What influences the progression of employment rights disputes?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12085
• Published date: 01 March 2015
• Author: Bernard Walker,R.T. Hamilton
• Date: 01 March 2015

What influences the progression of

employment rights disputes?

Bernard Walker and R.T. Hamilton

ABSTRACT

This study of employment rights disputes in New Zealand accessed all parties to 14

disputes. Despite a legislative requirement to preserve relationships, only three

survived. Dispute type, interaction mode and the parties’ relative influence affected

outcomes. These findings have implications for managers and policy makers regard-

ing alternative dispute resolution systems.

1 INTRODUCTION

Why are some employment rights disputes resolved at a low level while others pro-

gress to inevitable termination? This study provides new insights into the progression

and resolution of such disputes. As alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems

spread through the United States, UK and beyond, there is a dearth of research on

how these operate in practice (Ridley-Duff and Bennett, 2011). What little is known

comes largely from disputes in unionised and public sector organisations, a line of

research dominated by quantitative inquiry that has overlooked the employee per-

spective (Bennett, 2013). This qualitative study affords detailed insights into the

employee experience of disputes.

The authors accessed all the parties involved in 14 individual-level employment

disputes as they progressed into external mediation in New Zealand, having

exhausted all within-organisation efforts to resolve them. The employment relation-

ships were continuing at this point. Although the statutory intent of the Employment

Relations Act 2000 is to establish procedures and institutions that support successful

employment relationships (s143), only three relationships survived, typical of cases

that reach mediation (McAndrew, 2010; McAndrew et al., 2004).

Our purpose is to explore the progression of employment rights disputes and not to

evaluate the mediation process as such, although we do use data from the mediation

events. The interplay of three previously under-emphasised factors, dispute type,

interaction mode and the ability of the employee and their representatives to influence

the events, affected how disputes were resolved. These factors should feature in more

grounded and dynamic models of grievance disputes.

❒BernardWalker is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Management, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship,

University of Canterbury and R.T. Hamilton is Professor of Management in the Department of Manage-

ment, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury. Correspondence should be addressed

to Bernard Walker, Department of Management, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship, University of Can-

terbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; email: bernard.walker@canterbury.ac.nz

Industrial Relations Journal 46:2, 117–133

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

The next section reviews the field to provide the context for our study. We then

describe our methodology and the unique data to which we were allowed access.

Analysis follows where we derive the key factors of dispute type, interaction mode and

employee influence. The analysis section culminates in a more detailed discussion of

one case, which gives insight into the relative importance of these factors. We then

discuss these findings before concluding the article with implications for managers

and policy makers.

2 CONTEXT OF GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Individual-level disputes1between employee and employer are an enduring aspect of

human resource management (HRM). While many are resolved informally, an

increasing number progress into external resolution procedures such as mediation.

While these procedures seek to resolve grievances and preserve employment relation-

ships, many end with termination. Effective resolution processes can benefit managers

by resolving conflict, minimising worker discontent and reducing staff turnover

(Boroff, 1991; Olson-Buchanan, 1997). These procedures also protect employees,

facilitating early dispute resolution (Freeman and Medoff, 1985; Lewin, 2005). Recent

decades, however, have seen marked increases in the volume of formal employment

disputes, with applications in the UK more than trebling between 1988 and 1996

(Burgess et al., 2001). Similar trends have been observed in New Zealand (May et al.,

2001; Shulruf et al., 2009) and North America (Lipsky et al., 2003: 54).

Grievances are stressful for managers and come with a range of costs including

management time and direct financial expense (Woodhams, 2007). The topic is also

politicised, with employer groups complaining of increasing costs, complexity and

opportunism, as employees allegedly pursue ill-founded claims (Gibbons, 2007;

McAndrew et al., 2004; Shulruf et al., 2009). Organisations and governments have

sought to improve the effectiveness of grievance procedures and contain the growth of

formal claims (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). The measures include promoting ADR

methods (Budd and Colvin, 2008; Lipsky et al., 2003) and seeking to introduce

low-level, early resolution mechanisms.

Previous research has typically used large data sets to explain grievance initiation,

employee responses, grievance processing and outcomes. This has explored variables

such as grievant, workforce and workplace characteristics (Knight and Latreille,

2000a; Lewin, 1999), stage of settlement (Knight and Latreille, 2000b), representation

(Antcliff and Saundry, 2009; McAndrew, 1999) and enterprise size (Saridakis et al.,

2008; Woodhams, 2007), yet many areas remain ill-defined (Lewin, 2005). Another

long-standing line of research has evolved from Hirschman’s (1970) loyalty-voice-exit

model (Lewin and Petersen, 1999; Luchak, 2003; Olson-Buchanan and Boswell,

2002). This frames grievances in terms of a single filing decision and most often in the

North American context (Lewin, 2004: 402–403). There are significant gaps in the

research concerning aspects such as the role of other parties and other jurisdictions

(Walker and Hamilton, 2011). This study reframes disputes as involving a progression

of stages and a number of parties. The findings highlight three factors overlooked in

1The term ‘grievances’ is used in a variety of ways, sometimes referring only to union procedures but other

times for both union and non-union procedures. The current discussion adopts the broader concept

covering union and non-union situations, as well as other formal dispute resolution systems outside of

North America, which use terms such as individual-level employment rights disputes.

118 Bernard Walker and R.T. Hamilton

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd