Tuesday, October 8, 2013
What's a Grievance Anyway?
It seems that a lot of people, in both unions and management, define a grievance as being a specific violation of the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) between them. That makes a certain sense for those with a mature and well developed CBA, but does it mean that union members without a comprehensive CBA can't use the grievance process? Does it mean that non-union employees can't have "grievances?"
Of course it's a matter of opinion, and possibly semantics. For union members and management who deal with unions, the term grievance may be a specific reference to the CBA, since that's the document that not only defines many worker rights, but also the process for grieving violations.
But then the next question is: Does the CBA confer all worker rights? If it's not in the CBA that a supervisor can't throw ice water on his employees, does that mean it's okay to dump the bucket on them?
I don't think so. And I don't think grievance procedures are or should be limited to unionized workers. The ability to pursue a grievance with an employer is an important tool for conflict resolution, and that makes it an important friction reducing and problem solving mechanism for any organization that depends on team work.
What are your thoughts on this? Comments welcome.
StepOneGrievance.com
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Discipline and Weingarten Rights
"If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative be present."
This statement represents one of the most important rights that union members have (and non-union members don't, since the Bush-appointed NLRB of 2004). It's basically an employment version of the right to counsel, and it carries some similar implications and associated prejudices, like that "lawyering up" means an employee must have something to hide. It's important to strongly resist that kind of prejudice. In reality, union reps serve an important purpose in disciplinary meetings, and the stakes tend to be high.
Often HR will target someone based on word from a particular manager, and the disciplinary hearing becomes a mission to entrap that employee into making an incriminating statement for the record. This is easy to do, even when the employee is innocent of any wrong doing. Under the pressure of possibly losing their job, a person tends to lean toward compromise if it's offered. Even if they feel they've done nothing wrong, they might think it's in their best interest to say something appeasing, like, "well, maybe I should have done more to bring it to my supervisor's attention." Bang. Just admitted negligence.
Union stewards should make sure they're people understand Weingarten, and not buy into the idea that it's somehow obstructionist to have a steward with them in the meeting. It's not. Employers still have the full range of options, of course, but Weingarten makes a more fair process for everyone. It also allows the union to observe and track disciplinary actions, which is helpful as a record for the individual actions (take notes and get them into your database), and for pattern search and recognition around particular departments, locations, supervisors, or issue types (use that reporting feature).
Grievance systems can and should accomodate disciplinary or other meetings where Weingarten rights are in play. (Step One Grievance can be configured this way.) You can set up a special screen for Discipline, or use a general "Issue" screen with an "Issue type" radio button or drop-down selection with "grievance" and "discipline" as options. You can use this as well as a special disposition field to keep them off your open cases screen and separate in reporting and search.
This statement represents one of the most important rights that union members have (and non-union members don't, since the Bush-appointed NLRB of 2004). It's basically an employment version of the right to counsel, and it carries some similar implications and associated prejudices, like that "lawyering up" means an employee must have something to hide. It's important to strongly resist that kind of prejudice. In reality, union reps serve an important purpose in disciplinary meetings, and the stakes tend to be high.
Often HR will target someone based on word from a particular manager, and the disciplinary hearing becomes a mission to entrap that employee into making an incriminating statement for the record. This is easy to do, even when the employee is innocent of any wrong doing. Under the pressure of possibly losing their job, a person tends to lean toward compromise if it's offered. Even if they feel they've done nothing wrong, they might think it's in their best interest to say something appeasing, like, "well, maybe I should have done more to bring it to my supervisor's attention." Bang. Just admitted negligence.
Union stewards should make sure they're people understand Weingarten, and not buy into the idea that it's somehow obstructionist to have a steward with them in the meeting. It's not. Employers still have the full range of options, of course, but Weingarten makes a more fair process for everyone. It also allows the union to observe and track disciplinary actions, which is helpful as a record for the individual actions (take notes and get them into your database), and for pattern search and recognition around particular departments, locations, supervisors, or issue types (use that reporting feature).
Grievance systems can and should accomodate disciplinary or other meetings where Weingarten rights are in play. (Step One Grievance can be configured this way.) You can set up a special screen for Discipline, or use a general "Issue" screen with an "Issue type" radio button or drop-down selection with "grievance" and "discipline" as options. You can use this as well as a special disposition field to keep them off your open cases screen and separate in reporting and search.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)