Procedural Unfairness Research Articles

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

When does procedural unfairness result in retaliation, and why do recipients of unfair treatment sometimes pursue and other times inhibit retaliation? Five studies addressed these questions. The authors proposed and found that regulatory focus moderates retaliation against an unfairness-enacting authority: Promotion-focus participants were more likely to retaliate than prevention-focus participants. Promotion focus was associated with, and also heightened the accessibility of, the individual self. In turn, individual-self accessibility influenced retaliation. In fact, prevention-focus participants were as retaliatory as promotion-focus participants under conditions of high individual-self accessibility. Implications for the procedural fairness and regulatory focus literatures are discussed, and suggestions for future research are offered.

Evaluating noise in social context: The effect of procedural unfairness on noise annoyance judgments

General dosage-response curves typically over- or underestimate the actual prevalence of noise annoyance for specific groups of individuals. The present study applies a social psychological approach to noise annoyance that helps to understand and predict collective deflections from the curve. The approach holds that being exposed to man-made sound is more than mere exposure; it is a social experience, too: You expose Me. In effect, social aspects of the situation, like the evaluation of the sound management procedure, influence the evaluation of sound. The laboratory experiment (N=90) investigates the effect of procedural unfairness on noise annoyance. The sound management procedure is varied systematically: Participants are promised they will listen to the sound of their choice (i.e., bird song, radio sound, or aircraft sound) but receive aircraft sound despite their expressed preference (unfair procedure), or they are simply told they will listen to aircraft sound (neutral procedure). All are exposed to aircraft sound (50 or 70 dBA Leq). A collective rise in noise annoyance is predicted in the unfair relative to the neutral procedure conditions. Results show that noise annoyance ratings are significantly higher in the unfair relative to the neutral conditions. Consequences for theory and practice are discussed.

Explaining Corporate Litigation Activity in an Integrated Framework of Interest Mobilization

Although the pluralist theory of politics predicts that the focus of organizational activity should shift to the judicial arena whenever the expectations of government as regulator and the demands of regulated interests fail to converge, there has been little systematic research focusing on the question of business litigation as a specific form of interest mobilization. This article develops an integrated organizational choice model of interest mobilization to explain corporate litigation against the United States government. I argue that a company's decision to proceed with litigation is predicated upon the company's (1) resource capacity, (2) constraints of the regulatory environment, and (3) perception of procedural unfairness of the government in the administrative process. The argument is tested with data from a survey of top U.S. business executives whose companies unsuccessfully petitioned the government for administered protection between 1990 and 1995. The argument receives strong empirical suppo...

Explaining Corporate Litigation Activity in an Integrated Framework of Interest Mobilization

Although the pluralist theory of politics predicts that the focus of organizational activity should shift to the judicial arena whenever the expectations of government as regulator and the demands of regulated interests fail to converge, there has been little systematic research focusing on the question of business litigation as a specific form of interest mobilization. This article develops an integrated organizational choice model of interest mobilization to explain corporate litigation against the United States government. I argue that a company's decision to proceed with litigation is predicated upon the company's (1) resource capacity, (2) constraints of the regulatory environment, and (3) perception of procedural unfairness of the government in the administrative process. The argument is tested with data from a survey of top U.S. business executives whose companies unsuccessfully petitioned the government for administered protection between 1990 and 1995. The argument receives strong empirical support, and suggests that U.S. corporations facing import competition consider litigation an important component of their overall political strategy for obtaining nonmarket benefits.

Imposing Liability for Losses from Aggressive War: An Economic Analysis of the UN Compensation Commission

Through an economic analysis of the work of the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), this Comment seeks to understand better the process by which liability is imposed losses caused by aggressive war. It concludes that a loss is appropriately compensable by an aggressor state if the war is a but for cause of the loss and ex ante the war increased the likelihood that the loss would occur. The loss need not be as foreseeable as in the law of negligence. The total amount of losses appropriately compensable under this standard may, however, exceed the maximum that is desirable or even practical to collect. Iraq involves such a shortfall. Collecting more would hinder its reintegration into the world community. Moreover, any increase in the UNCC tax rate on Iraq's oil revenues is likely to reduce, not enhance, total revenues because of the added disincentives to export. Because of this shortfall, the practice of denying Iraq formal access to UNCC proceedings involves no procedural unfairness. The UNCC is effectively only deciding who, among all claimants against Iraq, should receive money from a fixed, maximally extractable sum. UNCC decisions also violate no norm of substantive fairness. The money extracted by the UNCC and the economic effect of the more formal sanctions imposed on Iraq, while both burdens on the Iraqi people, do not raise comparable fairness issues. As a general matter, imposing the losses on the people of the aggressor state, even if onerous, is not more unfair than leaving them to be borne by the victims of the aggressive war. Moreover, payments to the UNCC are in essence a tax on Iraq's oil wealth, not on the fruits of the labour, skills and non-oil resources of the Iraqi people. Unlike the more formal sanctions, the UNCC payments simply deprive the Iraqi people of a portion of the good luck they had to have oil resources in the first place.

Unfairness at work as a predictor of absenteeism

AbstractThis study among 514 security guards examines the relationship between perceptions of unfairness at work and absenteeism during a one‐year follow‐up. On the basis of previous theoretical work and fragmented empirical evidence, it was hypothesized that distributive unfairness causes absence behavior in a direct or indirect way (through health complaints). Procedural unfairness was hypothesized to cause absence behavior through affective commitment or through health complaints. Results of a series of structural equation modelling analyses offer support for the mediating role of health complaints in the relationship between (distributive and procedural) unfairness at work and absenteeism. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that perceived unfairness contributes to explaining T2‐absenteeism over and above the impact of T1‐absenteeism and traditional work‐related stressors (i.e., work load and low job control). The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Procedural Fairness, Managers' Self-Esteem, and Managerial Behaviors Following a Layoff

The present research examined the predictors and consequences associated with managers' reactions to job layoffs. Whereas previous research suggests that procedural unfairness lowers self-esteem, we hypothesized that, in a downsizing context, the relationship between procedural unfairness and lower self-esteem would be more pronounced among managers than nonmanagers. The results of Study 1 supported the hypothesis and showed that the findings were attributable to managers' greater organizational commitment. Study 2 showed that managers who perceived procedures to be less fair were less likely to report practicing the behaviors needed from effective managers in times of change. Moreover, the relationship between procedural unfairness and managers' behaviors was mediated by their self-esteem. Subordinates of managers who engaged in less effective managerial behaviors, in turn, had more negative perceptions of their immediate work environments.

Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being

In a field study with 295 factory employees, three hypotheses were tested: (1) Procedural injustice at work is correlated negatively with job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. (2) The perception of procedural injustice depends on the person's chronic justice sensitivity. (3) Justice sensitivity moderates the correlation of procedural injustice with satisfaction and well-being, the correlation becoming larger with increasing justice sensitivity. Procedural injustice was defined as the discrepancy between desired (ought) and perceived (is) procedures. Justice sensitivity and procedural fairness according to Leventhal's criteria (consistency, nonpartiality, accuracy, correctability, representativeness) and one additional criterion (open information) were measured via questionnaire. Job satisfaction, number of sick days during the last six months and number of days a person felt sick at work during the last six months served as indicators of psychosomatic well-being. The first and second hypotheses were supported by the data. Partial support was also obtained for the third hypothesis: Justice sensitivity moderated the correlation of procedural unfairness with (a) the number of days the person felt sick at work and (b) the sum of this variable with the number of sick days. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Procedural unfairness and managers surviving layoffs: Self-threat and coping in the context of organizational change

The affective and cognitive responses of managers who survive layoffs are explored. Evidence from two field studies suggests that managers who perceive that their organization was procedurally unfair exhibited greater anxiety than their nonmanagerial counterparts. Also, managers who perceived that the organization was unfair were more likely to withdraw from the organization, as measured by reduced organizational identification. Evidence that managers’ degree of identification with their managerial role moderated this relationship provides evidence of the psychological process driving these reactions to unfairness. Implications for the research and practice of organizational change are offered.

Individual differences in Sensitivity to Befallen Injustice (SBI)

Dispositional Sensitivity to Befallen Injustice (SBI) is proposed as a new construct. A self-report questionnaire with four indicators was developed for measuring SBI (frequency of perceived injustice, intensity of anger following injustice, intrusiveness of thoughts about unjust events, punitivity towards the victimizer). In Study I, structural equation modelling and the general rationale of multitrait-multimethod analysis were used to establish the convergent and discriminant validity if this questionnaire vis à vis measures for Trait Anger, Anger In, Anger Out and Frustration Tolerance as related constructs. In study II, SBI predicted cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions to unjust treatment in the laboratory several weeks after SBI was measured. In study III, SBI predicted cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions to a natural disadvantage that occurred to a person several weeks after SBI was measured. In Study IV, SBI was found to moderate the effect of perceived procedural unfairness in the workplace on self-reported sickness at work and self-reported absence from work. For justice-sensitive employees, the effect of perceived procedural unfairness had a stronger effect on this criterion than for justice-insensitive employees.

The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest

The present study extends earlier research on procedural unfairness by assessing subjects' reactions to a procedural change before they learn about the outcome of the changed procedure. Subjects performed a series of four tests. After three tests, the procedure to calculate the test scores was changed into a procedure that was very inaccurate or slightly inaccurate compared to what subjects had experienced until then. The very inaccurate procedure was judged as more unfair as the slightly inaccurate procedure. As predicted, the unfair procedure raised negative affect and motivated subjects to protest. Implications of the results for procedural justice theory are discussed.

Corporate Fraud: Civil Disclosures in Criminal Proceedings

over this pre-trial phase.4l This requires that the courts guard against procedural unfairness in the pre-trial phase and in particular against the abuse of interrogation of suspects. Abuses occur here when individuals are not provided with certain key safeguards such as the right to legal representation and the right to be given some indication of the case against them. In the absence of these safeguards, there is a risk that individuals will be so intimidated that they may provide false information. Even if in individual cases there may be no risk of this, it is, arguably, still the responsibility of the courts to see that adequate standards of investigation are maintained. This suggests that the courts have an important role in upholding the right of silence, but as a procedural protection for individuals rather than as a political principle which must be adhered to in all contexts. Instead of the courts upholding a strong presumption against a statute taking away the general right of silence, the courts should be more concerned to uphold a strong presumption against a statute taking away the right of silence in conditions of procedural unfairness and at the trial stage when the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt. This offers a way out of the equivocal attitude which the courts have hitherto displayed towards the right of silence and suggests an approach towards the right which is consistent with the contemporary role of the courts in the criminal process.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRIATIVE DECISIONS – A BACKGROUND PAPER

Judicial review is now the normal route for anyone seeking to challenge an administrative decision, unless there is a separate statutory right of appeal as for example in town planning matters. Grounds for challenge have been variously described by the courts but include (a) that the decision was wrong in law, (b) that it was unreasonable or irrational and (c) that there was procedural unfairness. Those who seek review must understand that the court will not substitute its own view for that of the decision taker. The adequacy of the remedy of judicial review has been challenged by some on the grounds that leave to proceed has to be sought from the court within three months. There is too the difficulty in some cases of establishing that the plaintiff has a sufficient interest to sue. Whilst it is too early to talk of a distinct body of public as opposed to private law, recent decisions have widened the concept of public law and have interpreted the circumstances in which a private right may be pursued against a public authority.

First successful court challenge to GMC charges.

First successful court challenge to GMC charges.

Procedural unfairness and 100 per cent. contribution by employee—clash between E.A.T. in England and in Scotland?

Procedural unfairness and 100 per cent. contribution by employee—clash between E.A.T. in England and in Scotland?

UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Procedural unfairness; compensation where unfairness consists in procedure alone; onus of proof

UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Procedural unfairness; compensation where unfairness consists in procedure alone; onus of proof

Procedural Fairness and Unjustfied Dismissal

The decision of the Court of Appeal in The Auckland City Council v Hennessey (1982) has emphasised that a dismissal that is otherwise justified may be held to be unjustified if the procedures leading up to the dismissal were unfair or unjust. This paper examines the decision in Hennessey and discusses two aspects of procedural unfairness; the failure to follow an agreed procedure and the failure to allow the worker an opportunity to offer an explanation. This discussion places particular emphasis on developments since Hennessey.