employee involvement programs as alternative dispute
TRANSCRIPT
8/11/2019 Employee Involvement Programs as Alternative Dispute
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/employee-involvement-programs-as-alternative-dispute 1/6
their ways of looking at each other and
the workplace. It is a long-term process.
moving toward a new way of life.
[The nd]
Employee Involvement Programs As Alternative
Dispute Resolution Strategies
By David Pincus
Arbitrator
Shrinking product markets, increasing
employee alienation, and turbulent orga-
nizational environments are some of the
forces that have recently impacted many
work settings in our country. For the most
part, organizations have responded to eco-
nomic structural changes by reallocating
their capital and labor resources.' Some of
these strategies include the automation of
manufacturing facilities, outsourcing of
component parts, and the relocation of
plants in union-free regions of the coun-
try. These strategies fail to utilize alter-
native methods, which may protect the
job security of employees and which may
result in outcomes that are equally benefi-
cial to the employer.
A potential alternative method of the
reallocation strategies involves the imple-
mentation of employee involvement pro-
gra m s. These prog ram s re flec t a
managerial orientation that emphasizes a
human resource form of management
rather than a human relations orienta-
tion.^ They also reflect a particular philos-
ophy, which underscores the integration
of union, employee, and organizational
goals.
Moreover, employee participation
rather than co-optation is the primary
vehicle used to accomplish this outcome.
The major objective of this paper is to
analyze critically employee involvement
programs as alternative dispute resolution
strategies. The paper is composed of three
related sections. The first section briefly
defines the employee involvement and
alternative dispute resolution approaches.
The second section reviews the general
similarities underlying these approaches.
Finally, differences between the two
approaches are emphasized by focusing on
a number of implementation issues sur-
rounding employee involvement interven-
tions.
finitions
Alternative dispute resolution strate-
gies have been defined as mechanisms
that employ third-party neutrals in an
attempt to resolve disputes that might
otherwise be resolved through litigation or
might not be resolved at all.^ In terms of
objectives, these approaches have been
established in an attempt to divert cases
from litigation. Also, mutually negotiated
settlements are assumed to foster accept-
ance by the parties, and the forums have
the potential of being more cost effective
8/11/2019 Employee Involvement Programs as Alternative Dispute
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/employee-involvement-programs-as-alternative-dispute 2/6
and less time consuming than traditional
mechanisms. *
Alternat ive dispute resolut ion pro-
grams have been implemented in an
attempt to resolve a variety of issues. For
example, binding arbitr ation has been uti-
lized as an alternative forum in misde-
meanor disputes.^ Also, mediation has
been used to resolve minor criminal and
civil disputes^ and disputes dealing with
interpersonal conflicts between parties
involved in interpersonal relationships.^
Employee involvement programs have
been defined as long-term comprehensive
processes that are developed to enable
workers to participate more fully and
effectively in problem-solving and deci-
sion-making through structured and insti-
tutional changes in many aspects of the
work environment.^
omm on Objectives
These programs have a number of com-
mon objectives. First, a felt need by the
parties is an essential ingredient of any
employee involvement effort. This need
may be either economically induced or
engendered by a common philosophy deal-
ing wi th the u t i l iza t ion of human
resources.
Second, full communication is essential
throughout the entire union and organiza-
tional hierarchies. This condition typi-
cally involves relevant dialogue between
the management and union leadership,
first-line supervisors and their employees,
and middle management and professional
personnel.
Th i rd , pu rpose fu l com mu nica t ion
should lead to an escalating level of trust
and cooperation between management,
employees, and their unions.
Finally, the previous goals can be real-
ized only if a formal employee involve-
me n t s t ruc tu r e is e s t ab l ished and
maintained. Oftentimes this requires the
promulgation of ground rules that insu-
late the employee involvement process
from the formal collective bargaining
structure.
These conditions ensure the integrity of
each process. Also, the above-mentioned
distinction may be necessary to preclude
potential legal obstacles in terms of imple-
mentation and process.^
Similarities
The traditional alternative dispute res-
olution programs (divorce mediation
neighborhood justice centers, environmen-
ta l media t ion) and the i r employee
involvement counterparts have a number
of similarities. More specifically, both
types of programs use variations of the
collective bargaining models of mediation
and a rb i t r a t ion . A lso, neu t ra l s a re
employed as facilitators or conciliators to
ensure the integrity of the processes
Another similarity has to do with the phil
osophical underpinnings of the two
approaches. In circumstances involving
certain subject matters, both of these
intervention strategies are thought to be
more responsive and sensitive to the
underlying problems confronting the par
ties. Both approaches use problem-solvin
and consensus-building methodologies to
accomplish their goals.
Organizat ional ul ture
Employee involvement programs diffe
significantly from other dispute resolution
approaches in terms of process and struc
ture.
A major distinction concerns th
notion of organizational, or institutional
Ibid ;
R.
B. McK ay, The Many Uses of Alternative
'' McGillis, cited at note 5.
8/11/2019 Employee Involvement Programs as Alternative Dispute
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/employee-involvement-programs-as-alternative-dispute 3/6
culture. Culture has been defined as
shared beliefs that form an informal set of
ground rules about what is expected and
what will be rewarded.'° It is assumed
that shared beliefs and values strengthen
the culture of the organization. Also, as a
unified organizational culture evolves, it
tends to influence individual and group
behavior.
In unionized settings, organizational
cultural change is difficult to achieve
because two competing institutions, with
competing norms and values, are vying
for the allegiance of the employees. Spe-
cif ical ly, organizat ions are typical ly
driven by a profit motive, while unions
are concerned with the political charac-
teristics of unionism and the job security
of the membership. Traditionally, these
divergent goals have led to antagonistic
attitudes on the part of each party. In
order to change both cultures and fuse
them into one cooperative organization,
both union and management must under-
stand and respect these divergent goals.
Moreover, these goals must be reflected in
the structure and process that is ulti-
mately established. The traditional alter-
native resolution approaches do not have
to deal with these cultural concerns. The
hearings are typically issue-specific and
have short-run rather than long-run char-
acteristics.
Types of Disputes
There are also differences in the kinds
of disputes that are discussed in the vari-
ous forums. For the most part, alternative
dispute resolution programs have been
employed to divert cases from litigation.
Thus,
the issues being resolved tend to
have a legal flavor. Employee involve-
ment programs, however, do not deal with
disputes per se but attempt to incorporate
multiple inputs into the corporate deci-
sion-making process. These inputs may
dea l w i th ma t t e r s such as qua l i t y
improvements, potential process changes,
and modifications of working conditions.
M o r e o v e r, e n h a n c e d c o m m u n i c a t io n
between the parties may prevent the ele-
vation of complaints into formal griev-
anc es. In a l ike fashion, purpo seful
dialogue in the form of information-shar-
ing may reduce much of the posturing
that takes place during traditional con-
tract negotiations.
Structural Issues
A number of structural issues distin-
guish employee involvement programs
from other dispute resolution methodolo-
gies.
The potential structural characteris-
t ics of these programs may vary
depending on the parties' wishes and the
nature of the employee-employer relation-
ship existing at the time of implementa-
tion. The structural forms may range
from the basic quality circles'^ and labor-
management committees'^ to more exten-
sive participative approaches with multi-
tiered components.' '* Each of the above
variations contains a common central
theme: they are designed so that employ-
ees can influence their work life. This
influence can impact a number of subjects
from working conditions to productivity,
qu ality, and process concerns.
All employee involvement programs,
regardless of their form, must integrate
both process and structure. If a formal
structure is not established, the coopera-
tive philosophy th at is necessary for any
positive intervention will never be nur-
tured. Although this condition is neces-
sary, it is often difficult to achieve in a
unionized setting because the employee
involvement apparatus serves as a paral-
8/11/2019 Employee Involvement Programs as Alternative Dispute
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/employee-involvement-programs-as-alternative-dispute 4/6
lei organization situated between two for-
mal institutional structures.
The interface between formal institu-
tional structures and the informal struc-
ture tends to engender a number of
ambiguities as to roles, power, and loyal-
ties.
Both management and union lenders
typically fear that cooperative programs
could be a threat to their power to control
events and to accomplish their responsi-
bilities. The not invented he re syn-
drom e is qu i te pre va len t in most
organiza t ions because managers a re
afraid that multiple inputs might lessen
their traditional prerogatives. This juris-
d ic t iona l men ta l i ty i s un fo r tuna te
because it exposes a managerial philoso-
phy that deemphasizes the ingenuity of
the total human resources of the enter-
prise.
Union oncerns
The union leadership is faced with simi-
lar role and power concerns. The union is
a political institution, and union officials
are elected to office and can be removed if
they lose the support of the bargaining
unit members. Thus, cooperative efforts
may be viewed as potentia l threats
because traditional support has been
based upon an adversarial relationship
between management and labor. Such a
condition requires a realization by union
leaders that power and support may be
attained via cooperation.
The discussion above is limited because
it has focused on the leadership positions
in each institution. Employee involve-
ment programs stress all levels within the
union and organizat ional hierarchies
because cooperation is not a traditional
norm. Moreover, constructive participa-
tion heightens the accountability of pro-
Implementotion
A number of additional structural con-
cerns need to be considered when imple-
menting employee involvement programs.
These issues are not normally emphasized
when traditional alternative dispute reso-
lution approaches are implemented. First,
the program should not be implemented
unilaterally by management. Such a con-
dition would threaten the union leader-
ship and the integrity of the collective
bargaining process. Second, the union
leadership should be directly involved in
the process, and, if possible, some memo-
randum of understanding should be devel-
oped evidencing the part ies ' mutual
agreement. Third, the union should select
its participants in the employee involve-
ment process. Such a policy bolsters the
union's exclusive representation function
and reduces certain co-optation percep-
tions that surround these programs.
Final ly, certa in topics should be
excluded from the process, such as pend-
ing grievances and other contractual
terms and conditions of employment. The
exclusion of terms and conditions is often
difficult because the legal definition of
these items, in an employee involvement
context, is quite murky. For example,
should recommended process changes that
improve quali ty and productivi ty be
excluded because they are potential terms
and conditions of employment?
Legolity
The discussion of process and structure
considerations has alluded to a major dis-
tinction between employee involvement
and a l t e rna t ive d i spu te re so lu t ion
approaches. This distinction involves the
legality of employee participation pro-
grams in organized settings. There is some
8/11/2019 Employee Involvement Programs as Alternative Dispute
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/employee-involvement-programs-as-alternative-dispute 5/6
Some of this confusion has resulted
because the N ationa l Labor R elations
Board
has not
heard
any
cases dealing
with union claims that these programs
threaten their exclusive representation
status. Moreover,
the
Board
has not
reviewed any cases in i t ia ted by an
employer because it objects to the manner
in which the program is being run. ^ Thu s,
a t the presen t tim e, most of the l i terature
is based
on
hypothe tical analyses, w hich
fail
to
recognize t ha t these programs
are
usually jointly administered. Moreover,
those programs that
are
un i la tera l ly
imposed typically fail after a brief gesta-
tion period because
the
union views them
as a threat and withdraws its support. If
the parties establish programs that struc-
turally reinforce the integrity of the col-
lective bargaining process,
it is
likely that
they will not be violating Section 8 (a)(2 )
of the N ationa l Labor R elations Act,
which deals with employer-dominated
unions. ^
Employee involvement programs are
valuable
as
dispute resolutions strategies
that provide
an
al ternative
to the
t radi-
tional adversarial relationship
in
which
union
and
m anagem ent groups have typi-
cally engaged. If they are s t ructured
properly, they should not be viewed as a
threat but as an opportunity to enrich the
lives of the total h um an resources of the
firm
and to
improve
the
efficiency
of
organizational operations.
he nd]
Targeting
a
New
Dimension
to
Dispute Resolution
By Donald F Power
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
I t
has
become very app aren t tha t
the
collective bargaining process and the
results delivered
by
th at process have
been substantially altered within
the
past
five years.
A
number
of
factors have
cre-
ated pressure on the system and have
contributed substantially
to its
al teration,
among them: a world market, a shift in
the balance
of
power from labor
to man-
agement , h igh unemployment , a poor
public image of labor, a shift in political
support from labor
to
management ,
and a
collapsing industrial base.
A three-tier process
has
evolved: T ier
I
tions we will analyze each bargaining tier
and
its
resulting effects
on the
process
and its outcomes.
Nonproductive argaining
The nonproduct ive bargaining t ier ,
which represents approximately
80 per-
cent
of the
collective bargaining
in
North-
east Michigan is further subdivided into :
(1) total process destruction,
2)
high
levels of internal problems for unions and
m a n a g e m e n t s ,
and 3)
i n c reased
employee involvement. The relationships
in this tier present
the
greatest challenge
not only to the advocates but to neutrals
in general
in
restructuring
the
bargaining
process so t h a t it will be mutually produc-