This study explores the role of human resource specialists in the handling of employee grievances. Most studies of HRM devolution have drawn only on the perceptions of managers and have neglected the area of grievances. The research highlights the employee experience of grievances under different levels of HRM devolution. The progression of fourteen grievance cases was investigated, accessing the full set of parties to each one. Data were gathered using a triangulated method involving 70 interviews, direct observation and written submissions. The findings suggest grievance handling is not readily accommodated within devolved HR structures. The role of HR staff in grievance processes can beill-defined and shows wide variation, causing problems for both line managers and employees. This lack of definition can lead to negative outcomes and damage the credibility of the HR department. The insights from this study are intended to initiate debate concerning the potential roles of HR practitioners in grievance handling.
BacharachSBambergerP. 2004. The power of labor to grieve: the impact of the workplace, labor market, and power-dependence on employee grievance filing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review57(4): 518–39.
2.
BinghamLB. 2004. Employment dispute resolution: The case for mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly22(1–2): 145–74.
3.
BinghamLB. 2007. Evaluation dispute resolution programs: Traps for the unwaryLabor and Employment Relations Association, Proceedings of the 59th Annual MeetingChicago: Labor and Employment Relations Association.
4.
BinghamLBChachereDR. 1999. Dispute resolution in employment: The need for research. In Employment dispute resolution and worker rights in the changing workplace, EatonAEKeefeJH, 95–136. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.
5.
BlanceroDDyerL. 1996. Due process for non-union employees: The influence of system characteristics on fairness perceptions. Human Resource Management35(3): 343–59.
6.
BoroffKE. 1991. Measuring the perceptions of the effectiveness of a workplace complaints procedure. Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations5: 207–33.
7.
BoseliePDietzGBoonC. 2005. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal15(3): 67–94.
8.
BouryDHennessyJSinclairAGiffordJ. 2011. Management agenda report 2011. Roffey Park, West Sussex.
9.
ColquittJAConlonDEWessonMJPorterCOLHNgKY. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology86(3): 425–45.
10.
ColvinAJS. 2003. The dual transformation of workplace dispute resolution. Industrial Relations42(4): 712–35.
11.
ConwayEMonksK. 2010. The devolution of HRM to middle managers in the Irish health service. Personnel Review39(3): 361–74.
12.
DelmonteJSelsL. 2008. HR outsourcing: threat or opportunity?Personnel Review37(5): 543–63.
13.
Department of Labour. 2000. Survey of employment disputes and disputes resolution. Wellington NZ: Employment Relations Service and AC Nielsen.
14.
Department of Labour. 2003. Evaluation of the short-term impacts of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Labour.
15.
EdgarFGeareAJ. 2005. Employee voice on human resource management. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources43(3): 361–80.
16.
EisenhardtKM. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–50.
17.
EisenhardtKMGraebnerME. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
18.
FreemanRBMedoffJL. 1985. What do unions do?New York: Basic Books.
19.
FryxellGE. 1992. Perceptions of justice afforded by formal grievance systems as predictors of belief in a just workplace. Journal of Business Ethics11(8): 635–47.
20.
FryxellGEGordonME. 1989. Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of satisfaction with union and management. Academy of Management Journal32(4): 851–66.
21.
HarlosKP. 2001. When organizational voice systems fail: more on the deaf ear syndrome and frustration effects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science37(3): 324–42.
22.
HarrisL. 2007. The changing nature of the HR function in UK local government and its role as ‘employee champion’. Employee Relations30(1): 34–47.
23.
KnightKGLatreillePL. 2000a. Discipline, dismissals and complaints to employment tribunals. British Journal of Industrial Relations38(4): 533–55.
24.
KnightKGLatreillePL. 2000b. How far do cases go? Resolution in industrial tribunal applications. The Manchester School68(6): 723–44.
25.
KulikCPerryE. 2008. When less is more: The effect of devolution on HR's strategic role and construed image. Human Resource Management47(3): 541–58.
26.
LaxDASebeniusJK. 1986. The manager as negotiator. New York: The Free Press.
27.
LewinD. 1999. Theoretical and empirical research on the grievance procedure and arbitration: A critical review. In Employment dispute resolution and worker rights in the changing workplace, EatonAEKeefeJH, 187–218. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.
28.
LewinD. 2004. Dispute resolution in the non-union organization: Key empirical findings. Alternative dispute resolution in the employment arena: Proceedings of New York University Annual Conference Series, SherwynDEstreicherS, 379–403. New York: Kluwer.
29.
LewinD. 2005. Unionism and employment conflict resolution: Rethinking collective voice and its consequences. Journal of Labor ResearchXXVI(2): 209–39.
30.
LewinDPetersonRB. 1999. Behavioral outcomes of grievance activity. Industrial Relations38(4): 554–76.
31.
Olson-BuchananJB. 1997. To grieve or not to grieve: Factors relating to voicing discontent in an organizational simulation. International Journal of Conflict Management8(2): 132–47.
32.
Olson-BuchananJBBoswellWR. 2002. The role of employee loyalty and formality in voicing discontent. Journal of Applied Psychology87(6): 1167–74.
33.
Olson-BuchananJBBoswellWR. 2008. An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work. Academy of Management Review33(1): 76–96.
34.
OstermanP. 1994. How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?Industrial and Labor Relations Review47(2): 173–88.
35.
PerryEKulikC. 2008. The devolution of HR to the line: Implications for perceptions of people management effectiveness. International Journal of Human Resource Management19(2): 262–73.
36.
PetersenRBLewinD. 2000. Research on unionised grievance procedures: Management issues and recommendations. Human Resource Management39(4): 395–406.
37.
PruittDGKimSH. 2004. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
38.
ShulrufBWoodhamsBHowardCRoopaliJYeeB. 2009. ‘Grievance gravy train picking up speed’: Myths and reality around employment disputes in New Zealand. Journal of Industrial Relations51(2): 245–61.
39.
TeoSRodwellJ. 2007. To be strategic in the new public sector, HR must remember its operational activities. Human Resource Management46(2): 265–84.
40.
TjosvoldDSuF. 2006. Manager as mediator: Developing a conflict-positive organization. The Blackwell handbook of mediation, HerrmanMS, 344–54. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
41.
WalkerBHamiltonRT. 2011. Employee–employer grievances: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews13(1): 40–58.
42.
WhittakerSMarchingtonM. 2003. Devolving HR responsibility to the line: Threat, opportunity or partnership?Employee Relations25(3): 245–61.
43.
WoodhamsB. 2007. Employment relationship problems: Costs, benefits and choices. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Labour.
44.
YinRK. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
