Labour Arbitration Sucks - Part Two: Improving the Internal Grievance Resolution Process
June 25, 2025
Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay
Improving the Internal Grievance Resolution Process is far easier said than done. Employers do not tend to see the grievance process as a benefit to them but rather see it as an attack on their authority. Unions are seen as unwanted intruders who seem to always be opposed to any position the employer takes on an issue. This leads to the self-fulfilling prophesy that unions impair management efficacy. Unions are not seen as having an interest in helping organizations improve performance.
In Canada we perpetuate these beliefs by assuming labour relations is necessarily an adversarial relationship. The relationship is best described as a “zero-sum game” where any win by one party must be matched with a loss by the other. In part this is the product of the reason employees seek to join unions in the first place, which is to provide employees with a voice to counter perceived ill-treatment and arbitrary decision-making on the part of management.
Employees gain voice by having input into the terms and conditions of employment through the negotiation of a collective agreement and through the grievance process. The grievance process allows them to question issues arising when it is believed management is not living up to the agreed upon terms and conditions. Negotiations and dispute resolution processes can and sometimes do mature and facilitate the development of a good working relationship between employees, the union that represents them and management. However, too often these processes are not well managed are not allowed to mature and the relationship devolves into a problematic environment where conflict continuously is dysfunctional and impairs the overall performance of the organization.
The dysfunction is not always fatal to the organization but can be said to be Pareto inefficient, meaning outcomes could be improved without making any stakeholder worse off. The million-dollar question is How to make the improvements?
How to Make the Improvements:
The starting point is to seek agreement on a set macro-level common objectives that both the employees, union and the organization can agree to. In truly problematic relationships this is achieved through facilitated discussions often referred to as Relationship-by-Objectives1 (RBO) where the parties exchange thoughts regarding what needs to be fixed to improve the relations and to seek agreement on what they hope to achieve together. While RBO techniques are usually used to fix relationships (that are so damaged that the first agreement is the acknowledgment that the status quo cannot be maintained) there is no reason the same techniques could not be used in less problematic situations where the acknowledgment is simply things could be better if the parties learned new and better approaches to get along.
In the RBO process we suggest that the parties ought to discuss and agree upon what success looks like. In labour relations, success should be reflected somehow in metrics related to the grievance resolution process. This begs the further question regarding what metrics are appropriate and what can be deemed good, bad or indifferent results.
Think in terms of any sort of performance audit which should be predicated on the assumption that the first results are merely a baseline for comparison to determine if activities in the future are headed in the right direction towards improvement or in the wrong direction towards further erosion of the relationship.
Grievance Process Metrics
Now consider the first measure which could be the absolute number of grievances initiated and the relationship of that absolute number to the size of the employee/union member population. If through, albeit subjective, analysis the number of grievances seems low it indicates underutilization of the process. Too high a number indicates overutilization. In some cases, the number might seem just about right. The parties can than investigate root causes that lead to under or over utilization. If employees fear management response they may be reluctant to raise grievances. If they do not respect management they may over use the process as a method of protest and obstructionism. If the number seems right this is one, and only one indicator of grievance system health. Keep in mind that results may also be a function of underreporting and the actual number may be suppressed because, for example, there are not processes in place to track first step grievances or because first-line supervisors are “hiding” grievance activities for fear that their existence may reflect badly on their abilities.
Regardless of the causes of the grievances the point is to establish a baseline, determine the direction for improvement (i.e. less or more) and figure out what action steps need to be taken to effect improvements. This then leads to the need to measure the effectiveness of the grievance process. This is trickier.
Conceptually at each step of the internal process the vast majority of grievances should be settled or resolved. Settled or resolved could mean allowing the grievance (i.e. granting to the grievor the redress sought); providing partial or alternative relief through some settlement which is not exactly as demanded, or denying the grievance outright and having the union withdraw it from further action or consideration.
Unresolved matters may be escalated from Step One to Step Two, or Step Two to Step Three etc., Presumably matters are settled at the right stage in the process according to the degree of complexity of the issue, the potential impact on the organization and/or the level of authority needed to put the potential resolution into effect. Grievances at the complaint stage resolved by the supervisor must comply with the strict interpretation of the collective agreement. At latter stages the parties may agree to settlements that clarify the interpretation of the agreement and can lead to new means of administering or applying the agreement.
If a resolution at the complaint stage has been arrived at that is not in compliance with the agreed upon interpretation of the collective agreement, it should be red-flagged as non-compliant and should not be considered as precedent setting by either party. If this occurs too often (which should be translated as happening more than once after the as the process evolves a bit it indicates a lack of understanding of the collective agreement at the front-lines and this should translate into teaching everyone how the collective agreement should be applied.
In the first step or complaint stage of the grievance process resolution at the front-line should be restricted to settlements or redress in strict compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement. At higher levels, where the appropriate people with the right levels of authority to agree to changes in the interpretation, application or administration of the collective agreement are present, settlements can be reached that may lead to new processes that are consistent with the intent of the collective agreement. At the highest level, Step Three, where the levels of authority equate to those present to negotiate the collective agreement, the widest degree of discretion in settlement may be applied.
It is also possible for settlements in the latter stages to be established on a one-off, no-precedent setting way that may deviate from the strict interpretation of the collective agreement or be clearly understood to apply only in that specific fact situation. In these cases the documentation clearly indicates that the resolution is agreed upon and has been determined to be “without prejudice or precedent”. This can help the parties arrive at creative solutions but care must be given not to over rely on the approach as the benefit of a healthy grievance process is that it provides clarity on how the collective agreement should be interpreted.
The number grievances resolved at each step is the second key metric to measure and monitor.
At the higher steps the objective must be to improve the relationship in a Pareto efficient way, meaning either both parties benefit from the outcome or one-party benefits and the other is no worse off. If the result is a zero-sum game then the matter should be the subject of escalation.
The final measures in terms of grievance activity relate to the absolute number referred to arbitration, category of grievances referred arbitration (see list below) and indicators of the arbitration results related to compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement (i.e. arbitrations “won” or “lost”). In a perfect situation, grievances referred to arbitration might fall into a small group of categories:
Disputes where there is an honest and salient difference of opinion regarding the interpretation, applications and/or administration of the collective agreement;
Disputes where there is a patent or latent ambiguity in the agreement that is the subject of the dispute;
Disputes where there is no agreement with respect to the statement of facts.
The goal is to maximize the disputes resolved internally and minimize those referred to a third party neutral. Additionally, while we allow for agreements to settle that require some level of negotiation the majority of resolutions should involve discussions to resolve misunderstandings and the outcome to agree to conform to the common interpretation of the collective agreement.
Notwithstanding any of the above efforts (to run a clean straightforward, efficient grievance process) which we suggest will lead to improved relations, we need to account for the fact that some appeals to third parties are made for what are best termed to be political reasons. To resolve these political stances internally and avoid going to an arbitrator, the parties may need to have access to a common credible source that will help them predict likely outcomes at arbitration. Such a tool could be used to persuade stakeholders outside the labour relations community (for the leader responsible for labour relations this means senior management that need persuading regarding the likely outcome; for the union this usually means the employee/member).
The use of a credible analytical tool would serve as a substitute for referrals to arbitration and could be introduced and used as a resource throughout the grievance resolution process. That is the subject of Part Three of three of this brief series – to be published July 9, 2025.
Psychologists refer to this type of process as Intergroup Mirroring because the process forces both parties to reflect on the perceptions of the other in order to gain a more objective perspective of how their behaviour contributes to the quality of the relationship.