Bargaining in Grievance Settlement the Power of Industrial Work Groups

Research on unionized grievance procedures: Management issues and recommendations

“…More recent research by Lewin & Peterson (1988) found that where a particular issue is heavily grieved, labor and management are likely to negotiate language into the subsequent labor agreement to address the issue. This research supports Kuhn's (1961) conclusion that grievance processing is a form of "fractional" or continuous bargaining that impacts formal contract negotiations.…”

“…In a later study, Nelson (1979) was able to corroborate Sayles' findings using a sample of 53 work groups in a single plant. Kuhn (1961) reported the results of grievance case studies in eight large tire and electrical equipment plants. He found four socio-technical factors that apparently influenced a work group's desire to use the grievance procedure to bargain for special benefits: frequency of changes in work methods, standards, or materials; individualized work pace; frequency of interaction with others in the work group; and job specialization.…”

“…2 have been done by psychologists who attempted to identify and explain individual differences in grievant behavior (e.g., Eckerman 1948;Fleishman & Harris 1962;Sulkin & Pranis 1967). These researchers focused their attention on three major issues: (1) differences in demographic and job-related characteristics of grievance filers and non-filers; (2) personality Younger, male, more educated more skilled employees most likely to file grievances; democratic supervision associated with lower grievance rates; frequency of employee complaints to shop stewards positively related to grievance filing Weiss (1957), Sayles (1958), Kuhn (1961), Ronan (1963) Peach & Livernash (1974), Nelson (1979), Muchinsky & Maassarani (1980, 1981, Bemmels, Reshef, & Stratton-Devine (1991) Work groups of semi-skilled employees performing specialized work who undergo frequent changes in work methods have high grievance rates and use the grievance process to influence collective bargaining A. Rees (1977), Freeman & Medoff (1984), Katz, Kochan, & Gobeille (1983), Katz, Kochan, & Weber (1985), Norsworthy & Zabala (1985), Ichniowski & Lewin (1987), Cappelli & Chauvin (1991), Ichniowski (1986Ichniowski ( , 1992, Kleiner, Nickelsburg & Pilarski (1995) Presence of a grievance procedure associated with lower turnover, longer job tenure, greater human capital and higher productivity; use of the grievance procedure negatively associated with organizational performance Slichter, Healy & Livernash (1960), Knight (1986), Clark & Gallagher (1988), Gordon (1988), Fryxell & Gordon (1989), Klass & DeNisi (1989), …”

An Uneasy Stability

“…Some work rules were incorporated into plant-level agreements. Arbitration rulings, prompted by local union leaders' strategic use of the grievance procedure, institutionalized others (Kuhn 1961; on the wildcat "problem" in Akron, see also Business Week 1953, 158-61).…”

Sabotage at General Motors’ Van Nuys Assembly Plant, 1975–83

“…In his 1961 study, Bargaining in Grievance Settlement: The Power of Industrial Work Groups, James Kuhn sought to explain why sabotage and the wildcat strike had not atrophied during the post war era of relative union-management stability [21]. He argued that sabotage was an integral part of the grievance bargaining process, a form of 'fractional bargaining', which superseded unionmanagement grievance procedures among those groups of workers whose high level of social cohesion and shop floor solidarity enabled them to organize extra-contractual protest activity.…”