Image Credit: Shutterstock
One of the key differences between union and non-union shops is the existence of a formal grievance procedure that culminates in arbitration to settle internal disputes. The original idea for having this process in union environments was to have a process to allow for the peaceful settlement of disputes to reduce the possibility of dysfunctional conflicts manifest in disruptive actions like wildcat strikes and other forms of protest. It generally works as intended but is too often seen as an intrusion on management’s time and efforts to run a business. However, if the whole grievance process is managed well it has the potential to facilitate a better working environment and better relationships between supervisors and employees.
How to Measure Effectiveness
Like any management process the indicators of it working well will be found by measuring how well it follows the intended procedures (steps). We have discussed before that the number of grievances itself is not necessarily a measure of a good, bad or balanced system. We acknowledge that too many grievances is a bad thing but also recognize that too few may equally be an indication that all is not well. A sophisticated way to measure efficacy of the grievance process is to determine the relative number of grievances settled at each step of the grievance process. But again, the absolute number is not helpful. Rather we expect, in a well-run system, more grievances will be settled in the early steps and few will be referred to arbitration.
Using settlement rates at the various steps of the process also requires some qualitative analysis that in turn requires a degree of expertise, specifically knowledge of the collective agreement and familiarity with the prevailing labour jurisprudence. In other words, it is of more interest to, and best done by labour relations practitioners. Such an analysis is helpful in determining training needs for supervisors and assisting in determining if any weaknesses exist in the collective agreement contract language or internal processes or policies that require corrective action.
Probably the most immediate and effective measure of the health of the grievance process is timeliness. This can be measured in different ways. Grievance procedures typically define when a grievance can be submitted (e.g. within x number of days of the event giving rise to the grievance or within the same number of days from the time the employee or union became aware of the issue in dispute). They also define how long management has to reply to the grievance at each step.
Subsequently, the union has time limits that dictate when the grievance can be advanced to the next step. Usually the dictated time limits are considered guidelines unless the parties to the collective agreement have made them mandatory by specifying an outcome if time limits have been exceeded. For example, the contract might specify that “a grievance will be considered abandoned if it is not advanced to the next step within X days”. This is language is most often found only in the final step with respect to the referral to arbitration, rendering an issue non-arbitrable. In the case of a failure of management to respond in a timely way to a grievance the “penalty” is usually automatic advancement to the next step.
Thus, we can measure the efficacy of the process by simply measuring the relative number of grievances that are not submitted in a timely fashion by the union. In addition, we can measure management’s effectiveness by measuring the relative number of grievances that have not been responded to on time. Both are important measures of whether or not the grievance system is working well.
Consider the fact that a grievance arising when an employee or group of employees believes rights under the collective agreement (or perceived rights) have been violated. Late submission or advancement by the union reduces the probability of settlement because with the advancement of time memories become foggy and a fact-based resolution becomes more elusive. More importantly, from a management perspective, late submissions and delayed advancement of disputes usually leads to a backlog of unresolved grievances which is a clear sign of a problematic relationship. Late responses by management are potentially an indication of indifference to employee issues which is not healthy and also a clear sign of a problematic relationship.
One, perhaps obvious solution is to take action to enforce the prescribed time limits in the collective agreement. This may be a necessary step but is not sufficient in itself to fix the underlying problem. One of the principle issues with enforcing time limits is that arbitrators are loathe to dismiss any grievance on purely technical terms in the absence of mandatory language in the collective agreement that prohibits the arbitrator from hearing the matter. Thus, the time limits seem to be actually guidelines rather than fixed milestones. Another problem with strict enforcement of time limits is the fact that grievances are often a reflection of employee dissatisfaction and if unresolved because they have been dismissed on technicalities the dissatisfaction with management will only fester and grow.
How to Fix Ineffectiveness
From a management perspective the solution is relatively easy. Management has the ability to mandate compliance with the process as prescribed by the contract. Line managers and supervisors can be held accountable for timely responses and their performance can be measured. Non-compliance can be addressed though coaching and monitoring. As well, line management can and should be trained to become familiar with those aspects of the collective agreement that give rise to grievances and therefore they are responsible for administering. This is to ensure they are well informed and can respond to most of the disputes that might arise.
When Unions are tardy in their submissions the management response should be to raise an objection that the time limits were not being followed but to hear the “complaint” anyways. In this way the employee issue is not simply dismissed out of hand. This opens the door for raising a more formal objection at arbitration later, in the event that there is continued abuse of the process (provided there is mandatory terms in the collective agreement) or to argue that the union’s failure to live by the contract has somehow placed the company at disadvantage in resolving the matter or proving its case.
Summary
A well-managed grievance process is to mutual advantage (i.e. mutual for employees and management). It ensures timely resolution of disputes with minimal transaction costs. Timeliness demonstrates a willingness to be open to employee inputs and creates a culture of caring about employee issues. While grievance procedures must be included in all collective agreements in all Canadian jurisdictions a healthy way to look at them is to consider them as tools that facilitate a positive employee relations culture.
Abuses of the process, including indifference to the prescribed time limits ultimately leads to unhealthy outcomes including a poor working relationship with the union representing your employees, often an unmanageable backlog of grievances, causing poor morale and poor productivity. It behooves management to treat the process as a positive means to avoid dysfunction through the creation of an outlet for employee frustrations. In truth, viewing the grievance process as a union weapon will create a difficult culture. Treating it as a tool for mutual benefit can only yield positive results when monitored and managed.