CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
REFERENCES
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
553-568.
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.
169.
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.