See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235263162

Grievance Management and Its Links to Workplace Justice

Article  in  Employee Relations · November 2006

DOI: 10.1108/01425450710714496

CITATIONS READS
32 1,291

2 authors, including:

Dwayne Devonish
University of the West Indies at Cave Hill, Barbados
41 PUBLICATIONS   643 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GEMS Entrepreneurship Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dwayne Devonish on 26 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Grievance
Grievance management and its management
links to workplace justice
Lawrence Nurse and Dwayne Devonish
Department of Management Studies, University of the West Indies, 89
Bridgetown, Barbados
Received 24 October 2005
Revised 23 January 2006
Abstract Accepted 25 January 2006
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of workers’ demographic
characteristics on their perceptions of procedural justice from grievance management. A related aim is
to determine whether procedural justice perceptions have an impact on perceptions of distributive
justice.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a survey of 660 employees across the
public and private sectors. Perceptions were measured with the use of a dichotomous scale, and
logistic regression analysis was applied to test the relationships between the dependent and
independent variables.
Findings – Except for education, demographic characteristics made no significant difference to
workers’ perceptions of procedural justice afforded by grievance procedures. Perceptions of procedural
justice, however, had an impact on perceived distributive justice.
Research limitations/implications – The use of dichotomous response sets prevented the use of
factor analysis. Logistic regression analysis compensated for the inability to use ANOVA. Further
research is needed to explain why education moreso that any other demographic characteristic would
influence procedural justice perceptions of grievance management. Research is also required to isolate
the effects of justice perceptions on satisfaction with the trade union and organizational citizenship
behaviours.
Practical implications – Failure to pay careful attention to procedural justice can create problems
for managers, workers and unions.
Originality/value – This paper highlights the need to pay due attention to procedural justice. It
continues a line of inquiry on workplace justice that has only recently been initiated in Barbados.
Keywords Barbados, Administration of justice and law enforcement, Demography, Trade unions,
Grievances
Paper type Research paper

Aims of the study

This paper explores workers’ perceptions about the justice of outcomes that derive
from the use of grievance procedures in organizations where they work. It assesses the
role that grievance management plays as a process for delivering just outcomes in
organizations. The results of this study will shed some light on the extent to which
workers’ experience or perceive procedural and distributive justice as outcomes
derived from the use of grievance mechanisms. More particularly, we explore the
influence of workers’ demographic characteristics on their perceptions of procedural
justice derived from grievance management
Employee Relations
Vol. 29 No. 1, 2007
The authors are grateful to Betty Jane Punnett and Martin Williams for their critical comments pp. 89-109
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
made on an earlier draft of this paper. They also acknowledge the generous research assistance 0142-5455
of Joseann Small and Grace-Ann Jackman. DOI 10.1108/01425450710714496
ER Background to the study
29,1 One of the important provisions of collective agreements is the grievance procedure. It
has historically been regarded as both an institutional mechanism and a process for
managing workplace conflict arising out of the contract between employer and
employee. The use of grievance procedures has become institutionalised in
union/management relations. Such usage admits of the inevitability of conflict that
90 emanates from the contradictory relationship between workers and employers.
Grievance procedures, however, are intended to provide “peaceful” means for resolving
that conflict.
Almost every collective agreement negotiated between trade unions and employers
in the private sector in Barbados makes provision for the use of a multi-stage approach
to grievance management. While formalised systems with well-defined stages are more
likely to be found in the unionised sectors of the economy, employers in the
non-unionised sector can ill afford to ignore the concerns of their employees for due
process and fair treatment. Some non-union employers therefore make provision for the
disposition of complaints and grievances in employee manuals and handbooks in their
attempt to contain dissatisfaction and conflict, and perhaps forestall unionization of
their employees.
Few published studies exist about grievance systems in Barbados, or for that
matter, in the Caribbean. Empirical work is therefore required to determine whether
workers in this tropical island-state believe that grievance systems promote justice at
work. The research is motivated by the notion that justice matters, to employees and
employers alike. Interest in this subject is linked to a concern about fair employee
treatment and the creation and maintenance of fair working environments. The
personal character of justice judgements and perceptions is an affirmation that
employees and their trade unions have a strong vested interest in justice outcomes. The
results of this study will shed light on how workers feel about the way both their
employers and trade unions engage in the process, and with what results. This theme
is amplified in the section below dealing with the rationale for the study. It constitutes
the background against which the study was undertaken.
Reference to organizational justice involves a consideration of “the perceived
fairness of the exchanges taking place in an organization, be they social or economic,
and involving the individual in his or her relations with supervisors, subordinates,
peers, and the organization as a social system” (Beugre, 1998, p. xiii). This study
addresses two types of justice that result from the practice of workplace relations –
distributive and procedural justice.
Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations
that individuals in organizations receive and perceptions of procedural justice reflect
an appraisal of the process by which an allocation decision is (or was) made (Folger
and Cropanzano, 1998: xxii). “Procedural justice refers to fairness issues concerning the
methods, mechanisms, and processes used to determine outcomes” (Folger and
Cropanzano, 1998, p. 26).

Importance of the grievance process

The existence of grievance procedures and the practice of grievance management
express the reality that conflict is inevitable in the management of workplace relations
between workers and employers. The use of grievance procedures institutionalises
conflict by providing an orderly means of settlement of grievances. Students of Grievance
workplace relations have long recognised the importance to both managers and management
workers of effective grievance administration. From the employees’ standpoint, it
provides an opportunity for the use of the “voice” mechanism (Freeman and Medoff,
1984), thereby creating upward communication channels to management and the
conditions under which workers and their unions can assert and protect job rights
under the contract. Through effective grievance management, workers can 91
legitimately protest contract violations, and seek redress when contract clauses have
been improperly applied or inappropriately interpreted. Grievance management assists
with the resolution of disagreement over facts and employees initiate the process if
they perceive that the treatment received at the hands of management is unjust,
unwarranted, discriminatory, or inconsistent when compared with that received by
others under similar circumstances. Workers also engage in the process to draw
management’s attention to problems at the workplace and to ensure that they are put
on the agenda for action.
Management, too, benefits from the effective management of the process. It
constitutes an alternative to job action, thereby creating conditions under which the
affairs of the organization are not interrupted as a result of employee disaffection or
dissatisfaction. As Gordon and Fryxell (1993, pp. 232, 233) observe:
Grievance systems can reduce or eliminate work stoppages during the life of the collective
bargaining agreement. Processing a grievance permits resolution of interpretive
disagreements without reliance on economic threat by either of the parties . . . Compliance
with the contract is effected by an orderly process that allows the parties to determine
whether the labor agreement has in fact been violated.
Paradoxically, another benefit derives from the contradiction that is inherent in the
practice of invoking the “voice” mechanism. Workers do this in their own interests, but
the results can also be to management’s advantage. When workers through this
medium choose to remain in the organization and have their problems resolved, there is
the strong likelihood that the results will assist management in its attempts to control
some of the costs associated with turnover and the corresponding need to recruit, select
and train new employees. If aggrieved members of the workforce prefer to remain with
the organization as they search for solutions to their problems rather than to quit,
management does not incur the costs to which reference was made above. We add to
this the real possibility that the productivity of new employees may not be as high as
that of those who might have left the organization. In any event, newly hired
employees have to be socialised into the new environment and enterprise culture and
develop productive working relationships before they reach peak performance. The
latter consideration is of particular significance if those who leave the organization
work in jobs where the skills acquisition process is lengthy, or alternatively, where the
skills in question are peculiar to the organization or are otherwise in short supply.
Once trade unions and employers enter into a collective bargaining relationship and
they wish to maintain it, the effective use of grievance procedures, inter alia, can assist
in strengthening that relationship. Grievance management as an element of the process
of contract administration, extends the collective bargaining process by giving
dynamic meaning to contract terms and operational significance to the written word
(Davey et al., 1982). Moreover, it plays an important role in helping the parties to
collective bargaining as they search for meaning and understanding where collective
ER agreements are silent or vague on certain issues. This is an especially important
29,1 consideration since the collective agreement cannot speak to every possible eventuality
or contingency. Careful and skillful grievance administration is particularly useful
under such circumstances. It can influence the perceptions of employees regarding
justice, and the effectiveness with which their unions represent their interests at work,
and ultimately their relationships with the union.
92 Grievance administration also has consequences for individual behaviour. Research
has shown that it may discourage or foster “disruptive behaviour” and influence job
performance and job satisfaction, as well as the relationship between the aggrieved and
the employer and trade-union respectively (Gordon and Bowlby, 1988; Klaas, 1989;
Fiortio et al., 1988; Fryxell and Gordon, 1989). In their examination of the relationship
between union-member relations and satisfaction with union representation, Jarley
et al. (1990, p. 132) too, observe that “(c)ollective bargaining gains . . . are . . . hardly
inconsequential to the rank and file’s evaluation of the union, but it is clear that
members consider . . . the delivery of union services as critical”. Similar concerns are
echoed by Gordon and Fryxell (1993, p. 251) when they observe that “a union’s
relations with its constituents is tied more closely to the procedural and distributive
justice afforded by its representation in the grievance system than by any other type of
benefit provided in the collective bargaining agreement”.

Characteristics of effective grievance systems

The use of grievance procedures is intended to serve the needs of both employers and
employees. It is therefore important for organizations to employ effective grievance
management systems to address the concerns raised by employees in the interest of
promoting justice and avoiding conflict, especially in an unionized establishment.
Grievance systems and grievance management should possess certain characteristics
and demonstrate the use of certain principles to ensure their effectiveness.
One of the cardinal principles of effective complaints and grievance management is
that workers must be aware of and have unencumbered access to well-defined
procedures that are easy to understand and use. Another principle of effective
grievance management is that workers’ concerns should be addressed in a timely
fashion. For this to happen, one of the conditions that must be present in the unionized
environment is that there should be a sufficient number of competent trade-union
representatives and supervisors at the workplace. The same holds for union officials
who must be available for providing this essential service to union members, in the
event disagreements and misunderstandings are not resolved at the local level, and
especially if third party assistance in the form of conciliation or grievance arbitration is
required.
Grievance systems should also ensure “voice”, or the opportunity to be heard in the
organization, (Feuille and Chachere, 1995; Freeman and Medoff, 1984). “Voice” allows
employees to assert and protect their job rights. Grievance systems should also specify
employees’ rights to representation and allow for appeal against decisions with which
they disagree. Effective grievance management ultimately affords workers an ability
to assist in shaping decisions at the workplace that affect them. Feuille and Chachere
(1995) observe that employees view work systems as fair when these procedures allow
them the opportunity to contribute or participate in management decision-making.
Procedural justice afforded by grievance systems seems to be a function of how
grievances are handled and resolved in the organization. It is thus important to Grievance
understand certain characteristics of a grievance system in promoting positive management
perceptions of organizational justice.
Feuille and Chachere (1995, p. 28) contend that “. . . grievance procedures can be
thought of as procedural justice channels that allow employees the remedial opportunity
to seek the distributive justice they believe they were denied when the unfair treatment
occurred”. Thus, one important factor in promoting procedural justice in an organization 93
is the presence of adequate opportunities for airing complaints as part of the process of
promoting “voice”. Konovosky (2000, p. 496) cited previous research on procedural
justice which established “that opportunity for voice led to higher perceptions of PJ
(procedural justice) than no opportunity for voice”. Since grievance procedures are
ideally linked to the procedural justice concept, another important feature of this system
is its ability to handle workers’ complaints in a fair manner.
Sheppard et al. (1992) argue that important features of an effective voice system, in
constituting procedural justice, are efficiency and responsiveness (to grievants). An
efficient and responsive grievance system handles workers’ complaints in a timely
manner and ensures that decisions for resolving grievances are made in a timely
manner. The former refers to the time that elapses between the time a complaint is
issued and the time any action by management is initiated. The latter refers to length
of time spent in reaching a formal resolution for a grievance or complaint raised.
Furthermore, the stages of the grievance management process and the procedures for
handling workers’ complaints should be adequate in effective grievance systems
because these elements contribute to workers’ perceptions about the seriousness with
which the parties treat their grievances, and the justice-producing potential of any
effort to resolve them.
For the purposes of this study, these six major characteristics (existence of adequate
opportunities for airing complaints, fair handling of workers’ complaints, timeliness of
grievance/complaint handling, timeliness of grievance resolution, adequate stages of
the grievance management process and adequate procedures for handling workers’
complaints) are deemed important for effective grievance systems.

Rationale for the study

Research on organizational justice is important in light of the fact that many
opportunities exist for managers to make decisions that result in injustice – the abrupt
closure of a section leading, from the standpoint of employees, to unanticipated
redundancy; capricious or whimsical dismissal of an employee; payment of a higher
salary to a male employee with less experience and qualifications than a female who
consistently performs much better; a refusal to promote or otherwise reward employees
for consistently superior contributions while rewarding others out of favouritism.
Out of their concern for cost-discipline, labour efficiency and profitability, managers
may take actions that either deny individuals “voice”, process control or outcome
control and satisfaction. Employees grieve when situations such as these affect them
and if negative experiences are constantly repeated, the morality and justice of the
decision-making process and the outcomes that flow from it become subject to
question. Lind (1995) shows that individuals’ justice judgements and not necessarily
their respect for authority systems are critical to their acceptance of organizational
decisions and procedures.
ER Justice and fairness have always been matters of utmost concern to workers. The
29,1 development and practice of contemporary trade unionism are institutionalised
expressions of that concern. The changing international economic environment, the
corresponding policy and strategic initiatives taken by governments and employers in
the private sector, as well as the transitional character of employment relations
reflecting the influence of these trends, pose enormous challenges for trade unions.
94 Given the implications they hold for job and employment security and the challenge
they represent to the traditional culture of entitlement that collective agreements
sanctioned, inter alia, through seniority rules and the principle of last-in-first-out
(LIFO), the above developments tend to heighten the level of uncertainty, ambiguity
and fear among workers at the workplace.
Under the above circumstances, workers are likely to enlist the service of unions if
they perceive that management practices at the workplace violate the terms of either
the collective agreement or of the psychological contract. As Alexander et al. (1995),
p. 62) point out, “the concepts of justice and fairness appear central to our
understanding of the impact of changing employment relationships”. Justice and
fairness are critical especially since “organizations undergoing change will often be
unable or unwilling to fulfill the promised contractual terms they have made to each
employee” (Robinson, 1995, present author’s emphasis).
These concerns apply with equal force to the Caribbean, as trade unions have had to
grapple with the effects on labour of structural adjustment and privatization
programmes embarked on by governments. Employers in the private sector, too, in
their efforts to be or remain competitive, have taken steps to streamline their
organizations and experiment with different contractual relationships with labour.
This study uses a unique data set to assess the extent to which workers and
managers use grievance procedures to assist in the resolution of workplace problems.
Grievance procedures are an important cornerstone in the industrial relations edifice,
yet there is scant empirical evidence on the nature and extent of workers’ experience
with the process in the Caribbean. Given the relative absence of empirical research
about this phenomenon in the Caribbean, this study will contribute to our
understanding of workers’ perceptions about it.
In general, the literature has paid much attention to the importance of grievance
statistics as a barometer for measuring satisfaction with trade unions and
labour-management relations (Holley et al., 2001; Gordon and Fryxell, 1993).
However, we are mindful of the pitfalls that stand in the way of drawing definitive
conclusions from an analysis that relies solely on grievance statistics. For example,
grievance rates, per se, do not necessarily indicate whether labour relations are good or
bad. Other factors that may influence these rates include the competence of union
stewards and their fear of retaliation by management; the motives behind filing
grievances; the motives of supervisors for preventing complaints to reach the stage of a
grievance and other kinds of “political” factors (see, for example, Holley et al., 2001).
The focus of this project was therefore on a range of workers’ perceptions of justice,
rather than simply on an analysis of grievance statistics.
Gordon and Fryxell (1993, p. 231) note, “there is a dearth of behavioural research on
grievances . . . empirical information is scarce regarding the personal and
organizational outcomes (e.g. workplace justice) that are anticipated and actually
afforded by use of the grievance system”. The literature also suggests that procedural
justice resulting from the grievance system is more important than distributive justice Grievance
(Klaas, 1989b). Clark and Gallagher (1989), too, found that it is the union’s profile more management
so than the image of management that depends on the grievance system. Specifically,
Fryxell and Gordon (1989) found that procedural justice was a better predictor of
members’ satisfaction with the union than distributive justice. Recall also that Gordon
and Fryxell (1993) attach greater weight to procedural and distributive justice
outcomes than to any other types of benefit under collective bargaining as a basis for 95
cementing relations between trade unions and their members.
Over the past decade or so, trade unions in the Caribbean have had to deal with
some of the employment security and other issues emanating from the initiatives and
responses by governments and private sector organizations to the widening and
deepening of the globalization process. There has, however, been no counterveiling
force in the non-union sector either effectively to question managerial decision-making
or to halt programmes affecting the security of workers.
If, as Alexander et al. (1995, p. 76) point out, “justice concerns remain an important
influence on union members’ perception of their employer” when there is a collective
bargaining agreement, it is also possible that the trade unions that represent them
attach a premium on outcomes that reflect the application of certain principles of
justice. These authors also observe that “(u)nions affect the employment relationship
by placing emphasis on different rules of justice than those that might be used in
non-union settings” (Alexander et al., 1995), thereby constituting one of the important
differences in the management of workplace relations between the non-union and
unionised environments.
Rules of justice are important insofar as their careful usage provides guidelines and
a reference point for decision-making to avoid dispute or for resolving contested issues.
In this sense, they assist in shaping the procedural environment governing grievance
administration as well as the substantive outcomes in grievance management. This
statement implies that their usage is likely to produce outcomes in unionised
workplaces that reflect the operation of justice principles that may not even be
considered in non-union workplaces. In 1989, Herman and his colleagues, remind us
that grievance procedures without a union possess certain weaknesses, including the
fact that management is both judge and defendant. They also observe that “in the
typical non-union plant, the employee with a grievance will probably face some
frustrating hazards. And however generous the management, the grievant without a
union is a subject petitioning for redress, not a citizen demanding justice”.
Recall, too, that workers have historically joined trade unions because of the
attractiveness of these organizations as the means for promoting and strengthening job
security, and for protecting them against unfair treatment (Holley et al., 2001; Bret,
1980). In their review of the literature addressing mechanisms that trade unions use to
affect justice, Alexander et al. (1995, p. 75) conclude that “justice considerations are a
fundamental component of employees’ desires for union representation as well as
efforts by management to keep unions out of their workplace”.

Demographic factors and workplace justice

Previous research investigating the influence of employee demographic characteristics
on perceptions of justice has been extensive. Particulary, gender has emerged as an
important factor in determining perceptions of workplace justice. Mueller and Mulinge
ER (2001) explored the impact of gender on workplace justice in Kenya and found that
29,1 female employees, across economic sectors, perceived less procedural and distributive
justice than their male counterparts. Despite the fact that these findings emerged in a
highly “traditional” and patriarchal society, these researchers contend that gender
inequality remains a serious issue facing many other developing nations. A recent
study on grievance resolution and justice in a worker cooperative indicated that a
96 number of women in the sample expressed a lack of trust and faith in the neutrality of
the formal grievance system (Hoffmann, 2005). Nurse and Small (2002) discovered
significant gender differences in perception about procedural, interactional and
distributive justice afforded by the grievance system.
Educational background and age have also been examined in the context of
organizational justice. Fryxell (1992) explored relationships between age, education
and union participation and workplace justice. He found that education was the only
significant predictor of perceived justice, and concluded that educated workers were
more likely to find their workplaces to be more just but that these perceptions may not
be related to the grievance system, per se.
Conversely, past studies have established that demographic factors do not
significantly affect perceptions of organizational justice (e.g. Cohen-Carash and
Spector, 2001, p. 302). These researchers argued that, “regardless of age, gender, race,
educational level, and tenure, people tend to perceive justice similarly”.

Relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice

Research has shown that perceptions of procedural justice predict perceived
distributive justice in various organizational practices (Kim et al., 2004; Peterson
and Lewin, 2000; Robbins et al., 2000). For example, Peterson and Lewin’s (2000, p. 402)
conclusions about major findings in industrial research on grievance management and
organizational justice suggest that “a grievance system that is perceived by employees
to be procedurally just or fair is likely to be used and to be regarded as effective”. This
suggests that when employees perceive the procedures attached to the system as fair
and just (procedural justice), they are more likely to perceive outcomes as fair
(distributive) even when those outcomes are not in their favour.
Given the above, two principal research questions that we investigate in this paper
are: whether union membership, age, gender, and educational background make a
difference to workers’ perceptions about procedural justice from grievance
management; and are perceptions of distributive justice a function of perceived
procedural justice from the grievance management system? It is plausible to assume,
for example, that a worker’s age is likely to influence certain attitudes and perceptions.
Younger workers are assumed to have made less of a career investment than older
workers, and therefore may not have as much to protect as older workers. For these
reasons, they may be more inclined to challenge, and are also likely to be less tolerant
of perceived injustice than their older counterparts. Female workers may also be more
likely to experience higher levels of injustice because of the pervasiveness of gender
inequality in developing countries, as argued by Mueller and Mulinge (2001).
Furthermore, workers who have been exposed to more formal education than others
are more likely to have higher expectations regarding fair treatment than those with
less formal education. They are likely to be more articulate, with a keener sense of
justice (injustice). Trade-union affiliation is likely to sharpen these perceptions, as Grievance
workers would expect their unions to support them in their bid for fair treatment. management
Design of the study, research and data collection methods
The main focus of this project is to understand how workers in Barbados perceive
grievance systems and grievance management as mechanisms for delivering justice to
them at the workplace. In the first place, we outline the procedures that were employed 97
to conduct the study. Next, we present information highlighting the characteristics of
the respondents in the sample. Thereafter, we analyse and discuss the results of the
study. Finally, we distill some of the important implications of our findings.

Sample and procedure

We used a stratified random sample to select the organizations for this study. The
employees were selected with the use of a simple random sample. Where employee lists
were not available, convenience sampling procedures were employed. The sample
comprised 1,000 employees drawn from 120 organizations in the private sector and
agencies in the public sector in Barbados. The study is based on the responses of 660
employees, representing a 66 percent response rate. The sample includes organizations
that are non-union as well as unionized, thereby allowing for comparisons between
perceptions in unionised and non-unionised work environments.

Research design and data collection

University students administered a semi-structured questionnaire containing
79 questions, with 16 multi-part questions to the respondents over the period April to
June 2000, according to pre-determined sampling procedures. The questionnaire also
included several multidimensional questions intended to generate measures of a
variety of respondent attitudes toward the trade union. A cover letter outlining the
purpose of the research was included with the questionnaire. Respondents were told
that participation was voluntary. In particular, the instrument was designed to enable
us to test respondents’ perceptions about grievance management, performance
appraisal and promotions practice, compensation and benefits management and the
effectiveness of collective bargaining. The analysis in this paper is restricted to the
workers’ perceptions about grievance management. Some of the other issues have
already been addressed elsewhere (See Nurse and Small (2002); Nurse (2004, 2005).
As explained earlier, the study explored workers’ perceptions about six procedural
justice items and one distributive justice item. These constituted the main dependent
variables (see list of procedural and distributive justice items in Table I). A sample of
questionnaire items relating to grievance management, specifically dealing with

Procedural justice Distributive justice

Adequate opportunity for airing complaints

Complaints handled in a timely manner
Complaints handled in a fair manner Table I.
Adequate procedures for handling grievances Outcome was fair Classification of
Adequate stages for handling grievances procedural and
Adequate time for resolving grievances distributive justice items
ER perceptions of procedural justice, included: “Are procedures for handling grievances
29,1 adequate?” and “Are there adequate opportunities for airing complaints?” These items
were measured as dichotomies (0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes), where 0 equals the absence of that
particular dimension of procedural justice and 1 equals the presence of the same. We
requested respondents to say only whether they agreed or disagreed with a set of
statements. That course of action was deliberate as we were interested in polarised
98 responses, thereby avoiding “fence-sitting” or the tendency for respondents to take the
middle ground in answering the questions.
With respect to final research question measuring whether perceptions of
procedural justice impacted on perceived distributive justice (measured by a single
item: “Was the outcome of the grievance resolution fair?”), the six procedural items
were examined as independents and the one distributive item as the dependent
variable.
Relevant demographic variables examined as independents were sex (0 ¼ male,
1 ¼ female), age (0 ¼ 35 years and less, 1 ¼ more than 35 years) and union status.
Union status, in this study, referred to whether an employee was unionised or not
(classified as not a member of a trade union ¼ 0; a member of a trade union ¼ 1).
Education level was measured categorically with five different educational levels
(primary, secondary without certificates, secondary with certificates, tertiary and
“other education”). The first four categories represent varying levels of educational
attainment within Barbadian society, while the “other education” category was used to
capture those who may have done technical, vocational, professional or other
post-tertiary education programmes.
In keeping with our understanding of the elements of grievance management
procedural justice, we sought the respondents’ views regarding the existence of
adequate opportunities for airing complaints; whether the procedures for handling
grievances were adequate; whether they were satisfied with the manner their
grievances were handled at the different stages of the grievance process; whether
complaints were handled in a timely manner[1], whether they were satisfied with the
time taken to resolve grievances and whether grievances were handled fairly[2].

Characteristics of the respondents

The characteristics of the respondents appear in Table II. Of the respondents, 53
percent were female, and 47 percent were male. A total of 56 percent were not members
of the trade union, 38 percent were unionised, and the remainder did not disclose their
membership status. The majority (45 percent) were graduates of the secondary school
system with certificates, 24 percent had secondary school education without
certificates, 14 percent were university graduates, 9 percent had only primary school
education and the remaining 8 percent completed other types of technical, vocational
and professional training. A total of 54 percent were in the “35 years and under” age
group, and 46 percent were in the “over 35 age group”. The sectors were widely
representative of the economy. The largest number of respondents was found in
commerce (26 percent) and the smallest number in government (10 percent) and
construction (8 percent) respectively. The other four sectors (tourism, agriculture,
manufacturing and services sectors) were almost evenly represented, as the
percentages ranged from 12 percent to 15 percent.
 Grievance
Selected dimension % Subtotals Totals
management
Gender:
Male 47 301
Female 53 337 638
Educational qualifications:
Primary only 9 56 99
Secondary without certificates 24 144
Secondary with certificates 45 273
University 14 86
Other 8 51 610
Union status:
In trade union 38 248
Not in trade union 56 326
Wont say/dont know 6 35 609
Employment tenure:
Under 5 years 36 220
5 and up to 10 years 28 173
Over 10 years 34 207
Wont say 2 13 613
Age:
Under 25 years 13 80
25-35 years 41 253
Over 35 years to 55 years 42 261
Over 55 years 4 22
Wont say 5 3 619
Sector employed:
Construction 8 52
Commerce 26 171
Tourism 15 99
Other services 14 92 Table II.
Agriculture 12 79 Selected background
Manufacturing 15 99 characteristics of the
Government 10 66 658 respondents

Results of the survey

The complaints that respondents raised with management included concerns about
poor working conditions, workers’ attitudes, heavy work load and insufficient
remuneration, and in that order of magnitude. The order of magnitude that emerged for
grievances filed within the past 18 months was unsatisfactory working environment,
inadequate payment, and poor communication by management and shift hours. We
analyse below respondents’ justice perceptions about grievance management, based on
their experience with the process.

Binary logistic regression

Ordinary least squares regression (OLS) was not deemed appropriate because the
dependent variables examined in this study were expressed as dichotomies (yes/no).
The use of dichotomous dependent variables violates the assumptions of normality
and homoscedasticity in OLS regression. Binary logistic regression analysis was then
ER preferred over this strict regression procedure. Binary logistic regression expresses the
29,1 dependent variable as a logit variable through log-linear transformation, which
represents a natural log of the odds of the dependent occurring or not (Field, 2005).
Logistic regression predicts the probability of an event occurring, by computing the
changes in the log odds of dependent variable.
The relevant statistics reported in this analysis will include logit coefficients (B)
100 (expressed the same way as b-coefficients in ordinary linear regression, however, the
log odds are predicted), with respective standard errors (SE); the Wald chi-square
statistic (tests the significance of individual coefficients of each predictor variable; it is
reported with a corresponding p-value, where p , 0.05 is considered statistically
significant); Nagelkerke’s R-Square – used to estimate the proportion of variance
attributable to the predictor variables combined into the logistic equation; and Exp (b)
(estimates the odds of a particular outcome occurring; odd ratios larger than 1 means
that as a predictor’s coefficient increases, the probability of the event occurring also
increases). An odds ratio of 2 indicates that Y ¼ 1 is twice as likely with an increase of
X by one unit. Model chi-square test statistics will also be reported to estimate whether
the overall regression model is statistically significant.

The relationship between demographic factors and procedural justice

Tables III and IV report the statistics revealing the impact of age, gender, union status
and education level (dummy coded into four variables with the primary category
omitted for reference) on the six distinct procedural justice dimensions mentioned
above. Significant logistic regression models emerged including those predicting:
.
perceptions of whether adequate opportunities existed for airing complaints
(model chi square ¼ 17:58; df ¼ 7; p , 0:05Þ;
.
perceptions of whether complaints were handled timely (model chi square
¼ 29.87, df ¼ 7, p , 0.001);
.
perceptions of whether complaints were handled fairly (model chi square ¼
28:04; df ¼ 7; p , 0:001Þ; and
.
perceptions of whether procedures for handling complaints were adequate
(model chi square ¼ 24:87; df ¼ 7; p , 0:01Þ:

Employees with only primary level education (reference category) were more likely to
perceive that adequate opportunities existed for airing their complaints and that
procedures for handling complaints were adequate, compared with those possessing
up to secondary level education with certificates ðb ¼ 21:85; p , 0:05 and b ¼ 21:68;
p , 0:01Þ and those in the other education category ðb ¼ 21:68; p , 0:05 and
b ¼ 21:61; p , 0:05Þ: Similarly, in relation to perceptions of timely and fair
grievance handling, employees with only primary education were more likely to
agree that workers’ complaints were handled in a timely and fair fashion, compared
with those in the other educational groups. Sex, union status and age did not
contribute significantly to any of these predictions.

Perceived links between procedural justice and distributive justice

Distributive justice was measured by a single item highlighting whether respondents
felt that the outcome was fair. Multicollinearity was suspected before we examined the
 Grievance
Dependent variablesa
Independentsb B SE Wald Exp (B) management
Adequate opportunities exist for airing complaints:
Age 0.18 0.24 0.56 1.20
Sex 20.09 0.24 0.13 0.92
Union status 0.27 0.24 1.27 1.30 101
Secondary level w/o certificates 21.02 0.81 1.60 0.36
Secondary level with certificates 21.85 0.75 6.05 * 0.16
Tertiary level 21.32 0.79 2.76 0.27
Other education 21.68 0.82 4.23 * 0.19
Constant 2.91 0.99 8.59 * 18.33
2
Model X Statistic 17.58 *
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.06
Workers’ complaints are handled in timely manner:
Age 0.43 0.24 3.17 1.54
Sex 0.04 0.24 0.03 1.05
Union Status 0.00 0.24 0.00 1.00
Secondary level w/o certificates 21.29 0.61 4.51 * 0.28
Secondary level with certificates 22.00 0.57 12.27 * * * 0.14
Tertiary Level 21.69 0.62 7.42 * * 0.19
Other education 22.58 0.69 14.05 * * * 0.08
Constant 0.97 0.86 1.28 2.64
2
Model X Statistic 29.87 * * *
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.13
Workers’ complaints are handled fairly:
Age 0.36 0.26 1.98 1.44
Sex 209 0.26 0.13 0.91
Union status 20.16 0.26 0.39 0.85
Secondary level w/o certificates 20.95 0.69 1.88 0.39
Secondary level with certificates 22.09 0.64 10.65 * * 0.12
Tertiary level 21.70 0.69 6.08 * 0.18
Other education 22.03 0.75 7.38 * * 0.13
Constant 1.42 0.94 2.32 4.15
2
Model X statistic 28.04 * * *
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.1
Table III.
Notes: aDependent variables are dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes) bAge (0 = 35 years and under, 1 = over Logistic regression
35 years), Sex (0 = male, 1 = female), Union status (0 = Non-unionised, 1 = Unionised) were entered as analysis of perceptions of
dichotomous independents. Each educational category was entered as a dummy variable and the various procedural justice
primary education category was omitted as a reference category. * p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * *p , 0.001 dimensions

impact of procedural justice on perceptions of distributive justice. Since collinearity

diagnostics are not a natural part of the logistic regression command in SPSS, others
have advised to run linear regression analysis on the same predictor and outcome
variables in order to inspect tolerance and variance inflation factor statistics (VIF)
(Field, 2005; Leech et al., 2005). As suspected, tolerance statistics were low (less than
0.2) for two of the predictor variables, namely, “workers’ complaints were handled
fairly” and “satisfaction with the stages of the grievance management process”.
Tolerances below 0.2 are seen as strong indicators of multicollinearity in regression
models (Field, 2005). As a result, these two variables were dropped and a logistic
ER
Dependent variablesa
29,1 Independents b
B SE Wald Exp (B)

Procedures for handling complaints were adequate:

Age 0.23 0.24 0.91 1.26
Sex 20.42 0.24 3.06 0.66
102 Union status 0.25 0.24 1.06 1.28
Secondary level w/o certificates 20.85 0.62 1.88 0.43
Secondary level with certificates 21.68 0.57 8.76 * * 0.19
Tertiary level 21.09 0.62 3.14 0.34
Other education 21.61 0.65 6.06 * 0.20
Constant 2.45 0.86 8.21 * * 11.59
Model X 2 statistic 24.87 * * *
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.10
Satisfied with the time taken to resolve the grievance:
Age 0.32 0.53 0.38 1.38
Sex 21.02 0.62 2.68 0.36
Union status 0.08 0.65 0.01 1.07
Secondary level w/o certificates 21.81 1.37 1.73 0.16
Secondary level with certificates 22.08 1.35 2.39 0.12
Tertiary level 22.14 1.57 1.86 0.11
Other education 21.88 1.55 1.45 0.15
Constant 2.00 1.93 1.08 7.42
Model X 2 statistic 6.83
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.11
Satisfied with the stages of the grievance management
process:
Age 0.51 0.51 1.04 1.67
Sex 20.53 0.56 0.89 0.59
Union status 0.50 0.58 0.74 1.63
Secondary level w/o certificates 21.01 1.30 0.60 0.37
Secondary level with certificates 21.22 1.28 0.91 0.29
Tertiary level 21.23 1.39 0.79 0.29
Other education 21.01 1.47 0.48 0.36
Constant 1.21 1.80 0.46 3.36
ModelX 2 statistic 6.84
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.11
Table IV.
Logistic regression Notes: aDependent variables are dichotomous (0=no, 1=yes); bAge (0=35 years and under, 1= over 35
analysis of perceptions of years), Sex (0= male, 1=female), Union status (0= Non-unionised, 1= Unionised) were entered as
various procedural justice dichotomous independents. Each educational category was entered as a dummy variable and the
dimensions primary education category was omitted as a reference category. * p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * *p , 0.001

regression was computed to test the effects of the four perceived procedural justice
dimensions on perceptions of the distributive justice outcome.
Table V presents the statistics for this analysis. A significant model emerged (model
chi-square ¼ 41:28; df ¼ 4; p , 0:001Þ explaining approximately 84 percent of the
variance in the perceived distributive justice outcome. Satisfaction with the timely
resolution of grievances was the only significant predictor in the model; workers who
agreed that they were satisfied with the time taken to resolve grievances ðb ¼ 5:55;
p , 0:001Þ were more likely to report that the outcome was fair.
 Grievance
Dependent variablea
Independentsb B SE Wald Exp (B) management
Grievance resolution outcome was fair:
Adequate procedures for handling complaints 1.28 2.57 0.25 3.59
Adequate opportunities for airing complaints 20.25 2.17 0.01 0.78
Workers’ complaints handled timely 0.41 2.31 0.03 1.50 103
Satisfied with timely resolution 5.51 1.47 14.00 * * 247.70
Constant 1.21 1.80 0.46 3.36
Model X 2 Statistic 41.28 * Table V.
Nagelkerke’s R 2 0.84 Logistic regression
analysis of the impact of
Notes: aDependent variable is dichotomous (0=no, 1=yes); b “Fair handling of workers’ complaints” perceived procedural
and “satisfaction with grievance process stages” were dropped due to low tolerances. *p , 0.05, justice on perceptions of
* *p , 0.001
distributive justice

Discussion
The aim of this paper was to explore workers’ perceptions about the justice of
outcomes that derive from the use of grievance procedures in organizations where they
work, and to assess the role that grievance management plays as a process for
delivering justice outcomes. While our findings suggest that formal mechanisms
existed in a majority of the sampled organizations, there was no support for the notion
that union membership status, compared with non-union status, made a significant
difference to employees’ perceptions about any of the grievance management
procedural justice items used in this study. The findings also do not confirm that age or
gender makes a difference to employees’ perceptions about grievance management
procedural justice. They however suggest that educational background is a major
factor that influences employees’ perceptions on four of these procedural justice items,
namely, the adequacy of opportunities for airing complaints, adequacy of the
procedures for handling grievances, the timely handling of complaints and the fair
handling of grievances. Respondents with only primary education generally expressed
more favourable perceptions concerning the above procedural justice items than
workers in other educational groups. This result supports our contention that workers
with less education would be more inclined than others with a better educational
background to agree that they experienced higher levels of procedural justice from
grievance management.
With the exception of education level, these findings remain consistent with those of
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). These authors, in a meta-analytic study, explored
the effects of various demographic characteristics, including age, gender, tenure and
education level of employees on perceptions of justice in organizations but found that
they play a marginal role in perceived procedural justice. Similarly, Fryxell (1992)
found that demographic factors, excluding educational background, were
non-significant predictors of perceived workplace justice. However, Fryxell found
that educated workers perceived higher levels of workplace justice, whereas the
current study found the opposite. More research is needed to determine whether or not
demographic factors are strong enough to influence perceptions of justice; further
investigation needs to be undertaken, especially focusing on different (social, cultural
and economic) working environments in other countries.
ER This study also revealed that perceptions of procedural justice impact on perceived
29,1 distributive justice. This finding is consistent with those in past research on workplace
justice (Kim et al., 2004; Peterson and Lewin, 2000; Robbins et al., 2000). Kim et al.
(2004, p. 273) indicated that procedural justice directly influences employees’
perceptions of distributive justice and concluded that “. . .managers should not
underestimate the importance of procedural justice.”. Furthermore, Robbins et al.
104 (2000) found a “unidirectional” relationship between procedural justice and distributive
justice perceptions, in that procedural justice was more likely to positively affect
perceived distributive justice, but not vice versa. As Peterson and Lewin (2000) posit,
the grievance handling procedure is essential in shaping employees’ overall
assessment of the effectiveness of grievance system (and its outcomes).
There is room for speculation about the reasons for some of our findings. It seems
plausible to argue that workers with less education are more likely than their more
educated counterparts to be more “tolerant” of the procedural inadequacies and poor
results from grievance management because of their level of expectations about the
trade union and what it can do, and about fair treatment from the employer. By the
same token, we would expect workers who have been exposed to more formal
education to be much more intolerant of procedural injustice. That young and old
workers hold similar perceptions about procedural justice might very well mean that
those who are more tolerant of injustice might be the ones with lower levels of formal
education.
It is plausible to expect trade-union members to agree that they would be more
satisfied with procedural justice than their non-union counterparts, given the emphasis
trade unions place on due process and fairness. Given such an expectation, it does
surprise that that union-membership did not make a difference to respondents’
perceptions about procedural justice from any of the dimensions that we examined.
The perception could very well be explained in reference to the possibility that union
members did not have access to a sufficient number of shop stewards or union officials
to deal with their grievances and complaints. Additionally, we may also speculate that
they have probably become accustomed to living with the perceived inadequacies,
perhaps accepting them out of a conviction that better cannot be done. However, a
more optimistic perspective might very well be that they were realistic about what the
union could do with the resources available to it as a workers’ organization!
If we are to be guided by these results, they hold several implications for the trade
union in particular. Even as the trade union strives for continued relevance at a time
that it is required to address new and complex challenges that relate to globalization
and organizational restructuring, trade-union leaders can ill-afford to ignore the need to
strengthen its workplace links with members through the range of traditional services
that it has historically provided and is still expected to provide.

Conclusions
This study found that with the exception of educational background, demographic
characteristics made no significant difference to workers’ perceptions of procedural
justice afforded by grievance procedures. Perceptions of procedural justice, however,
had an impact on perceived distributive justice. Much work still needs to be done in
both the union and non-union sectors to improve the procedural environment for the
management and disposition of complaints and grievances. Much more attention needs
to be paid to the management of the different stages of the process, and especially to Grievance
the availability of trade-union personnel at both the shop floor and trade-union management
organizational levels. This is critical since respondents’ perceptions about their
relationship with the trade union, their level of satisfaction with the work of shop
stewards and their perceptions of their relationship with the union that derive from
interaction with shop stewards in grievance management may influence attitudes
toward the union as an organization and voluntary involvement in its affairs. 105
If the practice of workplace relations is a vehicle for promoting justice in
organizations, then it is incumbent on the principal players in the non-union and
unionized sectors to pay as much attention to the means at their disposal for resolving
complaints and grievances as they do to ensuring that such complaints and grievances
are satisfactorily resolved. The potential contribution that grievance procedures can
make to organizational justice can only be maximised if managers and trade-union
leaders pay attention to the effectiveness of the governance structures that they employ
for dealing with workplace grievances and to the quality of the outcomes that derive
from their usage.
Improving the procedural environment can increase workers’ satisfaction with
outcomes and improve their attitudes toward the trade union as well as organizational
citizenship behaviour. Recall the charge to trade-union leaders by Gordon et al. (1995,
p. 351) in discussing some of the challenges facing organised labour. They observe that
even as union leaders help “negotiate a meaningful role for unions in these new
employment relationships, (they) must be resourceful in helping employers deal with
competitive pressures while remaining sensitive to the concerns of their union
constituents about job security and justice in the workplace”.

Limitations of the study

A comment is warranted about the method that was used to identify the procedural
items used in this study, and to explain the non-use of factor analysis for that purpose.
While the questionnaire was designed to restrict respondents to agreeing or
disagreeing with particular statements, one of the attendant limitations was that we
were unable to use factor analysis to generate the different items under procedural and
distributive justice respectively. We therefore relied on our understanding of the
grievance management literature, as well as our practical and professional experience
in identifying the procedural justice and other items used in the study. In any event, we
believe that the use of the logistic regression analysis compensates for the absence of
scaled responses to facilitate factor analysis.

Direction of future research

This inquiry continues a relatively new line of research about workplace relations in
Barbados and the Caribbean. There is therefore much more scope for conducting
research on organizational justice in Barbados and the rest of the region. Further
research is required, for example, to shed light on some of the issues about which we
speculated above in attempting to explain our findings. Research is needed, too, to
isolate the independent effects of procedural, interactional and distributive justice
perceptions on satisfaction with the trade union, their implications for trade-union
membership attitudes and behaviours, union-member relations and for organizational
citizenship behaviour. Research is also required that would shed light on the
ER relationship between gender and other demographic characteristics and perceptions
29,1 about justice in Caribbean organizations. In light of the charges that have historically
been made about the politicised character of management in the public sector, and
especially in statutory corporations and public enterprise, organizations in this sector
would constitute excellent sites for this type of research.
Reference was made in the introduction to the use of Employee Manuals as points of
106 reference for guidance and decision-making in the non-union sector. We know very
little about the different arrangements for managing complaints and grievances in that
environment; their level of “procedural formality”; the extent of their usage and
coverage and whether they predominate in large or small organizations; as well as the
reasons for their introduction. Research is therefore needed to explore these
phenomena, as well as to examine the consequences of filing grievances for employees
in both the non-union and union sector.

Notes
1. A distinction is made between time to resolve grievances and complaints handled timely
since the former relates to the length of time spent in actually resolving issues raised by
workers, and the latter refers especially to the time that elapses between the time the
complaint is raised and the time any action is initiated.
2. We treated complaints handled fairly as a procedural justice item to distinguish it from a
substantive outcome and to highlight the need for and importance of the use of fair
procedures.

References
Alexander, S., Sinclair, R.R. and Tetrick, L.E. (1995), “The role of organizational justice in
defining and maintaining the employment relationship”, in Tetrick, L.E. and Barling, J.
(Eds), Changing Employment Relations: Behavioral and Social Perspectives, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Beugre, C.D. (1998), Managing Fairness in Organisations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Bret, J.M. (1980), “Why employees want unions”, Organizational Dynamics, Spring, pp. 47-59.
Clark, P.F. and Gallagher, D.G. (1989), “Building member commitment to the union: the role of the
grievance procedure”, Workplace Topics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 16-21.
Cohen-Carash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta analysis”,
Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Davey, H.W., Bognanno, M.F. and Estenson, D.L. (1982), Contemporary Collective Bargaining,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Fiortio, F., Gallagher, D.G. and Fukami, C.V. (1988), “Satisfaction with union representation”,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 294-307.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Feuille, P. and Chachere, D.R. (1995), “Looking fair or being fair: remedial voice procedures in
nonunion workplaces”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 27-42.
Freeman, R.B. and Medoff, R.L. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Fryxell, G.E. (1992), “Perceptions of justice afforded by formal grievance systems as predictors of Grievance
a belief in a just workplace”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 635-47.
Fryxell, G.E. and Gordon, M.E. (1989), “Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of
management
satisfaction with the union and management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32,
pp. 851-6.
Gordon, M.E. and Bowlby, R.L. (1988), “Propositions about grievance settlements: finally,
consultation with grievants”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 309-29. 107
Gordon, M.E. and Fryxell, G.E. (1993), “The role of interpersonal justice in organizational
grievance systems”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching
Fairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Gordon, M.E., Barling, J. and Tetrick, L.E. (1995), “Some remaining challenges in a time of
changing employment relations”, in Tetrick, L.E. and Barling, J. (Eds), Behavioural and
Social Perspectives on Changing Employment Relations, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 349-66.
Hoffmann, E.A. (2005), “Dispute resolution in a worker cooperative: formal procedures and
procedural justice”, Law and Society, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-82.
Holley, W.H., Jennings, K.M. and Worley, P. (2001), The Labor Relations Process, 5th ed.,
The Dryden Press, New York, NY.
Jarley, P., Kuruvilla, S. and Casteel, D. (1990), “Member-union relations and union satisfaction”,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 29 No. 1.
Kim, J.-Y., Moon, J., Han, D. and Surinder, T. (2004), “Perceptions of justice and employee
willingness to engage in customer-oriented behaviour”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 267-75.
Klaas, B.S. (1989), “Determinants of grievance activity and the grievance system’s impact on
employee behaviour: an integrative perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14,
pp. 445-58.
Konovsky, M.A. (2000), “Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organisations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 489-511.
Leech, N.L., Barrett, K. and Morgan, G.A. (2005), SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Lind, E.A. (1995), “Justice and authority relations in organizations”, in Cropanzano, R. and
Kackmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice and Support: Managing the Social
Climate of the Workplace, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Mueller, C.W. and Mulinge, M. (2001), “Justice perceptions in the workplace: gender differences in
Kenya”, African Sociological Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 102-21.
Nurse, L. (2004), “Different faces of participation in trade-union activity in Barbados: a research
note”, Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 53 No. 3, p. 2004.
Nurse, L. (2005), “Performance appraisal, employee development and organisational justice:
exploring the linkages”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16
No. 7, pp. 1176-94.
Nurse, L. and Small, J. (2002), “Who cares about workplace justice in Barbados? Men and women
have their say: a preliminary analysis”, Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 1-29.
Peterson, R.B. and Lewin, D. (2000), “Research on unionised grievance procedures: management
issues and recommendations”, Human Resources Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 395-406.
Robbins, T., Summers, T. and Miller, J. (2000), “Intra- and inter- justice relationships: assessing
the direction”, Human Relations, Vol. 53, pp. 1329-55.
ER Robinson, S. (1995), “Violation of psychological contracts: impact on employee attitudes”,
in Tetrick, L.E. and Barling, J. (Eds), Changing Employment Relations: Behavioral and
29,1 Social Perspectives, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. and Minton, J.W. (1992), Organizational Justice: the Search for
Fairness in the Workplace, Lexington Books, New York, NY.

108 Further reading

Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behaviour”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, pp. 177-98.
Bosco, M.L. (1985), “Non-union grievance procedures”, Personnel, Vol. 62 No. 1.
Bretz, R.D. Jr and Thomas, S.L. (1992), “Perceived equity, motivation and final-offer arbitration in
major league baseball”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 280-7.
Cropanzano, R. (Ed.) (1995), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cropanzano, R. and Kackmar, M. (1995), “The social setting of work organizations: politics,
justice and support”, in Cropanzano, R. and Kackmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics,
Justice and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace, Quorum Books,
Westport, CT.
Cropanzano, R. and Randall, M.L. (1993), “Injustice and work behaviour: a historical review”,
in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.) (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human
Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Epstein, R.L. (1975), “The grievance procedure in the non-union setting: caveat employer”,
Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 120-7.
Greenberg, J. (1987), “A taxonomy of organisational justice theories”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 12, pp. 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1988), “Cultivating an image of justice: looking fair on the job”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 2, pp. 155-8.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organisational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 16, pp. 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching
Fairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Hartley, J. (1995), “Challenge and change in employment relations: issues for psychology, trade
unions, and managers”, in Tetrick, L.E. and Barling, J. (Eds), Changing Employment
Relations: Behavioral and Social Perspectives, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (1993), “Members’ participation in local union activities:
measurement, prediction and replication”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78,
pp. 262-79.
Klaas, B.S. and De Nisi, A. (1989), “Managerial reactions to employee dissent: the impact of
grievance activity on performance evaluations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32,
pp. 705-17.
Lewin, D. and Peterson, R.P. (1988), The Modern Grievance Procedure in the United States,
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York,
NY.
Moorman, R., Niehoff, B. and Organ, D. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and organisational Grievance
citizenship behaviour: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and procedural justice”, Employee Responsibilities ands Rights Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 209-55. management
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-9.
Organ, D.W. (1988), “The motivational bases of organisational citizenship behaviour research”, 109
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 12, pp. 43-72.
Rodgers, R.C., Helberg, I.B. and Hammer, J.E. (1986), “The relationship of seniority to job
performance after reinstatement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 101-14.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature
and antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 653-63.
Tetrick, L.E. and Barling, J (Eds.) (1995), Changing Employment Relations: Behavioral and Social
Perspectives, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

About the authors

Lawrence Nurse holds an MS (Labour Studies) and a PhD (Sociology) respectively from the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He is a Senior Lecturer in Management Studies at the
University of the West Indies in Barbados. He teaches Employment Relations at the
undergraduate and graduate levels. His research interests include organzational justice,
workplace politics and conflict, attendance behaviours, workplace flexibility, and the impact of
trade unions on the performance of firms. He is the author of a book on Industrial Relations in the
Commonwealth Caribbean. His articles appear in regional and international journals.
Dwayne Devonish is a graduate in Psychology from the University of the West Indies (UWI).
He is a Research Assistant in the Department of Management Studies at the UWI. He is currently
investigating organizational citizenship behaviours in tertiary institutions in Barbados and the
ethical behaviour of business professional and students. His other research interests include job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. He is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: ddevonish@uwichill.edu.bb

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats