The findings show that when grievances are not properly managed it will result to strike, absenteeism from work. It was also found out that duration of disputes will have negative impact on the management of universities, on the other hand, duration of dispute will affect work flow negatively thereby resulting to unrest.

According to the findings, the highest grievance arises from non payment of required salaries, benefits, enhancing condition of work, safety and health etc. On the other hand performance assessments also invite grievance, this can have serious effect on pay increase, because pay increase is pegged on performance. Unless there are task agreements, performance assessment will invite grievance.
The number of grievances lodged by Nigeria universities employees is higher than other racial groups because of their salary and other benefit accrued to their work. University employees file more grievances than other races rather than leaving an organization, especially. If the alternative employment is not readily available. According to the study, aversive supervision and job conditions, present employees with grievance opportunities. Therefore, this account for an increase in the number of grievances lodged by Nigeria university employees. In this case the increase in grievance filing could be linked to temporal work hours, the nature of supervision and compensation

The findings show that productivity level of employees in Nigeria universities is dependent on the number of student applied for admission, the student they admitted, student that graduated and mobilized for NYSC. That is to say that Gross Domestic Product in education sector can be affected by grievances. Since unresolved grievances can lead to strike and work stoppages, it was found out that during strike action productivity level will be low and academic activities will be disrupted.
Therefore, it is obvious that productivity in Nigeria universities can be constrained by strike, unrest duration of disputes etc. The outcomes of poor productive are trade disputes, strike actions and the like.

The findings also show that grievances can be managed in Nigeria universities by putting in place a proper machinery of collective bargaining. In a situation where there is an important mechanism for preventing/resolving grievances in which the management agrees to enter into negotiation with the unions and agrees on terms and conditions of employment would reduce conflict. On the other hand, effective communication must be in place and channel of communication must be short and simple.

Grievance management is a critical and very sensitive issue, which will continue to pose a challenge to universities in Nigeria even beyond the 21st century. All human organizations are characterized by micro-politics and universities in Nigeria are no exception. In recent times, most cases of grievances and conflict against authorities of higher institutions are due to inability of authorities to manage effectively some welfare services. The effectiveness of any or a combination of the techniques and principles highlighted above in conflict prevention or resolution is a function of the nature of ‘conflict, and the stage at which it is apprehended among other factors.

Also it should be observed that knowledge of appropriate technique alone does not guarantee success in conflict resolution. Factors that is critical to the success of the process include authority, personalities, training/ competence, experience and sincerity of those charge with the task. In the event of unavoidable conflict, management must employ the powerful tools of consultation, participation, communication and dialogue, and avoid as much as practicable passing buck to suppress grievances. To succeed in this task an orientation in conflict management is necessary for managers of universities in Nigeria
This study is not exhaustive but hopes that the information will be sufficiently useful to begin the initial steps aimed at reducing the adverse effect of conflicts in the institutions of higher learning like the universities.

The rate of grievances in Nigeria Universities can mean an unhealthy condition or confidence in grievance management. Increase in filing grievance can be an indication of an aversive work condition that employees would like management to rectify, if they have confidence in the ability of management and •the fairness of the process. On the other hand low grievance rate can mean that employees are happy or they suffer in silence in fear of management reprisal. Therefore management need to demonstrate the following:
(1)       That management of universities should ensure that salaries, allowances and other benefits accrued to workers must be paid as at when due.
(2)       That salaries should be maintained at industrial average, that is to say that same salary should be paid at par to employees at the same level in order to reduce the rate of filing grievance.
(3)       That grievances are welcome and will be handled fairly and expeditiously and they serve to strengthen human resource management by providing an avenue for employee voice and thus a means available for resolving organizational conflicts.
(4)       That management should devise strategies to manage younger, more educated and more skilled employees because these are employees who are most likely to file grievances.
(5)       That the grievance active work group uses the grievance procedure to negotiate benefits for themselves, and it is, therefore, important to strengthen human resource management by allowing employees to participate in the decision that affect them.
(6)       That management should analyze grievance procedure usage data to determine whether grievance and their immediate supervisors have lower job performance, promotion, work attendance and higher turnover than non ­–grievance and their supervisors.
(7)       That management must determine, if management reprisal is taking place and take corrective action and
(8)       That management should formulate grievance management capacity programmes to develop the capacity of managers to handle grievances as one of their core functions, and to build employees confidence in the management of grievance.

Agbionu, C. U. (2009), Human Resources Management and Industrial Relations in Nigeria, ‘Lagos: Topline Publishers.

Allen, R. E. & Keaveny, T. (2005), Factors Differentiating Grievants and Non-Grievants: Human Relations, New-
York: System Publishers.

Ambrose, M. L. & Arnound, A. (2005), Are Procedural
Justice and Distributive Justice Conceptually Distinct? Handbook of Organizational Justice, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Bamberger, P; Kohn, E. (2008), Aversive Workplace Conditions and Employee Grievance Filing: The Moderating Effect of Gender and Ethnicity. Journal of Industrial Relations, 47, 2 229-260.

Bemmels, B. (1994). The Determinants of Grievance Initiation. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 47:
285-30 1.

Bemmels, B. & Foley, I. C. (1996), Grievance Procedure
Research: A Review and Theoretical Recommendations:
            Journal of Management, 22:359-384.

Bohiander, G. W. & Behringer, K. (2000), Public Sector nonunion complaint procedures: labour law Journal

Colguitt, J. A., Greenberg, J. & Scott, B. A. (2005), Organizational Justice: Where Do We Stand? New
Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Publishers.

Dalton, D. R; & Toclor, W. D. (2008), Antecedent of Grievance Filing Behavior: Attitudes/Behavioural Consistency and the Union Steward. Academy Of Management Journal 25: 158-169.

Duane, M. J. (2003), the Grievance Process in Labour Management Cooperation, London: Oxford Press.

Gandz, J., & Waitehead, J. D. (2006), the Relationship Between Industrial Relations Climate and Grievance:
Initiation and Resolution: Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, 25: 158.

Greenberg, V. (1993), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching            Fairness in Human   Resource Management, New Jersey:
            Lawrence Eribaum Associates Publishers.

Grobler, P. A. & Warnish, A. (2005), Human Resource Management in South Africa-Holland: Thomson Learning Publisher.

Haraway, W. M. (2002), Rediscovering Process Values In Employee Grievance Procedures, Administration And Society, Vol.35 (5) 499-517.

Kiass, B. (1989), Determinants of Grievance Activity And
The Grievance Systems, Impact on Employee Behavior: An Integrated Perspective. Academic of Management Journal, 32:705-718.

Labig, C. E. & Helburn, L, (1986), Union and Management
Policy Influence on Grievance Initiation. Journal of Labour Research, 7: 269 - 284.

Lewin, D. (2007), Research Conflict; Handbook of Industrial And Employment Relations, London: Sage Publications.

Lewin, D. & Peterson, R. B. (2002). The Modern Grievance Procedure in the United States, New York: Quorum Books.

Nadisic, T. (No date), The Motives of Organizational Justice, France: HEC Publishers.

Peach, D. A. & Livernash, E. R. (2004), Grievance Initiation And Resolution: A Study In Basic Steel, Boston: Harvard University Press.

Republic of South Africa, Public Service Commission. Rules
For Dealing with the Grievance Of Employees In The Public Service, Government Gazzelte Pretoria: South Africa.

Skarlick, D. P. & Forger, R. (1997), Retaliation in The Workplace; The Role Of Distributive, Procedural And International Justice, Journal Of Applied Psychology, 82: 434 - 443.

Stewart, G. & Davey, J. A. (1992), An Empirical Examination Of Grievance Resolution And Filling Rates In The Public Service And Private Sector, Journal For Collective Negotiation.

Thomson, A. W. J. & Murray (2006), Grievance Procedure,
Westmead: Saxon House Publishers.

Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin