Grievance Handling

Presented by
Dikshananda Bora
Roll No. 441/15
MBA 3rd Semester

Definition

Grievance is used to designate claims by workers of a trade union concerning

their individual or collective rights under an applicable collective agreement,
individual contract of employment, law, regulations, work rules, customs and
usage. Such claims involve questions relating to the interpretation or application
of rules.
An indication of what is usually meant by grievance is given in the
Examination of Grievances Recommendation (No. 130), adopted in 1967 by the
International Labour Conference, taking into account the variety of national
practices.
The Recommendation states: The grounds for a grievance may be any measure
or situation which concerns the relations between employer and worker or
which effects or may effect the conditions of employment of one or several
workers in the undertaking when that measure or situation appears contrary to
provisions of an applicable collective agreement or of an individual contract of
employment, to work rules, to laws or regulations or to the customs or usage of
the occupation branch of economic activity or country.

Causes of Grievance
The causes of employee grievances include:
I.
Demands for individual wage adjustments;
II. Complaints about the individual wage system;
III. Complaints about the job classifications;
IV. Complaints about a particular foreman;
V. Complaints concerning disciplinary measures and procedures;
VI. Objections to general methods of supervision;
VII. Loose calculation and interpretation of seniority rules, the unsatisfactory
interpretation of agreements;
VIII. Promotions;
IX. Disciplinary discharge or layoff;
X. Transfer for another department or another shift;
XI. Inadequacy of safety and health services/devices;
XII. Non availability of material in time;
XIII. Violation of contracts relating to collective bargaining;
XIV. Improper job assignment and
XV. Undesirable and unsatisfactory conditions for work.

Pre-requisites of Grievance Procedure

The efficiency of a grievance procedure depends upon the fulfilment of

certain pre-requisites. The are as follows:
Conformity of Prevailing Legislation: While designing the grievance
procedure due considerations must be given to the existing statutory
provisions. In other words, the existing grievance machinery as provided
by the law may be made use of.
Clarity: There should be clarity regarding each and every aspect of the
grievance procedure. An aggrieved employee must be informed about the
person to whom a representation can be made, the form of submission
(written or oral), the time limit for redressal of grievances etc. Similarly
the redressing authority should be very clear about what is expected of
him, what measures he can take, the limits within which he should resort
to an action.
Simplicity: The grievance procedure should be simple. Every employee
must understand different stages of the procedure, the forms to be filled
up, the witnesses required etc. If there are too many stages in the
procedure, too many forms to be filled up, too much going on around
etc., the very purpose of the procedure is defeated. Instead of resorting to
the formal procedure the employee might ignore it.

Promptness: The promptness with which a grievance is processed

adds further to the success of the grievance procedure. Since
justice delayed is justice denied, the procedure should aim at
rapid disposal of the grievances.
Training: The success of the procedure also depends upon
imparting training to the supervisors and union representatives
in handling grievances.
Follow-up: The successful working of grievance procedure
depends upon a proper follow-up by the personnel department.
The department should periodically review the procedure and
introduce the essential structural changes making it more
effective.

Procedure for Settlement

There should be appropriate procedures through which the grievances
of workers may be submitted and settled.
Adequate measures for examination of grievances are essential for the
promotion and management of good labour management relation and
a high degree of efficiency in the undertaking. The lack of opportunity
for workers to air their grievances and have them seriously considered
tends to promote dissatisfaction and a poor level of morale among the
workforce, which in turn may have a negative effect on the workers
performance at their jobs. Effective grievance procedures facilitate
communication to management of difficulties within the undertaking
which might require remedial measures by the management
contributing to the creation of a climate of mutual confidence and
respect. Grievance procedures in certain systems are a substitute for
or a delaying factor in respect of direct action in the form of strikes.

Procedures of settlement
Till the enactment of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
1946, the settlement of day-to-day grievances of workers in India did
not receive much attention. Clause 15 of the Model Standing Orders in
the Schedule of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act 1946,
specified that all complaints arising out of the employment, including
those relating to unfair treatment or wrongful action on the part of the
employer or his agent, shall be submitted to the manager or other
person specified in his behalf with the right appeal to the employer.
Under the Factories Act 1948 , the state government has framed rules
requiring Labour Welfare Officers to ensure settlement of grievances;
but this provision did not prove substantially helpful because of the dual
role of these officers.

 The matter regarding the formulation of grievance procedure was,

therefore, referred to the 15th session of the Indian Labour Conference,
1957 which formulated the Code of Discipline, laying down that
management and unions would establish, upon a mutually agreed
basis, a grievance procedure which will ensure speedy and full
investigation leading to settlement. The guiding principles, which were
evolved under the Code for this purpose, and the Model Grievance
Procedure for adoption by the parties, were settled in a tripartite
committee in September 1958.
The Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 1982, provides for the
reference of certain individual disputes of grievance settlement
authorities. Section 9C of the Act stipulates that every establishment in
which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been
employed on any one day in the preceding twelve months, the employer
shall set up a time- bound grievance redressal procedure.

Essence of model grievance procedure

1.

2.

3.

The five cardinal principles of grievance settlement, under the procedure,

are:
The aggrieved employee shall convey his or her grievance verbally to the
officer designated by the management to deal with the grievance. The
officer will have to reply to the complaints within 48 hours of its
presentation to him/her
If the grievant is not satisfied with the answer or does not receive the
answer within 48 hours, he or she shall, then present the grievance to the
departmental head. Nominated for this purpose. The head must give
his/her reply within 3 days of the presentation of the grievance.
If the aggrieved employee still not satisfied with the decision of the
departmental head or does not receive within the stipulated period then the
employee can approach the grievance committee for the settlement of his
grievance. The grievance committee has to give recommendations in 7 days
and report the same to the management.

The management must communicate the decision to the

grievant within 3 days.
If still the employee is not satisfied either with the decision
made by the grievance committee then he/she can make appeal
to the management for revision of the decision taken. The
management can take a week period for appeal to be
considered and the revised decision to inform to the grievant.
If the employee is still not satisfied, the grievance is referred to
a voluntary arbitration within a week. The decision of the
arbitrator is final and binding on both the parties i.e. the
management and the union

Views of the National Commission on

Labour

The National Commission on Labour has recommended that a formal

grievance procedure should be introduced in units employing 100 or more
workers. Its other recommendations are:
There should be a statutory backing for the formulation of a effective
grievance procedure which should be simple, flexible, less cumbersome
and more or less on the lines of the Model Grievance Procedure.
It should be time-bound and have a limited number of steps, namely
approach to the immediate supervisory staff ; appeal to departmental
head/ manager; and appeal to the bipartite grievance committee
representing management and the recognised union. In the rare cases,
where unanimity eludes the committee, the matter may be referred to an
arbitrator.
A grievance procedure should be such that it gives a sense of satisfaction to
the individual worker, ensures reasonable exercise of authority to the
manager and a sense of participation to unions

The constitution of the grievance committee should have a

provision that in case a unanimous decision is not possible, the
unsettled grievance may be referred to arbitration. At the earlier
stages, a worker should be free to be represented by a co-worker
and later by an officer of the union, if one exists.
It should be introduced to all units employing 100 or more
workers.
Views of Second National Commission on Labour, 1999 on
Grievance Redressal.
Every establishment shall have grievance redressal committee
consisting of equal number of employees and employers
representatives.
The Grievance Redressal Committee shall be the body to which
all grievances of the employees in respect to his/her employment
including his/her non-employment will be referred for decision
within a given framework.

Checklist to Evaluate the Grievance Procedure

Management should evaluate the grievance procedure to know its

functioning through the following checklist
Was the case handled in such a way that the parties involved in it were able
to identify, and agree upon, what was at stake?
Was the incident closed with a sense of satisfaction on the part of everyone
involved in the original complaint?
Was the case handled in a way which strengthened the line of authority,
specially at the level immediately above that at which dissatisfaction was
first expressed?
Did the solution result in a better understanding and a better adjustment
between the supervisor and his subordinate?
As a result of this case, did this understanding spread among others in the
management and in the trade union who were not directly involved in the
original complaint?
Did the solution contribute to operational efficiency of the organisation?