IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS
The m ost advanced te ch n o lo g y has been used to p hoto­
graph and reproduce th is m a n u scrip t fro m th e m ic ro film
m aster. U M I film s th e te x t d ire c tly fro m th e o rig in a l o r
copy subm itted. Thus, some thesis and d isse rta tio n copies
are in ty p e w rite r face, w h ile others m ay be fro m any type
of com puter p rin te r.
The q u a lity o f th is re p ro d u c tio n is dependent upon th e
q u a lity o f the copy subm itted. B roken o r in d is tin c t p rin t,
colored o r poor q u a lity illu s tra tio n s and photographs,
p rin t bleedthrough, substandard m argin s, and im p rop er
a lig n m e n t can adversely affect reproduction.
In the u n lik e ly event th a t the auth o r d id not send U M I a
complete m a n u scrip t and there are m issin g pages, these
w ill be noted. A lso , i f u n a u th o rize d c o p y rig h t m a te ria l
had to be removed, a note w ill ind icate th e deletion.
Oversize m a te ria ls (e.g., maps, draw ings, charts) are re ­
produced by s e c tio n in g th e o rig in a l, b e g in n in g a t th e
upper le ft-h a n d corner and co n tin u in g fro m le ft to r ig h t in
equal sections w ith sm a ll overlaps. Each o rig in a l is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form a t th e back o f th e book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35m m slide o r as a 17" x 23"
b la ck and w h ite p h o to g ra p h ic p r in t fo r an a d d itio n a l
charge.
P hotographs in c lu d e d in th e o rig in a l m a n u s c rip t have
been reproduced x e ro g ra p h ic a lly in th is copy. H ig h e r
q u a lity 6" x 9" b la c k and w h ite p h o to g ra p h ic p rin ts are
available fo r any photographs or illu s tra tio n s appearing
in th is copy fo r an a d d itio n a l charge. C ontact U M I d ire c tly
to order.

University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

O rd e r N u m b e r 9018696

A descriptive analysis o f faculty grievances at five M ichigan
universities, 1975 to 1985
Heidloff, Theodore Hudson, III, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1989

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FACULTY GRIEVANCES AT
FIVE MICHIGAN UNIVERSITIES,

1975 TO 1985

By
T h e o d o re Hudson H e i d l o f f ,

III

A DISSERTATION

S u b m itt e d t o
M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u ir e m e n t s
f o r t h e d e g re e o f

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
D e p artm en t o f E d u c a t io n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

1989

ABSTRACT
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FACULTY GRIEVANCES
AT FIVE MICHIGAN UNIVERSITIES,
1975 to 1985
By
Theodore Hudson H eid loff, I I I

Purpose.

The study was to analyze the nature of faculty grievances

f il e d

fiv e

at

Within

that

Michigan
period

universities

the

during

researcher

the years

looked

fo r

of

(1)

1975-1985.
significant

relationships

in the nature of fa cu lty grievances from in s titu tio n to

in s titu tio n ;

(2) whether grievances decrease in frequency and are they

resolved at a lower level
matures;

and (3) what

in the resolution process as the bargaining

impact,

if

any, rioes the choice of bargaining

agent make?

Procedure.

A total

of 264 faculty grievances were examined using 19

variables.

Faculty grievances were

divided

along

academic

Grievances

ten

disciplines.

individual

and group.

more than

one individual

individual,

group and in s titu tio n .

category were

Group grievances

obtained,

nine

were

of

subject
two

areas
types:

are those complaints affecting

or the union.

The data were summarized by

Totals

and Chi-square

into

and percentages

for

was employed to evaluate

each
the

information derived.

Findings.

There were no s t a t is t ic a lly significant differences found in

the nature of faculty grievances from one in stitu tio n to another.
second hypothesis dealt with the

e ffe c t

The

of time upon the grievance

process.

Of the variables employed in this hypothesis,

i t was found

that

number

time

the

studied.

Further,

of

grievances

did

decrease

over

the

periods

there was a s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ifican t relationship

between the rate of decrease and the time (in months) i t took to resolve
the matter.

In addition, the choice of a p a rticu lar bargaining agent (NEA or AAUP)
impacted upon the number and rate of grievances f i l e d .
terms,

In absolute

the number of grievances declined over time fo r both agents.

However, AAUP in stitu tio n s had fewer to tal grievances and they declined
at a sharper rate than NEA in stitutio ns.

The final hypothesis centered on other aspects of the bargaining agent's
role in the grievance process.
were found between the

S ta t is tic a lly sig nifican t relationships

AAUP and NEA on the

preference

fo r

filin g

individual or group grievances, the subject area of the grievance, and,
most

importantly,

the

outcome

of

the

grievance.

No

s t a t is t ic a lly

significant outcomes were obtained between the unions when the rate of
grievance resolution was tested.

T h i s work

i s d e d i c a t e d t o t h e memory o f my f a t h e r ,

H e i d l o f f , who i n s t i l l e d

in me t h e s p i r i t

to succeed.

d e d ic a t e d t o Mary and o u r s o n s , Teddy and John P a u l.
n o t ask f o r a b e t t e r s u p p o r t i n g c a s t .

it

Th eo d ore
is a ls o

One c o u l d

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The r e s e a r c h e r w is h e s t o ackno w le d ge t h e

i n v a l u a b l e s u p p o r t and

a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n c h a ir m a n , D r . E ld o n Nonnamsker.
h is e f f o r t s ,

th is

ta s k c o u l d n o t have been a c c o m p lis h e d .

W it h o u t

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C h a p te r

I

S ta te m e n t o f t h e P ro b le m ................................................................................. 1
The Need f o r t h e S t u d y .................................................................................2
B ackground o f T h e o ry and R e s e a rc h ....................................................... 3
S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y ..............................................
6
S ta te m e n t o f H y p o t h e s i s ...............................................................................6
M e th o d o lo g y f o r E x p e r im e n t a l D e s ig n ............................
7
Def i n i t io n o f T e rm s.................................................
9
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y .......................................................................... 10
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e S t u d y ........................................................................ 11

C h a p te r

II

The S u rv e y o f R e la t e d L i t e r a t u r e ............................................................ 12
Gr i evance S y s te m s ........................................................
12
B e h a v io r o f th e G rie v a n c e Sws te m ........................................................19
Volume o f G rie v a n c e s and t h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e ..............................20
S e t t le m e n t S t e p ............................................................................................... 23
V a r i a t i o n by B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t .............................................................. 30

C h a p te r

III

Method o f

Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s ............................................ 33

S e l e c t i o n o f I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r t h i s S t u d y ................................... 33
Popul a t i o n ...........................................................................................................33
P ro c e d u re f o r Campus R e s e a r c h .............................................................. 3^
V i s i t a t i o n P ro c e d u re s and Data C o l l e c t i o n .................................. 3^
I n s t i t u t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i e s .....................................................
36
S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s ..............................
37

C h a p te r

IV

P r e s e n t a t i o n and A n a l y s i s o f t h e D a t a ................................................ 38
S u b je c t
S u b je c t

A re a o f I n d i v i d u a l G r ie v a n c e s .......................................... 41
A re a o f Group G r ie v a n c e s ............... .....................................42

v

G en e ra l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I n d i v i d u a l G r i e v a n t s ....................... 45
Re se arch H y p o th e s is 1a: The Type o f G rie v a n c e
( I n d i v i d u a l o r G roup) has no S i g n i f i c a n t
R e la tio n s h ip to th e Level o f R e s o lu tio n th a t
i s A t t a i n e d ................................................................................................. 47
R esearch H y p o th e s is 1b: The R e s o l u t i o n L e v e l
o f a G r ie v a n c e has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p
t o i t s Outcome.......................................................................................... 49
I n s t it u t io n a l C h a ra c te ris tic s
o f F a c u l t y G r ie v a n c e s
53
R esearch H y p o t h e s is 1c:
T h e re i s no S i g n i f i c a n t
D i f f e r e n c e in t h e Outcome o f a G rie v a n c e fro m
I n s t i t u t i o n t o I n s t i t u t i o n ...................... ......................................57
Re se arch H y p o th e s is 2 and R e la t e d S u b h y p o th e s e s :
The Passage o f Tim e A c c o u n ts f o r no S i g n i f i c a n t
D i f f e r e n c e s in th e G rie v a n c e R e s o l u t i o n P r o c e s s
5 8
G en e ra l F i n d i n g s i n t h e S u b je c t A re a o f
H y p o th e s is 2
«
53
R e se arch H y p o th e s is 2a:
T h e re i s no S i g n i f i c a n t
D i f f e r e n c e in t h e L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n a G rie v a n c e
A t t a i n s and t h e Time P e r io d in w h ic h i t is F i l e d . . . . . 6 2
R e se arch H y p o th e s is 2b:
The Passage o f Time
has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e L e v e l
o f R e s o l u t i o n t h a t a G rie v a n c e A t t a i n s .................................. 62
R esearch H y p o th e s is 2c:
T h e re i s no S i g n i f i c a n t
D i f f e r e n c e in t h e Time Needed t o R e s o lv e a
G rie v a n c e and t h e Time P e r io d in w h ic h t h a t
G rie v a n c e is F i l e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3
R esearch H y p o t h e s is 2d:
The Type o f G rie v a n c e
F i l e d has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o th e
Time Needed t o R e s o lv e t h e H a t t e r ..............................................64
R e se arch H y p o t h e s is 2e:
The Passage o f Tim e has
no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e L e v e l o f
R e s o l u t i o n t h a t a G rie v a n c e A t t a i n s . .
................. . . 6 4
R e se arch H y p o t h e s is 2 f :
The C h o ic e o f B a r g a in in g
A gent has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o th e
F re q u e n c y w i t h w h ic h G r ie v a n c e s a re F i l e d ........................... 6 5
R e se arch H y p o th e s is 3 and R e la t e d S u b h y p o th e s e s :
The C h o ic e o f B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e N a tu r e and Type o f G rie v a n c e
t h a t i s F i 1e d ................................
66
R e se arch H y p o th e s is 3a:
The C h o ice o f B a r g a in in g
A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e
Type o f G rie v a n c e ( I n d i v i d u a l o r G roup) t h a t
is P u rs u e d .
....................................................................................... 66
Re se arch H y p o th e s is 3b:
The C h o ic e o f B a r g a in in g
A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e
Types o f S u b je c t A re a s o v e r w h ic h t h e G rie v a n c e s
a re F i 1e d ................................
68
R e se arch H y p o th e s is 3 c:
The C h o ice o f B a r g a in in g
A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o th e
Outcome t h a t a G r ie v a n c e A t t a i n s ...................................................6 9

R e search H y p o th e s is 3d:
The C h o ic e o f B a r g a i n i n g
A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e
L e n g th o f Time i t t a k e s t o R e s o lv e aG r ie v a n c e .................. 70
Research H y p o th e s is 3e:
The C h o ic e o f B a r g a in in g
A gent has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o th e
L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n t h a t a G r ie v a n c e A t t a i n s ...................... 71
R esearch H y p o th e s is 3fs
The C h o ic e o f B a r g a i n i n g
A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o When a
G rie v a n c e is F i l e d ................................................................................. 72

C h a p te r V
F i n d i n g s , C o n c lu s io n s and R ecom m endations.......................................75
C o n c l u s i o n s ........................................................................................................ 76
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y .......................................................................... 80
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r R e s e a rc h ..............................................81

A p p e n d ic e s ...........................................................................................................................83

B i b l i o g r a p h y .................................................................................................................... 101

vi i

LIS T OF TABLES

1.

In d iv id u a l

G r ie v a n c e s b y Academ ic D i s c i p l i n e .................................41

2.

In d iv id u a l

G r ie v a n c e s by S u b je c t o f G r ie v a n c e .............................. 42

3.

S u b je c t A re a s o f Group G r ie v a n c e s .......................................................... 43

4.

Number and D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a c u l t y G rie v a n c e s by
I n s t i t u t i o n and T y p e ................................................................................... 45

5

.

6.

7

.

8.
9

.

I nd i v i d ual Gr i e v a n t s by Academ ic R a r k ....................................

46

T ime S pent a t
a re F i 1e d .

47

In d iv id u a l

I n s t i t u t io n When I n d i v i dual
...........

G r ie v a n c e s and t h e L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n ......................48

Resol u t io n L e v e l
I n d iv id u a l

Gr ie v a n c e s

f o r Group Gr ie v a n c e s ................................................. 49

Gr ie v a n c e s and T h e i r O utcome............................................ 50

10.

Group Gr ie v a n c e s and The i r O u tc o m e .

.................................

51

11.

R e s o lu tio n Level

12.

In s titu tio n a l

13-

I n s t i t u t io n a l F re q u e n c y o f Group Gr ie v a n c e s ....................................55

14.

Outcome o f Gr i e vances b y I n s t i t u t i o n ....................................................57

15.

I n s t i t u t io n a l Resol u t io n L e v e l .................................................................. 5

16.

Resol u t i on L e v e l

17-

G rie v a n c e R e s o l u t i o n in M onths by S e le c t e d Time
Per i o d s
...................................

and Outcome o f F a c u l t y G r ie v a n c e ..................... 52

F re q u e n c y o f

In d iv id u a l

G rie v a n c e s .

...............54

8

by Y e a r s ............................................................................. 62

6 3

18.

G rie v a n c e R e s o l u t i o n

in M onths and R e s o l u t i o n L e v e l .................64

19-

N a tio n a l

B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t and G rie v a n c e S tu d y P e r i o d .............. 6

5

20.

F a cu l t y Gr ie v a n c e s by B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t ............................................... 6

7

21.

B a r g a i n i n g A gent and G r ie v a n c e S u b j e c t ............................................... 68
vi i i

2 2.

G rie v a n c e Outcome and B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t ............................................... 70

23*

R a te o f R e s o l u t i o n by B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t ...............................................71

24.

R e s o l u t i o n L e v e l by B a r g a in in g A g e n t .................................................... 12

25.

G r ie v a n c e s , I n d i v i d u a l and G roup, o f t h e B a r g a i n i n g
A g e n t s , 1 9 7 5 -1 98 5 .......................................................................................... 73

ix

L IS T OF FIGURES

1.

Sample G rie v a n c e P r o c e d u r e ........................................................................... 14

2.

G rie v a n c e F a c t o r F l o w c h a r t ........................................................................... 21

3.

F a c u l t y G rie v a n c e s

4.

F a c u l t y G rie v a n c e s 197 5 -8 5) I n d i v i d u a l and G roup,
by I n s t i t u t i o n ................................................................................................. 56

5-

T o ta l

1975-1985) by T y p e .................................................44

F a c u l t y G rie v a n c e s by A cademic Y e a r ..........................................61

x

CHAPTER I
S ta te m e n t o f th e Problem
This in q u ir y s y s t e m a t ic a lly a na lyze d th e n a tu re o f f a c u l t y g rie va n ce s a t f i v e
M ichigan u n iv e rs itie s :
F e rris

S ta te

U n iv e rs ity .

C e n tra l M ich ig a n U n iv e r s it y , E astern M ich ig a n U n iv e rs ity ,

U n iv e rs ity ,

Saginaw

V a lle y

S ta te

U n iv e r s ity ,

and

Oakland

A ll are o f s im i la r scope and c o m p le x it y , o p e ra te under a p p o in te d

g o ve rn in g bodies, and serve a high p ro p o rtio n o f M ich ig a n s tu d e n ts .

A ll o f these

in s t it u t io n s have had f a c u l t y c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g f o r 10 years o r more.

This

research assessed th e im p a c t f a c u l t y g rie va n ce s had upon th e in s t it u t io n , th e
p a rtie s in v o lv e d , and th e a g re e m e n t it s e lf .
The re se a rc h e r sought t o answ er th e f o l lo w in g questions:
1.

Did the ty p e o f f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e change a c c o rd in g to th e le n g th o f
th e b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip ?
fa c u lty

F o r e x a m p le , do g rie va n ce s f ile d o v e r

w o rk in g c o n d itio n s o c c u r

more o f t e n in th e second y e a r o f

barga in in g tha n t h e e ig h th year?
2.

Did the ch o ice o f b a rg a in in g age n t (A . A .U .P . v N .E .A .) a c c o u n t f o r any
d iffe r e n c e s in th e ty p e o f g rie v a n c e s file d ?

3.

A re g rie v a n ce s re so lved a t a lo w e r , less f o r m a l le v e l as the b arga in in g
re la tio n s h ip matures?

It

was presum ed t h a t these and o th e r re s e a rc h questions could best be

s tu d ie d in in s t it u t io n s t h a t have o p e ra te d und e r c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g f o r 10 or
more years.

B a rga in in g re la tio n s h ip s o f a decade's d u r a tio n p ro v id e d s u f f ic i e n t

o p p o r t u n it ie s f o r each side t o t e s t t h e o th e r's s tre n g th s and weaknesses, and as a
re s u lt, were less su s cep tib le t o v a r ia tio n s caused by in d iv id u a l p e rs o n a litie s , s h o rt­
te rm fis c a l c o n s tra in ts , o r o th e r less e nd u rin g c o n d itio n s .

1

The Need f o r th e Study
In th e d a ily m anagem ent o f la b o r re la tio n s under a c o l le c t iv e b argaining
a g re e m e n t, th e g re a te s t a m o u n t o f t i m e and e f f o r t is expended in m e e ting and
re s o lv in g c o n t r a c t g rievances.
union

le a de rs

agree

th a t

As Davey (1959) has n ote d, m ost e m p lo ye rs and

th e

real

h e a rt

of

c o lle c t iv e

b arg a in in g

is

the

a d m in is tr a t io n o f the a g re e m e n t, f o r i t is fr o m th is t h a t g rie van ce s arise.
While some w it h in an o rg a n iz a tio n b e lie v e t h a t g rie va n c e s should be avoided
a t a ll costs, c o n f l i c t is in e v ita b le in o rg a n iz a tio n s o f any size o r c o m p le x ity ,
m u tu a lly a c c e p te d is th e basis o f e f f e c t i v e c o n t r a c t a d m in is tr a t io n .
G rievances expose th e weak, m isunderstood, o r o b v io u s ly bad paragraphs o f
t h e a g re e m e n t. They also expose those issues upon which t h e r e was i n s u f f ic i e n t o r
no a c co rd .

A re v ie w o f past g rie van ce s and t h e i r lo c a tio n w it h in th e o rg a n iz a tio n

can give fo c u s t o n e g o tia tio n s .

G rievances also have a c a t h a r t ic e f f e c t , i f handled

p r o m p tly and f a i r l y , t h e r e b y s u b s t it u t in g f o r o th e r c o n c e rte d a c tio n .
G rievances are used by both sides to f a v o r a b ly push th e l i m i t s o f t h e ir
c o n t r o l.

Unions use them t o p r o t e c t t h e i r members and to s o lid if y t h e i r e x isten ce

as a p o l it ic a l o rg a n iz a tio n (K ru g e r 1979)*

M a nagem ent uses g rie va n c e s to p r o te c t

i t s r ig h t s and t o shield it s supervisors.

G rievances, to o , are o f t e n th e o n ly

mechanism

th ro u g h

w hich

m a n a g e m e n t is made a w a re o f d iv e rg e n t goals and

p ra c tic e s w it h in th e o r g a n iz a tio n .

G rievances may also be used by e ith e r p a r ty to

a chieve ends n o t gained a t t h e b a rg a in in g ta b le .

The in t e n s it y w ith which a

g rie v a n c e is f o u g h t and th e le v e l i t m ust re a ch f o r re s o lu tio n in d ic a te th e ty p e o f
w o rk in g re la tio n s h ip th e p a r tie s possess.
In f a c u l t y la b o r re la tio n s , g rie va n c e s td k e on an added im p o rta n c e due t o the
s c a r c it y o f p ro m o tio n s , th e r e la t iv e l y lo w p ro fe ssio n al salaries, and t r a d it io n a l

2

a t t it u d e s t h a t d i f f e r fro m

those o f " i n d u s t r ia l" unions.

As is th e case in the

in d u s tr ia l s e c to r, h ow eve r, g rie va n c e s are used t o a c h ie v e a v a r ie t y o f ends
beyond th e mere re s o lu tio n o f a c o n t r a c t v io la t io n .

In acad e m e , f o r e x a m p le , a

g rie v a n c e

may be p ro m p te d by th e a d m in is tr a tio n 's d esire t o raise p ro m o tio n

standards.

I f successful, th e a d m in is tr a t io n can e sta b lish more s t r in g e n t c r i t e r i a

f o r p ro m o tio n .

In t h e same s itu a tio n , a f a c u l t y union may seek to q u a n t if y those

same stan d ards a t a le v e l more e a sily a c h ie va b le by t h e i r members.

B ackground o f T h e o ry and Research
Most research
co n c e rn s

th e

in g rie v a n c e analysis and it s im p a c t on th e o rg a n iz a tio n

in d u s tria l

s e c to r.

Ash's (1970) stu d y

o f th e

bro ad

g rie v a n c e decisions pro vide s p a ra lle ls f o r s tu d y in th e p u b lic s e c to r.

im p a c t o f

Ash discussed

a t le n g th th e managem ent c h a r a c t e r is t ic s p re sen t in many g rie v a n c e s itu a tio n s .
Ash fo u n d a stea d y and ra p id g ro w th in t h e num be r, b oth a b s o lu te and
r e la t iv e t o th e work f o r c e , o f g rie va n ce s f i l e d under th e a g re e m e n t d u rin g the
f i v e - y e a r s tu d y p e rio d . L o c k in g a t f a c t o r s a ssociate d w it h g rie v a n c e s and w h e th e r
t h e re was a s ig n if ic a n t d if fe r e n c e b e tw e e n those w o rk e rs who g rie v e d and those
who

did

n o t,

Ash

concluded

th a t

d if fe r e n c e s abo u t those who g rie v e :

th e re

were

th re e

s ta tis tic a lly

s ig n if ic a n t

They were younger, were more l i k e l y to have

served in th e A rm e d Forces, and were s ig n if ic a n t ly more lik e ly to be Caucasian.
Ash also suggests t h a t th e re

may w e ll be a decide d re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n the

c h a r a c t e r o f supervision and d e p a rtm e n ta l g rie v a n c e ra te s.

While f a c u l t y do n ot

work under these same c o n d itio n s , th e f in d in g s have re le v a n c e f o r t h is stud y.
Duane's ( 1
of

9 7 9

) s tu d y o f g rie v a n c e analysis a t th e j u n io r and s e n io r co lle ge s

M innesota also has a p p lic a t io n t o t h is p re sen t stu d y .

He s ta te s t h a t one

f u n c t io n o f g rie v a n c e d ata analysis is to lo c a te in s t it u t io n a l p o lic y problem areas

o r th o s e t h a t p ro v id e th e la r g e s t num be r o f f a c u l t y g rie van ce s.

In Duane's stud y

t h e p o lic y problem areas id e n t if ie d were, in descending o r d e r o f fre q u e n c y :
1.

S alary

8. Leaves o f absence

2.

W o r k lo a d

9. D is c r im in a tio n

3.

A p p o in t m e n t / l a y o f f

10. G rie va nce p rocedure

E m ployee r ig h ts

11. M a nagem ent rig h ts

5.

A s s o c ia tio n r ig h t s

12. D e p a rtm e n t ch airpe rso n

6.

R e p rim a n d /d is m is s a l

13* P ro m o tio n

7.

M iscellaneous pro visio ns

Duane c o m p a re d su b u n its (d e fin e d as a d e p a r tm e n t, d iv is io n , o r c o lle g e ) e x h ib itin g
high g rie v a n c e ra te s w ith s im i la r su bunits t h a t had f e w e r g rievances.
size o f

(Since th e

m em bership among th e s u b u n its under e v a lu a tio n v a rie d w id e ly , Duane

developed a g rie v a n c e r a t io t o aid his com p arison s.) The research fin d in g s suggest
in s u b u n its w it h in o rd in a te g rie v a n c e ra te s one o f t w o th in g s is o p e ra tin g :
1)

g rie v a n c e s are n o t p ro p e rly screened b y union re p re s e n ta tiv e s a n d /o r
a d m in is tr a t o r s are not w illin g o r able t o re so lve c o m p la in ts in f o r m a lly ,
or

2)

a fo o t

w it h in

the

s u b u n it are serious

p o lic y

p ro b le m s t h a t can be

c h a r a c t e r iz e d a s-a.

s u b s ta n tiv e d isorders, lik e f a c u l t y la y o f f s ; o r

b.

p ro ce d u ra l disorders, such as c o n t r a c t u a l a m b ig u itie s .

Muchind<y

and

Massarani

(1981) suggest t h a t

th e

n a tu re

and scope o f

g rie v a n c e s in d ic a t e th e q u a lit y o f th e u n d e rly in g u n io n -m a n a g e m e n t re la tio n s h ip .
They f u r t h e r b e lie v e t h a t changes in c o n t r a c t language o v e r t i m e r e f l e c t t h a t
r e la tio n s h ip as w e ll.
One o f

M uchinsky and

Massarani's f in d in g s was th e high denial ra t e f o r

g rie v a n c e s made a t th e b eginning o f a n e w ly e sta b lish e d b arg a in in g re la tio n s h ip .

This high denial ra te was not present where unions had been in o p e ra tio n f o r
lo n g e r th a n a year.
A p a r tia l reason f o r high g rie v a n c e ra te s d u rin g the f i r s t ye ar was t h a t union
and m a nagem ent were u naccustom ed t o each o th e r in advo ca cy roles.

Secondly,

these g rie va n ce s were c la s s ifie d as th e s y m p t o m a t ic v a r ie t y , where the c o m p la in t
n o t o n ly d e ta ils a s p e c ific problem b u t in d ic a te s o th e r u n d e rly in g f a c t o r s .

These

c o m p la in ts em e rg e t o ve n t f r u s t r a t io n , to in crease pressure d uring n e g o tia tio n s , o r
to

r e t a l ia t e

fo r

g rie van ce s.

m a nagem ent

a ction s,

and

are

th e n

c o n v e rte d

in t o

fo rm a l

Though th e y may have some c o n t r a c t u a l basis, the g rie va n ce s are

o n ly s y m p t o m a t ic o f th e real p ro ble m .
Graham
in t e r v ie w e d

and
la b o r

Heshizer
and

(1979)

m anagem ent

stud ie d
o ffic a ls

over
to

300

la b o r

d e te rm in e

a g re e m e n ts
w h e th e r

c o n tra c t

language had any e f f e c t on th e le ve l (low o r high) o f grie van ce re s o lu tio n .
conclud e d

th a t,

w h ile

language

enco u ra gin g

e a r ly ,

lo w - le v e l

and

re s o lu tio n

They
was

c o m f o r t i n g t o read f o r e m ployees, i t had l i t t l e im p a c t in d e te r m in in g a ctio n s . The
c irc u m s ta n c e s o f th e g rie v a n c e d ic t a t e d th e le v e l o f re so lu tio n .
One o u tc o m e u n a n tic ip a te d by Graham and Heshizer was t h a t grie van ce s
becam e more d i f f i c u l t t o resolve in periods o f high u n e m p lo y m e n t.
th a t

w o rke rs becom e

They b elieve

more aware o f those c o n t r a c t u a l v io la t io n s t h a t

m ig h t

possibly a f f e c t t h e i r jo b s e c u r it y in these t im e s and are less w illin g to o verlook
the m

th a n

if

e m p lo y m e n t

is high.

Given th e f in a n c ia l

p ro ble m s

Michigan's

e d u c a tio n a l in s t it u t io n s have fa c e d , th e same e f f e c t may be p resent in f a c u l t y
g rie v a n c e ra te s.

6
S ig n ific a n c e o f th e S tud y
In a d m in is te r in g a c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t, p ro ble m s are usually
re a c te d t o r a t h e r th a n a n t ic ip a t e d .

In re se archin g f a c u l t y g rie v a n ce s and t h e ir

in flu e n c e upon la b o r m a n ag e m e nt re la tio n s , th e re se a rch e r sought to p ro vid e , f o r
th e in s t it u t io n s in v o lv e d , an a c c u r a te re c o rd o f t h e i r grie van ce a c t i v i t y fro m
many p e rsp e ctiv e s .

A s tu d y o f g rievances, how eve r, does n o t describe th e e n tir e

la b o r re la tio n s process.

B ut i t may p ro v id e a measure o f the success o r f a ilu r e the

p a r tie s have had in t h e d a ily a d m in is tr a t io n o f t h e i r a gree m e n ts.
any a g re e m e n t
a c tio n .
b e tw e e n

in vo lv e s th e

An o p tim u m
th e

words

co n tin u o u s t r a n s la t io n o f

a c h ie v e m e n t f o r th is stud y
of

an

a g re e m e n t

and

A d m in is te rin g

words and phrases in to

would be t o n a rro w th e gap

the

deeds

associated

w ith

it s

a d m in is tr a t io n , th e re b y c o n t r ib u t in g t o a b e t t e r work e n v iro n m e n t.

S ta te m e n t o f Hypotheses
This re se a rch e r's prem ise is t h a t an e x a m in a tio n o f f a c u l t y g rie va n c e s o ve r a
s u f f i c i e n t p e rio d o f t i m e w ill reveal q u a n tifia b le re s u lts t h a t d e fin e t h e c o n d itio n
o f th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s .
Using re asonably s im i la r

M ichigan

u n iv e rs itie s t h a t have had c o lle c t iv e

b a rg a in in g f o r 10 o r m ore years, i t was assumed t h a t th e c o n d itio n s under which
f a c u l t y work are th e same.

I f t h a t is the case, the abso lu te n um be r and general

c irc u m s ta n c e s t h a t gave rise to f a c u l t y g rie van ce s should n ot v a ry s ig n if ic a n t ly by
i n s t it u t io n . T h e r e fo re , th e f i r s t hypothesis, in n u ll f o r m , was:
1.

The

abso lu te

number

and

c irc u m s ta n c e s

g ivin g

rise

to

fa c u lty

g rie va n ce s do not v a ry s ig n if ic a n t ly fro m in s t it u t io n t o in s t it u t io n .
A n o th e r area o f research in q u ir y was th e e f f e c t th e passage o f t i m e had
upon th e c o n t r a c t u a l re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s .

G rievances g e n e ra lly have

th r e e stages; in f o r m a l re s o lu tio n ; f o r m a l re s o lu tio n ; s o lu tio n imposed upon th e

p a r tie s by an a r b i t r a t o r o r o th e r im p a r t ia l panel.

I t was p o s tu la te d , t h e r e f o r e ,

t h a t th e le v e l a t w h ich g rie va n c e s were resolved changes s ig n if ic a n t ly o v e r t im e .
The second hypothesis, in n u ll f o r m , was:
2.

The le v e l o f r e s o lu tio n ( in f o r m a l, f o r m a l, im posed so lu tio n ) t h a t a
g rie v a n c e o b ta in s does n ot v a ry s ig n if ic a n t ly o v e r t im e .

Of the f i v e in s t it u t io n s s tu d ie d , t h r e e have been o rg a n iz e d by th e M ichigan
E du ca tion A sso cia tio n (M E A ) and t w o by th e A m e ric a n A s so c ia tio n o f U n iv e rs ity
Professors (A A U P ).

It

was assumed t h a t th e philosophy o f these c o m p e tin g

o rg a n iz a tio n s is n o t th e same.

The MEA grew in m em bership f i r s t th ro u g h th e

u n io n iz a tio n o f K-1 2 p u b lic school te a ch e rs.
fa c u lty .

The A A U P o n ly o rganizes c o lle g e

Does th e s e le c tio n o f a p a r t i c u la r b a rg a in in g agent c re a te s ig n if ic a n t

d iffe r e n c e s in th e n a tu re and t y p e o f g rie va n c e s f i l e d by f a c u l t y members?

The

t h i r d hypothesis, in null f o r m , was:
3.

The n a tu re and ty p e o f g rie va n ce s f i l e d

by f a c u l t y does n ot v a ry

s ig n if ic a n t ly by c h o ic e o f b arg a in in g agent.

M e th o d o lo g y f o r E x p e rim e n ta l Design
To t e s t th e hypotheses, the a c tu a l g rie van ce d o c u m e n ts housed a t each
in s t it u t io n were e x am ine d .

The f o llo w in g in f o r m a tio n was o b ta in e d fr o m each o f

264 g rie va n c e s e xam ined:
a.

A c a d e m ic rank a t t i m e o f g rie va n ce .

b.

L e n g th o f s e rv ice t o in s t it u t io n a t t im e o f g rie v a n c e .

c.

Sex o f g rie v a n t.

d.

A c a d e m ic d is c ip lin e o f g rie v a n t (social sciences, h u m a n itie s , n a tu ra l
science and m a th e m a tic s , app lie d a rts and te c h n o lo g y , e tc .).

e.

C irc u m s ta n c e s under w h ich g rie v a n c e was f ile d :

1.

P ro m o tio n , te n u re o r re a p p o in tm e n t

2.

S e n io rity , r e t r e n c h m e n t

3-

F rin g e b e n e fits
S up p le m e nta l co m p e n sa tio n

5

.

6.
7

f.

.

F a c u lty w o rk in g c o n d itio n s
Salary
Union r ig h t s under th e a g re e m e n t

8.

D is c r im in a t io n and h arassm ent

9.

Discharge and d is c ip lin e

Level

at

w h ich g rie va n ce

was re s o lve d (in f o r m a l, f o r m a l,

im posed

s o lu tio n , no s o lu tio n ).
g.

T o ta l

num ber

of

g rie v a n ce s

by

in d iv id u a l

la b o r a g re e m e n t

and

i n s t it u t io n .
h.

D iffe re n c e s

by in s t i t u t i o n

and

broad

a c a d e m ic

d is c ip lin e s

(n a tu ra l

sciences and m a th e m a tic s , social sciences, h u m a n itie s , a pp lie d a rts
and te ch n o lo g y ).
i.

M onth and y e a r g rie v a n c e was f ile d .

j.

C o n tr a c t in f o r c e a t t i m e g rie v a n c e was f ile d ,

k.

L e n g th o f t i m e t o resolve m a t t e r .

1.

O utco m e o f g rie v a n c e (w ith d ra w n b y g r ie v a n t , re so lved in

fa v o r o f

union, resolved in f a v o r o f a d m in is tr a t io n , o r resolved by n e g o tia te d
a gre e m e n t).
The

v a ria b le s

noted

above

re fe r

to

g rie v a n c e s

f i l e d by in d iv id u a ls .

G rievances f i l e d by groups o r by t h e b a rg a in in g a g e n t on b e h a lf o f in d iv id u a ls were
i d e n t if ie d in th is s tu d y as group g rie van ce s. I n f o r m a t io n o f the f o l lo w in g ty p e was
g a th e re d on these grie van ce s:

a.

C irc u m s ta n c e s under which g rie v a n c e was f ile d .
1.

S e n io rity , re tr e n c h m e n t

2.

F ring e b e n e fits

3.

S upplem ental co m p e n s a tio n

k.

F a c u lty w o rk in g c o n d itio n s

5.

Salary

6.

Union r ig h t s under th e a g re e m e n t

7.

D is c r im in a tio n and h a rassm en t

8.

Discharge and d is c ip lin e

b.

M onth and ye ar g rie v a n c e was f ile d .

c.

C o n tr a c t in fo r c e a t t im e g rie v a n c e was f i l e d .

d.

Level a t

which g rie v a n c e

was resolved ( in f o r m a l, f o r m a l ,

imposed

s o lu tio n , no s o lu tio n ).
e.

L e n g th o f t im e t o resolve m a t t e r .

f.

O u tco m e o f g rie v a n c e ( w ith d r a w n b y

g r ie v a n t , re s o lv e d in f a v o r o f

union, resolved in f a v o r o f a d m in is tr a t io n , o r re so lved by n e g o tia te d
a gre e m e n t).
The d ata were p r im a r i ly a na lyze d using C h i-sq u are t e s t in g a t th e .05 le v e l o f
s ig n ific a n c e .

O th e r te s tin g measures were u t i liz e d as necessary.

Use o f these

t e s t measures show w h e th e r, in f a c t , th e re are s i g n if ic a n t d if fe r e n c e s in th e data
as s ta te d in th e hypotheses.

D e f in it io n o f T e rm s
F o r th e purposes o f th is stu d y, th e f o l lo w in g d e f in it io n s are used:

Bargaining Unit The group o f e m ployees d e te rm in e d b y n a tio n a l, s ta te o r t e r r i t o r i a l
la b o r boards t o c o n s t it u t e th e u n it a p p ro p ria te f o r b a rg a in in g purposes.

10
Where no o f f i c i a l d e s ig n a tio n o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n was made, i t was th e u n it
a c c e p te d by th e e m p lo y e r f o r b a rg a in in g purposes.

Bargaining Agent The union c e r t i f i e d b y a n a tio n a l, s ta te o r t e r r i t o r i a l la b o r agency to
re p re s e n t a m a jo r it y o f t h e e m p loye e s in an a p p ro p ria te b a rg a in in g u n i t and
to be th e e x c lu s iv e b a rg a in in g a g e n t f o r those e m ployees.
o b lig a te d t o

m e e t and n e g o tia te th e

The e m p lo y e r is

wages, hours, and o th e r t e r m s and

c o n d itio n s o f e m p lo y m e n t w it h th is a ge n t.

A rbitration A
problem
p a r ty .
p a r ty

p ro ced u re

w h e re b y p a r tie s

unable

to

agree on a s o lu tio n t o a

in d ic a t e t h e i r w illin g n e s s to be bound by t h e decision o f a t h i r d
The p a r tie s u s ua lly agree, in advance, on th e issues t h a t th e t h i r d

(th e

a rb itra to r)

is t o

decide .

C o lle c t iv e

b a rg a in in g

a gre e m e n ts

g e n e ra lly p ro v id e f o r a r b i t r a t i o n as th e la s t step in th e process s e t up to
handle p la n t g rie van ce s.

Grievance A ny

c o m p la in t

b y an e m p lo y e e o r by a union (so m e tim e s b y the

e m p lo y e r o r e m p lo y e r a s so c ia tio n ) c o n ce rn in g any a sp e c t o f th e e m p lo y m e n t
re la tio n s h ip .

The c o m p la in t

may be re a l o r fa n c ie d , a r b it r a b le o r non-

a r b it r a b le under th e c o n t r a c t .

A r b it r a b le g rie van ce s u s ua lly arise o u t o f th e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r a p p lic a t io n o f th e c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t's t e r m s .

L im i t a t i o n s o f th e Study
Because each o f M ichigan's f o u r y e a r s ta te -s u p p o rte d in s t it u t io n s a re e it h e r
l e g is la t i v e l y o r c o n s t it u t io n a lly
n e ce s s a rily a p p ly a t a n o th e r.

a utonom ous, re search fin d in g s a t one w i l l not

The general w o rk in g c o n d itio n s o f f a c u l t y , how ever,

were s im i la r enough f o r a s tu d y o f th is ty p e t o be m e a n in g fu l.

11
A n o th e r li m it a t i o n t o t h is s tu d y is t h a t i t was c o n fin e d t o o n ly one s ta te .
The s tu d y was also l i m i t e d because i t la c k e d re p re s e n ta tio n by one o f th e
t h r e e m a jo r f a c u l t y unions, i.e., th e A m e r ic a n F e d e ra tio n o f Teachers (A F T ).

No

f o u r - y e a r in s t it u t io n in M ich ig a n has t h e AFT as it s b a rg a in in g a ge n t.

O rg a n iz a tio n o f the Study
The re m a in in g c h a p te rs o f t h is s tu d y were as fo llo w s :
C h a p te r

II, Survey o f

R e la te d

L it e r a t u r e ,

was d e v o te d t o

a re v ie w

of

p u b lic a tio n s and research stu d ie s t h a t were r e le v a n t t o t h is stu d y.
C h a p te r III, Means and Method o f Data C o lle c tio n , d esc ribe d th e procedures
p r e p a r a to r y t o c o n d u c tin g t h e d a ta c o lle c t io n and t h e methods used f o r c o lle c t in g
the data .
C h a p te r

IV,

P re s e n ta tio n

and

A n a lysis o f

the

D a ta,

a n a lyze d the

data

c o lle c t e d as i t re la te d t o th e hypotheses o f th e stu d y .
C h a p te r

V,

S u m m a ry ,

R e c o m m e n d a tio n s

and

Suggestions

fo r

F u tu re

R esearch, sum m a rize d th e s tu d y and made recom m e ndations f o r f u t u r e research.

C HAPTER II

The Survey o f R e la te d L it e r a t u r e
This c h a p te r is a re v ie w o f th e r e le v a n t lit e r a t u r e in th e broad area o f
o rg a n iz a tio n a l

g rie van ce s

and the

more

s p e c ific

area o f f a c u l t y

grievances.

G rie va nce system s w ill be e xa m in e d both in and o u t o f th e public s e c to r and in
in d u s tria l and e d u ca tio n a l s e ttin g s .

N e xt, th e c o m p o n e n t p a r ts o f a g rie v an c e

p ro c e d u re and how th e y i n t e r a c t w ill be re v ie w e d .

F a c to rs such as th e num ber

and t y p e o f g rie van ce s f i l e d a ga in st an e n te rp ris e and a t w h ich stage s e tt le m e n t
was a c h ie ve d are among th e more im p o r t a n t f a c e t s o f t h is in q u iry . Then, th e ro le
o f in d iv id u a l and group g rie va n ce s and t h e i r im p a c t on th e o rg a n iz a tio n w ill be
e x p lo re d .

F in a lly , th e unique aspects o f f a c u l t y c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g and th e p a r t

t h a t g rie va n c e s pla y in u n io n -m a n a g e m e n t re la tio n s w il l be discussed.

G rie va nce Systems
As e a r lie r s ta te d , a g rie v a n c e is any c o m p la in t by an e m p lo y e e , an e m p lo y e r,
o r a union c o n c e rn in g any a sp e c t o f th e e m p lo y m e n t re la tio n s h ip .

The c o m p la in t

may be re a l o r fa n c ie d , a r b it r a b le o r n o n - a r b itr a b le under th e c o n t r a c t .

F o r the

purposes o f t h is stu d y , a r b it r a b le g rie van ce s, those t h a t arise o u t o f th e t e r m s and
t h e i r a p p lic a t io n w it h in th e a g re e m e n t, w il l be th e o n ly ones considered.
G rievances t y p i c a l l y p roceed along th e same p a th , i.e ., fr o m in f o r m a l stages
th ro u g h f o r m a l steps, usua lly c u lm in a tin g in a binding re s o lu tio n p re scrib e d by a
t h i r d p a r ty n e u tra l such as an a r b i t r a t o r o r re vie w panel.
A ffa irs

The Bureau o f N a tio na l

(1979) fo u n d t h a t 99% o f sample c o n t r a c t s c o n ta in e d a p ro v is io n f o r

g rie v a n c e

re s o lu tio n .

There

were,

h o w e ve r,

v a r ia tio n s

in th e

scope o f th e

g rie v a n c e p ro ced u re , th e n um be r o f steps in th e p ro ced u re , the t i m e l i m i t s f o r
f i l i n g , and t h e n a tu re o f t h i r d p a r ty re s p o n s ib ility .
a g re e m e n ts and

9 0

In 75% o f th e public s e c to r

& o f the p r iv a t e s e c to r a g re e m e n ts, m anagem ent a cc e p te d
12

13
bin din g a r b it r a t i o n o f c e r t a in ty p e s o f g rie va n ce s in r e t u r n f o r a n o - s tr ik e pledge
f r o m th e union o v e r th e l i f e o f th e a g re e m e n t (M ills , 1982).
The widespread use o f g rie v a n c e p ro cedures suggests t h a t t h e y must s a tis fy
th e needs o f both m a n ag e m e nt and union.
and

Kuhn,

p e rfo rm

noted

th a t

g rie va n c e

Kochan (1980), q u o tin g C h a m b e rla in

p ro cedures

t h r e e basic needs f o r th e

union and

th a t

in c lu d e a r b i t r a t i o n

clauses

m a nagem ent under a c o lle c t iv e

b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t:
(1)

The

a g re e m e n t

must

be

in t e r p r e t e d

on

a

d a y - to - d a y

basis

and

d iffe re n c e s o v e r in t e r p r e t a t io n s must be resolved;
(2)

The t e r m s m ust be a da p te d t o changing c irc u m s ta n c e s and unforeseen
s itu a tio n s and

(3)

Demands by w o rke rs, lo c a l- le v e l managers, and f i r s t - l i n e supervisors
f o r a d ju s tm e n ts and m o d if ic a t io n s o f th e basic a g re e m e n t to f i t lo c a l
c o n d itio n s must be accom modated.

The im p o rta n c e o f th e g rie v a n c e p ro ce d u re has been noted by many.

R yder

(1956) b e lie v e d t h a t th e p ro ce d u re has a d im e nsion beyond words on a piece o f
paper, t h a t i t gives l i f e t o t h e te r m s and c o n d itio n s o f th e a g re e m e n t i t serves.
G rievance procedures can help d e fin e c o m m o n work p r a c tic e s and serve as n o tic e
t o e m ployees abo u t th e b re a d th o f a c t i v i t y t h e c o n t r a c t can a c c o m m o d a te .
M c K e rs ie and S hropshire (1962) also fo u n d g rie v a n c e s t o be im p o r t a n t :
I t is th e d a y - to - d a y a d m in is tr a t io n o f a c o n t r a c t t h a t
d e te rm in e s how w e ll th e o b je c tiv e s o f th e c o n t r a c t are
re a liz e d and i t is th e d a y - to - d a y a d m in is tr a t io n t h a t most
in flu e n c e s th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f a c o n s t r u c t iv e re la tio n s h ip
b etw e e n th e c o n t r a c t in g p a rtie s .

A

fa irly

re p re s e n ta tiv e

grie van ce

pro ced u re

fr o m

H o lle y

and Jennings

( 1980):
Union
Personnel
Invo lve d
F ir s t
Step

E mployee ( w ith o r
w it h o u t union
ste w a rd )

A c tiv ity

M anagem ent
P ersonnel
Invo lve d

Discuss g rie van ce

F i r s t - lin e s u p e rv is o r

U n resolved

Resolved

G rievance reduced
t o w r it in g and
answered by
m anagem ent in 5
days
Second
Step

A d d it io n o f
union g rie v an c e
com m it t e e person

Discuss g rie van ce
r e la t iv e to
p re ced e nt

A d d it io n o f in d u s tria l
re p re s e n ta tiv e

Unresolved

Resolved

M a nagem ent answers
in w r itin g
Can be appealed
in f i v e days
T h ird
Step

A d d it io n o f
union g rie v a n c e
c o m m it t e e members

D iscuss g rie van ce
w ith m axim um in p u t

A d d it io n o f in d u s tria l
re la tio n s m anager and
general p la n t m an ag e m e nt
o f f i c i a l (e.g., a s sista n t
p la n t manager)

Unresolved

Resolved

M anag e m e nt answers
in w r itin g
Can be appealed
in 10 days
F o u rth
Step

A r b it r a t i o n
( A d d itio n o f t h ir d
p a r ty n e u tra l)
Final and binding
decision

F ig u re 1. Sample G rievance Procedure.

15

While d ia g ra m s o f th e ty p e ju s t n o te d suggest t h a t th e g rie v a n c e process
pro vide s a d ir e c t approach t o d is p ute re s o lu tio n , t h e r e are se veral u n w r it t e n
dim ensions t o th e process.

As H o lly and Jennings (1 9 8 O) say, one f a c t o r in th is

disp ute

is

re s o lu tio n

m a t r ix

th e

v a r ie t y

p a r tic ip a n t s b rin g to th e process.

of

p e rs o n a litie s

Such e m o tio n a l f a c t o r s

e f f e c t th re e p rin c ip le s o f g rie v a n c e p ro ce d u re :

and

m o tive s

th e

make i t d i f f i c u l t t o

a c lin ic a l r a t h e r th a n a le g a lis tic

a pproach should be f o llo w e d , th e g rie v a n t's ro le and the pro ced u re should be c le a r
in t h e c o n t r a c t , and each g rie v a n c e should be d ec id e d on it s own m e r it .
fou n d

the

re s o lu tio n

process to

be

c h a r a c t e r iz e d

by

three

typ e s

of

They
social

re la tio n s h ip s co n d u c te d a g a in st th e b a ckd ro p o f th e a g re e m e n t's provisions.
C o n flic t in g p o w e r re la tio n s h ip s , a c c o rd in g to Reynolds (1978), and su pp o rted
by H o lly and Jennings arise when one o f th e p a r tie s o r it s agents has a " d i f f e r e n t
agenda."

G e n e ra lly , in d iv id u a ls r a t h e r t h a n o rg a n iz a tio n s engage in a c t i v i t i e s t h a t

are a t v a ria n c e
g rie van ce

w it h th e la r g e r group's s ta te d o b je c tiv e .

a ga in st

m anagem ent, f o r e x a m p le ,

manager's c r e d i b i l i t y w ith his o r h er peers.

A union

member's

m ig h t be a im e d a t d am aging a

A " d i f f e r e n t agenda" on th e p a r t o f

m anagem ent m ig h t r e s u lt in uneven s tan d ards being a p p lie d t o an e m p lo y e e who
has f a lle n o u t o f f a v o r .

Regardless o f th e "s u cce ss" o f such a ction s, t h is ty p e o f

re la tio n s h ip d is t o r t s th e p r im a r y purpose o f c o n t r a c t a d m in is tr a t io n , i.e ., ra tio n a l
d ecision making.
K ru g e r

(1980)

has

said

th a t

s y m p a th e t ic

re la tio n s h ip s

occur

b e tw e e n

in d iv id u a ls when each is a w a re o f t h e o th e r's needs (and t h a t o f t h e o r g a n iz a tio n )
and

uses

th a t

M anagem ent

awareness

needs

to

to

a p p re c ia te

understand

th a t

and
th e

b e tte r
union

work
is

w ith

p r im a r i ly

th e
a

o th e r.
p o lit ic a l

o rg a n iz a tio n w it h in whose f r a m e w o r k t h e re are se veral la y e rs o f needs, w ants, and
desires.

Some o f these are m a n ife s te d by a c tio n s t h a t o u t w a r d ly app e ar o n ly to

th r e a te n o r e m b a rra ss m anag e m e nt.

In t r u t h , th e u nion may ta k e such a c tio n s to

16
s o lid f y i t s o w n in te r n a l fa c t io n s . The union must understand t o o t h a t m anagem ent
has its c o n s t it u e n t groups w a tc h in g f o r co n s iste n c y o f t r e a t m e n t . These fa c tio n s ,
a ltho u gh

th e y

are

not

id e n t if ie d

as such,

m ust

also

be

a c c o m m o d a te d

by

m anagem ent.
Reynolds (1978) agrees w ith H o lly and Jennings on c o d ifie d re la tio n s h ip s ,
which

in clu d e

th e

rig h t s

and

p riv ile g e s

of

firs t-lin e

supe rviso rs

and

union

g rie va n ce personnel, as d e fin e d by the la b o r a g re e m e n t and va rio u s union and
m a nagem ent p u b lic a tio n s .

Such c o d if ic a t io n , w h ich is d e ta ile d in handbodks on

g rie va n ce processing, plays an im p o r t a n t ro le in th e area o f dispute re s o lu tio n .
cre a te s an a tm osp h ere

in

which

mutual

r ig h ts

and

It

re s p e c t are given value.

G e n e ra lly , p ro ble m s should be solved a t th is le v e l, r a t h e r th a n h aving a s o lu tio n
imposed fro m

above.

The f u r t h e r

a g rie v a n c e t r a v e ls , t h e

m ore d i f f i c u l t i t

becomes to s e t t le due t o f a c t o r s o f p rid e and p re s tig e . This is p a r t i c u la r l y e v id e n t
in cases where one o r both sides back t h e i r people in s p ite o f th e o rig in a l a ctio n
being wrong.
The t h r e e ty p e s o f in te rp e rs o n a l re la tio n s h ip s d escribe d above c o m b in e w ith
th e g rie v a n c e p ro c e d u re to fo r m
response

to

these

th e o p e ra tio n a l basis f o r th e real process in

re la tio n s h ip s ,

and

the

p e rs o n a litie s

of

the

co n tra c t

a d m in is tr a t o r s is a phenomenon long u nd erstood by those who p r a c tic e g rie v a n c e
a d m in is tr a t io n .

A ll o f t h is adds co n sid e ra b le c o m p le x i t y t o w h a t appears on th e

s u rfa c e t o be a s t r a ig h t f o r w a r d process.
Thomson and M u rra y (1976), r e f l e c t i n g on e a r lie r w orks on how g rie van ce s
are

handled, c a te g o r iz e d

severe.

Depending

on

these on
e co n o m ic

a co n tin u u m
c o n d itio n s ,

ranging fr o m

in te r n a l

most to

o rg a n iz a tio n a l

le a s t

a f f a ir s ,

le a d e rs h ip sty le s, and a m yria d o f o th e r f a c t o r s t h a t p la y a p a r t in t h e o v e ra ll
o rg a n iz a tio n a l

c lim a t e ,

a ll

of

these

p a tte rn s

co u ld

be

p resent

in

a

m a nagem ent re la tio n s h ip . Thomson and M u rray's co n tin u u m has f i v e le ve ls:

union-

17
1.

A ggressive - In th is s it u a t io n one p a r ty sees n e a rly a ll o f it s
d is s a tis fa c tio n as subjects f o r g rie v a n c e . The p a r tie s behave as i f one
side must w in a t th e o th e r's expense.
T here is l i t t l e o r no t r u s t
be tw e e n th e p a r tie s and j o i n t re s o lu tio n o f issues is ra r e ly , i f ever,
achieved.

2.

Repressed h o s t i l i t y - The w o rk fo rc e is d is s a tis fie d w ith it s work
e n v iro n m e n t b ut does n o t a r t ic u la t e these d is s a tis fa c tio n s as open
g rie va n ce s. M is tr u s t and d is re s p e c t o f m anagem ent are e ve rp re se n t.
E m ployees f e e l as i f th e y have l i t t l e o r no pow er, h ow eve r, t o e f f e c t
change so th e y do n othing.

3.

M o derate - G rievances, some o f w hich can be seen as 'z e ro -s u m ' issues,
arise f r e q u e n t ly . There is a basic but c a u tio u s re sp ect b etw e e n th e
p a rtie s . G rie v a n ts are n ot w it h o u t l i m i t e d p o w e r t o change c o n d itio n s
and some p r io r c o n s u lta tio n by m an ag e m e nt ta ke s pla ce. The use o f
t h r e a t and f o r c e are r e la t iv e l y ra re .
Passive - P o s itiv e a tt it u d e s g e n e ra lly p re v a il. Few g rie va n ce s are f e l t
o r a r t ic u la t e d . The e m ployees have l i t t l e in flu e n c e , j o i n t c o n s u lta tio n
is ra re and th e work f o r c e g e n e ra lly does w h a t i t is t o ld and does n ot
mind i t .

5.

C o o p e ra tiv e - A t t i t u d e s are g e n e ra lly fa v o ra b le . Few g rie van ce s are
f e l t o r a r t ic u la t e d and, among those t h a t are, none are seen as 'z e ro sum.'
L in k in g and t r u s t p re va ils.
Workers make t h e i r co nside ra ble
in flu e n c e f e l t th ro u g h j o i n t c o n s u lta tio n w ith m anagem ent on all
issues, in c lu d in g g rie van ce s. T here is never any use o f t h r e a t o r fo r c e .

Thom son and

M u rra y

(1976) concluded t h a t ,

in p r a c tic e ,

th e g rie van ce

process is much more c o m p le x in t e r m s o f th e issues and o f the o rg a n iz a tio n 's
s o cia l s t r u c t u r e and its values tha n pre viou s assum ptions abo u t th e g rie va n ce
p ro c e d u re r e f le c t e d .

This is t r u e even in f a i r l y s im p le e n te rp ris e s , such as single

p la n ts w ith single unions.
A more expansive vie w o f g rie va n c e han d lin g is o f f e r e d by R yder (1956) who
also lin k s th e a c tu a l b a rg a in in g process to grie van ce s.

He sees th e d u ra tio n o f th e

c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e p a r tie s as an im p o r t a n t f a c t o r .
t h is re la tio n s h ip
fro m

th e

b a rg a in in g

m atures,

a g re e m e n t's
are f i r m l y

As

both sides te n d to becom e c o m p la c e n t and to s tra y

language.

This

usually

com es

a fte r

th e

r e a lit ie s o f

in place and a balance o f p o w e r has been established.

M o ve m e nt a w a y fro m c o m p la c e n c y is spurred by the g rie v a n c e process.

C o n tr a c t

18
p ro v isio n s are g iven substance,
Some o f these

p ra c tic e s

m o d ify in g o rg a n iz a tio n a l p ra c tic e s as a re s u lt.

are l a t e r

c o d ifie d

as c o n t r a c t

p ro v isio n s

in f u t u r e

a gree m e n ts.
L o u g hran (198*0 e x p la in s i t is not u nc o m m on f o r th e p a r tie s to d e lib e r a te ly
w r it e

vague c o n t r a c t language in o rd e r t o reach a s e t t le m e n t on t h a t issue,

k n o w in g t h a t f u t u r e g rie v a n c e s w ill more sh a rp ly fo c u s th is im p re c is io n ,
way a g rie v a n c e o u tc o m e d e fin e s p re v io u s ly vague c o n t r a c t language.

in th is
D e fin in g

these meanings throu g h g rie v a n c e s can be lik e n e d t o a p o lishing process o c c u r rin g
over

th e

life

a g re e m e n ts

of

a

co n tra ct.

because o th e r

This phenomenon

ty p e s o f c o m m e rc ia l

is la r g e ly
c o n tra c ts

lim ite d
c o n ta in

to
fa r

la b o r
fe w e r

i m p l i c i t meanings in t h e i r t e r m s and co n d itio n s.
A f in a l broad area o f g rie v a n c e system s t o be e x a m in e d is th e approach
ta k e n t o re s o lu tio n .

J u liu s (1 9

8 6

) e xplain s t h a t th e approach used has heightened

s ig n ific a n c e in f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e a d m in is tr a t io n .
a u t h o r it y are b lu rre d by design, fo r m

In a s e tt in g where th e lin e s o f

r iv a ls substance in im p o rta n c e .

I t is a

fo o lh a r d y a d m in is tr a t io n t h a t seeks to d o m in a te f a c u l t y in m a tte rs o f governance,
f o r e x a m p le .

In th e b est o f tim e s and under th e b est o f c o n d itio n s , th e issues o f

who c o n tr o ls whom and w h a t is n ever f a r below th e s u rfa c e .
H o lle y and Jennings (1980) d escribe m anagem ent's a pproach t o g rie v a n c e
re s o lu tio n as being e it h e r c lin ic a l o r le g a lis t ic .

Both approaches have advantages,

disadvantages

issue,

and

may,

b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip .

depending

on

th e

o p e ra te

w it h in

th e

same

A c lin ic a l approach a t t e m p t s t o unco ve r a ll o f th e causes

behind an em ployee's g rie v a n c e :

th e le g a lis t ic approach s t r i c t l y

g rie v a n c e a cc o rd in g to c o n t r a c t p rovisions.

d e fin e s th e

A lth o u g h th e c lin ic a l approach can

u n d o u b te d ly be vie w e d as more f a i r , i t does have li m ita tio n s .
Orze

(1978)

c ite s

one

lim ita tio n

is

a

la b o r

a g re e m e n t's

in c o rp o ra te issues o f fa irn e s s and e q u ity t h a t can s a tis fy e veryon e .

in a b il it y

to

F o r e xam ple ,

19
in issues o f f a c u l t y s u p p le m e n ta l c o m p e n sa tio n , seldom , i f e ve r, are th e re w r i t t e n
p ro visio ns t h a t address e x tr a te a c h in g c a p a b ilitie s .

Y e t i t is t r u e t h a t some

f a c u l t y can te a c h more t h a n a n orm a l lo a d w ith no loss in e f f ic i e n c y , w h ile o th e rs
s tru g g le t o m a in ta in q u a lit y w ith in a n orm a l schedule.
th is

area,

th e

a d m in is tr a t io n

may

w e ll k n o w

th e

Faced w ith a g rie v a n c e in
c a p a b ilit ie s o f

its fa c u lty

members b u t would be r e lu c t a n t to m o d ify o r t o o ve rlo o k a c o n t r a c t v io la t io n
because o f w h a t m ig h t f o l lo w .

So, w h ile fa irn e s s would d ic t a t e t h a t in d iv id u a l

f a c u l t y mem bers te a c h as o f t e n as each f e l t capa b le , most c o n t r a c t s would n o t
a llow it .
Orze

c o n tin u e s

w ith

a n o th e r l i m i t a t i o n

to

th e

c lin ic a l

a pproach is the

g rie v a n t's e x p e c ta tio n o f a c o m p le te and th o ro u g h a nsw er t o t h e i r c o m p la in t .

This

is not a lw a ys th e case because expansive w r i t t e n answers t o a g rie v a n c e expose
m anagem ent t o th e chance o f expanding th e dispute's boundaries.
reason f o r s h o rt, c r y p t ic g rie v a n c e answers.

T h is is th e

F airness usua lly ta k e s a b ackse a t to

k e e p in g th e issue n a r r o w ly d e fin e d .
Regardless o f th e approach ta k e n , g rie va n ce s and th e system in w h ic h th e y
o p e ra te are a v it a l a spe ct o f th e c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip .

G rievances

mold and shape th e c o n t r a c t u a l p rovisions made a t th e b a rg a in in g t a b le .

W ith a

broad re v ie w o f t h e g rie v a n c e system c o m p le te , t h e co m p o n e n ts o f a g rie v a n c e
and how t h e y a c t and in t e r a c t w il l be e xam ine d .

B e h a vio r o f th e G rie va nce System
P r io r

rese arche rs

have

considered

several

f u n c t io n a l

a spe cts

of

the

g rie v a n c e process, in clu d in g th e n um be r o f g rie v a n c e s f i l e d , th e le v e l a t which
g rie van ce s
grievances.

are

resolved,

and

p ro file s

of

persons

who are

more

apt to

file

20
V olum e o f G rievances and t h e i r S ig n ific a n c e
W hyte (1956), in an address many years ago, discussed th e s ig n ific a n c e o f
g rie va n ce v o lu m e , w h ich ca n mean many th in g s t o the re s p e c tiv e p a rtie s .
num be r

of

g rie va n c e s

m anagem ent.
change,

to

may

in d ic a t e

a

union

le a de rsh ip

A high

fru s tra te d

w ith

I t is n ot unknown f o r unions, anxious t o pressure management in to

canvass f o r

g rie va n ce s.

F r u s t r a t io n

w ith

m a nagem ent,

how ever,

re s u lts in fe w g rie va n c e s being f i l e d i f th e em p loye e s lack c o n fid e n c e in t h e i r
union. In th e absence o f such c o n fid e n c e , f r u s t r a t e d e m p loye e s o f t e n r e s o rt to
work slow dow ns as a ta n g ib le means o f expression.
W hyte e xp la in s t w o o th e r reasons t h a t a c c o u n t f o r f e w e r g rie va n ce s being
f i l e d th a n th e a c tu a l le v e l o f g rie v a b le p ro b le m s f e l t by e m ployees.

A c c o rd in g to

his th e o r y , any e m p lo y e e should f e e l f r e e to pursue his o r her p ro b le m s w ith
m anagem ent w ith o r w it h o u t th e union's in v o lv e m e n t.

E m ployees do not w a n t to

be considered " t r o u b le m a k e r s " by m anag e m e nt, h o w e v e r, f o r f e a r t h a t t h e i r f u t u r e
w ith

the

o r g a n iz a tio n

in d u s tria l

s e ttin g s ,

w ill

th a t

be a f f e c t e d .

e m p lo ye e s f e e l

It

is also p ro b a b le , p a r t i c u la r l y

t h a t th e y

should be able

to

in

handle

pro ble m s th e m s e lv e s w ith l i t t l e o r no help f r o m anyone else.
While

th e

c h ie f

d e t e r m in a n ts

of

g rie va n ce s

are

o r g a n iz a tio n a l

and

in s t it u t io n a l c o n d itio n s , the ra te s a t w h ic h th e y are f i l e d p ro v id e useful clues
a bo u t o v e r a ll g rie v a n c e a c t i v i t y ,
(1960).

Fle is h m a nn and

a c c o rd in g

t o S lic h te r ,

H ea ly, and Live rna sh

H a rris (1962) fo u n d t h a t s u p e rv is o ry " s t r u c t u r e " and

" c o n s id e r a tio n " w ere lin k e d t o g rie v a n c e ra te s.

S t r u c t u r e d e scribe s th e b e h a v io r

o f a s u p e rv is o r who o rg a n ize s and d e fin e s group a c t i v i t i e s and his r e la t io n t o th e
work group.
re sp e ct,

C o n sid e ra tio n in clu de s b e h a v io r t h a t is in d ic a t iv e o f m utual t r u s t ,

w a rm th ,

and

r a p p o r t b e tw e e n s u p e rv is o r and

e m p lo ye e .

The stud y

reve ale d t h a t , in g en e ra l, su p e rv iso rs who stressed h ig h ly s t r u c t u r e d b e h a v io r and
who had l i t t l e c o n s id e ra tio n f o r e m p loye e s had high g rie v a n c e ra te s and a high

tu r n o v e r o f em ployees.
g rie van ce s,

took

Ash (1970) fo u n d t h a t fo r e m e n , c o n f r o n t e d w ith many

lo n g e r t o a nsw er them

in d iv id u a l) g rie v a n ce s f i l e d .

and had

more group (as opposed to

G rievances and t u r n o v e r were lo w e s t f o r groups w ith

supervisors (fo re m e n ) who showed medium t o high c o n s id e ra tio n f o r em ployees,
coupled w ith less emphasis on s t r u c t u r e .

These same su pervisors were able to

in crease s t r u c t u r e w it h o u t in creases in g rie van ce s and tu rn o v e rs .
F le is h m a n and H a rris co n c lu d e d t h a t s u p e rv is o ry b e h a v io r c h a r a c te r iz e d by
low c o n s id e ra tio n was m o re c r i t i c a l in re g ard t o g rie v a n c e s and t u r n o v e r than
h ig h ly s t r u c t u r e d b e h a vio r.

Thus, supervisors who e s ta b lis h a c lim a t e o f t r u s t and

ra p p o rt w ith t h e i r su b o rd in a te s are b e t t e r able t o work th ro u g h o th e r p ro ble m s in
the w o rk p la ce th a n those su pervisors whose b e h a v io r is h ig h ly s t r u c tu r e d .

This

co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n s u p e rv is o ry s t r u c t u r e and g rie v a n c e ra te s was also n ote d by
Ash, whose f iv e - y e a r s tu d y o f 1,34A g rie v a n ce s suggested a d ec id e d re la tio n s h ip
betw e e n th e c h a r a c t e r o f s u pe rvision and th e ra te a t w h ich g rie v a n c e s are f ile d .
Gandz

and

W hitehead

(1931)

re searched

the

re la tio n s h ip

o r g a n iz a tio n a l c lim a t e and g rie v a n c e in it i a t i o n and re s o lu tio n .

b e tw e e n

the

The underpinnings

o f th is re la tio n s h ip can be ill u s t r a t e d in t h is way:
E con o m ic, Social -----Personal, E tc .
va ria b le s

> In flu e n c e ------ —^ I s s u e s

.—

—,

U n io n /M a n a g e m e n t Behaviors
In d u s tria l R e la tio n s
Cli mate

G rie va nce I n i t i a t io n

V
G rie va nce R e so lutio n
Behaviors

G rie va nce O utcom e

*
^
F ig u re 2.

V"

G rie va nce f a c t o r f lo w c h a r t .

G rie v a n ce A f t e r m a t h — >

22
R e c o g n itio n

th a t

g rie v a n c e

ra te s and re s o lu tio n

p a tte rn s are

re la t e d t o the

o rg a n iz a tio n a l c lim a t e can f o s t e r change in th e b e h a v io r o f th e p a rtie s .

The

re se arche rs

high

h yp o th e siz e d

th a t

t h e re

would

be

an a ss ociatio n

g rie v a n c e ra te s and c o n f l i c t a t th e b arg a in in g u n it le v e l.
hypothesis.

b e tw e e n

Results su pported th is

Gandz and W hitehead, who lik e n g rie v an ce ra te s to p ro x y v o te s on th e

in d u s tria l re la tio n s c lim a t e , suggest t h a t both p a r tie s should c o lle c t and analyze
g rie va n ce d a ta .

V a r ia tio n s fr o m

th e norm should t r ig g e r f u r t h e r analysis and

a c tio n w here desired.
B reslin (1981), in o f f e r in g a c r it iq u e o f the G andz-W hitehead re se arch, fe e ls
o th e r f a c t o r s , indep e nd e nt o f th e b arga in in g re la tio n s h ip , in flu e n c e th e g rie v a n ce
w o rklo a d:
1.

In te rn a l Union Pressures
O fte n a f u n c t io n o f in d iv id u a ls , g rie van ce s can and are f i l e d f o r
many reasons in c lu d in g p ro m o tio n o f in d iv id u a l wants and needs.

2.

Local Union E le c tio n s
An

u p tu rn

of

g rie v a n ce s

is

made

as

fa v o rs

to

in d iv id u a l

em p loye e s by ca n d id a te s f o r union o f f ic e .
3.

The T h r e a t o f L egal A c t io n by E mployees
The s p e c te r o f o utsid e agencies (E EOC, N L R B , D e p a rtm e n t o f
C iv il R ig h ts) in te r v e n in g aga in st t h e union im p e ls re p re s e n ta tiv e s to
process g rie va n ce s o f dubious value.

k.

F a c to r o f C ost
The in cre a s in g c o s t o f a r b it r a t i o n and i t s p re p a ra tio n in t i m e and
money fo r c e s th e p a r tie s to s e tt le e a r lie r tha n in p r io r years.

5.

Work f o r c e C h a r a c te r is tic s
G e n e ra lly , b e t t e r e m p lo y e e screening re s u lts in less grie van ce s.

23
S e t t le m e n t Step
I t is a hypothesis o f th e re s e a rc h e r t h a t f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e s w il l be s e ttle d a t
a lo w e r le v e l

as th e p a rtie s ' b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip m atures.

T h is is f r e q u e n t ly

th e case in n o n -a c a d e m ic s e ttin g s . Tu rn ea and Robinson (1972), q u o tin g an e a r lie r
fin d in g , say;
I t should be stressed t h a t the t y p i c a l g rie v a n c e is s e tt le d
a t th e f i r s t step. T h is is p a r t i c u la r l y th e case a f t e r th e unionmanagem ent re la tio n s h ip has m a tured . Once th e shop fo r e m a n
and union s te w a rd s o r c o m m it t e e m e n can g e t used t o each
o th e r and t o liv in g under a c o n t r a c t , th e y are l i k e l y to work
o u t a modus o perandi.
A s w ift
both

s e t t le m e n t o f e m p lo y e e g rie v a n c e s is a lm o s t a lw a y s b e n e fic ia l to

p a rtie s .

The a c tio n ,

real o r im a g in e d , t h a t p ro m p te d th e

addressed and p re s um ab ly changed o r c o rre c te d .

g rie v a n c e

is

The g rie v a n t usually e xperiences

a sense o f r e l i e f t h a t t h e process is o v e r and t h e p a r tie s can c o n tin u e t h e ir
re la tio n s h ip .

T u rn e r and Robinson se t o u t t o t e s t th e p re m ise t h a t lo w e r step

re s o lu tio n in d ic a te s h a rm o n io u s u n io n -m a n a g e m e n t re la tio n s h ip s .
many

in d u s tria l

business f i r m s

In a stu d y o f

in one s ta te , union o f f i c i a l s and

m anagement

personnel were in t e r v ie w e d in o r d e r to p ro v id e a cross-check o f a ttitu d e s .

The

authors' hypothesis was s u p p o rte d in 77% o f the co m p an ie s e xam ine d .
Orze (1978), in a monograph on c o n f l i c t re s o lu tio n in academ e, s ta te s t h a t
g rie va n ce s should be s e tt le d a t th e e a r lie s t and lo w e s t le ve l o f th e pro ced u re by
t h e a p p ro p ria te a u t h o r it y .

Orze fe e ls t h a t th e ta n g ib le and in ta n g ib le resources o f

boards o f c o n tr o l and p re s id e n ts are f i n i t e and t h a t these l i m i t e d resources should
n o t be exhausted in e lo n g a te d c o n f li c t s t h a t are l ik e ly t o c o n tin u e because o f
p e rs o n a lity c o n f l i c t s and t e s t s o f in d iv id u a l w ill.
q uestions
p ro ced u re .

should

be

a llo w e d

to

reach

th e

Only bona f id e p o lic y o r c o n tro l

h ig he st

le ve ls

of

th e

g rie va n c e

R e s o lutio n a t th e lo w e s t possible step is made, in p a r t, by l i m i t i n g the

n u m b e r o f p ro ced u ra l steps t o o n ly those necessary f o r a f a i r , e q u ita b le , and

2k

speedy decision.

I n fo r m a l re s o lu tio n is a lw a y s e ncouraged, p ro v id e d th e p roper

d e le g a tio n o f a u t h o r it y has been made.
Graham and Heshizer (1979) used an in t e r v ie w method t o d e te r m in e w h e th e r
actu a l c o n t r a c t language had any e f f e c t upon lo w - le v e l s e t t le m e n t o f g rievances.
Exam ples o f such language in c lu d e "T h e p a r tie s agree t o make e v e ry e f f o r t to
s e t t le g rie van ce s in th e lo w e s t possible step o f th e p ro c e d u re ," o r "T h e p a rtie s
agree t o make a d e te r m in e d e f f o r t t o s e t t le g rie v a n ce s a t th e lo w e s t ste p o f the
p ro c e d u re ."
procedure

The rese arche r's u n d e rly in g p re m ise was t o esta b lish w h e th e r i t is th e
o r the

re s o lu tio n .

people

who o p e ra te

i t t h a t d e te rm in e successful g rie van ce

An e x a m in a tio n o f o v e r 300 la b o r a gre e m e n ts and re s u lt a n t in te r v ie w s

found t h a t lo w - le v e l s e t t le m e n t language had l i t t l e value as a g uide t o th e p a rtie s '
b e h a vio r, even in instan ce s w here t h e r e was a high ra t e o f g rie v a n c e s e t t le m e n t a t
e a rly stages.

Graham and H e sh izer co nclud e d, h ow ev e r, t h a t th is ty p e o f language

has some value i f f o r no o th e r reason th a n to j o i n t l y express a philosophy.
F a c u lty

g rie v a n c e

p ro ce d u re s

c o u n te r p a rts in o th e r s e ttin g s .
g o ve rn a n c e ."
and s tud e nts .
guidance.
b etw een

d iffe r

in

one

im p o r t a n t

way fr o m

th e ir

T h a t d if fe r e n c e is e m b ra c e d by th e te rm "shared

On any c am pus th e r e are t h r e e hum an co m p on e nts;

fa c u lty , s ta ff,

Each is d ep endent upon th e o th e rs f o r s u p p o rt, in s t r u c tio n , and

P r a c t i c a l ly speaking, th is t h r e e - w a y re la tio n s h ip is re duced t o one
fa c u lty

and

a d m in is tr a t io n

in

th e

o p e ra tio n

of

th e

u n iv e rs ity .

C o m p a r a tiv e ly , the s tu d e n t body has b u t a s m a ll ro le in th e o p e ra tio n o f the
u n iv e rs ity .

T h ere are fe w k n o w n g rie v a n c e p ro cedures t h a t in c o rp o ra te stu d e n ts

in to th e process, p a r t i c u la r l y in c o ll e c t i v e l y b arg a in e d se ttin g s .
In an a c a d e m ic s e tt in g , th e lin e b e tw e e n e m p lo y e r and e m p lo y e e is purposely
b lu rre d and g rie v a n c e p ro ce d u re s r e f l e c t th is phenomenon.

E stey (1986) describes

a f a c u l t y g rie va n ce in t h is way;
A f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e is an e lu sive t h in g , the d e s c r ip tio n o f
which v a rie s fr o m cam pus t o cam pus. The f a c u l t y and

25
a d m in is tr a t io n on each campus d e cid e w h a t c o n s t it u t e s a
f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e ; th e y d e te rm in e who may use the
f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e p ro ce d u re , and w h a t, when and where
th e y may g rie v e . A f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e m ig h t be d e fin e d
as a c o m p la in t by an a p p ro p ria te (e lig ib le ) person, abo u t
an a p p ro p ria te issue, a t an a p p ro p ria te t i m e , to an
a p p ro p ria te c o m m it t e e .
A c o m p la in t t h a t passes all
these t e s t s q u a lif ie s as a f a c u l t y g rie va n ce b u t i f i t f a i l s
any o f them i t w ill n o t be a f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e . I t may be
so m e th in g e q u a lly im p o r t a n t , b u t i t w il l not be a f a c u l t y
g rie v a n c e , and i t w ill n o t show up in d ata on f a c u l t y
g rie van ce s.
Dr.

Daniel Ju liu s, A sso c ia te V ice P re sid en t f o r A c a d e m ic A f f a i r s a t the

U n iv e r s ity o f San F ra n c is c o in a 19

8 6

in t e r v ie w also spcke a b o u t t h e n a tu re o f

f a c u l t y g rievances:
The f i r s t w ay I w ould g e t a t t h a t que stio n is by saying
o u t r i g h t t h a t th e n a tu re o f f a c u l t y g rie va n ce s in
u nio n ize d re la tio n s h ip s depends e n t ir e ly , a lm o s t e n t ir e ly ,
on th e d e f in it io n o f a g rie v a n c e in th e la b o r a g re e m e n t.
F o r e xa m p le , i f th e d e f in it io n o f a g rie v a n ce is r e la t e d to
a v io la t io n o f a s p e c ific te r m o f th e a g re e m e n t, and i f in
f a c t th e g r ie v a n t has to be someone who is d i r e c t l y
wronged by a v io la t io n o f th e s p e c ific te rm o f th e
a g re e m e n t, th e n th e n a tu re o f th e g rie va n c e s b ro u g h t
f o r t h va rie s q u ite s u b s ta n tiv e ly tha n i f you had, instead,
a d e f in it io n o f a g rie v a n c e which p ro v id e d f o r any
m isu n de rsta n din g b e tw e e n th e p a r tie s and t h e c o n t r a c t
it s e lf , in c lu d in g re fe r e n c e s t o s ta te s ta tu te s .
The
g r ie v a n t, because o f th e m isunderstanding, co uld in f a c t
g rie v e a n y th in g under th e sun. . . .
In C a lif o r n ia , f o r e xa m p le , in th e C a lif o r n ia S ta te
U n iv e r s ity s ys te m , a d e f in it io n o f a g rie v a n c e was r e a lly
re la te d t o a v io la t io n o r m is in t e r p r e ta t io n o f a s p e c ific
te rm o f th e a g re e m e n t. And in t h a t a g re e m e n t, we did
n o t o r we w ere v e r y c a re fu l n o t t o re fe r e n c e any o uts id e
personnel p o lic y s ta tu te s , in s t it u t io n a l w id e p rocedures,
because a n y th in g you p ut in t o th e c o n t r a c t becomes
s u b je c t t o th e g rie v a n c e p ro ced u re . Now t h a t I have said
t h a t , I have one f u r t h e r th o u g h t, and t h a t is th e n a tu re o f
g rie van ce s depends on th e f in a l a d ju d ic a tin g body w ith in
t h e g rie v a n c e p ro ce d u re . F o r e x a m p le , is t h e r e a d vis o ry
a r b it r a tio n ? F u r t h e r , i f th e re is a r b it r a t i o n , how are the
r ig h t s o r how h a v e t h e r ig h ts o f th e a r b i t r a t o r been
c irc u m s c rib e d ?
F o r e xa m p le , do a r b it r a t o r s have th e
r i g h t to fa sh io n a rem edy? Do t h e y have t o adhere t o a
stan d ard o f re v ie w f o r th e g rie v a n ce . F o r e x a m p le , on
th e c o n t r a c t s 1 b arga in ed a t th e U n iv e r s it y o f San
F ra n cisc o , I am v e ry s p e c ific in d e fin in g w h a t th e r ig h t s
o f th e a r b i t r a t o r r e a lly are w ith regard t o a g rie v a n c e .

26
. . .
F o r e x a m p le , most good g rie va n c e p ro cedures you
w ill see a s t a t e m e n t on a r b i t r a b i l i t y . In o th e r words, i f
i t is n o t a r b it r a b le , i t gets t h r o w n o u t.
And th e n a
sta te m e n t
fu rth e r
d e lin e a tin g
the
r ig h t s o f the
a rb itra to r. . . .
I would say the n a tu re o f g rie va n c e s depends upon
th e d e f in it io n o f a g rie v a n c e and how a g rie v an ce
p ro c ed u re c u lm in a te s . T h a t's one whole side o f it . Now
t h e o th e r side o f it , o f course, is how t h e c o n t r a c t is
im p le m e n te d .
I advise my deans, f o r e xa m p le , a t the
U n iv e r s it y o f San F ra n c is c o t h a t g rie v a n ce s are good
th in g s and t h a t g rie v a n c e s mean t h a t a c o n t r a c t indeed is
being liv e d w it h and is a liv in g a g re e m e n t.
The
i n c lin a tio n o f most h ig he r e d u c a tio n a d m in is tr a to r s not
a c q u a in te d w ith la b o r re la tio n s is t h a t , le t's avoid
g rie va n ce s, we're going to lock bad.
I am saying,
g rie v a n c e s are a good th in g . J u s t in s u m m a ry , I would
say, in p r in c ip le , t h a t g rie van ce s are a h e a lth y sign, b u t
to o many g rie v a n c e s means th e re is a real problem and
t o o fe w g rie v a n c e s means t h a t th e re 's a re a l p ro b le m . In
g e n e ra l, t h e r e should be one o r t w o o v e r a s e m e ste r and
i f e v e r y th in g is being g rie v e d on p ro m o tio n and te n u re ,
you have real problem s.
So how have grie van ce s
changed? I w ould say th e y have not b u t i t depends v e ry
much on t h e d e f in it io n o f a g rie v a n c e , how th e g rie v a n c e
p ro ced u re is im p le m e n te d , w h a t r ig h t s th e a r b i t r a t o r has,
and th e s o p h is tic a tio n o f th e p a rtie s and t h e re la tio n s h ip
b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s . . . . We work o u t m ost thing s. We
do n o t use th e g rie v a n c e pro ced u re e x c e p t in rare
in stances, and even th e n I w ill not p e r m it a loser to go to
a r b it r a t i o n .
M an ag e m e nt n e v e r w ants a lo s e r to go to
a r b it r a t i o n .
G rie v a b le issues may be d e fin e d b ro a d ly o r n a r r o w ly , as in th e f o llo w in g
e xam ple:
A g rie v a n c e is an a lle g a tio n o r c o m p la in t t h a t th e re has
been
a
v io la t io n ,
m is in t e r p r e ta t io n ,
or
im p ro p e r
a p p lic a tio n o f th e express t e r m s and c o n d itio n s o f th is
A g r e e m e n t o r o f any d e p a rtm e n t p ro c e d u re developed
under A r t i c l e 10 o f th is A g re e m e n t.
C e n tra l M ichigan U n iv e rs ity
Questions o f process and u n f a ir p ro cedures are open to s c r u tin y , b u t most
c o m m o n ly ,

fa c u lty

ju d g m e n t in the

g rie v a n c e

p ro cedures

areas o f te n u re

in s is t

th a t

questions

and p ro m o tio n be b a rre d fro m

p ro vis io n , s im ila r t o th e f o l lo w in g , can be s ta te d :

of

acad e m ic

s c r u t in y .

A

27
The a r b i t r a t o r shall have no p o w e r to add t o s u b t r a c t
fro m o r m o d ify the t e r m s o f th is A g re e m e n t n o r sh all
he/she e x e rc ise any re s p o n s ib ility o r f u n c t io n o f E M U o r
the A s so c ia tio n .
This is not in te n d e d t o r e s t r i c t the
a u t h o r it y o f th e a r b i t r a t o r t o th e d e t e r m in a t io n o f issues
o f p ro ced u ra l c o m p lia n c e o n ly , and he/she shall have the
a u t h o r it y t o d e te rm in e s u b sta n tiv e questions p ro p e rly
p resented in a ccorda n ce w ith the t e r m s o f th e g rie v a n c e
pro ced u re . . . .
Eastern M ich ig a n U n iv e r s it y
While f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e procedures d i f f e r in i m p o r t a n t ways, t h e i r co m m o n
purpose is to p ro v id e a process f o r dispute re s o lu tio n .

Many a u th o rs describe th e

g rie va n ce pro ced u re as th e quid pro quo f o r g iv in g up t h e r i g h t t o s t r ik e d uring th e
l i f e o f the la b o r a g re e m e n t.
Beyond the personal o u tc o m e s t h a t a cc o m p a n y a g rie v a n c e re s o lu tio n , th e re
are o rg a n iz a tio n a l b e n e fits .
o rg a n iz a tio n .

Duane (1979) suggests t h r e e ways g rie van ce s help the

They can be used in th e

m a nagem ent o f p o lic y p ro b le m s , can

h ig h lig h t problem su bunits in th e o rg a n iz a tio n and can assist in th e processing o f
em p lo ye e grie van ce s th e m se lve s.
P o lic y p ro ble m s can e m a n a te in many ways fr o m

many sources.

Duane

distinguishes b etw e e n s u b s ta n tiv e disorders ( f a c u l t y l a y o f f s , f o r e xa m p le ) and
those t h a t are p ro c e d u ra l, such as im p re c is e c o n t r a c t languages.

G rievances may

re s u lt fro m b o th c o n d itio n s b u t th e re m e d y f o r each is q u ite d if f e r e n t .

O nly by

a n a lyzin g the ro o t causes can a c o r r e c t s o lu tio n be chosen.
A second area o f Duane’ s research had t o do w ith g rie v a n c e data analysis,
which he used to id e n t if y problem

su bu n its w it h in an i n s t it u t io n .

In o rd e r to

co m p a re these units, which could va ry tre m e n d o u s ly by size and c o m p le x ity , a
g rie va n ce r a t io

was developed.

S ubunits fou n d t o

have an in o rd in a te ly high

g rie v a n c e r a t io t y p i c a l l y had one o f t w o c o n d itio n s p resent:
1)

G rievances were e it h e r n ot screened w e ll b y the union
re p re s e n ta tiv e s o r th e im m e d ia te a d m in i s t r a t o r was n o t
w illin g o r able t o resolve c o m p la in t s i n f o r m a lly . E ve ry
c o m p la in t beca m e a g rie van ce .

28
2)

Serious p o lic y
subu n it.

p ro b le m s

arose

someplace

w ith in

th e

Duane fou n d t h a t th e f i r s t c o n d itio n lead t o high s e tt le m e n t ra te s a t the
lo w e s t le v e ls o f th e g rie v a n c e p ro ced u re , w h ile th e second produced grie van ce s
t h a t re a ch e d th e h ig h e s t le v e ls o f the pro ced u re .
many

o th e rs ,

th a t

one

must

delve

deeper than

lo n g la s tin g s o lu tio n s t o the se grie van ce s.
Healy, and L ive rn a s h ,
s e ttle s

a

la rg e

Duane s ta te s (p.

p r o p o rtio n

of

Duane ca u tio n s , h o w e ve r as do

r o u tin e

mere

g rie v a n c e

ra tio s

fo r

A g re e in g w ith e a r lie r work by S lic h te r ,
2 8 7

) t h a t "a g rie v a n c e p ro ced u re t h a t

g rie v a n c e s

at

the

firs t

tw o

steps

is

f u n c t io n in g v e ry w e ll."
I f g rie v a n c e p ro ced u re s t h a t work to e f f e c t re s o lu tio n a t the lo w e r le ve ls o f
t h e process are considered e f f e c t i v e , would a s im ila r p a t t e r n e m e rg e th e lo n g e r
the p a r tie s spend t i m e in a b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip ?

The answer t o th is question

was a t o p ic o f in t e r e s t in t h is research.
In a 1986 in t e r v ie w

w it h t h is re se a rch e r, Thom as Mannix, A ssociate V ice

C h a n c e llo r o f E m p lo yee R e la tio n s f o r th e S ta te U n iv e r s ity o f New York System,
addressed th is q u e stio n b y saying he b e lie v e d t h a t i t

was v e ry hard t o s e tt le

g rie va n ce s during th e f i r s t c o n t r a c t b u t th e lo n g e r t h e re la tio n s h ip b etw e e n th e
p a r tie s endured, the more g rie v a n c e s o u g h t t o be s e tt le d a t step one o r t w o .

As

th e p a r tie s m a tu re , t h e y b o th conclude t h a t i t is a lw ays b e t t e r to m a in ta in c o n tro l
o f the s it u a t io n th e m s e lv e s th a n to cede i t t o a c e n tr a l o f f i c e a d m in i s t r a t o r o r an
a r b it r a t o r .
D a vid R e illy , D ir e c t o r o f Personnel a t th e the U n iv e r s it y o f B rid g e p o rt, has
b argained w ith th e same f a c u l t y union since 1973-

In a

1 9 8 6

in t e r v ie w w ith the

re s e a rc h e r on th e que stio n o f d iffe r e n c e s in g rie van ce s o v e r t i m e he said:
T h ey have changed as f a r as th e y are f e w e r in n um ber a t
th is p o in t. V/e used t o g e t (challenged) on any n e g a tiv e
decision
on
a
p ro m o tio n ,
te n u re ,
re a p p o in tm e n t,
w h a te v e r.
Even i f the
CPC (C o lle g e Personnel
C o m m itt e e ) and th e DPC (D e p a r tm e n ta l Personnel

29
C o m m itt e e ) v o te d n e g a tiv e ly . . . A l o t o f those w e n t to
a r b it r a t i o n and as I said t h is m orning, we u sua lly lo s t
the m because o f n o t having o u r a c t to g e t h e r in t e r m s o f
th e deans, d e p a rtm e n ts , e tc . . . . now t h e y (the deans)
are g e t t in g
used to i t and we are g e t t in g th e
a d m in is tr a t o r s , I hope, t r a in e d a l i t t l e b e t t e r . . . . They
lis te n t o us and we p re pare them and maybe t h e y become
b e t t e r witnesses.
A more d e ta ile d and s lig h t ly d i f f e r e n t answ er t o th e same q uestion comes
fr o m

Ju liu s, again in an 19

8 6

in t e r v ie w .

He believes, as do o th e rs c it e d here, t h a t

the natu re and ty p e o f f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e s change o v e r t im e :
Yes, I th in k so. i t h in k , o v e r t im e , th e p a r tie s t e s t s o ft
aspects o f the a g re e m e n t, o r aspects o f the a g re e m e n t
t h a t have been p ro b le m a t ic a l.
You have some k in d o f
re s o lu tio n , an a r b i t r a t o r , an o u ts id e c o u r t, among the
p a r tie s th e m s e lv e s and once those issues are resolved,
those issues should n ot be re o c c u r r in g again.
In the
a c a d e m ic e n v iro n m e n t, issues te n d t o v e ry subj'ective.
T h ey ten d t o ris e again and again and again because
everyon e f e e ls t h e y are unique and e veryon e fe e ls h is /h e r
p ro m o tio n is unique and t h a t is a lo t o f balon e y.
But
issues com e up again.
In g en e ra l, o v e r t im e , a
re la tio n s h ip should m ature. . . . One o th e r t h in g I would
add t o t h a t is n o t o n ly th e n a tu re o f g rie v a n ce s changed
because issues becom e re solved, b u t in the n e x t
n e g o tia tio n s , i f m an ag e m e nt is s m a r t , w h a t th e y w ill be
doing is lo c k in g a t aspects o f th e a g re e m e n t which
b ro u g h t f o r t h g rie v a n c e s and changing th e p a r ts o f th e
a g re e m e n t t h a t have been p r o b le m a tic a l o r changing the
a g re e m e n t t o c o n fo rm w ith an a r b it r a t i o n aw a rd o r
changing th e a g re e m e n t to a void f u t u r e g rie va n c e s.
L in d e n b e rg (1 9
U n iv e rs ity

8 6

as a union

), in r e f le c t i n g upon h e r
m em ber and g rie v a n c e

e x p e rie n ce s a t Eastern Michigan
o ffic e r,

c a te g o r iz e d the

union-

m a nagem ent re la tio n s h ip t h e r e as having th r e e phases, all o f which had an im p a c t
on th e g rie v a n c e process.

C o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g w ith the f a c u l t y began in 197^, a

phase she c a lls i n i t i a t i o n (19 7 ^_77), f o llo w e d b y c o n tin e n ta l d r i f t (1977-80) and
b ila t e r a l a c c o m m o d a tio n ( 1

9 8 0

-p re s e n t).

In th e i n i t i a t i o n phase, w o rk in g re la tio n s h ip s were f o s te r e d and k e y issues
were id e n t if ie d .
p ro m o tio n .

Maj'or g rie v a n c e s in v o lv e d f a c u l t y w o rklo a d and th e c r i t e r i a f o r

P re v io u s ly p r o m o tio n c r i t e r i a needed t o be expanded t o re c o g n ize the

30
value o f avenues o th e r th a n s c h o la rly p u b lic a tio n .

U lt im a t e ly , an a r b it r a t i o n

decision on th e question o f w h e th e r a d m in is tr a t o r s used c o n t r a c t u a lly approved
p ro m o tio n c r i t e r i a

o r s o m e th in g o u tsid e th e a g re e m e n t re s u lte d in th e union

gainin g much pow er.
The second phase o r c o n tin e n ta l d r i f t (1977-80), was c h a r a c te r iz e d by a new
le v e l

o f s o p h is tic a tio n

g rie va n ce

pro ced u re .

at

th e

R eview

F le x ib ility

Board, th e

th ird

step

o f th e

was re c o g n iz e d as a v ir t u e by the

in te rn a l
members

(th re e union, th re e a d m in is tr a t io n ) in dealing w ith c o m p la in ts and g rie van ce s.
many p ro m o tio n cases, h o w e v e r, the board d eadlocked a t t h r e e - t o - t h r e e .
caused g re a t f r u s t r a t io n

in f a c u l t y

ranks which l a t e r

On
This

m a n ifeste d i t s e l f in th e

f a c u lt y 's 1 1-day " w it h h o ld in g o f s e rv ic e s " during the n e x t c o n t r a c t n e g o tia tio n .
The t h i r d and p resent phase o f " b il a t e r a l a c c o m m o d a tio n " (1 980-present)
re ached a peak in 1982 when th e p a r tie s c am e t o g e th e r to d r a f t a memorandum o f
u nd e rstan d in g,

which

o u tlin e d

th e

need

fo r

"c le a r

and

e x p lic it

c rite ria "

in

p ro m o tio n and te n u re and how th e y were t o be applied.
L in d e n b e rg concludes:
Having served as g rie va n c e o f f i c e r a t t w o d if f e r e n t
p eriods o f t i m e , I can now a t t e s t t o th e f a c t more
emphasis is now g iven to in f o r m a l c o n t a c t s and
s e t t le m e n t th a n i n i t i a l l y was th e case. The g rie va n c e
p rocedure tends t o be used f o r honest d iffe r e n c e s o f
opinion on c o n t r a c t in t e r p r e t a t i o n , and th e c a t h a r t ic
value o f c o m p la in ts has n ot been lo s t.
B ut c le a r
v io la t io n s o f t h e c o n t r a c t are now more o ft e n resolved
b e fo re th e y a r r iv e a t a Step HI R eview Board hea rin g . A
r e s u lt o f th is s ta b liz e d re la tio n s h ip was th e u t i l i z a t i o n o f
p ro b le m -s o lv in g modes on most m a jo r issues during the
1985 c o n t r a c t n e g o tia tio n s .

V a r ia tio n by B argaining A g e n t
A c c o rd in g to Douglas (1987)? t h r e e n a tio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s c o n tr o l v i r t u a l l y
a ll f a c u l t y c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g in th is c o u n try .

As o f D e ce m be r 31» 1985* 4^6

in s t it u t io n s o f h ig he r e d u c a tio n c o lle c t iv e l y b arg a in e d w ith t h e ir

1 9 5

* 570 f a c u l t y

31
m embers:
to ta l,

3 6 9

27.9%

b a rg a in in g

of

a ll

c o lle g e

agents,

in s t it u t io n s .
n a tio n a l

o f these in s t it u t io n s were in th e p u b lic s e c to r, 77 in th e p r iv a t e . In

3 6

.8 %

fa c u lty
at

p u b lic

A t t w o - y e a r colle ge s,

c o lle c t iv e

b a rg a in in g

T e ach e rs (A F T ), th e

in th e

U n ite d S tate s are re p re sen ted by

s e c to r
3 8

colle ge s

and

4.7%

at

p r iv a t e

.1 % o f a ll f a c u l t y are unionized.

o rg a n iz a tio n s are th e

A m e ric a n

The

F e d e ra tio n o f

N a tio n a l E du ca tion A sso cia tio n (N E A), and th e A m e ric a n

A s s o c ia tio n o f U n iv e r s ity P rofessors (A A UP).
The
F e d e ra tio n

A m e ric a n
of

F e d e ra tio n

L a b o r,

Congress

of

Teachers,

of

In d u s tria l

an

a ffilia te

of

O rg a n iz a tio n s

th e

A m e ric a n

( A F L - C 10)

re p re sen ts K -12 te a c h e rs , a lth o u g h in d i f f e r e n t b a rg a in in g u nits.

also

The AFT has

h is t o r ic a l ly been v ie w e d as an o rg a n iz a tio n more c lo s e ly a lig ne d in philosophy to
t h a t o f th e " i n d u s t r ia l" model o f c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g .
re p re s e n t f a c u l t y a t 133 co lle g e s and u n iv e rs itie s .
p r iv a t e in s t it u t io n s :

The AFT and its a f f i l i a t e s

This in c lu de s 107 p u b lic and 26

43 are f o u r - y e a r colle ge s and 90 are t w o - y e a r colleges.

The N a tio n a l E d u c a tio n A s s o c ia tio n began as an o rg a n iz a tio n re p re s e n tin g
K -12 te a c h e rs and l a t e r expanded it s m em bership to in clu de c o lle g e f a c u l t y .

The

NEA and it s a f f i l i a t e s re p re s e n t f a c u l t y a t 209 co lle ge s and u n iv e rs itie s , in clu d in g
190 p u b lic and 19 p r iv a t e in s t it u t io n s .

Of these, 31 are f o u r - y e a r c o lle ge s and 17

8

are t w o - y e a r colleges.
The A m e ric a n A s s o c ia tio n o f U n iv e r s ity Professors has c o n fin e d i t s e lf t o
c o lle g ia t e f a c u lt y .

While t h e A A U P has long been an o rg a n iz a tio n where f a c u l t y

can a ir t h e i r v ie w s on m a tte rs o f co nce rn , i t has n ot a lw a ys been a c e r t i f i e d
b a rg a in in g a g e n t.
and u n iv e rs itie s .

The A A U P and it s a f f i l i a t e s re p re s e n t f a c u l t y a t 44 colle ge s
This in clu de s f a c u l t y a t 26 p u b lic and 18 p r iv a t e in s titu tio n s :

40

are f o u r - y e a r c o lle g e s and 4 are t w o - y e a r colleges.
R e illy

(1976) b e lie ve s th e r e

is l i t t l e

d if fe r e n c e

in fo rm

and substance

b e tw e e n th e t h r e e m a jo r a c a d e m ic unions. The A A U P is th o u g h t t o e m b ra c e more

32
t r a d i t i o n a l a c a d e m ic ( f a c u l t y ) values, m aking t h e i r philosophy c lo s e r t o c o lle g ia te
fa c u lty

v ie w s th a n th e

o th e rs.

M annix (1986) b e lieve s, h ow ev e r, t h a t l i t t l e

d if fe r e n c e can be disce rne d fro m re a d in g any union's c o n t r a c t .

D iffe re n c e s in th e

a m o u n t o f a tt e n tio n paid to gove rn a nce issues and a c a d e m ic ju d g m e n t may e x is t
b u t p ro ba b ly have more t o do w it h th e in s t it u t io n 's c o m p le x i t y th a n a n y th in g else.
J u liu s (1986) ta k e s a c o n tr a s tin g vie w on t h e d if fe r e n c e s b etw e e n m ajor
f a c u l t y unions.

His own re s e a rch in d ic a te s t h a t in c e r t a in in s t it u t io n s , given

c e r ta in d e m o g ra p h ic and in s t it u t io n a l v a ria b le s , some agents do b e t t e r .
In gen e ra l, the A A U P has b a rg a in e d s tro n g e r
c o n t r a c t s in th e f o u r - y e a r s e c to r and th e A FT has
b argained s tro n g e r c o n t r a c t s f o r those in the t w o - y e a r
s e c to r.
This
is a g a in st
s ta tis tic a lly
s ig n if ic a n t
research.
H o w e ve r, t h e re are c o n t r ib u t in g va ria b le s .
F o r e x a m p le , i t is q u ite f e a s ib le t h a t t h e A A U P was
b ro u g h t in to i n s t it u t io n s where f a c u l t y had more r ig h t s
to begin w ith . Hence, t h e c o n t r a c t s as we measure them
r e f l e c t those g r e a t e r p re b a rg a in in g rig h ts . While c e r t a in
in s t it u t io n s are d e f i n i t e l y a ssociated w ith s tro n g e r r ig h ts
and d if f e r e n t age n ts, i t may be t h a t the p re b a rg a in in g
s itu a tio n s were d i f f e r e n t .
As I have said, th e A A U P has done v e r y w e ll in the
f o u r y e a r s e c to r. In a d d itio n , and t h is is s ig n if ic a n t , t h a t
when th e re is a c o a l it io n o f agents t h e y (the A A U P ) tend
t o do b e t t e r . A lso , when f a c u l t y s w itc h an a g e n t, going
fro m the A FT t o th e NEA o r NEA to an independent
union, th e y in v a r ia b ly barga in b e t t e r c o n tra c ts .
The
s w itc h o f an a g e n t v a ria b le tends t o be a ss ociate d w ith
s tro n g e r a ssertion s o f f a c u l t y r ig h t s
One more f a c t
t o ta k e in to a c c o u n t and t h a t is th e p e r s o n a lity o f the
people a t th e b a rg a in in g ta b le .
They make a big
d iffe r e n c e .
Some

of

the

v ie w p o in ts

and

suggestions f r o m

t h is

re v ie w

of

re le v a n t

l i t e r a t u r e f o r m e d th e basis f o r th e research m e tho d olog y e m p lo ye d as described in
c h a p te rs t h r e e and fo u r.

CHA PT E R III

M ethod o f Data C o lle c tio n and A nalysis
This c h a p te r is a p re s e n ta tio n o f th e

methods, purpose, and procedures

u t i liz e d in th e c o lle c t io n o f the re se arch d a ta .
w ritte n

and

f ile d

fa c u lty

g rie v a n c e s a t f i v e

e d u c a tio n d uring th e years 1975“ 1985in f o r m a t i o n

gath ered

were:

sex o f

This s tu d y is an analysis o f a ll
M ichigan

in s t it u t io n s

o f hig he r

The broad co m p o n e n ts o f th e re search
g r ie v a n t

and le n g th

o f s e rv ic e

at th a t

in s t it u t io n ; th e broad a c a d e m ic d is c ip lin e o f each g rie v a n t; th e issue o r issues t h a t
p r e c ip ita t e d th e g rie v a n ce ; th e le v e l a t w h ich th e g rie v a n c e was resolved; th e
n a tu re and o u tc o m e o f the g rie v a n c e f o r th e p a rtie s in vo lv e d ; and th e le n g th o f
t i m e t o reach re s o lu tio n .

S e le c tio n o f th e In s t it u t io n s f o r th is Study
The

fiv e

u n iv e rs itie s

autonom ous, s t a t e

su p p o rte d

which

c o m p ris e

in s t it u t io n s

in

th is

s tu d y

M ichigan.

were

le g is la tiv e ly

They are f i v e o f th e

t h i r t e e n p u b lic u n iv e rs itie s in th e s ta te . The c r i t e r i a f o r s e le c tio n was based upon
th e u n io n iz a tio n o f t h e ir f a c u l t y , ch o ic e o f b a rg a in in g a ge n t, le n g th o f barga in in g
re la tio n s h ip

and

degree

of

s im ila rity

in

e n r o llm e n t

and

a ca d e m ic

program

o ffe rin g s .
The u n iv e rs itie s in th e s tu d y were:
C e n tra l M ich ig a n U n iv e rs ity , Mt. Pleasant
E astern M ich ig a n U n iv e r s ity , Y p s ila n ti
F e rris S ta te U n iv e rs ity , Big Rapids
Oakland U n iv e r s it y , R och este r
Saginaw V a lle y S ta te U n iv e rs ity , U n iv e rs ity C e n te r

P o p u la tio n
The re se a rc h p o p u la tio n in th e s tu d y was a ll f a c u l t y members in a b a rg a in in g
u n it a t t h e s ta te d u n iv e rs itie s .

D ue t o s lig h t d if fe r e n c e s in t h e c o m p o s itio n o f th e
33

34
b a rg a in in g u n it, a broad te r m lik e f a c u l t y was p r e fe r r e d t o more d e s c r ip tiv e t e r m s
o f rank and te n u re s ta tu s .

The data consisted o f all w r i t t e n and f ile d grie van ce s

s u b m itte d t o th e u n iv e rs itie s ' a d m in is tr a tio n s f o r re s o lu tio n fro m J u ly 1, 1975
th ro u g h June 30, 1985 by t h e i r re s p e c tiv e f a c u lt ie s .

P rocedure f o r Campus Research
Each a d m in i s t r a t o r ch arge d w ith the re s p o n s ib ility o f g rie v a n ce re s o lu tio n
was c o n ta c te d by te le p h o n e .

The re s e a rch e r e x plained th e general purpose o f th e

research e f f o r t and the manner in which i t was t o proceed (A p p e n d ix A).
f iv e

in s t it u t io n s

campuses.

gave

VIestern

re s e a rc h e r c it in g

perm issio n
M ich ig a n

a d m in is t r a t iv e

fo r

th e

U n iv e rs ity

research
did

not

in convenience.

to

F our o f

be co nd u cte d on t h e ir

g ra n t

A fifth

perm issio n
in s t it u t io n

to

the

(O akland

U n iv e rs ity ) was s e le c te d and a pproved by the d is s e rta tio n ch airpe rso n .
F o llo w in g th is , te le p h o n e ca lls were made t o each in s t it u t io n to a rrange a
work

schedule.

requested.

At

each

in s t it u t io n

the

o rig in a l

g rie va n c e

m a te ria ls

G rievances in t h is s tu d y are c la s s ifie d in to t w o groups:

g rie va n ce s and group g rie van ce s.

were

in d iv id u a l

Ind ividu a l g rie van ce s re p re se n t th e c o nc e rn o f

one in d iv id u a l w h ile group g rie v a n c e s re p re sen t expressed concerns o f t w o o r more
persons.

Most o ft e n ,

group g rie va n ce s are processed under the name o f the

c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g a ge n t.

F o r e xa m p le , a t C e n tra l M ichigan U n iv e rs ity , these

g rie va n ce s are la b e le d "a s s o c ia tio n g rie v a n c e s ."

The b a rg a in in g agent grie ves on

b e h a lf o f all those persons s i m i la r ly a f f e c t e d by th e a c tio n o f th e o th e r p a r ty .

V is it a t i o n Procedures and Data C o lle c tio n
Each in s t it u t io n was v is it e d f o r a period o f fro m t w o t o f o u r days d uring the
firs t

nine

months

e x a m in a tio n .

of

1986.

A ll

g rie van c e

f ile s

were

made

a va ila b le

fo r

A r b i t r a t i o n decisions in those g rie van ce s t h a t proceeded t o t h a t

35
le v e l o f re s o lu tio n were also made a v a ila b le .

I t was fo u n d t h a t each in s t it u t io n

c a te g o r iz e d it s g rie v a n c e f ile s and re la te d in f o r m a t i o n in s lig h t ly d i f f e r e n t ways
th a n th e f o u r o th e r in s t it u t io n s .

H o w e ver, th e re se a rc h p ro ced u re u t i liz e d was the

same f o r a ll in s titu tio n s .
A f t e r co nside rin g th e hypotheses, re v ie w in g a v a ila b le data fr o m p ro fe ss io n al
associations, co n su ltin g w ith f a c u l t y members a t M ich ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y and
u nion ize d f a c u l t y else w he re , a data c o lle c t io n fo r m

was devised.

This fo r m

(A p pe n dix B) has t w o parts; one f o r in d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e s and one p a r t f o r group
grie van ce s.
file s .

The re se a rch e r had c o m p le te access t o each in s t it u t io n 's g rie v a n c e

F o r reasons o f c o n v e n ie nce and c o n f id e n t ia lit y , g rie v a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n was

usually (and in a ll instances here) k e p t se p a ra te fr o m o th e r in f o r m a t io n such as
personnel

file s ,

tr a n s c r ip ts

and

fa c u lty

resumes.

The

d ata

c o lle c t io n

fo r m

(A p p e n d ix B) was c o m p le te d a f t e r th e re s e a rc h e r re a d th e c o n te n ts o f each
g rie v a n c e f ile .
These

data

c o lle c t io n

fo rm s

were

used

in f o r m a tio n fr o m th e in s t it u t io n 's g rie v a n c e f ile s .

as

a

means

to

tra n s fe r

the

I n f o r m a t io n n o t n o r m a lly a p a r t

o f g rie va n c e f ile s such as le n g th o f e m p lo y m e n t a t th e in s t it u t io n , hire d a te , and
a ca d e m ic rank were o b ta in e d f r o m o th e r a c a d e m ic personnel in f o r m a t io n sources,
usua lly the O f fic e o f th e P ro vo s t.

P a r tia l o r missing i n f o r m a t i o n was o b ta in e d

th ro u g h in t e r v ie w s w ith a p p ro p ria te cam pus o f f i c i a l s .
Each g rie v a n c e was assigned a num be r to pre serve th e a n o n y m ity o f th e
in d iv id u a l g r ie v a n t.
o f in d iv id u a l names.
d iffe re n tia tio n

Beyond th e in i t i a l c o lle c t io n o f in f o r m a t i o n , no use was made
Each in s t it u t io n was assigned a n um be r (1-5) to a llo w f o r

b etw een

in s t it u t io n s .

In d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e d ata f o r m s d if f e r e d

fro m group g rie v a n ce f o r m s on th e f o l lo w in g v a ria b le s :

36
1.
2.
31».
5-

Sex o f g r ie v a n t
A c a d e m ic d e p a rtm e n t o f g rie v a n t
A c a d e m ic d is c ip lin e o f g rie v a n t
A c a d e m ic rank o f g rie v a n t
L e n g th o f t i m e a t th is in s t it u t io n

These f i v e v a ria b le s were not be p resent n o r would th e y be a p p ro p ria te
in f o r m a t i o n f o r use in a group g rie van ce .

I n s t it u t io n a l C h a r a c te r is tic s
As t h is s tu d y d e a lt e x c lu s iv e ly w ith f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e s a t f i v e in s t it u t io n s ,
th e la r g e r c o n t e x t o f th e in s t it u t io n and it s c h a r a c t e r is t ic s may be useful t o th e
reader.
C e n tra l
1892.

M ich ig a n

in

Mt.

P leasant,

Its t o t a l e n r o llm e n t in th e f a l l o f 19

u n d e rg ra d u a te stud e nts.
600

U n iv e r s it y

are

in th e

8 6

M ich ig a n

was fo u n d e d in

was 16,7^3 o f whom

8 9

. 5 ? were

I t has te a c h in g f a c u l t y o f 721, o f whom a p p ro x im a te ly

b a rg a in in g

u n it.

T h ere

are th r e e

m a jo r schools

w it h in

the

u n iv e rs ity .
E aste rn

M ich ig a n

U n iv e r s ity

was fo u n d e d in

school, l a t e r changed t o u n iv e r s ity s ta tu s in th e
e n r o llm e n t was 22,231 s tud e nts, an a l l - t i m e high.

18^9 as a t e a c h e r - t r a in in g
1960's.

Fall se m e s te r 19

8 6

The f a c u l t y b a rg a in in g u n it is

a p p ro x i m a te ly 600 and is o rg a n iz e d by th e A A U P .
F e rris S ta te U n iv e r s it y in Big Rapids, M ic h ig a n was fo u n d e d in 1884. I t s 100
courses o f s tu d y are c o n c e n tr a te d in v o c a tio n a l, p re -p ro fe s s io n a l and s h o r t course
areas.

I t s seven schools s erved 11,310 s tu d e n ts in th e f a l l te r m o f 19

8 6

.

FSC's

b a rg a in in g u n i t is 507 and o rg a n iz e d by th e N a tio n a l E d u c a tio n A s s o c ia tio n .
Oakland U n iv e r s ity in R och este r, M ich ig a n began as a b ra nch o f M ich ig a n
S ta te U n iv e r s it y in 1957*

In 1963? th e nam e was changed to Oakland U n iv e rs ity ,

and in 1970 becam e an auto no m o u s in s t it u t io n w it h the consent o f th e M ich ig a n

37
L e g is la tu re .

Oakland's 12,707 s tu d e n ts are t a u g h t b y a f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y o f 330.

The f a c u l t y is re p re sen ted by th e A A U P .
Saginaw V a lle y S ta te U n iv e r s it y began as a p r iv a t e co lle g e in 1963 and l a t e r
beca m e a s ta te -s u p p o rte d i n s t it u t io n .
the f a l l o f

1 9 8 6

Its f i v e colle ge s e n ro lle d 5,377 s tu d e n ts in

. N in e ty -s e v e n f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y co m p ris e a NEA b a rg a in in g u n it.

S t a t is t ic a l Analysis
The p r im a r y s t a t is t ic a l te c h n iq u e used in th is s tu d y was Chi-Square, w h ich is
a n o n p a r a m e tric t e s t in g p ro c e d u re .

The d ata c o lle c t e d in th is stud y were, f o r th e

most p a r t, o f a n o m in a l n a tu re .
N o m in a l data e x is t when sym bols o r num bers are used to id e n t if y d if f e r e n t
c a te g o rie s o f a v a ria b le .

The re se a rc h e r a tta c h e s a nam e t o c a te g o rie s on a

scale.

F o r e x a m p le , a g rie v a n c e was resolved a t the in f o r m a l, f o r m a l o r im posed

le v e l.

I t is a scale w h ich im p lie s no o rd e re d re la tio n s h ip b etw e e n th e c a te g o rie s

on th e scale.
Chi Square t e s t in g in v o lv e s a "goodness o f f i t " t e s t w herein th e sam ple
fre q u e n c ie s a c tu a lly f a l l i n g

w ith in c e rta in c a te g o rie s are c o n tra s te d w it h those

wh ich m ig h t be e x p e c te d on th e basis o f the h y p o th e tic a l d is t r ib u t io n .
d if fe r e n c e

I f a m arked

e xists b e tw e e n t h e observed o r a ctu a l fre q u e n c ie s f a l lin g

in each

c a te g o r y and th e fre q u e n c ie s e x p e c te d to f a l l in each c a te g o r y on th e basis o f
chance o r a p re v io u s ly esta b lish e d d is tr ib u tio n , th e n th e Chi-Square t e s t w ill y ie ld
a n u m e ric a l

v alue la rg e enough to

be in te r p r e t e d as s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t .

O th e r s t a t is t ic a l te s ts used less f r e q u e n t ly were th e Pearson p r o d u c t - m o m e n t
c o r r e la t io n and th e L am bd a , a measure o f associatio n f o r c ro s s ta b u la tio n s based
on n o m in a l- le v e l va ria bles.

C H A P T E R IV

P re s e n ta tio n and A n a ly s is o f th e Data
This c h a p te r is t h e w r i t t e n r e s u lt o f fin d in g s c o lle c te d fro m
g rie van ce s

file d

at

fiv e

M ich ig a n

u n iv e rs itie s

—

C e n tra l

M ich ig a n, F e rris S ta te , O akland, and Saginaw V a lle y S ta te .

2(>b f a c u l t y

M ichigan,

Eastern

Using 19 va ria bles,

th is in f o r m a tio n was o rg a n iz e d and a n a ly ze d as i t re la t e d t o th e re se arche r's t h r e e
m a jo r hypotheses and t h e i r re la te d subhypotheses.

The research hypotheses, in

null f o r m , were:
1.

There are no D iffe re n c e s fr o m I n s t it u t io n t o I n s t it u t io n in th e Num ber
o f G rievances F ile d o r in th e C irc u m s ta n c e s t h a t Gave Rise t o Them .
a.

The Type o f G rie va nce (In d iv id u a l o r Group) has no S ig n ific a n t
R e la tio n s h ip t o th e L eve l o f R e s o lutio n t h a t is A t ta in e d .

b.

The

R e s o lu tio n

Level

of

a

G rievance

has

no

S ig n ific a n t

R e la tio n s h ip t o it s O u tco m e .
c.

There is no S ig n if ic a n t D if f e r e n c e in th e O u tco m e o f a G rievance
fr o m I n s t it u t io n t o I n s t it u t io n .

2.

The Leve l o f R e so lu tio n ( In fo r m a l, F o rm a l, Imposed o r no R e solution)
t h a t a G rie va nce O btains does n o t V a ry S ig n if ic a n t ly as a F u n c tio n o f
th e T im e t h a t t h e P a rtie s have Bargained.
a.

T here is no S ig n if ic a n t D if f e r e n c e in th e L eve l o f R e so lutio n a
G rievance A t t a in s and th e T im e P eriod in w h ich i t is F ile d .

b.

The Passage o f T im e has no S ig n if ic a n t R e la tio n s h ip t o th e Level
o f R e s o lu tio n t h a t a G rie va nce A t ta in s .

c.

T h ere is no S ig n if ic a n t D if f e r e n c e in th e T im e Needed t o Resolve
a G rie va nce and th e T im e P eriod in w h ich t h a t
F ile d .

38

G rievance is

d.

The Type o f G rievance F ile d has no S ig n ific a n t R e la tio n sh ip to
th e T im e Needed to Resolve th e M a tte r .

e.

The Passage o f T im e has no S ig n if ic a n t R e la tio n s h ip to the Level
o f R e s o lu tio n t h a t a G rie va nce A t ta in s .

f.

The C h o ice o f B a rga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t R e la tio n s h ip
t o th e F re q u e n c y w ith which G rievances are F ile d .

3.

The Choice o f B a rga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t R e la tio n sh ip to th e
N a tu re and T yp e o f G rie va nce t h a t is F ile d .
a.

The Choice o f B arga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t R e la tio n sh ip
t o th e T yp e o f G rie va nce (In dividu a l o r Group) t h a t is Pursued.

b.

The Choice o f B a rga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t R e la tion sh ip
t o th e Types o f S ubjects A re a o v e r which th e G rievances are
F iled.

c.

The Choice o f B a rga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t

R e la tio n s h ip

t o t h e O u tc o m e t h a t a G rie v a n c e A t ta in s .
d.

The Choice o f B arga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t

R e la tion s h ip

t o th e L e n g th o f T im e i t ta k e s t o Resolve a G rievance.
e.

The C hoice o f B arga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t

R e la tion s h ip

t o th e L e ve l o f R e s o lutio n t h a t a G rie va nce A tta in s .
f.

The C hoice o f B arga in in g A g e n t has no S ig n ific a n t

R e la tion sh ip

t o When a G rie v a n c e is F ile d .
The in i t i a l hypothesis in th is s tu d y in v o lv e d th e num be r o f f a c u l t y g rie van ce s
and th e c irc u m s ta n c e s t h a t led t o t h e i r f il i n g .

( F a c u lt y concerns resolved a p a rt

f r o m th e g rie v a n c e p ro ce d u re were not c onsidered in th is s tu d y.)

The re s e arc he r

h yp o th e s ize d t h a t n e ith e r t h e n u m b e r o f g rie v a n ce s f i l e d n o r t h e c irc u m s ta n c e s
t h a t led t o t h e i r being f i l e d v a rie d s ig n if ic a n t ly fr o m in s t i t u t i o n t o in s t it u t io n .

40
G rievance d ata were d iv id e d in to t h r e e c a te g o rie s :
group g rie van ce s, and t o t a l g rie van ce s.

in d iv id u a l g rie van c e s ,

B r ie f ly , an in d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e is f i l e d by

one person t o re m e d y a s it u a t io n s p e c ific to th e g r ie v a n t; a group g rie v a n c e is
advanced by a b a rg a in in g a g e n t on b e h a lf o f one o r m ore o f i t s mem bers.
g rie va n ce s c o m b in e both groups.

T o ta l

O f the 264 g rie v a n c e s f i l e d d u rin g th e s tu d y

p e rio d , 173 (65*5%) were in it ia t e d by an in d iv id u a l and

9 1

(3 4 .5 ? ) were p a r t o f

c o lle c t iv e e f f o r t s by a b a rg a in in g agent o r more th a n one in d iv id u a l.
The in d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e s re presented 42 a cad e m ic d e p a rtm e n ts a t th e f i v e
in s t it u t io n s

under s tu d y

(A p p e n d ix

C).

The f i v e

a c a d e m ic d e p a r tm e n ts t h a t

produced th e most in d iv id u a l g rie v a n ts were:
T e a ch e r E d u c a tio n

24

Physical E d u c a tio n

15

A rt

13

M a nagem ent

10

M a th e m a tic s

10

To ensure g r e a t e r research c o n t r o l, these d e p a rtm e n ts w ere th e n grouped in t o ten
a c a d e m ic d is c ip lin e s .

The a ssignm ent o f a d e p a rtm e n t t o a s p e c ific d is c ip lin e was

discussed and agreed upon by a s e le c te d panel o f a ca d e m ic ia n s (A p p e n d ix D). The
fre q u e n c y w it h w h ich in d iv id u a l g rie va n c e s o c c u r re d across a c a d e m ic d is c ip lin e s is
fo u n d in Table 1.

The group g rie va n ce s are n o t in clu de d in these d a ta because

th e y are not d e p a rtm e n t o r d is c ip lin e s p e c ific .
I t was th e in t e n t o f th e re s e a rc h e r t o use Chi-Square te s t in g as th e p r im a r y
re se arch te c h n iq u e .

H o w e ver, e a r ly in th e d ata analysis i t becam e a p p a re n t t h a t

th e usefulness o f t h is t e s t was c o m p ro m ise d by th e abundance o f open c e lls in
several data m a tric e s under in v e s tig a tio n .

T h e re fo re , th e re s e a rch e r's guidance

c o m m it t e e advised t h a t Chi-S quare te s tin g be e lim in a te d f r o m those hypotheses

41
(and subhypotheses) w ith t h is c o n d itio n .

In tho s e s itu a tio n s , th e re se a rch f in d in g s

are re p o r te d in a d e s c r ip tiv e manner.
T a b le 1
In d iv id u a l

G rie v a n c e s by A cademic D i s c i p l i n e

D is c ip lin e

P ercent
o f T o ta l

F re q u e n c y

H e a lt h S c ie n c e s
E d u c a t io n
T e c h n o lo g y
E n g in e e r in g
A th le tic s
S o c i a l S c ie n c e s
N a t u r a l S c ie n c e s
Language A r t s
B u s in e s s
F in e and A p p l i e d A r t s

10
45
16
2
2
25
15
8
28
22

TOTAL

5 *8
2 6 .0
9 .2
1 .2
1 .2
14.5
8 .7
4 .6
16.2
1 2 .7

173

100.0

T h e re is l i t t l e p r io r research t o a u g m e n t th e in f o r m a tio n in Table 1. In th is
stu d y business f a c u l t y , w it h 10.6& o f th e g rie v a n ts , f i l e d more g rie v a n ce s (16. 2%)
th a n all b u t e d u c a tio n (26%) w ith 17*0 ^ o f t h e g rie v a n ts .

The g rie v a n c e ra te ,

h o w e v e r, does n ot n ece ssa rily r e f l e c t f a c u l t y union m em bership.

Under e x is tin g

la b o r la w s, t h e

m em bers o f a

g rie v a n c e

p ro c e d u re

must be a v a ila b le t o a ll

b a rg a in in g u n it, re g ardle ss o f union m em bership.

S u b je ct A re a o f In d iv id u a l G rievances
As a c a d e m ic d e p a rtm e n ts have been arranged in to b ro a d e r d is c ip lin e s f o r
b e t t e r s t a t is t ic a l c o n t r o l, th e
nine general s u b je c t areas.
most

lik e ly

to

be

g rie v e d ,

1 7 3

in d iv id u a l g rie va n c e s t o o have been re duced t o

The te n u re , p ro m o tio n , and re a p p o in tm e n t area was
w ith

in d iv id u a l

c o m p la in ts

p r o m o tio n , denial o f te n u re , and f a i l u r e t o re a p p o in t.

file d

over

denial

of

Table 2 is a lis t in g o f all

nine in d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e s u b je c t areas and t h e i r fre q u e n c y .

42
Table 2
In d iv id u a l

G rie v a n c e s by S u b je c t o f G r ie v a n c e

S u b je c t A re a

P ercent o f
T o ta l

F re q ue n cy

T e n u r e , P r o m o t io n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m pensation
W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreement
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

72

10

4 1 .6
4 .6
4 .0
7 -5
2 4 .9
5 .8

2

1.2

4
14

2 .3
8. 1

173

100.0

8
7
13
**3

TOTAL

S u b je c t A re a o f Group G rievances
U n lik e in d iv id u a l g rie va n ce s, th e s u b je c t are a o f group g rie v a n ce s c e n te re d
around

w o rk in g c o n d itio n s and

was 36.3% ° f th e t o t a l (33 o f 91 grievances).

W orking c o n d itio n s , th o u g h , are id e a lly s u ite d t o group g rie va n ce s because th e y
te n d t o have broad a p p lic a tio n .

The te n u re , p ro m o tio n , and r e a p p o in tm e n t area,

as w ith th e in d iv id u a l g rie v a n ce s, was a c o n te n tio u s one f o r groups; 15 o f 91
g rie va n c e s w ere in th is area (16.5%).
alle ge d

changes

in

p ro m o tio n

S p e c ific g rie va n ce s in t h is area concerned

c rite ria ,

changed

methods

of

p e rfo rm a n c e

e v a lu a tio n , and c o n te n ts o f personnel file s .
A n o th e r s u b je c t a re a n u m e r ic a lly n o te w o r th y was f a c u l t y salaries.

In th is

p a r t i c u la r s tu d y , s a la ry g rie v a n c e s were i n it ia t e d o v e r a c tio n s t h a t a f f e c t e d la rg e
groups o f f a c u l t y , f o r e x a m p le , as when one m em ber o f a d e p a rtm e n t re c e iv e d a
" m a r k e t " in cre ase in s a la ry and o th e r d e p a r t m e n t mem bers did not.
Union r ig h t s under th e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t were also a disp ute d area.
T h e o r e t ic a lly , the s e are r ig h t s all b a rg a in in g u n it mem bers possess and, t h e r e f o r e ,
are

most a p p r o p r ia t e ly advanced as a group g rie v a n c e .

The e n t ir e range o f

s u b je c t areas and fre q u e n c y o f f i l e d g rie va n ce s is fo u n d in Table 3*

43
T a bl e 3
S u b j e c t A re a s o f Group G rie v a n c e

S u b je c t Area

P ercent o f
T o ta l

F req ue n cy

T e n u re , P r o m o tio n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C om pensation
W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreement
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e
TOTAL

15
9
4
4
33
13
11
1
1

16.5
9 -9
4 .4
4 .4
3 6 .3
14.3
12.1
1.1
1.1

91

100.0

Research Hypothesis 1: T h ere are no D i f fe r e nces f r o m I n s t it u t io n t o
I n s t it u t io n in th e N u m b e r o f G rievances F ile d o r in th e C irc u m s ta n c e s t h a t Gave
Rise t o Them
When in d iv id u a l and group g rie va n ce s were co m b in e d , 87 o f 264 (33.8%) were
o v e r te n u re , p ro m o tio n , o r re a p p o in tm e n t.

G rievances associate d w ith f a c u l t y

w o rk in g c o n d itio n s f o llo w e d c lo s e ly w ith 76 (28.8%).

(See F ig u re 1.)

The nine

g rie va n ce s u b je c t areas w ere a nalyzed t o d e te rm in e w h e th e r any i n s t it u t io n had
many more g rie va n ce s th a n th e o th e rs in th e areas s tud ie d .
(O akland

U n iv e rs ity ),

g rie va n c e s

over

te n u re ,

On a ll b u t one cam pus

p ro m o tio n ,

decisions were n u m e r ic a lly la r g e r th a n a ll o th e r g rie va n ce s.

and

re a p p o in tm e n t

T a b le 4 l i s t s th e

g rie v a n c e s u b je c t areas and t h e i r fre q u e n c y a t each in s t it u t io n .
A lth o u g h w id e ly p u b lic iz e d , th e issue o f f a c u l t y s a la rie s a cco u n te d f o r o n ly
23 grie van ce s, o r 8.3% o f t h e t o t a l .

This must be q u a lifie d by th e f a c t t h a t most

s a la ry g rie va n c e s are lo dged o v e r pro ced u ra l d e f e c t s in th e d is t r ib u t io n o f sa la rie s
and n o t o v e r t h e a m o u n t o f t h e s a la ry .

These c a te g o r ic a l re s u lts d i f f e r m a rke d ly

fro m Duane's 1979 s tu d y , c it e d e a r lie r , o f g rie v a n c e s in M in nesota's j u n i o r and
s e n io r colle ge s w h ich fo u n d t h a t m a tte rs o f sa la ry and work lo a d produced th e
most f a c u l t y g rie van ce s.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

10
0
Tenure
Promotion
Reappoint­
ment

Seniority
Retrench­
ment

Faculty
Rights

Supple­
mental
Compen­
sation

Working
Conditions

FREQUENCY
OF GRIEVANCES

Figure 3. Faculty Grievances 1975 -1985, By Type. N = 264.

Salary

Discriminatbn

______
IX:

Discharge
Discipline

Tabl e k
N um ber and D is t r ib u t io n o f F a c u lty G rievances b y I n s t it u t io n and Type
S u b je c t A re a

CMU

FSU

SVSU

OU

EMU

2k

11

0
0
12
17
0
2
2
5

k
6
2
17
6
1
0
6

13
1
0
1
7
0
0
1
0

8
5
5
0
17
9
5
0
2

31
7
0
2

62

53

23

51

75

a ls o

c o n d u c te d

on

T e n u r e , P r o m o tio n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n ch m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p en s a tion
W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreem ent
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassment
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e
TOTAL FACULTY GRIEVANCES

A

P earson

P ro d u ct-M o m e n t

t h e s e d a ta and r e s u l t e d
or

not

th a t

h ig h ly

fa c u lty

s tu d y .

in a v a lu e o f - .

c o rre la te d .
g r ie v a n c e s

The f i r s t

c o rre la tio n

It

cannot

va ry

fro m

G eneral C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f

by academ ic
th is

rank and s e x .

in fo rm a tio n

c o u ld

3

6

was

8
5
2
2

, f o r a s ig n ific a n c e o f

be d e t e r m in e d

?n s t i t u t io n

re s e a rc h h y p o th e s is

A g e n e r a l component o f t h i s

0

te s t

1 8

to

is th e r e fo r e

In d iv id u a l

s t u d y was t o

fr o m

th e s e

.275,

re s u lts

i n s t i t u t i on

in

th is

re ta in e d .

G rie v a n ts

id e n t if y f a c u lt y g rie v a n ts

Due t o t h e m ixe d n a t u r e o f g ro u p g r ie v a n c e s ,

o n ly

be

g a th e re d

fro m

th o s e

filin g

in d iv id u a l

ra rks o f

in s tru c to r,

g rie v a n c e s .
A ll

fiv e

in s titu tio n s

em ployed th e t r a d i t i o n a l

a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r , a s s o c i a t e p r o f e s s o r , and p r o f e s s o r .
made

to

exam ine

r e a p p o in t m e n t
re co rd ed

as

A s s is ta n t
m a r g in ,

d iffe re n c e s

c r ite ria
th a t

rank

p ro fe s s o rs

k5*7%> o r

at

79 o f

th e

h e ld

lo d g e d

of
fiv e
at

th e

th e
most

h irin g ,

p ro m o tio n ,

in s titu tio n s .
t im e

th e

T h is

is

te n u re ,

A cadem ic
g r ie v a n c e

in d iv id u a l

173 g r i e v a n c e s .

No a t t e m p t was

g r ie v a n c e s
not

or

rank

was

was

file d .

by

a w id e

s u rp ris in g

g iv e n

46
t h a t most

te n u re

d e c is io n s

a r e made a t

th e

rank

o f a s s is ta n t

and t h a t t h e a re a most f r e q u e n t l y g r i e v e d c o n c e rn s t e n u r e ,
r e a p p o in t m e n t .

T a b le

5

is

a

lis t

of

in d iv id u a l

p ro fe s s o r

p r o m o tio n and

g rie v a n ts

b y academ ic

r a r ik .
T a b le 5
In d iv id u a l

G r i e v a n t s by A cademic Rank

A cademic Rank
In s tru c to r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r
TOTAL

each

14
79
48
38

8.1
4 5 .7
2 7 -7
1 8 .5

173

100.0

In d iv id u a l

g r i e v a n t s were a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e

had

at

w h ic h

spent

g r ie v a n c e s

in c r e a s e d .

i.e .,

between y e a r s
u su a l

fo r

its e lf.

in s titu tio n .
file d

re a s o n s
te n u re

one and

at
The

th e
were

Two

d e c is io n ,

fo r

P ercen t o f
T o ta l

F re q u e n c y

le a s t
le n g th

s ta tis tic a l

seven.
one

of

w o u ld

seemed
w o u ld ,

d e c lin e

in

a

Second,

p r o m o t io n a l

and

was

a p p a re n t.

employment

c o n tro l

It

to

was

vast

s u rm is e d
as

th e

le n g th o f

th a t

th e

years

of

F ir s t,

th e

m a jo r

m a jo rity

of

cases,

ra te

at

s e rv ic e
academ ic
be

betw een t h o s e same y e a r s ,

made
it

is

o p p o rtu n ity

to

d iv id e d

fo u r-y e a r

segments

between

academ ic

a p p r o x im a t e

in to
t im e

have

t im e

p re s e n te d

employment d e c i s i o n s .
T a b le

6

illu s tr a te s

f i 1 i ng g r ie v a n c e s .

th e

"s e n io rity "

aspect

of

fa c u lty

members

47
Table 6
Time Spent a t

I n s t i t u t i o n When I n d i v i d u a l

L e n g t h o f Employment

TOTAL

was

w ith in

the

interval

expected,
firs t

shows

57-8%

e ig ht
fewer

years

is

a ll

persons

b ut

of
of

the

55
45
29
24
15
5

31.8

173

100.0

26.0
16.8

1 3. 9
8.7
2.9

in d ivid u a l

s e rvice .
file d .

grievances

Each

It

in s titu tio n

must

A fte r

a fte r

be

the

of

here

tenure,

file d

four-year

eighth

mentioned

denial

were

succeeding

d i m i n i s h e s r a p i d l y and , by t h e

n on -e xiste nt.

leaving

a ll

grievances

empl oyment , g r i e v a n c e a c t i v i t y
it

Percent o f
Total

F r e q ue n cy

0 - 4 Years
5 - 8 Years
9 - 1 2 Years
13- 16 Years
1 7 — 2 0
years
Over 20 Years

As

G r i e v a n c e was F i l e d

year
2

0

of

th year,

that

those

prom otion,

or

r e a p p o i n t m e n t were n o t c o n s i d e r e d .

Re se arc h H y p o t h e s i s 1a:
The Type o f G r i e v a n c e ( I n d i v i d u a l o r Gr oup ) has
no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n t h a t i s A t t a i n e d
Hypothesis

1a was c e n t e r e d on t h e

e n tire

r a ng e o f

outcomes t h a t f a c u l t y g r i e v a n c e s c o u l d a c h i e v e .
refers

to

problem

the

is

stage

(or

resolved.

step)

through
ex am pl e ,

a ll

four

the

grievance

G rie vances

can

achieve

stages,

a fa c u lty

e lim in a tin g

The l e v e l

of

imposed r e s o l u t i o n o r no r e s o l u t i o n

member

others

get

e ith e r

t h e no r e s o l u t i o n

at a ll.

step.

o f p r o m o t i o n and r e a p p o i n t m e n t a r e

of

pro cedure
an

and

re so lu tio n

a t w h ich the

in form a l,

form al,

or

W h i l e some g r i e v a n c e s move

resolved

achieves

re so lu tio n s

short

tenure

S im ila rily ,

or

of

the

lim it.

does n o t ,

a ll

For
but

grievances over d en ia l

l i m i t e d t o v a r i o u s degrees o f

A8
re s o lu tio n .
which

Table

in d iv id u a l

7

is

an

illu s tra tio n

of

the

le ve l

of

re s o lu tio n

at

g r i e v a n c e s were s e t t l e d .
Table 7

In d ivid u a l

Level

G r i e v a n c e s and t h e L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n

o f R esolution

Informal
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

80
21
5

matter

that

the
of

retains

re s o lu tio n

T yp ic a lly ,

the

hands

173

in form al

procedure.

by

38.7
A6.2
12.1
2.9

6 7

TOTAL

An

Percent of
Total

F re q u e n c y

the

is

the

for

union

control

th is

union

grievance

of

occurs

at

follo w s

and

the

reduced

the

firs t

step

unsuccessful

a dm inistratio n .

to

w ritin g

re so lu tio n .

whether

100.0

the

of

the

verbal
It

d iscussion

is

at

and o f f i c a l l y

In most

grievance

th is

pla ced

situ a tio n s ,
is

grievance

pursued

the
at

of

stage
in

the

g rie van t

successive

stages.
At

the

formal

re s o lu tio n

stage,

the p a r t i e s

m a tte r themselves.

T h is o c c u r s a f t e r the

achieve

but

a s o lu tio n

before

a th ird

b i n d i n g o r d e r on one o f t h e p a r t i e s .
an

a rb itra to r

or

by

ju d ic ia l

decide

informal

party

is

to

In

this

brought

in

study,

cases

where

grievance to
Table

8

both

p a rties

gave

l a n g u i s h w i t h no f i n a l
p re s e n ts the r e s o l u t i o n

ta c it

approval

to

to

issue

a

i s one made by
there

i n s t a n c e s where no r e s o l u t i o n c o u l d be f o u n d o r remembered.
were

the

p r o c e s s has f a i l e d

An imposed s o l u t i o n

ru lin g .

resolve

to

were

Also,
a llo w in g

re so lu tio n .
l e v e l s f o r group g r ie v a n c e s .

fiv e
there
the

49
Table 8
R e s o lu t io n Level

Level

o f Resolution

f o r Group G r i e v a n c e s

Informal
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n
TOTAL

B ot h
t wo

in d ivid u a l

p arties

in d iv id u a l
a u th o rity .
Orze

(1978),

and

14.3% o f

This

32
46
13
0

35- 2
50.5
14.3
0

91

100.0

and g r o u p g r i e v a n c e s were

(85-0%

and

Percent o f
Total

Fre q ue n cy

8

(1

.7%,

re s p e c tiv e ly ).

r e s o l v e d by t h e

O nl y

12.1%

t h e g r o u p g r i e v a n c e s were s e t t l e d

supports

J u liu s

5

la rg ely

9

the

8 6

),

p osition

and

of

Ma nni x

of

by an o u t s i d e

T u rn e a and R o bi n so n

(1 9 86 )

that

the

(1972),

settlem ent

at

the

l o w e s t p o s s i b l e s t e p s h o u l d be t h e o b j e c t o f any g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e .
In

tes tin g

m a trix

c e lls

Thus,

the

th is

lacked
type

re la tio n s h ip ,

hypothesis
the

of
if

expected

grievance
a n y,

to

for

s ig n ifica n ce ,

frequency

file d ,

the

of

more

in d iv id u a l

level

of

two

of

than

or

grievance

the

fiv e

group,

eig ht

events.
and

its

re so lu tio n

was

u n te s ta b le given the design o f the study.

R e se ar ch H y p o t h e s i s 1b:
The R e s o l u t i o n
S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o i t s Outcome
Hypothesis
between

the

1b was a r e s e a r c h

level

the

i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p ,
outcome

of

has

if

no

a ny ,

G r i e v a n c e s have out comes t h a t can be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h one o f

the p a r t i e s

in a small

and

a Grievance

grievance.

study,

re so lu tio n

of

that

t o t h e agr ee me nt o r ,

of

in q u iry

L ev e l

number o f c a s e s , n e i t h e r p a r t y .

a g r i e v a n c e c o u l d a c h i e v e one o f s i x out co me s:

In t h i s

50
*

W i t h d r a w n by t h e g r i e v a n t .
I n some ca ses t h e f i l i n g o f a
grievance
is
action
enough
to
b rin g
about
the
desired
change.
In o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s , t h e g r i e v a n t may have a change
o f mind and d e c i d e n o t t o c a r r y t h e g r i e v a n c e t h r o u g h t o
conclusion.

*

Resolved f o r U n io n .
in the g rievance.

*

R e s o l v e d f o r Management. The g r i e v a n t ' s d e s i r e d remedy i s n ot
granted.
The g r i e v a n c e can a l s o be d e n i e d
because o f a
procedural
defect,
e .g .,
the g r ie v a n t
fa ils
to f i l e
the
c o m p l a i n t i n a t i m e l y manner.

*

Unknown o r U n r e s o l v e d .
In some i n s t a n c e s a g r i e v a n c e ' s
re so lutio n
is not
record ed
or
remembered
by
union
or
management.
In fewer i n s t a n c e s , the p a r t i e s m u t u a l l y agree
t h a t p u r s u i n g t h e g r i e v a n c e w i l l n o t be p r o d u c t i v e and t h u s a
c o n c lu s io n is never reached.

*

N egotiated Agreement.
The p a r t i e s
compromise on t h e i s s u e s .

*

Dropped by
s e r v e d by
gen e ra lly
o b lig a tio n
n ot a p p l y

Tables
separated

9 and
in to

The g r i e v a n t

i s g r a n t e d t h e remedy s o u g h t

r e a c h an a gr ee me nt t h r o u g h

U n i o n.
The u n i o n b e l i e v e s no u s e f u l p u r p o s e can be
pursuing the grie van ce .
Those t h a t a r e d r op pe d a r e
group
grievances
because o f
the
u n io n 's
le g al
to pro cess g r ie v a n c e s .
T h i s g r i e v a n c e out come does
to in d iv id u a l g rie v a n ts .

10 a r e t h e out co me s o f

the t o t a l

grievance

a c tiv ity ,

i n d i v i d u a l and g r o u p g r i e v a n t s .
Table 9
Individu al

G r i e v a n c e s and T h e i r Outcome

Outcome
W i t h d r a w n by G r i e v a n t
R e s o l v ed f o r Union
R e s o l v e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o l v e d
N e g o t i a t e d Agreement
TOTAL

F r e q ue n cy

Percent o f
Total

33
71
5*

19-1
41.0

10

5

5.8
2.9

173

100. 0

31.2

51
T a b l e 10
Group G r i e v a n c e s and T h e i r Outcome

Outcome o f G r i e v a n c e
Wi t h d r a w n
R e s o l v e d f o r Union
R e s o l v e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o l v e d
Dropped by Un i on
N e g o t i a t e d Agreement
TOTAL

Outcome
in divid ual

data

can

be

grievances,

Percent of
Total

F r eq ue ncy

v ie w ed

as

13

14.3

28
18

30.8

3
5
24

3-3
5-5
26.4

91

100.0

19-8

which

side

prevailed?

As

w ith

t h e u n i o n p r e v a i l e d more o f t e n t h a n management.

The o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e w i t h d r a w n b y g r i e v a n t out come was s i m i l a r f o r
groups

and

in d iv id u a ls ,

n egotiated
in d iv id u a l
could

and g r o u p

the

g r o up

agreement,

out come

ca ses

agr ee me nt

h ow ev e r,

be

t er m ed

achieved
easier

to

fa m ilia r

w ith

its

ro le

contract

rig h ts
to

19*1% r e s p e c t i v e l y .
showed

g rie va n ts.

is

p arties

14.3% and

th is

In o n l y

a negotiated
o ut c ome .

achieve
(the

a

marked
2.9% o f

may

the

be

union)

rather

bargaining

agr eement

than

between

in d ivid ua l

w h ile

cases

26.4% o f

that

bet ween management

have a l l e g e d l y been v i o l a t e d .

a c o lle c tiv e

d iffe re n ce

agreement

It

The c a t e g o r y o f

a

the

negotiated

and an o r g a n i z a t i o n
an

in d ivid u a l

whose

G e n e ra lly speaking,
re a lize

before

long

both
that

g r i e v a n c e s a r e b e s t r e s o l v e d when " g r i e v a n c e p o s i t i o n s " a r e n o t t a k e n as
personal

s t a t e m e n t s o f w o r t h by t h e c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r .

grie van ts,

h ow eve r,

assume a n e u t r a l
is

the

level

of

in

p o sitio n

c o lle c tiv e

data

th e ir

zeal

to

rig h t

a wrong

are

Ind ividual
less

i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r own g r i e v a n c e s .
fo r

the

s tu d y's

264

grievances

r e s o l u t i o n and t h e out come o f t h e g r i e v a n c e .

apt

to

T a b l e 11

comparing

the

Ta bl e 11
R e s o l u t i o n L ev e l

LEVEL OF
RESOLUTION

W i th d r a w n

and Outcome o f F a c u l t y G r i e v a n c e

R e s o l v ed Re so l ve d
for
for
Management
Union

Inform al

36

33

19

Formal

10

53

33

Unknown o r
Unresolved

Dropped
by
Un io n

T o ta l/
Negotiated
Agreement

% of
Total
99
37-5

23

126

4 7- 7
Imposed

13

20

34
12. 9

No
R e s o l u t i on

5
1.9

TOTAL

46

99

72

% OF
TOTAL

17-4

37- 5

27- 3

13

4.9

1.9

29

264

11.0

100.0

Ul
ro

53
C ontrary
by

an

to the p opular n o tio n t h a t

outside

d iffe re n ces
tim e.

agent,

at

thein fo r m a l

S ettlem ents

264 g r i e v a n c e s
in

13 (4. 9%)

procedures

in

a llo w

fo r

the

For

formal

in

th is

stage o f

imposed by o u t s i d e

study

studied.

study
these

do

It

agents

d iffe re n ce s

of

o pinio n

purport

the

in

the

i n o n l y 12.3% o f

the

t h e c as e u n r e s o l v e d

to

the grievance

d o,

i.e .,

g rie v a n c e process

contract

th e ir

85.2% o f

would appear t h a t

what th e y

in s titu tio n s ,

resolved

re s o lu tio n

The out come was unknown o r

c as es

this

p a rties

or

were

studied.

of

d iffe re n c e s .

the

g rie v a n c e d i s p u t e s are s e t t l e d

resolve

appears

in te rp re ta tio n

to

to
be

resolved w ith f i n a l i t y .
A Cramer's
. 45 4 8 0 ,

V test

in d ic a tin g

va ria b le s

but

and

co rre la tio n
However,
th is

that

revealing

Another t e s t o f
va ria b le s

was a l s o
a

between

a

of

of

t h e manner

s ig n ific a n c e

and

at

the

v a l u e was

e x i s t s between

of

that

the

a ssociatio n .

was c o n d u c t e d w i t h t h e s e

.22580, i n d i c a t i n g

re s o lu tio n level

Its

the
.05

a m ild

d eg r e e o f

out come

achieved.

level

was a t t a i n e d

in

subhypothesis.

In s titu tio n a l
At

the

procedure

serves

core

of

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f F a c u l t y Grievances

th is

study

i s t h e s i n g l e most

agreement.

is

the

a ssertion

As c l a i m e d by E l k o u r i

and E l k o u r i

fu n ctio n

or

The g r i e v a n c e

procedure

channels

in s titu tio n a l

c o n flic t

can
is

be

c ru cia l

ac ad emi c p r o c e s s

p e a ce fu lly
to

(L e s lie ,

the

serves

(1978),

important

it

tha t

the

i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f a ny c o l l e c t i v e

a more

w here

data.

association

Pearson's R t e s t ,

value

the

no s t a t i s t i c a l

degree o f

nothing

re la tio n s h ip ,
yie ld ed

p e r f o r m e d on t h e

resolved.
s ta b ility

1975)*

it

in

fo llo w s ,

bargaining

no o t h e r p r o v i s i o n

so many d i f f e r e n t
c o n flic t

S uccessfully
and

grievance

in te rn a l

in to

a process

managing

in te g rity

the re fo re,

ways.

t h a t the

of

th is
the

54
in s titu tio n a l
should

frequency o f

be exami ne d.

re la tio n s
number
1985)*

One can

a tmo sp h er e o f

and

type

Table

of

12 i s

in d ivid u a l

the

begin

and g r o u p g r i e v a n c e s among f a c u l t y
to

gain

in s titu tio n s

grievances

file d

an

in s ig h t

in t h i s

during

the fre q u e n c y w i t h which

in to

the

labor

stud y by exam in ing the

the

study

in d iv id u a l

period

(1

9 7 5

“

g r i e v a n c e s were

f i 1 ed:
T a b l e 12
In s titu tio n a l

F re q u e n c y o f

I n s t i t u t ion

Grievances
Percent o f
Total

Frequency

CMU
FSli
svsu
OU
EMU

54
44
13

3 1- 2
25.4
7 .5
8.1
27.7

1 4

48
TOTAL

173

Among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f s i m i l a r
and

In d ividu a l

CMU,

the

in d ivid u a l

100.0

s i z e and c o m p l e x i t y , such as EMU,

grievances

f ile d d iffe re d

broadly.

OU,

EMU, f o r

e x am pl e , has t h r e e t i m e s and CMU a l m o s t f o u r t i m e s as many g r i e v a n c e s as
OU.

Likew ise,

SVSU and FSU a r e

sim ila r,

yet

FSU has

more t h a n

three

t i m e s as many g r i e v a n c e s as SVSU.
The
pattern

in s titu tio n s

a ppear

d iffe re n tly

when

the

gr oup

i s e xa mi ne d , e x c e p t f o r EMU w h i c h e x p e r i e n c e d h i g h

in d ivid u a l
in s titu tio n

and g r ou p g r i e v a n c e s .

The f r e q u e n c y o f

i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f T a b l e 13*

grievance

ra t e s o f both

group g rie v a n c e s

by

55
T a b l e 13
In s titu tio n a l

1

F r e q u e n c y o f Group G r i e v a n c e s

n s t i t u t i on

CMU
FSU
SVSU
OU
EMU
TOTAL

W hile
OU and

in d iv id u a l

8

8 . 8

9

9-9

1 0

1 1 . 0

37
27

40.7
29.7

91

CMU and FSU s h a r e d s i m i l a r

EMU

Percent o f
Total

F re que ncy

(CMU-62

and

FSU-

to

5 3

1 0 0 . 0

tota l

OU-

5 1

grievance

and

frequencies w ith

EMU-75),

th e ir

ra tio s

of

t o g r ou p g r i e v a n c e s a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t .

G ra ph ica lly,

the

mix

of

in d ivid u a l

to

group

grievances

is

r e p r e s e n t e d by F i g u r e 2.
In a d d i t i o n t o the
subject

a re a

and l e v e l

(see F i g u r e

of

re so lu tio n

grievances.
provide

an

observer

weighs

a c t on d e s i r e s .
The

union,

on

management.

and

se rio usly

f r e q u e n c y o f f a c u l t y g r i e v a n c e s by

researcher
in s titu tio n

each

valuable

is

oth e r

h e a vily

the

outcome

achieved w ith

its

fa c u lty

by w i d e m a r g i n s .
that

o ften

about

I n most

instances,

on management

can

repeatedly

Such

at

breached

fa c u lty

in form ation

s u p p o r t e d by R e i l l y
hand,

examined

in s titu tio n 's

t o an a g r e e m e n t .
most

also

only

lo sse s--2

contract

the

to

can

re la tio n s h ip

t h e outcome o f
its

( 1 9 86 ) and J u l i u s

react

CMU— s u g g e s t

grievances

because o f

A t EMU, CMU, and SVSU t h e f a c u l t y

nearly
and

the

t h a t each

w ith

This
the

a dm inistratio n
EMU

1),

The out comes o f

b et ween t h e p a r t i e s
a grievance

in s titu tio n a l

actions

power
(19

8

brought

to
6

).
by

union p r e v a i l e d o v er the
to
tha t

1 r a t i o a t SVSU and
the

p ro visio n s.

a dm inistration
At

FSU and OU

t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r e v a i l e d o v e r t h e u n i o n a t a more n e a r l y even p ace .

60

50

40

30
H U
20

10

CMU
Frequency
of Grievances

FSU

SVSU

Individual Grievances

OU

E MU

Group Grievances

Figure 4. Faculty Grievances 1975 - 1985, Individual and Group, By Institution

57
Only

at

importance

in

grievances
of

OU

negotiated

philosophy

the

t e r ms

(20 o f

in s titu tio n s ,

did

of

51)

category
the

suggesting

negotiated

in s titu tio n a l

a negotiated

agr ee me nt

of

stands

agr eement

to ta l.

In

achieve

39%

of

agr eement was a c h i e v e d .

This

level

in

the

oth e r

sharp

a d iffe re n t,

less

contrast

to

adve rsa ria l

o rie n ta tio n

and

i n o p e r a t i o n a t OU.

R e se ar ch H y p o t h e s i s 1c:
T h e r e i s no S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e
Outcome o f a G r i e v a n c e f r o m I n s t i t u t i o n t o I n s t i t u t i o n
T a b l e 14 i s a c o m p l e t e l i s t i n g
in s titu tio n .

W ith

p re v a ilin g

over

and

wo u ld

SVSU,

the

the

o f t h e out come f o r a l l

pattern

established

of

the

su b je c t o f hypothesis

out comes

be

s im ila rily

the

g r i e v a n c e s by
fa c u lty

t h e campus a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on t h e campuses o f
a ll

in

affe cted ?

union

EMU, CMU,

That

is

the

1c.
Table

14

Outcome o f G r i e v a n c e s by I n s t i t u t i o n
Outcome

CMU

FSU

SVSU

OU

EMU

W i t h d r a w n by G r i e v a n t
R e s o l v e d f o r Union
R e s o l v e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o l v e d
Dropped by Un i o n
N e g o t i a t e d Agreement

14
27
16
5
0
_0

7
19
23
3
1
_0

5
11
6
1
0
_0

10
7
10
0
4
20

10
35
17
4
0
_9

46
99
72
13
5
29

62

53

23

51

75

264

Table

15,

TOTAL

As

is

the

case

le ve ls va rie s w id e ly.
one o f t h e f i r s t
level

of

re so lutio n .

in

in s titu tio n a l

A lth o u g h 85-21 o f a l l

t wo l e v e l s ,

re s o lu tio n

the

a tta in

greater

of

r e s o l ui

g r i e v a n c e s we re r e s o l v e d a t

i n o n l y one i n s t a n c e
a

mix

TOTAL

(CMU) d i d t h e

frequency

than

did

inform al
formal

58
T a b l e 15
In s titu tio n a l

R e s o lu t io n Level
Percent
o f Tot,

L ev e l

CMU

FSU

SVSU

OU

EMU

1n f o r m a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

34
19
6
_3

19
22
10
2

9
11
3
JO

21
25
5
_0

16
49
10
_0

99
126
34
5

37.5
4 7- 7
12. 9
1.9

62

53

23

51

75

264

100. 0

TOTAL

Re se ar ch
Accounts
Process

H y p o t h e s i s 2 and R e l a t e d S u b h y p o t h e s e s ;
f o r no S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e

The p assage o f
was

a

co nside ra tion

process,

time

the

grievance

one

or

both

has

time
of

both

process
p arties

and

its

th is

re la tio n s h ip

research.

a procedural
a ll

to

to

and

pro visio ns.

grie vant

to

res pon d

A fte r

the

grievance

a ll

cases)

must

answer

ch aracte rize

each

stage

days.

management
Time

in

lim its

grievance

process.

to

These

is

other

w ith in

deadlines

can

of

be

W ith in

lim its

a breach

a ce rta in
(in

for

in

ca ll

party

the

grievance

time

a precise

both

the

process

id e n tity .

employed

w ith in

the

of

in to

procedures

action

file d ,

grievance

substantive

these

g rie v a b le

the

a lle g a tio n

T y p ic a lly ,
a

to

studied

the

agreements'

The Passage o f Time
Grievance R e s o lu t io n

in terwoven

procedures

respond

TOTAL

the

for

the

number

of

th is

study

number o f

days.

inform al

c hanged,

and

formal

h ow ev e r,

by

a

n e g o t i a t e d agreement.
The

phrase

summari zes

the

grievance

is

g r ie v a n t except
grievances

"J u s tic e
substantive

being

delayed

is

ju s tic e

base

the

grievance

processed,

of

there

in tho se cases ( i n

file d )

where

the

th is

g rie van t

t h e c o m p l a i n t can be r e s o l v e d .

can
study

be

denied"

no

p er h a p s

procedure.
re so lu tio n

best

W hile
for

a

the

17*4%, o r 46 o f 264 o f t h e

withdraws

from the

process

before

59
Beyond t h e s e o b v i o u s e l e m e n t s o f
that

the

e ffe ct

length

of

the b arga in in g

upon a g r i e v a n c e ' s

s e ttle d

at

another.

lower
The

le ve ls

le ngth

achieve

reso lutio n

th a t

short

a

c o lle c tiv e

the

longer

time

In

the

in

fo r

p eriod

researcher hypothesized

short,

grievances

and

years

grievance.

desired

should

be

have b a r g a i n e d w i t h one

m o nt h s,

each

was

w o u l d have a m e as u r a b l e

p arties

days,

ca lcu la te d

re so lu tio n

the

re la tio n s h ip

re s o lu tio n .

of

was

tim e,

by

both

It

it

took

to

was assumed

p a rtie s

to

the

b a r g a in in g agreement.

The r e s e a r c h e r a l s o e x ami ne d a t wh at j u n c t u r e g r i e v a n c e s were f i l e d
in

the

ten-year

file d

toward

a fte r

the

study

the

beginning

p a rtie s

hypothesized

p eriod.

that

had

the

Wo ul d,

of

a

for

ten-year

1 98 0- 198 2,

study

period

1983-1985*

research h ypo th e s is ,

In

was
order

several

a

file d

in to

fu lly

than

It

was

w o u l d be g r e a t e r

near

three

frame

be

(1 975 )

(1 985 )7

F or b e t t e r s t a t i s t i c a l

g r ou p e d
to

more g r i e v a n c e s

re la tio n s h ip
decade

grievances

the b e g in n in g o f b a r g a in in g than l a t e r .
the

example,

bargaining

bargained

number o f

for

co n tro l,

s t a g e s - - 1 9 7 5 “ 1979*

th e parameters o f

th is

b r o a d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t h e p assage o f t i m e

are considered.

Gen er al

Findings

From t h e

in the S u b je c t Area o f H y p o th e s is 2

research

data

in

th is

study,

and l a b o r s t r o v e t o s e t t l e g r i e v a n c e s
the
of

fo u rth
a ll

tota l

month f r o m t h e

g r i e v a n c e s were
by t h e end o f

year.
resolve

It

date o f

resolved.

it

clear

i n a t i m e l y manner.

grievance

filin g ,

That f i g u r e

th e e i g h t h month,

is

t h a t management
By t h e end o f

73-1% (193 o f

2641

i n c r e a s e d t o 9 0 . 5& o f t h e

roughly e q u iv a le n t

t o an academic

is the d e s ir e o f g rie van ce a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from both p a r t i e s
grievances

q u ic k ly .

Further

e mphasi s

w i t h i n t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f an academi c y e a r .

is

given

to

to

settlem ent

O n l y 9*8% (26 o f 264) o f a l l

60
grievances

t oo k

a lte rn a tiv e

to

one

year

or

litig a tio n ,

the

matters w ith f i n a l i t y
Over

the

That
the

was

ten-year

were

a

its

included

successful

1982

study

period

and

economic

co nditions

the re fo re,

procedures

each

the

stud ie d

in s titu tio n

beginning

campaig nin g,

of

successor

period

by

com pletion o f

Michigan

grievance

resolve;

re s p e c tiv e b a rg a in in g agents.

ch aracte rize d

beginning

to

as

do r e s o l v e

an

a g r ee m en t s

and

the

at

continuance

fiv e

of

fa c u lty .

issues

The y e a r s o f

co nd itio n s

a ll

in

the

bargaining

Although

bargaining
agents

agent,

that

1 9 8 4 - 1 9 8 5

began

some

attempts

none

have

in

1975

state

been

successful.

continued

48.9^ o f

23-9%

onset

of

the

the

the

period

tota l

(129 o f

of

1975-1979

Better

re la tio n s ip

264).

( 6 3

a

of

264),

bargaining

re s p e ctive ly.

end o f

rest at

19

8 3

—

fa c u lty

bargaining

a c ad e mi c

a c tiv ity

The peak y e a r f o r

by t h e

lowest

year

period

coincided

for
w ith

by academic

grievance a c t i v i t y

year
was

grievances

in

a

economi c

severe

in f u n d in g cu tb a cks a t a l l

most
of

year

1 98 1 - 1 9

is

fewer
8

6

19

8

O—19

8 2

and

o f 264)

( 7 2

a c tiv ity

at

grievances

the
is

) and o t h e r s .

represented

1980-1981 w i t h
w ith

11.

downturn

in

8 2

grievances

27-3%

Heavy g r i e v a n c e

(19

grievance

re la tio n sh ip

the

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p a t t e r n s e t f o r t h by J u l i u s

re su lted

a

fa c u lty

The p e r i o d s

by

3.

oust

had t h e

follow ed

The

to

The

through

1983-1985 were n e a r l y e v e n l y d i v i d e d w i t h
and

made

of

-

As was e x p e c t e d ,
file d ,

been

have

and

1980-

in s titu tio n s .

the

a

The p e r i o d

contested

agreement.

economic

through

a unionized

an e l e c t i o n ,

in itia l

severe

of

went

bet ween f a c u l t y and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e p e r i o d o f
1985-

an

and speed.

s im ila r p attern w ith
1975-1979

lo nger

p ublic u n iv e r s itie s .

in
3 8

Figure

follow ed

The g r i e v a n c e
Michigan

tha t

30

20

1975-76

1976-77

1977-78

1978-79

1979-80

1980-81

1981-82

1982-83

Frequency
of Grievances

Figure 5. Total Faculty Grievances by Academic Year. N=264.

1983-84

1984-85

62
R e s e ar c h H y p o t h e s i s 2a:
T h er e i s no S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e i n t h e L ev el
o f R e s o l u t i o n a G r i e v a n c e A t t a i n s and t h e Time P e r i o d i n w h i c h i t i s
F ile d
The c o n t e n t s o f T a b l e

16

illu s tra te

during the th re e -tim e s u b d iv is io n s

by Years
1 9 8 3 - 1 9 8 5

48
61
15
5

30
32
10
—

21
33
9
--

99
126
34
___5

63

264
100.0

129
48.9

presented

72
2 7

in Table

. 3

stages o f

o f open c e l l s ,

the grievance

h ow ev e r,

2

16 s u p p o r t

d e c l i n e o v e r t i m e and t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n
formal

re s o lu tio n

1980-1982

Total
(Percent o f T o ta l)

less

of

1975-1979

Informal
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

The d a t a

levels

16

R e s o lu t io n Level
o f R esolution

four

in the study p e rio d .

Table

Level

the

the

level

. 9

n otio n

tha t

is lower,

procedure.

t h e s e d a t a do n o t

3

TOTAL

Due t o

(3 7-5 2)
(47-7%)
(1 2 .9 3 0
( 1 . 9 %1

grievances

i.e .,

a t the

t h e h i g h number

l e n d t h e m s e l v e s t o a n a l y s i s by

means o f C h i - S q u a r e t e s t i n g .

R e se ar ch H y p o t h e s i s
2b:
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o the Level
Does t h e passage o f

The Passage o f Time has no S i g n i f i c a n t
o f R e s o l u t i o n t h a t a G rievance A t t a i n s
t i m e f a v o r t h e u n i o n o r management?

n e g o t i a t e d agr ee me nt e ns ue f r o m t h e p a r t i e s '
number o f t o t a l
p eriod ,

i.e .,

resolved

in

were t h o s e
d eclined
7) but

grievances,
as

favor

did
of

however,

those
the

u n i o n were

r e s o l v e d f o r management.

in a b s o lu t e

numbers o v e r

re ma i ne d c o n s t a n t a t a b o u t

f a m i l i a r i t y o ver time?

did d e c lin e

withdrawn

by

Does more

the

greater

in

The

i n each s u c c e s s i v e t i m e
grie van t.
a ll

time

Grievances
periods

than

R e s o l u t i o n by n e g o t i a t e d agr eement
the

time

periods

11% o f t h e t o t a l

studied

(13 t o

9 to

grievance p o p u la tio n .

63
R e se ar ch H y p o t h e s i s 2 c:
T h er e i s no S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e
Needed t o R e s o l v e a G r i e v a n c e and t h e Time P e r i o d
in
Grievance is F i l e d
It

was

grievances
more

theorized
in

less

experienced

Secondly,
alone)

time

illu s tra te

the

p arties

bargaining

would

be

to

re la tio n s h ip

over

be a b l e

strength

the

fo r

(fo r
The

three

th e ir

both

sides.

s tre n g th 's

data

time

number o f months needed t o a c h i e v e s e t t l e m e n t o f

resolve

m a t u r e d because

grievances

tim e.

between

to

re la tio n s h ip

handling

dem onstrate

like w ise dim inish

the

would

as t h e

people

"p o sturing "

would

that

i n t h e Time
which t h a t

in

sake

Table

p e r i o d s and

17
the

a g rievance.

T a b l e 17
Grievance R e s o lu t io n

R e s o l u t i o n Time i n

i n Months by S e l e c t e d Time P e r i o d s

Months 1975“ 1979

1980-1982 1 98 3-1985

3b
5b

Up t o One Month
One t o F o ur Months
Fo ur t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o One Year
T h i r t e e n Months and L o n ge r
Column T o t a l
(Percent o f T o t a l )

23
14
4

20
20
16
9
7

129
48.9

72
27-3

19
25
10
2
7

value
X

Chi-Square
of

value

t e s t performed

1 2. 376 w i t h
of

e ig h t

on

d eg r e e s

the
of

data

This X

retained.

While

valueo f
total

s ta tis tic a lly

s ig n ific a n t

length o f time

it

12*376

Table

freedom.

At
n ull

requires th a t

grievances

decline

re la tio n s h ip

over

between

the

( 21 . 1 )
( 37-5)
( 18.6)
( 9*5)
( 6.8)

264
100. 0

o f S ig n ifica n ce

in

15-507 must be a c h i e v e d b e f o r e t h e

retained.

73
99
49
25
18

63
23-9

C h i - S q u a r e = 1 2 . 3 7 6 ; Degrees o f Freedom, 8 ; L ev e l

A

Row T o t a l
and P e r c e n t

17

. 05

revealed

0.05

le v e l,

hypothesis

a
a

can be

t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s be
time
that

there

is

no

d e c l i n e and t h e

t a k e s f o r any one g r i e v a n c e t o be r e s o l v e d .

(14
R e s ea r c h H y p o t h e s i s 2d:
The Type o f G r i e v a n c e F i l e d has no S i g n i f i c a n t
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e Time Needed t o R e s o l v e t h e M a t t e r
As s t a t e d
study.

One

e a rlie r,

there

subhypothesis

are

nine grievance

the

research

of

on

subject

the

w h e t h e r t h e t y p e o f g r i e v a n c e had a s i g n i f i c a n t

areas

passage o f

re la tio n s h ip

in

th is

time

was

to the tim e

needed t o r e s o l v e t h e m a t t e r .

Re s ea rc h H y p o t h e s i s
2e:
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e L ev e l
Hypothesis
informal
o f time

to
it

2e

The Passage o f Time has no S i g n i f i c a n t
o f R e s o lu t io n t h a t a G rievance A t t a i n s

involved

the

imposed r e s o l u t i o n
tock

A visu a l

level

alo ng w i t h

review o f

f o u r m o nt h s.

s ig n ific a n c e ,

grievance

re s o lu tio n ,

no r e s o l u t i o n ,

i.e .,

and t h e amount

t o a c h i e v e t h e v a r i o u s o u t co m es .
the

data

in Table

o f grie van ce s are solved a t the f i r s t
w ith in

of

it

While

these data

ca n be o b s e r v e d t h a t

s e t t l e d q u i c k l y by t h e p a r t i e s

18 r e v e a l s

tha t

the m a j o r i t y

t wo l e v e l s o f t h e p r o c e s s ,
are not

te sta b le

the g rievances

t o t h e a gr eement

in

8 5

fo r

in t h i s

u sua lly

s ta tis tic a l
s t u d y were

p e r c e n t o f t h e 26k

grievances s tu d ie d .
T a b l e 18
G r i e v a n c e Resol u t i o n
L e n g t h ( i n m on th s)
t o Resolve

in Months and R e s o l u t i on L ev e l

1n f o r m a l

Up t o One Month
One t o Fo ur Months
F o u r t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o One Year
T h i r t e e n Months & L o n ge r

kS
3k

Total
(Percent o f T o t a l )

99
37.5

12
3
2

Formal

I mposed

No
S olution

Row T o t a l
& Percent

21
62
30
6
7

1
3
5
16
9

kk

25
18

126
47.7

3k

5

26k

12. 9

1-9

100.,0

3
0
2
0

73
99

kS

(27.7)
(37.5)
(18.6)
( 9-5)
( 6.8)

65
Research Hyp o th e sis
2 f:
S ig n ific a n t R ela tion sh ip
F i 1ed

The C h o i c e o f
the Frequency

to

As t h e b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p m a t u r e s ,
and

to

agent

be

s e ttle d

re s u lt

in fewer

grievances

file d

b argaining

agent,

compared

to

sig n ifica n ce .
degrees
allow s
of

of
the

a t lower

le ve ls.

grievances?

over the
13

8

study

(NEA)

to

Bargaining
w i t h which

g r i e v a n c e s t e n d t o be f e w e r

Does

thechoice

period
126

d iffe re d l i t t l e

(AAUP) .

The

re s u lt

was

a Chi-S quare

at

.05

le ve l

researcher

a barga in in g

agent

are

u nrela te d.

Over

can

s ig n ific a n tly

the

grievance

three

t o not
and a
tim e

reduce

a c tiv ity

the
fo r

study

re tain

of

number
both

of
of

t e r ms o f t h e

for

value

s ta tis tic a l

of

7*009

sig n ifican ce .

The

hypothesis

incidence

choice

in

periods

the n u l l

reduced

the

a bargaining

The b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t s were

other

the

of

I n t h i s s t u d y t h e a b s o l u t e number o f

the

f re e d o m

Agent
has no
Grievances are

of

X

t wo
value

the c h o ic e

grievances over

a p a rtic u la r
grievances

bargaining

that

w ith

bargaining

file d .

agents

Table

during

tim e
a ge n t
19

each

is

tim e

p e r i od.
T a b l e 19
N ational

Barg a i n i n g A ge n t and G r i e v a n c e S t u d y P e r i o d

B a r g a i n i n g Ag en t

1975-1979

NEA (CMU, FSU, SVSU)
AAUP (OU, EMU)

1980-1982

58
71

Total
Percent o f Total

129
48.9

the

b argaining

total
agents,

number
AAUP

of

41
22

138
126

72
27*3

63
23* 9

264
100.0

grievances

in s titu tio n s

£ Percent

39
33

C h i - S q u a r e = 7 * 0 0 9 ; Degrees o f Freedom,

While

Row T o t a l
1983-1985

2; L e v e l

of S ig nifica n ce

declined
had

fewer

d e c l i n e d more s h a r p l y t h a n t h e NEA i n s t i t u t i o n s .

(52.3^
(4 7*7)

over
tota l

tim e

.05

for

grievances

both
and

66
Re s ea rc h H y p o t h e s i s
3 and R e l a t e d
Subhypotheses:
The C h o i c e o f
B a r g a i n i n g Ag en t has no S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e N a t u r e and Type
o f G rievance t h a t is F i l e d
The t h i r d
a ffilia tio n
major

research h ypo thesis

of

the

national

(AAUP),

Federation

of

The

AFT

N ational

Teachers

In

re fe rs only

s tu d y d e a l t w i t h the n a t i o n a l

agent.

unions--American
Education

(A F T)--only

p r e s e n t l y has

Michigan.
agent

campus b a r g a i n i n g

fa c u lty

Professors

in t h i s

Although
A ssociatio n

A ssociatio n

t wo a r e

no f o u r - y e a r

(NEA),
in

bargaining

national

t o t h e AAUP o r t h e NEA.

of

represented

campus

th is se ction , th e re fo re ,

there

union

In t h i s

or

are

three

U n ive rsity
and A m e r i c a n
th is

study.

agent

in

bargaining

s t u d y CMU, SVSC, and

FSU a r e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e NEA; EMU and OU a r e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e AAUP.

Re se arc h H y p o t h e s i s
3a:
S i g n i f i c a n t R e la tio n s h ip to
t h a t i s P ur sued
The
operating

The C h o i c e o f
B a r g a i n i n g Ag en t has no
t h e Type o f G r i e v a n c e ( I n d i v i d u a l o r Gr oup)

r e s e a r c h e r wa n te d t o d e t e r m i n e
p h i l o s o p h y bet ween t h e

s ta tis tic a lly

s ig n ific a n t

AAUP

in f a c u l t y

aggregate g rie v a n c e d ata are

if
and

the p e r c e iv e d d i f f e r e n c e s
the

NEA w o u l d

g rie van ce data o f

indicated

i n T a b l e 20.

this

lik e w is e
study.

in
be
The

67
T a b l e 20
Facul.ty Gri evances by B a r g a i n i n g Agent
Frequency o f
I n d i v i d u a l G rie vances

B a r q a i n i n g Ag en t
AAUP
NEA

Percent

62
111

35- 8

6k.2

173

B arqaining

100.0

Frequency o f
Group G r i e v a n c e s

Ag en t

Percent

6k

AAUP
NEA

7 0. 3
29.7

27
9 1

Bargaining

1 0 0 . 0

Frequency o f
T o t a l Grievances

Age nt

AAUP
NEA

Percent

126
138

A7. 7
52.3

I P

Taken

together

(in d ivid u a l

1 0 0 .0

and

group

grievances)

d i f f e r e n c e s bet ween t h e b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t s a r e s m a l l .
bet ween

the

file d .
the

t wo

The AAUP

NEA.

d icta te s

It

agents

do e x i s t , h o w ev e r ,

the

num erical

Marked d i f f e r e n c e s
type

of

grievances

f i l e d more t h a n t w i c e t h e number o f g r o u p g r i e v a n c e s

w o u l d a pp e ar

p u rsu it

in

the

of

those

then

tha t

t h e AAUP1s p h i l o s o p h y o f

grievances

tha t

impact

a broad

as

ope ra tio n

base,

u n like

t h e NEA's more i n d i v i d u a l l y o r i e n t e d p h i l o s o p h y .
A
types

Chi-Square
of

27.070

grievances
re su lted

s ig n ific a n c e .
tha t

test

This

no s i g n i f i c a n t

was

file d

w ith

perform ed
by

of

in d icate s

d iffe re n ce s

the

d iffe re n ce s

t h e t wo b a r g a i n i n g

one d e g r e e
value

on

e x is t

freedom
that

the

agents.
a t the
n ull

bet ween

the

A value

of

level

of

. 0 5

hypothesis

sta tin g

bet ween b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t s e l e c t e d

and t y p e o f g r i e v a n c e a dva nced s h o u l d n o t be r e t a i n e d .

When i n d i v i d u a l

68
and g r o u p
its

grievances

are

compar ed,

the

members s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n

AAUP a dvances

the

in te re s ts

of

t h r o u g h g r o u p g r i e v a n c e s t h a n does

t h e NEA.

R e s e ar c h H y p o t h e s i s
3b:
S ig n ific a n t R e la tion sh ip to
Grievances are F i l e d
It

was

of

in terest

to

b a r g a i n i n g agent a f f e c t e d
aspect
type o f

of

the

research,

grievance

hypothesis,
bargaining

i.e .,
agent.

d iffe re n tia te d

coupled

researcher
area o f

w ith

the

formed th e

subject

In T a b le

by

the

the s u b je c t

pursued,
the

The C h o i c e o f
B a r g a i n i n g Agent
has no
t h e Types o f S u b j e c t s A r e a o v e r w h i c h t h e

area

21 t h e

bargaining

fa c u lty

previous

structure

of

the

subject

age nt

whether

(the

the

choice

grievances.
section

fo r

areas o f

This

on o v e r a l l

the t h i r d

grievance

of

does

research

n ot

vary

by

th e g rie v a n c e s are

in s titu tio n s

represented

in

parentheses).
T a b l e 21
B a r g a i n i n g A g e n t and G r i e v a n c e S u b j e c t
B a r g a i n i n g A ge n t
NEA (CMU,
AAUP
SVSU, FSU)
(OU, EMU)

S u b je c t Area o f G rie vance
Tenure, Promotion Reappointment
S e n i o r i t y , R e t r en ch m en t
F a culty B en e fits
S u p p l e m e n t a l Co mp en s at io n
Working C o n d it io n s
Salary
Un i o n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreement
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassment
D i s c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

48
5

Chi-S quare = 26.324;

A Chi-Square
of

26.324

w ith

1 2

5

6

2

35
17

6

3
3

1 0
2

4

1 1

TOTAL
Percent o f Total

138
5 2 .3
Degrees o f Freedom,

test
eig ht

8 5

of

264
(100.0 )

1 2 6

47.7
Level

of S ig nifica n ce

was p e r f o r m e d on t h e d a t a ,
degrees

87 ( 3 3 . 0 1
17 ( 6 . 4 )
1 1
( 4.2)
17 ( 6 . 4 )
7 6
(2 8 .8 )
23 ( 8 . 7 )
13 ( 4 . 9 )
5 ( 1-9)
15 ( 5 - 7 )

39

15
41

freedom.

T o t a l Number
and P e r c e n t

At

re s u ltin g
the

.05

.05

in a value
level

of

69
s ig n ific a n c e ,
retained.
bet ween

th is

T h us ,
the

X

it

value

can be s t a t e d

t wo n a t i o n a l

unions

t h e i r campus a f f i l i a t e s
in s titu tio n s

the

requires

pursue.

that

that

the

n ull

hypothesis

a s ig n ific a n t

not

be

d iffe re n ce e x is ts

(barg ain ing

agents)

Further,

w o u l d a pp e ar t h a t a t t h e s e

perceived "p h ilo s o p h ic a l

it

and t h e g r i e v a n c e s

stan ce " o f the n a tio n a l

union

i s b o r n e o u t t h r o u g h t h e campus g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e .

R e se ar ch H y p o t h e s i s
3c :
The C h o i c e o f
B a r g a i n i n g A gent
has
S i g n i f i c a n t R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e Outcome t h a t a G r i e v a n c e A t t a i n s
As

an

extension

of

the

prim ary

hypothesis,

the

researcher

no

also

wa nt ed t o k now w h e t h e r t h e c h o i c e o f b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t p r o du c e d d i f f e r e n t
g rie v a n c e outcomes.
the

two

bargaining

O ve ra ll,
agents

pattern

of

appear.

The most s t r i k i n g

agreement

o u t co me s ,

category.

a g r ee me nt s w i t h
fa ile d

to

p l a c em e nt

of

s ubjective
or

s lig h t.

13

any

numerical

reasoning.)
other

To t e s t t h i s

these

out co me s
Thus,

versus

to
in

126

g r i e v a n c e s bet ween

(AAUP).

Table

in s titu tio n s

29 o f

negotiated

in t o t a l

22,

its

statem ents,

ca tegories

in

negotiated

w h ile

t h e NEA

management

should

be

involved

at

noted

m utually

agreed

outcome

its
that

a measure o f

t h e d i f f e r e n c e bet ween r e s o l u t i o n
a

the

d iffe re n c e s

achieved

w ith
it

is

in the n e g o tia te d

126 g r i e v a n c e s ,

a g r ee m en t s

in to

It

that

d iffe r e n c e occurs

AAUP
in

ma ki ng

grievance

(NEA)

8

illu s tra te d

The

(In

the

is

management

achieve

in s titu tio n s .

side

as

the d if f e r e n c e

was

f o r one

at

tim es

s u b h y p o t h e s i s a C h i - S q u a r e t e s t was e mp l oy e d.

The

o
c a lcu la te d X
value

v a l u e o f 3 9- 8 15 w i t h f i v e

required

concluded t h a t
for

s ig n ific a n t

for

sig n ific a n c e

a ffilia tio n

at

d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m exceeded t h a t

the

.05

le ve l.

It

may

then

be

w i t h one b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t o r t h e o t h e r makes

d iffe re n ces

in

beyond what m i g h t be a t t r i b u t e d

the

outcome

t o chance.

of

a

fa c u lty

grievance,

70
T a b l e 22
Gr ievance Outcome and B a r g a i n i n g Agent
B a r g a i n i n g A ge n t
NEA (CMU,
AAUP
SVSU, FSU)
(OU, EMU)

Outcome
Wi t h d r a w n
R e s o l v e d f o r Union
R e s o l v e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o l v e d
Dropped by Un i on
N e g o t i a t e d Agreement
TOTAL
Percent o f Total

26
57
45
9
1
--

Total
Percent o f Total

20

42
27
4
4
29

126

138
5 2. 3

46
99
72
13
5

(17.4)
(37-5)
(27.3)
( 4.9)
( 1.9)

29

( 11. 0 )

264
100.0

47.7

Chi-Square = 39*815? Degrees o f F r e e d o m , 5? L ev e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e .05

Research Hypothesis 3d:
The Ch oi ce o f B a r ga i ni n g A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t
R e la ti on sh ip t o t he L en gt h o f T i m e i t t a k e s t o Resolve a Gri evance
As has been not ed el se whe re

in t h i s s t u d y , an i m p o r t a n t a s p e ct o f t h e

g ri e va nc e process is t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e i t t a k e s t o r e ac h r e s o l u t i o n .
left

Differences

unresolved o r t a r d i l y resol ved a f f o r d no a dv an ta ges f o r t h e union o r f o r

ma nagement .

L i k ew i se ,

the

i nd i v id ua l

grie vant

wishes

a tim ely

r e s ol u ti o n .

A mo ng t h e subhypotheses ass oci at ed w i t h t h e b a r g a i n i n g agents, t h e re se ar c he r
wished t o k n o w w h e t h e r t he A A U P o r NEA was abl e t o re so lv e t h e i r g r i evan ce s
more e x p e d i t i o u s l y t ha n t h e o t h e r and, i f so, was t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t a t i s t i c a l l y
significant?
The A A U P

and NEA a c h i ev e d n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s a t t h e f o u r month

r e so l ut i on mark.

In 65.2% o f all g r i e v an c es f i l e d , r e s o l u t i o n was achi eved in no

more t ha n f o u r months.

This r a t e o f r e s o l u t i o n wo ul d seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t al l

p a r t i e s t o a g r i e v an c e place i m p o r t a n c e on speed o f r e s o l u t i o n .
o f r e s o l u t i o n r a t e s is i l l u s t r a t e d in Ta bl e 23-

The e n t i r e range

71
T a b l e 23
Rate o f R e s o l u t i o n by B a r g a in i n g Agent

E l a p s e d Time U n t i l

B a r g a i n i n g A gent
NEA (CMU,
AAUP
SVSU, FSU)
(OU, EMU)

R esolution

One Day t o One Month
One Month t o F o ur Months
F o u r Months t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o One Year
More t h a n One Year

36
48
30

73
99
49
25
18

37
51
19
15
4

10

14

TOTAL
Percent o f Total

Total
Percent o f T otal

138
5 2. 3

126
4 7- 7

( 2 7- 71
(37-5)
(18.6)
( 9-5)
( 6.8)

264
100.0

Chi -Square = 8.601; Degrees o f F re e do m , 4; Level o f S i gn if i ca n ce .05

T o t e s t t h e subhypot hesi s t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in r a t e o f r es ol ut i on
ex is t ed ,

a Chi-S uare t e s t was c o n d uc t ed .

degrees o f f re e d o m

was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o

The X ^ value o f 8.601

with fo u r

r e j e c t t h e null subhypothesis.

No

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t b e t w e en t he A A U P and NEA in t he r a t e
o f r e s o l u t i o n o f f a c u l t y grievances.

Research Hypothesis 3e;
The Choice o f B ar gai ni ng A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e Lev el o f Re so lut io n t h a t a Gri evance A t t a i n s
The

resolution level,

i. e.,

how f a r

along t h e c o nt in uum

of informal

to

imposed t h a t a g r i e v a n c e must t r a v e l b e f o r e s ol u ti o n, is o f i m p o r t a n c e t o both
parties.
a

To have most, i f not all, g r ie v an c es s e t t l e d a t t h e i n f o r m a l step would be

measure o f success f o r bot h sides.

C l e a r l y t h a t has n ot happened in t he

i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s s tudy, b u t i t is a mut ual goal o f mo st o r ga n i z a t i o n s .
study

225

of

the

264

total

g r ie v an c es

filed

were

In t h i s

resolved by t h e p a r t i e s

t h e m s e l v e s a t t he i n f o r m a l o r f o r m a l l e ve l.
NEA

i n s t i t u t i o n s ( C MU ,

FSU, SVSU) s e t t l e d f a r

more gri ev an ce s a t t h e

i n f o r m a l st ep t h a n did t h e A A U P i n s t i t u t i o n s (0 U, E M U): 62 t o 37* A t t h e f o r m a l
l e v e l t h e r everse was t r u e .

A Pearson P r o d u c t - M o m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t

72
was c a l c u l a t e d w i t h a v al ue o f .044, i n d i c a t i n g l i t t l e o r no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e en
t h e v a ri abl es.
between the

As a r e s u l t , t h e subhypot hesi s t h a t t h e r e exi st s

no d i f f e r e n c e

b ar g ai n i n g a ge nt s on t h e v a r i a b l e o f r e s o l u t i o n l e ve l

is n e i t h e r

s upp o rt ed n or denied. The range o f r es ul t s on t h i s is f ou n d in Ta bl e 24.
T a b l e 24
R e s o l u t i o n L e v e l by B a r g a i n i n g Age nt
B a r g a i n i n g Ag en t
NEA (CMU,
AAUP
SVSU, FSU)
(OU, EMU)

R e s o l u t i o n L ev el
Info rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

62

52
19
5

TOTAL
Percent o f Total

138
5 2. 3

T o t a l Number
and P e r c e n t

37
74
15

99
126
34
5

126
47- 7

264

(37-5)
(47-7)
(12.9)
( 1.9)

100.0

Research Hypothesis 3f:
The Choice o f Bar gaining A g e n t has no S i g n i f i c a n t
Re l at i on s hi p t o When a G r ie va nce is Filed
As has been s t a t e d b y K r u g e r (1980) and o t he r s, t h e uni on is a p o l i t i c a l
organization.
other

than

The g r i e v a n c e p r o ce du r e can and does g et used t o f u r t h e r means
the

resolution

of

g r i evan ce s be d i f f e r e n t t h a n
relationship

mat ur ed?

a grievable
that

of

act.

i n d iv id ua l

Would t he

pattern

of

group

g r i ev an ce s as t h e b ar gai ni ng

Would t hese p a t t e r n s v a r y by b ar ga i n i ng agent?

r e l a t i n g t o t hese quest ions are present ed in Tabl e 25.

Data

73
Tabl e 25
Grievances, I ndi vi dual and Group, o f t h e Bar ga in in g A ge nt s, 1975~ 1985
I n di vi du al Grie va nce s

T i m e Period

NEA (C M U, FSU, SVSU) A A U P ( OU, EMU)

1975-1979
1980-1982

46
29
___ 3 6

1 9 8 3 - 1 9 8 5

Col umn To tal
and P e r c e n t

T o t al
and P er c e n t

31

77 (44.51
49 ( 2 8 . 3 I
4 7
( 2 7 .2 )

2 0

_ n

111(64.21

62 (35-8)

173 (100.0)

Chi-Square = 4.342; Degrees o f F re e d o m , 2; L ev el o f S i g n i f i c a n c e .05

Group Grievances
1975-1979
1980-1982
1983-1985

12
10

40
13
_M

5

Column To tal
and P er c e n t

27 ( 29-7)

52 ( 57-1)
23 ( 25-3)
16 ( 17.6)

64 ( 70.31

91(100.01

Chi-Square = 3*203; Degrees o f F re e d o m , 2; L ev e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e .05

In t e r m s o f i n d ivi dua l g r i evan ce s, t he general A A U P t r e n d is d ow n w a r d o v e r
t h e t e n - y e a r s t u d y p er i od as is t he NEA's.

But , w h i l e t h e NEA d ec l in ed in a bsol ut e

t e r m s o v e r t h i s per iod, t h e i n c id en ce o f g r i e v a n c e s was h ig he r and s t a ye d t h a t
way.
A more s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e is f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e A A U P and NEA in group
g ri ev ances .

As has been s t a t e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e , gr oup g r ie v an c es a l l o w t h e

"philosophy"

of

t he

b a r ga in in g

agent

to

make

itself

known.

e x pe r ie n ce d a d ec l in e in group g r i e v a nc e s o v e r t h e s t u d y p er i od .

Both

a ge nt s

The high r a t e o f

A A U P group gri evan ce s (40) in 1975“ 1979 suggests t h a t t h e t h e n - n e w l y e l e c t e d
a ge nt p ut f o r t h vari ous g r i ev an ce s t o t e s t i t s s t r e n g t h and management 's resolve.

lb

Chi-Square
gri ev an ce s.

tests

were

perform ed

separately

for

i nd i v id ua l

and

group

The i n dep end ent v a r i a b l e ( b a rg ai ni ng a gent) was c o m p ar e d t o t h e

dependent v a r i a b l e ( t i m e p e r io d) f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e . 05 l e ve l.
The t e s t

c o n d u ct e d f o r

i nd i v i du al

g r i e v an c es f i l e d o v e r t h e t h r e e t i m e

per iod s p roduced a val ue o f b.3b2 w i t h t w o degrees o f f r e e d o m .

A t t h i s value t he

null hypot hesis as s t a t e d in 3 f is r e ta i n e d , i.e., t h e c h o i c e o f a n at i on al b ar ga in in g
a ge nt does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y e f f e c t t h e t y p e o f i nd i v i du al g ri e va nc e f i l e d in a gi ven
t i m e per iod.
L i k e w i s e , t h e same r e s u l t was f ou n d f o r t h e Chi-Square t e s t c o n d u c t e d on
gr oup g ri evances.

That

O

v al ue was 3*203 w i t h t w o degrees o f f r e e d o m .

Thus,

t h e c ho i ce o f a n at i o n al b ar g ai n i n g a ge nt does n ot s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e t y p e
o f g r i e v a n c e f i l e d in a gi ven t i m e per iod ranging f r o m t h e o nse t o f t h e b a r ga in in g
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o i t s m a t u r a t i o n t e n years l a t e r .

C HA P T ER V

Findings, Conclusi ons and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
The resear cher' s purpose in t h i s s t ud y was t h r e e f o l d .
was t o

determine

w h e t h e r t he " f a c u l t y

The i n i t i a l o b j e c t i v e

e x p e r i e n c e " a t d i f f e r e n t , b ut s i m i l a r ,

u n i v e r s i t i e s r e su lt ed in a changed mi x o f f a c u l t y g ri ev ances .

I t is t e m p t i n g t o

assume f r o m t he p e r s p e c t i v e o f e i t h e r t h e union o r t he a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h a t t he
i n s t i t u t i o n a l e m p l o y e r is uni que.

Such uniqueness e xte n de d l o g i c a l l y leads t o t he

p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s g i v i n g rise t o
i n s t i t u t i o n as w e ll .

g r ie v an c es are unique t o t h a t

The r e l a t i v e lack o f p r i o r research in t h i s area o f f a c u l t y

g r ie v an c es l e n t a d d i t i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e t o t h i s o b j e c t i v e .
The r esear cher' s second purpose in t h i s s t ud y was t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e passage o f t i m e c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o t h e nat ur e and t y p e o f
r e l a t i o n s h i p t h e union and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n we re abl e t o establish.
g r i e v an c e

p r oc ed u re

with

its d iffe re n t levels o f resolution from

i mposed a f f o r d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t t h e r esear ch pre mi se .

Using t he
informal

to

H e r e t o f o r e , i t had

o n l y been s p e c u l a t e d by c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t h a t t h e passage o f t i m e wo r ke d
t o m o de ra te (in a general way) p osi t ion s t a k en b y b ot h sides in a grie van ce .
This r e s ea r ch hypot hesis b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r t w o assumpt ions c o m m o n l y held
by c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
possible l e v e l .

One, g r i e v a nc e s should be s e t t l e d a t t h e l o w e s t

Second, t he l o n g e r t w o p a r t i e s t o a c o n t r a c t have a b ar ga in in g

r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e f e w e r g r i evan ce s are f i l e d .
The t h i r d r e se ar ch h ypot hesi s was c e n t e r e d on d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e en t h e t w o
national

faculty

unions f o u n d in

Mich ig an a t f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h igher

e d u c a t i o n , t h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y Professors ( A A U P ) and t he
N a t i o na l

Edu c at i on

A s so ci a ti o n

( NE A ) .

A m e r i c a n F e d e r a t i o n o f Te ach er s ( A F T ) .
organizations.

Not

i n vo l v e d

in t h i s s t ud y

was t he

A l l t h r e e unions e vo l ve d d i f f e r e n t l y as

A A U P , w i t h i t s m emb er shi p co ns ist i ng o f o n l y co ll ege f a c u l t y has
75

76
changed f r o m

a wa t ch do g o f a c a d em i c ideals t o a l a b o r union.

T h a t presence

makes f o r an a m b i v a l e n c e in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , i.e., a c a d e m i c w at chd og o r union?
Or perhaps bot h depending on t h e campus.

The NEA grew f r o m " t h e " e l e m e n t a r y

and secondar y school union i n t o j u n i o r colleges and l a s t l y t o s eni or colleges, most
often

those

institutio ns known

p rim a rily f o r teacher

train ing.

Would t hese

d i f f e r e n c e s in o r i g i n and p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e in " p h i l o s o p h y " o f t hese unions
m a n i f e s t t he m s e l v e s in t he g r i e v a n c e process was t h e issue st udi ed.

Conclusions
The i n f o r m a t i o n gained t hr o u g h t h i s s t ud y seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t bot h sides
s t r o v e t o re so lve g r i ev an ce s a t t h e l o w e s t t w o l e ve l s o f t he process.

Of t he f o u r

ways a g r i e v a n c e coul d end ( i n f o r m a l , f o r m a l , imposed by a t h i r d p a r t y o r no
s ol uti on), 85.2% o f t he t i m e t h e p a r t i e s f ou n d t he s o l u t i o n t he ms el ve s. This r e s u l t
is c o ns i st en t w i t h t h e v ie w o f most c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , i.e., r e t e n t i o n o f
i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l o v er t h e o u t c o m e .
a ge n t

determine

the

c o l l e c t i v e barga in in g.

outcome,

In o n l y 12.9% o f t he g r ie v an c es did an o u t s i d e

bel yi ng

a no t h e r

pop ul ar

mis co n ce pt i on

about

The r e su l t s , h ow ev e r, do not supp ort a w i d e l y held b e l i e f

a mong g r i e v an c e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a b o ut which a c a d e m i c di sc ipl ines produce more
g ri e va nt s .

It

is assumed

widely

t h a t business f a c u l t y

do not

participate

c o l l e c t i v e b a r ga in in g because o f t h e i r s t r o n g i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n .

in

In t h i s

s t ud y business f a c u l t y , w i t h 10.6% o f t he g r i e va nt s , f i l e d more g r ie v an c es ( 1 6 . 2 %)
t h a n all b ut e d u c at i o n f a c u l t y (26%) w i t h 17% o f t h e g ri e va nt s .
Given t he i m p o r t a n c e o f t e n u r e , p r o m o t i o n and r e a p p o i n t m e n t deci sions in a
faculty

member's c a r e e r , t h i s area w i l l

source o f g ri evanc es.

most l i k e l y r e m a i n t h e single l a r g e s t

Such was t h e case here.

Even w i t h t h a t f a c t none o f t he

i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h i s s t ud y we re r eady t o cede c o n t r o l o f t h e a c a d e m i c j u d g m e n t
made by t h e f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o an o ut s i d e p a r t y .

77
The re s u lts fr o m

th is stud y also suggest t h a t t h e p a r t ie s sought t o s e t t le

g rie va n c e s in a t i m e l y fa s h io n .
been resolved.

In f o u r months t i m e 73*1% o f all g rie va n c e s had

When v ie w e d fro m

th e p e rs p e c tiv e o f an a ca d e m ic y e a r (nine

months), 90-5% o f all g rie va n c e s were s e ttle d .

As th e b arg a in in g re la tio n s h ip

m atures in t im e , c o n t r a c t a d m in is tr a t o r s and th e le a de rsh ip o f th e p a r tie s gain
e x p e rie n c e w ith each o th e r.

This re s u lts in a s itu a tio n t h a t th e lo n g e r t w o p a r tie s

have a c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip , th e s h o r te r i t

would appear t h a t a

g rie v a n c e w ill ta k e to be resolved.
The o th e r re search c o n s id e ra tio n in th is hypothesis c e n te re d on a t h e o r y t h a t
f e w e r g rie va n c e s
g re w .

would be f ile d

as th e le n g th o f th e b arga in in g re la tio n s h ip

As was th e o riz e d , th e period o f 1975-1979 had th e most g rie va n ce s f i l e d

w ith kQ.3% o f t h e t o t a l .
1982

period

saw

Each succeeding p e rio d had f e w e r g rie van ce s. The 1980—

27-3% o f th e

g rie va n ce s f o llo w e d

by

1 9 8 3 - 1 9 8 5

at

23-9

F re q u e n t g rie v a n c e a c t i v i t y a t th e o nse t o f a b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip f o llo w e d by
f e w e r g rie va n c e s is c o n s is te n t w ith the p a t t e r n set f o r t h by J u liu s (1 9
o th e rs.

8 6

) and

Thus th e re su lts g arnered f r o m t h is s tu d y do n o t su p p o rt th e hypothesis

t h a t th e le v e l o f re s o lu tio n is in dependent o f th e t i m e t h a t th e p a r tie s have
bargained.
O v e ra ll, th e d if fe r e n c e in th e num be r o f g rie va n ce s f i l e d b e tw e e n th e t w o
unions

was s m a ll,

d iffe re n c e s .

13

8

(N E A )

to

126

(A A U P ).

W ith in t h e

t o t a ls

lie

many

The f a c t t h a t th e A A U P f i l e d more th a n t w ic e th e num ber o f group

g rie v a n c e s th a n th e NEA is in s t r u c tiv e .

Group g rie va n ce s have many purposes.

Group g rie v a n c e s are o f t e n more c o m p le x th a n in d iv id u a l g rie va n ce s because th e
g rie v a b le issue is an in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a p o lic y o r th e g rie v a n c e in vo lv e s more th a n
one person.

The A A U P , on the se t w o campuses, chose to advance t h e i r in t e r e s t s

on t h is b ro a d e r plane. The NEA chose t o advance in d iv id u a l issues, e x h ib it in g

78
more o f a " m e versus t h e m " a pproach fo u n d more o f t e n in K -1 2 la b o r re la tio n s .
When t h e unions' o rig in s are co nside re d, t h e approach ta k e n by b oth is where
p e r c e p tio n m eets r e a l i t y .
F u r t h e r , th e

d if f e r e n c e

in th e

num be r o f group g rie v a n ce s f i l e d versus

in d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e s suggests a d i f f e r e n t o r ie n t a t io n in how th e b a rg a in in g a ge n t
v ie w s i t s ro le .

F o r w h ile th e b a rg a in in g age n t has a le g a l o b lig a tio n t o c a r r y

g rie v a n c e s f o r w a r d , i t also has an o p e ra tio n a l need t o a v o id c o n f r o n t a t io n w ith
m a nagem ent o ve r t r i v i a l

m a tte r s .

I t is n o t u n co m m o n f o r a union g rie v a n c e

a d m in i s t r a t o r t o " c o u n s e l" a p o t e n t ia l g r ie v a n t o u t o f f i l i n g an a ctio n f o r several
reasons.

An o b je c tio n a b le a c tio n may not be g rie v a b le under th e pro visio ns o f the

a g re e m e n t, o r i t may have l i t t l e ch an ce o f success, o r i t may in v o lv e an area o f
u n iv e r s ity l i f e w ith w h ich th e union does n ot w a n t to in v o lv e it s e lf .

A high group

t o in d iv id u a l g rie v a n c e r a t i o as is fo u n d w ith A A U P suggests t h a t i t d e fin e s its
ro le b ro a d ly , g rie v in g o n ly when m anagem ent's a c tio n s th r e a t e n th e union o r a
la rg e n u m b e r o f it s members.
When g rie v a n c e o u tc o m e s a re c o ns ide re d, th e d if fe r e n c e s are s t r ik in g as
w e ll.
2

3

A f a c u l t y m e m b e r w it h an A A U P union can e x p e c t a n e g o tia te d a g re e m e n t

% o f th e t i m e w h ile his o r her NEA c o u n t e r p a r t has l i t t l e o r no p ro sp e c t o f t h a t

w h a tso e v e r.

A g a in , a n e g o tia te d a g r e e m e n t as a g rie v a n c e o u tc o m e in d ic a te s a

w illin g n e s s t o c o m p ro m is e on issues.

I t is an a sp e ct o f shared gove rn a nce , an

honored way t o o p e ra te in h ig h e r e d u c a tio n .
Both unions p re v a ile d o v e r m anag e m e nt more t im e s t h a n th e re v e rse .

In

p e rc e n ta g e t e r m s o f th e t o t a l g rie v a n c e s f ile d , t h is d if f e r e n c e was 31-5% o f th e
o u tc o m e s were fa v o r a b le t o th e union t o
m a nagem ent, re s p e c tiv e ly .

2 7

- 3 % o f th e o u tc o m e s f a v o r a b le to

A lth o u g h t h e re s e a rc h e r did n o t g a th e r data on th e

te n - y e a r t re n d in g rie v a n c e o u tc o m e by cam pus, f u t u r e re search e f f o r t s m ig h t
fo c u s on w h e th e r unions p re v a il o v e r m an ag e m e nt o v e r t i m e and by w h a t m argin.

79
The re s u lts do d e p a rt fro m

c o n ve n tio n a l wisdom o f the p r iv a t e s e c to r p la c in g

m a nagem ent in a s tro n g e r p o s itio n to p re v a il.

H o w e ver, w h ile m a nagem ent can

c o n tro l many v a ria b le s i t s a u t h o r it y is so d iffu s e d in an a c a d e m ic s e tt in g t h a t
many p ra c tic e s can and do develop t h a t are c o n t r a r y t o th e c o n t r a c t 's te n e ts .
These p ra c tic e s ,

in v io la t io n o f th e c o n t r a c t t e r m s , are th e basis f o r

many

g rievances.
Both

unions

re so lved

th e ir

d iffe r e n c e s

w ith

managem ent

e x p e d itio u s ly .

A lth o u g h some g rie van ce s are b ro u g h t f o r f r iv o lo u s reasons, most are n o t.
ra te o f re s o lu tio n

was n e a rly

id e n tic a l

a t th e f o u r - m o n t h

m ark.

g rie va n ce s f ile d , 6 5 *2 % w e re resolved by t h e end o f f o u r months.

The

O f a ll 264
Mo s t a t is t ic a l

d iffe r e n c e s could be fou n d b e tw e e n th e t w o unions in r a t e o f re s o lu tio n .

This

in d ic a te s t h a t g rie van ce s assume a high p r i o r i t y w ith a ll co nce rn e d and i n d ir e c t l y
suggests t h a t th e

n e g o tia te d g rie va n ce p ro ce d u re

is an e f f i c i e n t

process f o r

re so lvin g d iffe re n c e s .
F in a lly , th e d if fe r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e unions as to th e le v e l o f re s o lu tio n each
o b ta in e d f o r t h e i r m em bership was s c ru tin iz e d .

Even tho u gh NEA in s t it u t io n s

s e tt le d f a r more g rie va n ce s a t th e in fo r m a l le v e l th a n th e A A U P , no s t a t is t ic a l
s ig n ific a n c e could be a sc e rta in e d .
O ver th e te n - y e a r s tu d y p e rio d , b oth unions f i l e d f e w e r g rie va n ce s l a t e r th a n
a t th e s t a r t o f th e b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip . This f a c t c o n f ir m s a long held b e lie f o f
c o n t r a c t a d m in is tr a to r s .
d iffe re n c e s .

A A U P's group g rie v an c e s, a lw a ys h ig h e r th a n th e N E A's in each t im e

period (75-79, 80-82 and
p e rio d .

W ith in th e general d e c lin e lie s , h o w e ve r, im p o r t a n t

8 3

-8

5

), took a s ig n if ic a n t drop a f t e r th e in i t i a l t im e

The d e c lin e was f r o m 40 (1975-79) t o 13 (1980-82) to 11 ( 1

9 8 3

-8

5

).

This

may le n d a d d itio n a l cre d en ce t o th e t h e o r y t h a t th e A A U P presses issues th ro u g h
g rie va n c e s f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons th a n does th e N EA.

F o r th e in s t it u t io n s in th is

80
s tu d y ,

th e

ch oice

of

b a rg a in in g

agent

did

make a d if fe r e n c e ,

a d if f e r e n c e

r e f le c t e d in th e g rie v a n c e process.
These fin d in g s s u p p o rt th e vie w t h a t d i f f e r e n t o p e ra tio n a l philosophies are
p re s e n t in th e NEA and A A U P .
lik e

A A U P is v ie w e d as more c o n s e rv a tiv e and less

an " i n d u s t r ia l" union t h a n th e

N EA.

The

NEA,

w ith

it s ro o ts in

K -12,

e d u c a tio n is m ore lib e r a l in it s approach t o c o lle c t iv e b a rg a in in g .
In sum m ary, f o r th e in s t it u t io n s in th is stu d y , th e b a rg a in in g agent makes a
d if fe r e n c e .

The ch o ic e a f f e c t s th e ty p e o f g rie v a n c e t h a t is pursued.

W hat t y p e

o f f a c u l t y concerns t h a t end up as g rie va n ce s is also a f f e c t e d by th e ch o ice o f a
b a rg a in in g a g e n t.

Perhaps more im p o r t a n t ly , th e c h o ic e o f a b a rg a in in g a ge n t

a f f e c t s th e o u tc o m e o r end r e s u lt o f a f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e . These f in d in g s are those
o f subhypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c.
The c h o ic e o f b a rg a in in g age n t does n ot a f f e c t th e f a c u l t y g rie v a n c e process
on th e dim e nsion o f t im e .
nor

when

th e

N e ith e r t h e a m o u n t o f t im e i t ta k e s t o re so lve a m a t t e r

g rie v a n c e

was

file d

in

th e

te n

ye ar

s ig n if ic a n t ly by c h o ic e o f n a tio n a l b a rg a in in g age n t.

stu d y

period

d iffe re d

These fin d in g s are tho se o f

subhypotheses 3d and 3f-

L im i t a t i o n s o f th e Study
As m en tion e d, th e lack o f a f o u r - y e a r h ig h e r e d u c a tio n A F T a f f i l i a t e union
in M ich ig a n served to l i m i t research c a p a b ilit y on th e la s t research hypothesis.
E xpanding a s tu d y o f th is t y p e across s ta te lin e s would a cco m p lish t h is tadk.
It

is te rn p tin g

to

a n a ly z e

th e

e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f p a r tie s

b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t s o le ly on th e w in -lo s s re c o rd .

to

a c o l le c t iv e

H o w e v er, t h e re a re many

o th e r v a ria b le s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o a p ro d u c tiv e b a rg a in in g re la tio n s h ip .

Some o f

these are th e e xp e rie n c e o f th e re s p e c tiv e le a d e r s h ip /c o n t r a c t a d m in is tr a t o r s on
both sides, th e degree t o w h ich th e f a c u l t y union expresses th e " v i e w " o f th e
e n t ir e f a c u l t y and th e a t t i t u d e o f th e e x e c u tiv e lea de rsh ip o f the u n iv e r s ity .

81
A t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n o f t h is s tu d y was in th e n a tu re o f th e d a ta .
d ata p resented
analysis.

Much o f the

was o f t h e n o m in a l v a r ie t y , th e le a s t p o w e rfu l f o r s t a t is t ic a l

S u b je c tiv e ju d g m e n t such as w h a t d e te rm in e s a n e g o tia te d a g re e m e n t do

n o t lend th e m s e lv e s t o s o p h is tic a te d m a t h e m a tic a l analysis.
in c o rp o ra te d

v a ria b le s d eem ed t o

1 9

be

The research design

necessary to c o n d u c t th is research.

H o w e v er, th e n u m b e r o f v a ria b le s c o n t r ib u t e d t o th e num be r o f open ce lls in th e
va rio u s data m a tric e s used in C hi-S quare t e s t in g .

These open c e lls , in t u r n , lead

t o many s itu a tio n s in which t h e d a ta did n o t lend th e m s e lv e s t o analysis.

Recom m endations f o r F u r t h e r Research
There are some o th e r ty p e s o f s tu d ie s t h a t m ig h t be f r u i t f u l give n these
fin d in g s .

One o f th e f i r s t t h a t suggests i t s e l f is th e in clu sio n o f campuses t h a t

have an A F T a f f i l i a t e b a rg a in in g a g e n t.

As these fin d in g s suggest, th e re is a

d if fe r e n c e b e tw e e n t h e unions on several dim ensions.

The f u l l range o f those

d iffe r e n c e s could be measured by h a v in g one o r more A FT a f f i l i a t e s in clu d e d in
a n o th e r study.
A n o th e r s tu d y in th is a rea co u ld in c lu d e a la r g e r n um ber o f in s t it u t io n s
possibly across single s ta te boundaries.

Studies o f a d m in is tr a t iv e philosophy o f

in t e r a c t io n when d i f f e r e n t b a rg a in in g a g e n ts are p resent is a possible re search
t o p ic .

C o n tin u in g along t h e o r g a n iz a tio n a l philosophy lin e , a s tu d y c o m p a rin g

unions

s ta te d

philosophy

w ith

th e ir

a c tu a l

g rie v a n ce

b e h a v io r

could

be

in v e s tig a te d .
A study o f

w h a t re la tio n s h ip e x is ts b e tw e e n th e e c o n o m ic h e a lth o f an

in s t it u t io n and g rie v a n c e a c t i v i t y m ig h t be f r u i t f u l .

A ll o f these in s t it u t io n s were

a f f e c t e d by the e a r ly 1980's recession in M ich ig a n .

They were a f f e c t e d in many

ways, b u t most i m p o r t a n t was an o v e r a ll re d u c tio n in S ta te fu n d in g .

I t has been

th e o b s e rv a tio n o f th e re s e a rc h e r t h a t in these t im e s in d iv id u a l g rie va n ce s go up
and group g rie van ce s d e c lin e .

In d iv id u a l

g rie v a n c e s go up because econ o m ic

82
u n c e r t a in t y

c o n tr ib u te s

to

in d iv id u a l

u n c e r t a in t y .

t o l e r a t e d in good tim e s are less so in bad.
because f a c u l t y
u n iv e r s ity .

P ro b le m s t h a t

m ig h t

be

Group g rie va n ce s go down in bad t im e s

union, by and la rg e , re a liz e th e im p a c t o f bad t im e s on the

Todays f a c u l t y union enjoys a high le v e l o f " p o l i t i c a l " awareness.

As

is a ll t o o o f t e n th e case in p u b lic h ig h e r e d u c a tio n , e c o n o m ic c o n d itio n s em erge
w hich are beyond th e c a p a b ilit y o f e it h e r m anag e m e nt o r th e union t o solve alone.
A lth o u g h th is s tu d y d id n ot g a th e r data on th e t e n - y e a r tre n d in g rie van ce
o u tc o m e by campus, f u t u r e re se arch e f f o r t s m ig h t fo c u s on w h e th e r unions p re v a il
o v e r m a nagem ent o v e r t i m e and by w h a t m argin.

I t has been suggested t h a t the

r a t io o f 70:30 in th e in d u s tria l s e c to r, m an ag e m e nt p re v a ilin g , is th e re verse o f
w h a t is t r u e in e d u ca tio n .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Request f o r Gr iev ance I n f o r m a t i o n

Dear _______ :
Thanks v e r y much f o r a l l o w i n g me t o use t h e f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e f i l e s a t
F e r r i s S t a t e C o lle g e as p r i m a r y s o u r c e m a t e r i a l f o r t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n .
The i n c l u s i o n o f FSC is o f c r u c i a l im p o r ta n c e t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h i s
v e n tu re .
The i d e n t i t y o f each g r i e v a n t w i l l be k e p t s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l .
Beyond t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g s t a g e , t h e r e w i l l be no use f o r
i n d i v i d u a l s i t u a t i o n s as t h e d a ta w i l l be a n a ly z e d in a g g r e g a t e f o r m .
Once t h e s t u d y is c o m p le t e , I w i l l p r o v i d e each p a r t i c i p a t i n g
i n s t i t u t i o n a s y n o p s is o f t h e e n t i r e s t u d y and a d e t a i l e d r e p o r t on
FSC.
1 b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be h e l p f u l t o each campus.
F o r t h i s p r o j e c t , I w i l l need a c c e s s
t e n y e a r s , t h e academ ic rank o f each
how lo n g he o r she has been a t FSC.
most c o n v e n ie n t t o y o u .
Thanks v e r y
Si n c e r e ly ,

Ted H e i d l o f f
A s s o c ia te D ir e c t o r ,

F a c u lty R e la tio n s

T H : la h

83

t o th e g rie v a n c e f i l e s f o r th e p a s t
g r i e v a n t , academ ic d e p a r t m e n t , and
I w i l l come t o campus a t a t im e
much.

APPENDIX B

D ata C o l l e c t i o n Form - Group G rie v a n c e s

I D # ______________________

IN S TITU TIO N # _______________

GROUP GRIEVANT:

GRIEVANCE TYPE
AND NUMBER:

SPECIAL COMMENTS:

MONTH AND YEAR
GRIEVANCE FILED:
ACADEMIC YEAR:
GRIEVANCE BROUGHT
UNDER WHICH CONTRACT:
LEVEL AT WHICH GRIEVANCE
WAS RESOLVED:

OUTCOME OF GRIEVANCE:

LENGTH OF TIME TO RESOLVE MATTER:

84

APPENDIX B

Data C o l l e c t i o n Form -

I D # _______________________

Individual

INSTITUTION#

SEX OF GRIEVANT:
DEPT. & DISCIPLINE
OF GRIEVANT:
ACADEMIC RANK AT
TIME OF GRIEVANCE:
HOW LONG AT THIS
INSTITUTION:
GRIEVANCE TYPE
AND NUMBER:

SPECIAL COMMENTS:

MONTH AND YEAR
GRIEVANCE FILED:
ACADEMIC YEAR:
GRIEVANCE BROUGHT
UNDER WHICH CONTRACT:
LEVEL AT WHICH GRIEVANCE
WAS RESOLVED:

OUTCOME OF GRIEVANCE:

LENGTH OF TIME TO
SOLVE MATTER:

85

Grievances

APPENDIX C

A cademic D e p a rtm e n ts o f

D e p a rtm e n t

In d iv id u a l

G r ie v a n t s

F re q u e n cy

P o l i t i c a l S c ie n c e
T e a c h e r E d u c a t io n
P h y s ic a l E d u c a t io n
Management
F i nance
A rt
B u s in e s s Law
I n d u s t r i a l T e c h n o lo g y
Geography
E n g lis h
I n f o r m a t i o n Systems and A n a l y s i s
J o u r n a l ism
L i b r a r y S c ie n c e
R e c r e a t io n and Park A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
Economics
R e lig io n
Soc i o lo g y
B r o a d c a s t and C in e m a tic A r t s
M a rk e t i ng
G ra p h ic A r t s
A 1 1ie d H e a lt h
T e c h n ic a l Tra d e s
S o c i a l S e r v ic e s
B io lo g y
A c c o u n t i ng
A t h l e t ic s
E n v ir o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y
R a d io , T e l e v i s i o n
Mathemat i cs
D e n ta l H yg ie ne
N u r s in g
C h e m is tr y
Wei d in g
R a d io l o g y T e c h n o lo q v
P s y c h o lo g y
E n g in e e r in g
M usic
F o r e ig n Language
B u s in e s s E d u c a t io n
Speech and D r a m a t ic A r t s
Home Economics

86

6
24
15
10
2
13
3
9
3

k
3
3

k
1
3
1
6
2
7
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
10
2
6
2
1
1

k
2
2
2
3
1
1

Per Cent
o f T o ta l
3 -5
1 3 .9
8 .7
5 .8
1 .2
7 -5
1 .7
5 -2
1 .7
2 .3
1 .7
1 .7
2 .3
.6
1 .7
.6
3 .5
1 .2
4 .0
1 .2
1 .2
.6
.6
1 .7
1 .7
.6
1 .2
1 .2
5 .8
1 .2
3 -5
1 .2
.6
.6
2 .3
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1-7
.6
.6

APPENDIX D

Academic Departments o f G r i e v a n t s by D i s c i p l i n e

D i s c i p i in e

F re q u e n c y

H e a lt h S c ie n c e s

P ercent
o f T o ta l

10

5 -8

kS

2 6 .0

16

9 .2

2

1 .2

2

1 .2

25

1^*5

N u r s in g
Pharmacy
D e n ta l H y g ie ne
R a d io lo g y
D e n ta l A s s i s t i n g
A 11i ed H e a lt h
E d u ca t io n
C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n
S eco n da ry E d u c a t io n
E d u c a t io n
L i b r a r y S c ie n c e
P h y s i c a l E d u c a tio n
Home Economics
T e c h n o lo g y
P l a s t i c s T e c h n o lo g ''
Weid i ng
E n v iro n m e n ta l Q u a l i t y
T e c h n ic a l T ra d e s
I n d u s t r i a l T e c h n o lo g y
R a d io , T e l e v i s i o n
Engi n ee r i ng
E n g in e e r in g
A th le tic s
A t h l e t ic s
R e c r e a t io n and Park A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
S o c ia l

S c ie n c e s

S o c i o lo g y
P s y c h o lo g y
P o l i t i c a l S c ie n c e
Geography

87

Economics
H is to ry
Ph i 1osophy
S o c i a l S e r v ic e s
R e lig io n
N a tu ra l

S c ie n c e s

M a th e m a tic s
C h e m is t r y
B io lo g y
Language A r t s
F o r e ig n Language
Speech
E n g l i sh
B u s in e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
M a rk e t i ng
A c c o u n t i ng
Management
Law and F in a n c e
F in e and A p p l i e d A r t s
J o u r n a l i sm
B r o a d c a s t and C in e m a t ic A r t s
G r a p h ic A r t s
Commercial A r t
Musi c

APPENDIX E

In stitutional

Summary o f Gri evances

S e n io rity
A.

T o ta l
file d

number o f f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e s
d u r i n g 1975-1985

1.
2.

I n d i v i d u a l G r ie v a n c e s
Group G r ie v a n c e s

G rie v a n c e s by A cadem ic Rank
1.
2.
3.

h.

1n s t r u c t o r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r

S u b je c t M a t t e r o f G r ie v a n c e s
1.
2.
3.

k.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9-

T e n u re , P r o m o t io n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p en sa tion
F a c u l t y W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreem ent
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and H arassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

G rie v a n c e s by L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n
1.
2.
3-

1n fo rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

G r ie v a n c e s by Outcome
1.
2.
3-

k.
56.

W ith d ra w n by G r i e v a n t o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o lv e d
Dropped by G r i e v a n t
M u tua l A greem ent

89

F.

Gr ievances by Length o f Time t o Reach
R e s o l u t i o n , in Months
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 .

One Month o r Less
One t o Four Months
F our t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o One Year
One Year o r More

(SU)

90

APPENDIX E

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Summary o f Gri evances
E a s t e r n M ic hi gan U n i v e r s i t y

A.

T o ta l
file d
1.
2.

B.

In s tru c to r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r

1
24
14
9

T e n u re , P r o m o t io n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p e n sa tio n
F a c u l t y W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreem ent
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

31
7
0
2
18
8
5
2
2

G rie v a n c e s by L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n
1.
2.
34.

E.

48
27

S u b je c t M a t t e r o f G rie v a n c e s
1.
2.
3.
4.
56.
7*
8.
9.

D.

I n d i v i d u a l G r ie v a n c e s
Group G rie v a n c e s

75

G rie v a n c e s by A cadem ic Rank
1.
2.
34.

C.

number o f f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e s
d u r i n g 1975-1985

In fo rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

16
49
10
0

G rie v a n c e s by Outcome
1.
2.
3.
4.
5*
6.

W ith d ra w n by G r i e v a n t o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o lv e d
Dropped by G r i e v a n t
M u tua l Agreem ent

91

10
35
17
4
0
9

F.

G ri evances by Length o f Time t o Reach
R e s o l u t i o n , in Months

VJ1

J 5 -U J

N J

1.

G.

One Month o r Less
One t o F o u r Months
F o u r t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t M onths t o One Year
One Year o r More

16
32
12
11
4

G r ie v a n c e s by Year F i l e d
1.
2
3-

.

1 97 5-1979
1980-1982
1983-1985

43
18
14

EMU

92

APPENDIX E

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Summary o f Gri evances
Oakland U n i v e r s i t y

A.

T o ta l
file d
1.
2.

B.

In s tru c to r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r

0
7
4
3

T e n u re , P r o m o tio n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S up p le m e nta l C o m p en s a tion
F a c u l t y W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U nion R i g h t s Under t h e A greement
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassment
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

8
5
5
0
17
9
5
0
2

G rie v a n c e s by L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n
1.
2.
3.
4.

E.

14
37

S u b je c t M a t t e r o f G rie v a n c e s
1.
2.
3*
4.
5.
6.
78.
9-

D.

I n d i v i d u a l G rie v a n c e s
Group G rie v a n c e s

51

G rie v a n c e s by A cademic Rank
1.
2.
3.
It.

C.

number o f f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e s
d u r i n g 1975-1985

In fo rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

21
25
5
0

G rie v a n c e s by Outcome
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

W ith d ra w n by G r i e v a n t o r U n io n
R e so lve d f o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o lv e d
Dropped by G r i e v a n t
M utual Agreem ent

93

10
7
10
0
4
20

F.

Gri evances by Length o f Time t o Reach
R e s o l u t i o n , in Months

1

.

2.
34.
5-

One Month o r L ess
One t o F o u r Months
F o ur t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o One Year
One Year o r More

21
19
7
4
0

G rie v a n c e s by Year F i l e d

1

.

2.
3-

28
15
8

1975-1979
1980-1982
1983-1985

94

APPENDIX E

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Summary o f Gri evances
Saginaw V a l l e y S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

A.

T o ta l
file d
1.
2.

B.

k.

k.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

In s tru c to r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r

1
6
4
2

T e n u re , P r o m o t io n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p e n sa tio n
F a c u l t y W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e A greem ent
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and H arassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

13
1
0
1
7
0
0
1
0

G rie v a n c e s by L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n
1.
2.
3.

E.

13
10

S u b je c t M a t t e r o f G r ie v a n c e s
1.
2.
3.

D.

I n d i v i d u a l G r ie v a n c e s
Group G r ie v a n c e s

2 3

G rie v a n c e s by A cadem ic Rank
1.
2.
3.

C.

number o f f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e s
d u r i n g 1975-1985

In fo rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

9
11
3
0

G rie v a n c e s by Outcome
1.
2.
3.

k.
5.
6.

W ith d ra w n by G r i e v a n t o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o lv e d
Dropped b y G r i e v a n t
M u tu a l A greem ent

95

5
11
6
1
0
0

F.

Gr ievances by Length o f Time t o Reach
R e s o l u t i o n , in Months
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

G.

One Month o r L e s s
One t o F o ur Months
F o u r t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o OneYear
One Year o r More

8
9
3
2
1

G rie v a n c e s by Year F i l e d
1.
2.
3.

1975-79
1980-82
1983-85

6
10
7

(SU)

96

APPENDIX E

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Summary o f Gri evances
F e rris State U n iv ers ity

A.

T o ta l
file d
1.
2.

B.

In s tru c to r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r

5
18
17

T e n u r e , P r o m o t io n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p e n sa tio n
F a c u l t y W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreem ent
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

G r ie v a n c e s by L e v e l
1.
2.
3.
4.

E.

44
9

S u b je c t M a t t e r o f G r ie v a n c e s
1.
2.
3.
4.
56.
7*
8.
9*

D.

I n d i v i d u a l G rie v a n c e s
Group G rie v a n c e s

53

G r ie v a n c e s by A cademic Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.

C.

number o f f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e s
d u r i n g 1975-1985

11
4
6
2
17
6
1
0
6

o f R e s o lu tio n

In fo rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

19
22
10
2

G r ie v a n c e s by Outcome
1.
2.
34.
5.
6.

W ith d ra w n by G r i e v a n t o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o lv e d
Dropped by G r i e v a n t
M u tu a l Agreem ent

97

7
19
23
3
1
0

F.

Gr ievances by Length o f Time t o Reach
R e s o l u t i o n , in Months

vn

-t- <_o

nj

1.

G.

One Month o r Less
One t o F o u r Months
Four t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o OneYear
One Year o r More

18
19
7
2
7

G rie v a n c e s by Year F i l e d
1.
2.
3.

1975-79
1980-82
1983-85

22
9
22

FSC

98

APPENDIX E

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Summary o f Gr ievances
C e n t r a l M ic hi gan U n i v e r s i t y

A.

T o ta l
file d
1.
2.

B.

k.

8

In s tru c to r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe s s o r
A s s o c ia te P ro fe s s o r
P ro fe s s o r

k
22
9
19

T e n u r e , P r o m o t io n , R e a p p o in tm e n t
S e n i o r i t y , R e tre n c h m e n t
F a c u lty B e n e fits
S u p p le m e n ta l C o m p en s a tion
F a c u l t y W o rk in g C o n d i t i o n s
S a la ry
U n io n R i g h t s Under t h e Agreem ent
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Harassm ent
D is c h a r g e and D i s c i p l i n e

2k
0
0
12
17
0
2
2
5

G rie v a n c e s by L e v e l o f R e s o l u t i o n
1.
2.
3.

k.
E.

Sk

I n d i v i d u a l G rie v a n c e s
Group G r ie v a n c e s

S u b je c t M a t t e r o f G r ie v a n c e s
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

D.

62

G rie v a n c e s by A cadem ic Ran
1.
2.
3.

C.

number o f f a c u l t y g r ie v a n c e s
d u rin g 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 8 5

3k

In fo rm a l
Formal
Imposed
No R e s o l u t i o n

19
6
3

G r ie v a n c e s by Outcome
1.
2.
3.
4.
56.

W ith d ra w n by G r i e v a n t o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r U n io n
R e s o lv e d f o r Management
Unknown o r U n r e s o lv e d
Dropped by G r i e v a n t
M u tu a l A greem ent

99

14
27
16
5
0
0

F.

Gr ievances by Length o f Time t o Reach
R e s o l u t i o n , i n Months
1.
2.
3.
5.

G.

One Month o r L ess
One t o F o u r Months
F o ur t o E i g h t Months
E i g h t Months t o OneYear
One Year o r More

10
20
20
6
6

G rie v a n c e s by Year F i l e d
1.
2.
3.

1975-79
1980-82
1983-85

30
20
12

CMU

1 00

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A sh , P h i l i p .
The P a r t i e s
1970, 23, 1 3 -3 7 .

t o t h e G r ie v a n c e .

P e rs o n n e l P s y c h o lo g y ,

B r e s l i n , P .H .
D is c u s s io n o f t h e G a n d z-W h ite h e a d P a p e r.
P r o c e e d in g s
o f t h e 3 4 th A nnual M e e tin g o f t h e I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Research
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1981, 14, 3 2 9 -3 3 3 Davey, H.W.
W h a t's R i g h t and W h a t's Wrong w i t h G rie v a n c e A r b i t r a t i o n .
The A r b i t r a t i o n J o u r n a l , 1973? 28 ( 4 ) , 2 0 9 -2 3 1 .
D o u g la s , J o e l M . , E d i t o r w i t h B r y a n , S tep h en H. and K o tc h , E l i s a b e t h
A.
D i r e c t o r y o f F a c u l t y C o n t r a c t s and B a r g a i n i n g A g e n ts in
I n s t i t u t i o n s o f H ig h e r E d u c a t i o n , 1987? 13*
Duane, M ic h a e l J .
F a c u l t y G r ie v a n c e s :
An A i d t o t h e C o lle g e
A d m in is tra to r.
J o u r n a l o f C o l l e c t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n s , 1979?
(3 ),2 7 9 -2 8 9 .

8

E s te y , M a rte n .
F a c u l t y G rie v a n c e P ro c e d u re s O u t s id e C o l l e c t i v e
B a rg a in in g :
The E x p e r ie n c e a t AAU Campuses.
Academe,
M ay-June 1986,
72, 6-1 5 .
F le is h m a n , Edwin A.
and H a r r i s , Edwin F. P a t t e r n s o f L e a d e r s h ip
B e h a v io r R e la t e d t o Employee G r ie v a n c e s and T u r n o v e r .
P e rs o n n e l
P s y c h o lo g y , 1962, _15, 43“ 57Gandz, J e f f r e y and W h ite h e a d , J . D a v id .
The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between
I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s C li m a t e and G r ie v a n c e I n i t i a t i o n and
R e s o lu tio n .
P r o c e e d in g s o f t h e 3 4 t h A nnual M e e tin g o f th e
I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s R e se a rc h A s s o c i a t i o n , 1981, 14, 320 -3 3 3*
Graham, H a r r y and H e s h i z e r , B r i a n .
The E f f e c t o f C o n t r a c t Language
on L o w -L e ve l S e t t le m e n t o f G r ie v a n c e s .
L a b o r Law J o u r n a l , 1979?
_30, 4 2 7 -4 3 2 .
H o l l e y , W i l l i a m H. ,
and J e n n in g s , K en n eth M.
The L a b o r R e l a t i o n s
P ro c e s s , H in s d a le , I l l i n o i s :
Dryden P r e s s , 1980.
Kochan, Thomas A.
C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g and I n d u s t r i a l
Homewood, 11 1 i n o i s :
R ic h a r d D. I r w i n , 1980.
K ru g e r, D a n ie l.
J u liu s ,

D a n ie l M.

P e rs o n a l

C o m m u n ic a tio n , O c t o b e r ,

P ersonal

In te rv ie w .

101

A p ril

16,

197919

8

6

.

R e la tio n s .

L in d e n b e r g , K aren E. The G r ie v a n c e P ro c e s s in a C o l l e c t i v e
B a rg a in in g S e t t in g .
Academe, May-June 1986, J l , 2 0 -2 4 .
L o u g h r a n , C h a r le s S.
N e g o t i a t i n g a L a b o r C o n t r a c t t A Management
Handbook, W a s h in g to n , D . C . :
B ureau o f n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , 1984.
M a n n ix , Thomas.

P e rs o n a l

In te rv ie w .

A p r il

M i l l s , D.Q.
Labor-Management R e l a t i o n s
M c G r a w - H ill, 1982.

17,

1986.

(2nd E D .)

New Y o rk :

M c K e r s ie , R o b e rt B . , and S h r o p s h i r e , W i l l i a m W. A v o i d i
W r i t t e n G r ie v a n c e s :
A S u c c e s s f u l P rogram . J o u r m ' o f
t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h ic a g o , S p r in g 1962, 3 5 > 1 35"152.

B u s in e s s o f

M u c h in s k y , Paul M . , and M a a s s a r a n i, Mounawar A . P u b l i c S e c to r
G rie v a n c e s in Iowa.
Jo urna l o f C o lle c t iv e N e g o tia tio n s ,
( 1 ) , 5 5 -6 2 .

1 9 8 1

,

10

O rz e , Joseph J .
C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n in Academe:
P re v e n t o r S e t t l e
E a r ly .
Academic C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e , 1978,
J34, 1 -1 4 .
R e illy ,

D a v id .

P e rs o n a l

In te rv ie w .

A p r il

17,

1986.

R e y n o ld s , L lo y d G.
L a b o r Economics and L a b o r R e l a t i o n s , 7 th E d i t i o n .
Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y :
P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1978.
R y d e r , M.S.
Some C o n c e p ts C o n c e rn in g G rie v a n c e P ro c e d u re .
Law J o u r n a l , J a n u a ry 1956, _7, 15~ 18.

Labor

S l i c h t e r , S . H . , H e a ly , J . . , and L i v e r n a s h , E. R.
The Im pact o f
C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g on Management. W a s h in g to n , D . C . :
The
B rock in g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 1960.
Thomson, A . W . J . , and M u r r a y , V . V .
G r ie v a n c e P r o c e d u r e s .
Mass:
L e x i n g t o n B o c k s , 1976.

L e x in g to n ,

T u r n e r , J . T . , and R o b in s o n , J.W.
A P i l o t S tu d y o f th e V a l i d i t y o f
G r ie v a n c e S e t t le m e n t R a te s as a P r e d i c t o r o f Union-Management
R e la tio n s h ip s .
The J o u r n a l o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , September
1972, _14, 3 1 4 -3 2 2 .
W h yte, W i l l i a m F.
The G rie v a n c e P ro c e d u re and P l a n t S o c i e t y .
P r o c e d in g s o f a C o n fe re n c e a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1 0 -1 7 .

102

1956,

GENERAL REFERENCES

GENERAL REFERENCES

Angel 1, George W ., K e l l e y , Edward P . , J r . , and A s s o c i a t e s .
Handbook
o f F a c u l t y B a r g a i n i n g . San F r a n c i s c o :
J o s s e y -B a s s P u b l i s h e r s ,
1977R o b e r t s , H a r o ld S.
R o b e rts ' D ic t io n a r y o f I n d u s t r ia l R e la tio n s
(3 rd E D .).
W a s h in g to n , D . C . :
The Bureau o f N a t io n a l A f f a i r s ,
1986.

103