Satisfying Grievances

Earlier this year, I was able to settle a grievance for one of our members—or so I thought. We had filed a typical grievance. The employer responded to the grievance, and as a result we were able to prepare a settlement.

To my surprise, the member rejected the settlement, even though it provided the recourse he was seeking. The experience left me reflecting on workplace justice and what it actually means.

In my past human resources course work, we often discussed two types of justice: distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice is the fairness in the distribution of rights or resources. Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness and transparency of the processes by which decisions are made.

For simplicity, distributive justice refers to the actual outcome. Procedural justice views the actual process that determines the outcome.

When I presented the settlement to the grievor, he was not satisfied. We had a lengthy discussion about the merits of the grievance, and I explained that the settlement was what we were seeking all along.

But at the end of this long conversation, the grievor was unable to agree. So we submitted the grievance to the next step, which involved a meeting with the employer.

This second-step grievance meeting went as well as any grievance meeting can. We were well-prepared, asked a number of questions, and sought clarification as we presented our case.

A few days later, the employer responded with the exact same settlement we had rejected earlier. I presented this latest settlement to the grievor, fully expecting him to reject it.

But about five minutes into our conversation, again to my surprise, he agreed to the settlement. When I asked him why he was now in favour of it, he stated that he knew that the employer finally understood his concern.

In my mind, the employer understood the concern when they offered the settlement the first time around. But I wasn’t going to argue.

On my way back to the office, I was perplexed and deep in thought about what had just happened. I couldn’t understand it. And then it donned on me. I realized that the grievor had not been fully involved in any discussions with the employer until the second-step grievance meeting.

This grievor needed to be involved in the process and see for himself that his voice was being heard. It was not the actual outcome but the perception of fairness and justice in the process that led him to accept the settlement.

There’s a lesson here for all of us. As we gain more experience and knowledge resolving disputes, whether at work or with family, we sometimes have a tendency to focus on the result, rather than the process.

Some theories argue that procedural justice has greater value then distributive justice in making a person feel whole. My experience with this particular grievor certainly bears that out. It made me realize that I need to take a step back and not be so entirely focussed on achieving a positive result that I forget about the process.

Ensuring that the process is fair is a given. But it’s equally important that the people we’re dealing with experience that it is fair.