Informal Employment Dispute Resolution among Low‐Wage Non‐Union Workers: Does Managerially Initiated Workplace Voice Enhance Equity and Efficiency?
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| Author | Anna Pollert,Andy Charlwood |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2012.00903.x |
Informal Employment Dispute Resolution
among Low-Wage Non-Union Workers:
Does Managerially Initiated Workplace
Voice Enhance Equity and Efficiency?
Andy Charlwood and Anna Pollert
Abstract
The decline of collective industrial relations has shifted the focus of industrial
relations research to the study of individual employment disputes. In this article,
we investigate whether employer-initiated workplace voice is associated with
improved resolution of individual complaints or grievances workers make
against employers. We find that our measure of workplace voice is associated
with less serious problems, more informal methods of dispute resolution, more
satisfactory outcomes for workers and lower quit rates. However, these findings
need to be set against generally low rates of satisfactory dispute resolution for
all employees in our sample.
1. Introduction
The decline of collective industrial relations has shifted the focus of industrial
relations research and practice from collective industrial relations to disputes
between the individual employee and their employer (Walker and Hamilton
2010: 1). Most research in this area examines formal dispute and grievance
procedures (Antcliff and Saundry 2009; Bacharach and Bamberger 2004;
Bamberger et al. 2008; Bemmels 1994; Bemmels and Foley 1996; Bemmels
et al. 1991; Colvin 2004; Lewin 2007; Lewin and Peterson 1999) or applica-
tions to employment tribunals (Burgess et al. 2001; Hayward et al. 2004;
Knight and Latreille 2000a,b, Saridakis et al. 2008). However, for every
formal grievance there are likely to be many more problems and grievances
that are resolved informally. This informal activity has largely escaped the
attentions of researchers (exceptions are Boroff and Lewin 1997; Boswell and
Andy Charlwood is at The York Management School, University of York. Anna Pollert is at the
Centre for Employment Studies Research, University of the West of England.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2012.00903.x
52:2 June 2014 0007–1080 pp. 359–386
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Olson-Buchanan 2004; Olson-Buchanan and Boswell 2002 and recent
research from the Advisory and Conciliation Service (ACAS); Davey and
Dix 2011; Latreille 2011; Saundry et al. 2008, 2011; Williams 2011). Our own
previously published research examined the way in which grievances and
problems that employees had with their employers were handled among a
sample of low-wage, non-union workers in Great Britain, including informal
activity. We found that non-union, largely informal methods of resolving
these types of disputes did not work well for this group. Only 32 per cent
reported that their problem or grievance was resolved at all, and only half of
those who had their problem resolved reported that it was resolved satisfac-
torily (Pollert and Charlwood 2009). Here, our focus is different. We ask
whether the provision of managerially initiated workplace voice can enhance
the equity and efficiency of dispute resolution.
Theory and existing research suggest two contradictory answers to this
question. Research into collective industrial relations has highlighted how
union voice mechanisms bring procedural justice to the workplace. Non-
union voice mechanisms are unlikely to produce the same results (enhanced
fairness, reduced employee turnover) because they lack the necessary inde-
pendence from management. This would suggest that managerially initiated
non-union voice would not improve dispute resolution (Freeman and Medoff
1984). By contrast, advocates of workplace employee involvement policies
argue that managerially initiated non-union employee voice will improve
trust and cooperation between management and employees, one spillover
effect of which could be to reduce formal grievance rates and encourage
informal resolution of problems and grievances to the benefit of both organi-
sations and employees (Colvin 2004: 682; Kochan et al. 1986). This difference
in judgement leads us to the central question of this article. Is employment
dispute resolution (EDR) among low-paid, non-union employees with prob-
lems or grievances against their employers more effective if workers work in
workplaces that have managerially initiated voice mechanisms compared to
workplaces that do not have managerially initiated voice? We judge effec-
tiveness against two metrics:1Efficiency — outcomes that result in lower costs
for employers. Specifically, is the incidence of time consuming and therefore
costly formal grievances and employment tribunal cases lower among
employees who report employer-initiated voice at their workplace? Is labour
turnover lower in workplaces that have employer-initiated voice? Equity —
outcomes that employees perceive to be fairer. Specifically, are the rates of
satisfactory resolutions to problems and complaints higher among employees
who report employer-initiated voice at their workplace? We seek to answer
these questions by comparing employee problems and grievances, and their
outcomes in workplaces where our survey respondents said that ‘staff or their
representatives can meet regularly with management to discuss workplace
issues’ compared to those who worked in workplaces without any such
managerially initiated voice mechanism.
With this in mind, the rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 2
sets out theory and existing evidence on this question. Section 3 explains our
360 British Journal of Industrial Relations
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics.
To continue reading
Request your trial