Avoiding Written Grievances: A Successful Program

Abstract

T HE publicity given to contract negotiations, and the attention focused on strikes, make it easy to overlook the importance of contract administration. Negotiating a contract is a significant part of collective bargaining. But it is the day-to-day administration of a contract that determines how well the objectives of the contract are realized. And it is the day-to-day administration that most influences the development of a constructive relationship between the contracting parties. A key activity in contract administration is grievance handling. By examining the development of grievance machinery in a large, multiplant manufacturing company, we hope to provide insights applicable elsewhere. The company is the International Harvester Company (I-H); the union is the United Automobile Workers (UAW). The operation of their grievance machinery is described; steps taken to alleviate its malfunctioning are discussed, and the impact of a program to avoid written grievances is analyzed. During most of the postwar period the grievance machinery at I-H did not function effectively. Contract administration was characterized by a multitude of written grievances and many heated discussions. The causes lay deep in the history of labor relations at I-H. Union rivalry and contentious issues early created an atmosphere that fostered many grievances. Yet even after union rivalry was eliminated, and many contract issues were solved, the problem continued. Various measures were tried-control was centralized, special agreements were signed, grievance handling procedures were altered-but the machinery continued to function improperly. Hostility generated by twenty years of conflict perpetuated the trouble. But gradually, through informal talks and experimentation, top officials from the company and the union managed to set the stage for a significant departure in the method of handling workers' complaints. In December, 1959, a program of avoiding written grievances by emphasizing oral handling of complaints was inaugurated. This new look' has made possible a quick and informal solution of employee problems. Generally, its impact has been salutary-contentious discussions have ceased; problems are being settled out on the floor; relationships have improved within, and between, union and management; and the tenor of contract negotiations has become more harmonious. However, there is one troublesome possibility, namely, that localized grievance settlements may not conform to central policy. A study of the grievance experience at I-H has wider relevance for two reasons: This company and union faced a problem which is common in labor-management * Assistant professor of industrial relations, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.