Sally Jetson and Associates
in conjunction with
Mt Lawley Professional Centre

Managing Workplace Grievances:

Taking the Grief Out Of Grievance Resolution

Sally Jetson
PO Box 243
Mt Lawley  Western Australia  6005

 Abstract

Introduction

Did you know that most employees, in a 40-45 year career, spend 80,000 hours in the workplace.   Most employees spend over half their waking hours at work with most spending more waking hours with co-workers, than others.  Little wonder then that conflict is common in the work environment.

Organisations get so busy attending to outputs, they fail to attend to small but necessary inputs along the way. 

Simple things get overlooked like: how people are doing in their jobs; do people know what is expected from them; how people communicate information; how people are being treated; how they get along with others.  

Often times, itÍs only when something goes wrong we think about the lack of attention to this fundamentally important workplace ingredient.

This paper focuses on the identification and management of concerns, complaints and conflicts that are work related, interpersonal in nature and relate to the way in which people behave at work. 

Matters that involve collective action, disputes, OSH or industrial relations grievances are not discussed in this paper.

For far too many employees in Australian workplaces, the outcome of complaint processes and grievance resolution procedures is a far greater problem than the original complaint itself. 

These case studies serve to illustrate.

Case Study 1:

A clerical assistant complained to her director that she was bullied by her supervisor and sought investigation of the matter.  Two weeks later she received a letter directing her to mediation with her supervisor, advising that the agency preferred to employ an ADR (Alternative Disputes Resolution) approach to staff conflicts and the matter would only be investigated if mediation failed.  She left work that day never to be seen there again.  With her sick leave entitlements now gone, she has progressed to the workers compensation system.

Case Study 2:

An employee with a history of poor performance and hostile confrontation complained he had suffered unprovoked assault by a leading hand.  He formalised the complaint and demanded an apology.  He insisted the complaint and apology by placed on the respondentÍs file.  Management insisted on a mediated outcome if possible.  Investigations revealed there was no assault and the verbal confrontation occurred when the leading hand asked several times for the employee to attend his shift at the printing machine.  The complainant refused to participate in mediation because it was at odds with his objective.  In line with the company grievance procedure, the complainant lodged his complaint further up the line and it was accepted for investigation.  The leading hand was so distressed and traumatised by the process that he resigned to avoid any further grief. 

Common Outcomes of Poor Grievance Processes

These scenarios are all too common.  When the outcome of complaint resolution creates more a problem than it is designed to solve, our procedures are failing and our practices need a thorough re-examination. 

Too many employees are further aggrieved, harassed and traumatised when grievance processes fail to deliver expected outcomes.  The cynicism amongst workers that the employer canÍt be trusted and the process doesnÍt work is reinforced.

Generally speaking managers groan and brace themselves when a workplace behaviour or conduct matter is reported.  They know theyÍre in for a time-consuming process fraught with difficulty.  They may be overwhelmed by what is ahead and ill prepared for the task.

Busy managers avoid getting involved and hope that by ignoring it, the problem will go away.  Alternatively, they may be intimidated by the due process requirements for dealing with unacceptable behaviour, particularly the more serious matters, or they may be mindful of the politics of the workplace.

This paper provides some tools to help grievance managers assess workplace behaviour matters and select the most suitable approach for management and resolution.

So What Constitutes a Grievance?

Grievances are charges by employees that their rights have been violated by management actions or decisions.  In most cases the rights in question have been established by collective bargaining agreements, although they may also be rights established by company policies or by precedent. [1]

Our general understanding of grievance in the workplace is that a grievance may result from an action, behaviour, omission, situation or decision which is unfair, unjustified, or a violation of a personÍs rights. 

The term ïgrievanceÍ derives from ïgriefÍ and implies that the aggrieved has suffered detriment, or is likely to suffer detriment if the situation is not remedied. 

The primary responsibility to resolve the matter lies legally, procedurally or ethically with the employer and if this fails, employees have recourse to external options including conciliation, arbitration or litigation.

Definitions and Problems

Problems, however, result from different perceptions of grievance.

If you ask a worker what a grievance is, the term has become an all encompassing description for matters as minor as ïI donÍt want to work with Max any more and IÍm going to take a grievance against himÍ to ïIÍm about to be dismissed ƒ what recourse do I have if I think the decision is inherently flawed?Í  Many employees perceive that being spoken to about performance is worthy of a grievance.

Differentiating between 'grumps' and 'grievances' and identifying the types and seriousness of matters that exist along that this continuum is a worthwhile exercise.  It helps identify sources of discontent in the workplace and guides preventative action.

Not every conduct problem that an employee reports or complains about constitutes a grievance. Conducting a proper assessment of the matter and identifying the best way to proceed is the first step in improving outcomes in such matters.

From the beginning it is important to identify those matters more suited to a line management, performance management or problem solving approach from those suited to a complaints or grievance procedure. 

Interpersonal concerns, minor conflicts and performance matters are management responsibilities and need to be clearly distinguished from grievances.

The lack of alternative pathways forces many employees to present their matter as a grievance in order to gain legitimate hearing and commitment to action from the employer. 

A decade ago EEO harassment complaints procedures meant that in some organisations up to 85% of reports were not unlawful harassment, but other matters that bothered employees including grievances about management decisions. [2]  

The extent of the problem was highlighted in 1995 by a decision of the Federal Court in relation to feelings of offence experienced by employees in the normal course of performing their job role. 

The decision of the Federal Court clarified the difference between workplace harassment and legitimate management decisions.  The Court pointed out that it is not workplace harassment for managers to manage.  Whilst a work directive may be unwelcome or the nature of the task unappealing to the employee, that doesnÍt make it harassment. [3]

Where prevention cannot be achieved, consistent measures for assessing type and seriousness provides us with skills to identify the problem to be solved (rather than solving the wrong problem) and increase the likelihood of effective resolution.

So, not all concerns that employees feel aggrieved about will constitute a complaint.  Not all complaints will meet the requirement for a grievance.

Providing a grievance procedure for matters that are not grievances may be counter productive to effective management and resolution. 

Other problems experienced by grievance managers have been identified in action research carried out by Sally Jetson & Associates in workshops on grievance management between 1994-2004.  The following is a list the most commonly identified problems encountered for grievance managers. 

Access, Initiation and Escalation of Problems

The stated purpose of most grievance procedures is to resolve matters in a safe, efficient and effective manner observing the requirements of due process.  Unfortunately the formality and structure of some grievance procedures contributes to unnecessary grief for the complainant or creates barriers to access.

Take the common notion of ïformalÍ and ïinformalÍ complaints as an example.  Over time in the minds of grievance managers it seems that the word ïformalÍ has come to mean ïseriousÍ and the word ïseriousÍ has come to mean ïrequiring formal initiation and actionÍ.  The difficulty is that the two are not necessarily synonymous. 

Many organisations require that a matter be put in writing before any action will be taken. A problem arises when complainants are frightened to put complaints in writing because their matters are serious.  Fear of negative repercussions may influence their decision. However, ïduty of careÍ requires that serious matters be investigated, whether or not they have been presented in writing, whether or not they are ïformalÍ.  

The flipside arises when complainants form the misconception that they can define the seriousness of a matter by putting it in writing.  In other words, they believe that if they put it in writing it will be considered ïformalÍ and automatically investigated. In these circumstances complainants tend get upset if the complaint manager Íde-escalatesÍ their complaint to an appropriate level and recommends resolution through, for example, problem solving rather than investigation or disciplinary action.

While the requirement to ïput it in writingÍ or ïmake it formalÍ is designed to ensure that complaints are not whimsical, there are better ways to assess good faith and these barriers to honest, but scared complainants should be removed.

The rules of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, are useful to review here.  In the process of resolving disputes IAMA conciliators agree to ïadopt procedures suitable for quick, cost effective and fair resolution of the dispute, minimising formality as far as possible.Í   The parties involved are also required to agree to do all things reasonably necessary to achieve the same objective. [4]

Assessment of Complaint & Grievance Matters

So how do we tell what is and isnÍt a grievance?  Firstly we assess the matter against the following criteria.

This is the point at which many attempts at grievance resolution can fail because of different views on the nature of the complaint and how it should be progressed. 

This paper proposes that in order to map a path forward the next should be assessment as to which of the following descriptors apply.

The framework proposed here provides a means for clearly differentiating each from the other. [5]

Each of the following is defined by

1.    Minor Concern

A minor concern is characterised by impact which is temporary hurt related to a one-off event.

Excluded from this category are matters involving sexual/racial harassment, unlawful discrimination and matters involving breaches of laws, policy or company codes.

Expression of minor concerns in an appropriate way can serve a useful purpose in preserving effective interpersonal relationships at work. People may express feelings of dislike or discomfort in the workplace; they may ïwhingeÍ or even ïgrizzleÍ.  With the exception of temporary hurt, no harm has been done.  

Examples include occasional sharp words between employees, irritation about co-workers habits or grizzles about an unpleasant, but necessary task.

The most useful intervention is to listen actively, express empathy and ensure that what has been expressed doesnÍt turn into damaging workplace gossip or a ïrunning soreÍ.

Formal investigation at this level is not required and performance management or disciplinary action against other employees it not an anticipated outcome.  Instead the emphasis should be on supporting the employee to vent appropriately and/or to engage in civil interactions with the other person to sort the matter out.

2.    Concern

A concern is characterised by behaviour which is unacceptable to the organisation.  Typically it has a deeper and lingering impact.  It may also involve negative impact upon one or more employees.  Concerns are likely to be expressed about interpersonal matters, management or supervisory behaviour and leadership style. 

Excluded from this category are matters involving sexual/racial harassment, unlawful discrimination and matters involving breaches of laws, policy or company codes.

Examples include obscene or derogatory language, undue criticism or put-downs of others; spreading destructive gossip or rumours about a co-worker; work directions communicated in a heavy handed way.

In order to determine whether there is a concern to be resolved supervisors should talk with the offended party and the offending party to establish the facts of the matter.  The most appropriate options for resolving concerns are via the performance management system or a facilitated problem-solving discussion with the parties.  If the facts of the matter cannot be determined then the supervisor should make expectations for future behaviour explicit. 

It is important for the supervisor to deal with any unacceptable behaviour as a first step.  Then mediation or facilitated discussions can occur to resolve the difficulty experienced within the working relationship.

3.    Complaint

Complaints involve behaviour, decisions or actions which breach company policy or codes. There is actual or potential for significant negative impact upon the complainant, the organisation and/or its members, customers or suppliers.  The impact lasts days, weeks or months and is longer rather than fleeting.

Excluded from this category are matters involving serious sexual/racial harassment and unlawful discrimination and matters where the employer has clear vicarious liability and duty of care obligations.  Included may be unacceptable behaviours noted in prevention of harassment policies and general codes of conduct.

Examples include intimidatory behaviour or threat by one employee towards another; favouritism by a supervisor towards one or more employee; derogatory comments or treatment; unwarranted criticism or blame; setting people up to fail by withholding information, co-operation and communication.

Depending on the nature of the issue, complaints can be investigated, conciliated, or resolved through performance management, counselling or discipline.  These matters are not usually suitable for mediation.  Any facilitated discussions designed to resolve the matter in the working relationship should only occur only after the offending behaviour has been addressed by line management.

4.    Grievance

A grievance is a complaint relating to serious matters where breach of law, employment contract, duty of care has been alleged. There is an aggrieved party alleging less favourable treatment and/or an actual or potential detriment.

In lodging a grievance, employees are requesting the employer to take responsibility for resolving a matter for which the employer has a legal obligation to do. Such matters usually involve ïvicarious liabilityÍ and ïduty of careÍ and the employer has an additional legal obligation to ensure that complainants are not victimised.

If the employer determines the grievance has merit and undertakes an investigation into the matter, complainants need to realise that the employer now controls the investigation process and will determine the outcome of the process. 

Sometimes complainants and/or respondents will be unhappy with the findings or outcome.  If the investigation has been undertaken professionally there is little they can do to change the outcome.  Some employees will have recourse to industrial forums to challenge the employerÍs decision.

5.     Dispute

A dispute is a complaint brought by a group of individuals and normally relates to industrial issues including terms and conditions of employment. The complaint is almost always in relation to a decision, practice or condition of the employer. 

Disputes do not normally concern employee conduct matters or allegations of unacceptable behaviour between employees.

Most awards and agreements contain a procedure for dealing with disputes of an employment nature.   Dispute resolution process is not suitable for matters other than breaches of employment contract or collective complaints or grievances. 

Table 1:  Five Point Model For Categorising,

Assessing and Managing Workplace Conduct Matters

Type of Problem	Characteristics	Relevant Example	Optimal Outcome	Intervention
Minor Concern	Temporary hurt related to a one-off event.	Sharp words between employees; grizzle about unpleasant but necessary task; irritation about co-workers habits	Issue dissipates with no harm done.	Assess situation. - Allow upset employee to vent feelings appropriately so they can process the matter and carry on unhindered. - Support employee to engage in civil interactions with the other person to sort the matter out.
Concern	Behaviour that is unacceptable to the organisation.	Employee uses obscene and derogatory language in the team. Supervisor openly criticises team member Undue criticism or put-down of others Derogatory treatment Spreading destructive gossip or rumours about co-worker	Unacceptable behaviour ceases.  No long term harm done.  Awareness of expected standards of behaviour is reinforced.	Assess situation.  Options include: - Talk with parties involved to identify the problem. - Performance management of work behaviour by responsible manager. Reinforce standards of acceptable behaviour. - Facilitated discussion to achieve suitable outcome. - Possibly warn and/or counsel.
Complaint	Defined by nature and seriousness.  Involves behaviour, decisions or actions which breach company policy or codes. There is actual or potential for significant negative impact.   Impact is longer rather than fleeting.	Employee complains that fellow workers are intimidating him into ïgo-slow on the jobÍ; failure to co-operate or other set-up-to-fail behaviours.	Unacceptable  behaviour ceases and employees work at optimal level.	Assess situation. - Supervisor or Manager  investigate the claim; conclude an outcome and take action to ensure that situation is appropriately dealt with. - Performance management of work behaviour by responsible manager. - Discipline if necessary. - Take relevant steps to ensure situation does not arise again, eg, counselling, behaviour contracts.
Grievance	Relates to more serious matters where breach of law, employment contract, vicarious liability or duty of care, etc has been alleged.  Implies there is an aggrieved party claiming they are subject to unlawful treatment and can demonstrate an actual or potential detriment.	Employee claims sexual harassment or sabotage of workspace or deliberate unco-operativeness in the team.  Having raised concerns to management previously, situation has deteriorated.	Unlawful and unacceptable behaviour ceases. Resultant harm is assessed and managed accordingly. Victimisation and other unlawful acts are prevented.	Assess situation. - Investigate allegations, and make findings and recommendations. - Investigation process will be more formal, ie, written report, statements taken, etc. - May be conducted by impartial third party. - All dealings in writing. - Outcome may be disciplinary in nature.
Dispute	A group action relating to terms and conditions of employment.	Group of employees claim unfairness in shift roster allocation.	Ensure shift rosters allocated fairly and in accordance with operational needs.	Assess situation.  - Investigate claim under the disputes procedure in award or agreement.

Application of Framework

In applying this framework, the following matters should also be considered.

The person assessing the complaint needs to make some judgment about the conception of the complaint in order to ensure sound process.  There are three possibilities to be considered.

During assessment attention must be given to whether or not the complainant is acting in good faith.  The assessor must consider the extent to which:

The following definitions will assist.

In Good Faith

Most complaints made are in good faith, that is, there are sound reasons for reporting a matter and a complaint is justified.  The outcome desired by the complainant is appropriate to the degree of transgression of the behaviour complained about.  Characteristics such as malice or retribution are absent in ïgood faithÍ complaints.

Misconceived Complaints

Whilst some elements the matter complained about may be true, much of what is complained about is not true, lacks substance, is exaggerated or is generally implausible.  A preliminary investigation can usually differentiate the facts of the matter from fiction.  Then the grievance can be accurately assessed.

Malicious and Vexatious Complaints

Malicious or vexatious complaints have no place in the grievance process and must not be supported or enabled.  Such complaints constitute attempts by the complainant to deliberately harm others.

The employerÍs responsibility is to deal with the underlying issues contributing to the situation and now enable the grievance procedure to be used as a weapon.

This example demonstrates how a misconceived complaint became vexatious:

An employee with a long-standing work performance problem was counselled by his new manager.  Previous managers had allowed the work performance problems and disruptive behaviour to continue unaddressed.  He lodged a grievance against his manager claiming he was being victimised and subject to discriminatory treatment.  He claimed the manager was incompetent, played favourites and disliked him. The grievance was faxed to many people in the organisation and to the union.  In addition, the employee spread damaging gossip and rumours about the manager, aiming to enlist support of others to his cause.

He identified the desired outcome of his grievance as follows:

The employer assessed the grievance and determined investigation was necessary. he complainant and the manager were interviewed and employment and performance records of both reviewed.

The employer was satisfied that the manager was acting in accordance with the companyÍs performance management guidelines, the complaint was dismissed and the option for a facilitated meeting was offered by the employer.

The employee refused to do his work and continued to vilify the manager.  The manager became stressed and took sick leave.

Subsequent investigations were undertaken and as a result the employer took disciplinary action against the complainant and directed him to behavioural counselling. 

Whilst there was marginal improvement in the situation, a year later he was dismissed for an unrelated offence.

In this instance, whilst the employee was genuinely upset at being held to task, the manager had a legitimate right, and a responsibility to deal with performance and behavioural matters. 

Resolution, Justice or Punishment?

These are matters that need to be considered in the process of resolving the complaint.

In managing workplace issues the overall objective is the cost effective achievement of smooth and safe operation in the workplace. Such resolution can be achieved by problem-solving, mediation, conciliation, performance management, investigation and disciplinary action. For many complainants resolution rather than justice or punishment may be the objective.

Where justice is the objective, parties are interested in redress and restoration. The organisation has a responsibility to ensure that both process and outcome are just for all parties.   Attention must be paid to restorative justice, particularly if the parties will continue to work together as it reduces the likelihood of actions aimed at retribution or pay-back. [6]   While complainants are primarily interested in fair process and fair outcome they may seek particular punishment in restoration of justice.

In workplaces, the right to implement disciplinary consequences resides with the employer and is limited by law and requirements of due process.   Whilst aggrieved individuals may seek punishment of another person as an outcome, they do not have a right to direct, enforce or choose punishment.  At times this will mean that complainants set on seeing punishment as an outcome will be dissatisfied with the employers decisions and action to resolve the matter. (eg, the employer may not impose the ïdesiredÍ punishment or the employer will not disclose the nature of disciplinary action imposed)

Failure to achieve ïemotional resolutionÍ should be understood by complaint managers as a separate issue to the resolution of the substance of the complaint.  The complainant should not be supported or empowered by the process to escalate matters to a higher level in pursuit of emotional resolution.  Doing so is neither cost-effective nor likely to benefit any party.

Substantive and Emotional Resolution

There are two separate, but often overlapping needs that employees seek to meet through the process.  One is the need to have a substantive resolution and the other is the need to resolve the feelings triggered by the matter.

Substantive resolution is easiest need to address as it focuses on the practical outcomes of a due process.  Typically it involves substantiation of facts and practical action in keeping with policy and law.

Emotional resolution is more complex.

What happens, for example, if, in the mind of the complainant, the organisation has failed to satisfy their hurt or their desire for ïjusticeÍ?  What if the complainant demands to know the details of disciplinary action, or in their eyes if punishment is insufficient?  How should complaint managers respond? 

One of the most common and difficult situations is when a complainant seeks an apology from a respondent who will never give it.  No amount of reasoning or apologetic correspondence from the CEO will fill this emotional need. 

Complaint managers may find themselves in a bind.  On the one hand they need to take action and disclose sufficient information to enable the complainant to achieve closure.  On the other hand they must act within law, policy and process and respect the privacy and confidentiality of all parties. Failure to address emotional needs can result in the complainant seeking to escalate the matter to higher and higher levels and to their behaviour becoming obsessive and persecutory.  Resolution of the matter becomes more and more difficult to achieve.

Complaint managers need to recognise that the primary purpose of the complaint management process is substantive resolution and that emotional resolution may require the intervention and support of employee assistance programs or other skilled in counselling. Whilst managers do their best, the expertise required to deal with these difficulties may well be beyond the realm of lay folk.

Achievement of both, substantive and emotional resolution is more likely when the process is characterised by three factors ¿ explanation, expectation clarity and engagement. [7]

From the outset complainants need to be given clear explanations in suitable language about the roles of the parties and the steps of the process so that they can clearly understand what what will happen.  Secondly, rights and responsibilities of all parties, limits of the process, possible and impossible outcomes must be clearly explained and explored in two-way conversation to ensure realistic expectation.  Expectations must be checked and realism must be reinforced consistently throughout the process.  Thirdly, the complaint manager must support and inform the complainant and other parties throughout the process so they do not disengage or feel abandoned.  If they do, the risk is that emotions will escalate and expectations will become unrealistic and unmanageable.

Employers need to ensure that Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is available. The provider must be clear about the companyÍs policies and complaint management processes and the EAPÍs role in the process, so that unrealistic expectations are not inadvertently reinforced.

Options for Resolving Matters

Having determined the type and seriousness of a complaint the grievance manager now needs to identify the most appropriate way to proceed toward resolution taking into account the needs, resources and expectations of the complainant. 

The expectations of the complainant should be managed to ensure the best chance of emotional resolution as well as substantive resolution.

Information about alternative approaches to complaint resolution should be presented in a way that ensures that complainants can make informed choice and have a clear understanding about the extent of, and limits to, their control over the outcome.

In some procedures, these various options are presented under the catch-all descriptor of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).  Complainants are generally not provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice between the options, nor are they in fact given a real choice. [8] In this proposition, there is nothing alternative about these options.

Self Resolution Option

An individual may wish, and feel able, to deal with the issue themselves. 

Self resolution works best if those involved demonstrate goodwill and recognise their mutual rights and needs.

Complainants may benefit from coaching or rehearsal to voice awareness of the problem in ways that are helpful to successful communication.   Self resolution gives the parties full control over determining the outcome, thereby increasing the chances of win/win. [9]    The risk is that failure of such attempts will cause the problem to escalate.

Self resolution is appropriate for minor concerns and concerns.  It is not appropriate for  matters involving sexual/racial harassment, unlawful discrimination and matters involving breaches of laws, policy or company codes.

Mediation Option

Mediation is a problem solving approach where a neutral person meets with the parties and assists them to reach an outcome to which they can both agree and which will resolve the issue.

If the complaint manager believes that mediation is a suitable option, the parties should be asked if they want the matter to be mediated. Mediation is a voluntary process based on the commitment of parties to participate with goodwill. 

Since agreements made at mediation are not binding, there is a risk that the parties may ïrenegÍ at a later stage.  As well, since mediation depends to some extent on the skills and self-discipline of those involved, resolution may not be achieved and the complaint may escalate. [10]

Mediation is appropriate for minor concerns and concerns.  It may also be used in conjunction with appropriate behaviour management to resolve complaints. 

It is important to note that since complaints involve breach of code or policy conciliation may be a more suitable option.

Whilst conciliation is similar to mediation in many ways, the conciliator is not neutral on matters of company policies, procedures or standards.  Their role is to ensure the outcome agreed to by the participants is acceptable to the organisation.

Parties have a significant amount of control over the outcome and the outcome agreed to must be in line with organisational policies and expectations. [11]

Risks include token participation, refusal to participate or failure to agree a way forward.  Conciliated agreements are binding and breaches can be managed through the disciplinary process.

Mediation is appropriate for minor concerns and concerns.  Conciliation is appropriate for most types of complaint.  However, neither mediation nor conciliation are appropriate if there has been an avoidance of performance management responsibilities by line management, where a power balance exists and cannot be redressed and where blame is the likely outcome of failed mediation. [12]

Neither is appropriate for matters involving serious sexual/racial harassment, unlawful discrimination or matters involving significant formal or personal power difference between parties. 

Investigation Option

Concerns will generally not require investigation in order to resolve the issue.  Complaints of a more serious nature and grievances may require investigation.  The process of investigation is designed to get more information in order to determine whether the complaint is substantiated.

An investigation may be required where: 

¿       attempts to resolve the matter through other options have failed
¿       the behaviour which has been complained about has been denied
¿       the allegations are serious and substantiation is required
¿       several complaints or grievances have emerged on the same matter or the same employee/s
¿       the allegations are harmful to the organisationÍs reputation
¿       a health, safety or security risk exists
¿       in the course of managing a complaint, claims and counter claims have emerged requiring substantiation

Where management becomes aware of a workplace issue which needs to be resolved in the interest of the organisation and its employees, the organisation can decide to conduct an investigation even though there has been no complaint. [13]

When matters are referred for investigation, the parties have little or no control over the outcome.  Investigation is a compliance process where the outcome is a finding based on facts.   The outcome is determined by policies or law and the result is binding on all parties.

Risks associated with investigation include general unhappiness with the process and the outcome, stress on all parties, resource intensive, lengthy and costly.  Outcomes of investigation while binding, may be subject to industrial challenge.

Litigation or Civil Proceedings

These are rights-based adversarial processes where cases are presented and the outcome is determined by experts in the legislative area of the grievance.  Outcomes are binding on all parties. 

Litigation often escalates the intensity of the original dispute and creates economic and emotional stresses for both parties (Rutkin 1997).  According to Coil and Rice (1995) that advocates for complainants generally add claims on top of the original complaint (defamation, emotional distress, economic loss), thereby increasing the stakes and ensuring the defendants redouble their defence efforts. [14]  

Theoretically, the litigation process produces both a winner and a loser; however, the parties have minimal control over their participation in the process, and both parties may be unsatisfied as a result. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the objective of this paper is to overcome the difficulties encountered by grievance managers, complainants and others in the assessment and management of complaints, by we providing an assessment framework that brings structure to the categorisation of complaints.  We have also described the alignment between type and seriousness of complaints to recommended interventions and considered how best to gauge the good faith of complainants.  We have also clearly identified a range of options for managing and resolving complaints, and discussed some of the risks and benefits of each.

While confident that these tools will assist all involved in management of employee concerns to achieve expectation clarity and effective engagement, there is no substitute for the  experience and considered judgment of the grievance manager in assessing good faith and seriousness, and in mapping the best way forward so that both substantive and emotional resolution are achieved.

 

Acknowledgements

In addition to the references footnoted, I wish to acknowledge additional readings that have been useful to my thinking about taking the grief out of grievance management.

-           Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, 2001, PractitionerÍs Certificate in Mediation & Conciliation Handbook

-           Fiesta, J. 1999,  ïFiling a complaint, face retaliation?Í  Nursing Management; December, 30, 12

-           Klaas, B. S. 1989  ïManagerial decision making about employee grievances: The Impact of the grievantÍs work historyÍ Personnel Psychology, Spring, 42,1

-           Analoui, F. &, Kakabadse, A., 1993, ïIndustrial conflict and its expressionsÍ, Employee Relations.  Bradford:   Vol 15 Issue 1; pg 46

-           Dalton, D.R.& Todor, W.D.  1982, ïAntecedents of grievance filing behaviour:  Attitude/behavioural Consistence and the union stewardÍ Academy of Management Journal, March, 25

-           Charlton, R. 2000, Dispute Resolution Guidebook, LBC Information Services a part of Thomson Legal & Regulatory Group Asia Pacific Limited, Pyrmont, New South Wales