more equitable workplace by understanding and improving distributive, procedural and interactional justice. NOTES 1. Henley, Christine A. Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction Between Organizational Justice and Personality. Journal of Managerial Issues (2005): 2. L. Piña 9

10 2. Byrne, Zinta S. and Cropanzano, Russell. The History of Organizational Justice: The Founders Speak, Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001), Henley, Christine A. Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction Between Organizational Justice and Personality. Journal of Managerial Issues (2005): Byrne, Zinta S. and Cropanzano, Russell. The History of Organizational Justice: The Founders Speak, Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001), Haraway, William M. Employee Grievance Programs: Understanding the Nexus Between Workplace Justice, Organizational Legitimacy and Successful Organizations. Public Personnel Management 34, 4 (Winter 2005) Folger, Robert, and Skarlicki, Daniel P. Fairness as a Dependent Variable: Why Tough Times Can Lead to Bad Management, Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001), Grandey, Alicia A. Family Friendly Policies: Organizational Justice Perceptions of Need-Based Allocations, Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001), Ibid, Haraway, William M. (2004). Employee Grievance Programs: Understanding the Nexus Between Workplace Justice, Organizational Legitimacy and Successful Organizations. Public Personnel Management 34, 4 (Winter 2005) Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid, 333. L. Piña 10

11 17. Ibid, Ibid, 338. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON JUNE 30, 2006 BY: MS. LISA M. PIÑA, MPA HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES MANAGER LABOR RELATIONS & APPEALS RIVERSIDE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES P.O. BOX 1569 RIVERSIDE, CA L. Piña 11