Content uploaded by Richard Saundry
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Saundry on Mar 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
SETA survey of representatives in Tribunal cases 2008
Research Paper
Analysis of the nature, extent and impact of
grievance and disciplinary procedures and
workplace mediation using WERS2011
2014
Ref: 10/14
Stephen Wood (University of Leicester), Richard Saundry (Plymouth University)
and Paul Latreille (University of Shefeld)
ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE, EXTENT AND IMPACT OF GRIEVANCE AND
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND WORKPLACE MEDIATION USING
WERS2011
Professor Stephen Wood, Dr Richard Saundry and Professor Paul Latreille
Prepared for Acas by:
Stephen Wood (University of Leicester), Richard Saundry (Plymouth University) and Paul
Latreille (University of Sheffield)
School of Management, University of Leicester
Ken Edwards Building,
University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
s.j.wood@le.ac.uk
Copyright © 2014 Acas
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by Acas to carry out this research.
Thanks to Barbara Davey at Acas for direction and guidance throughout the project and to
Valerie Antcliff for helpful advice on some aspects of the data analysis.
The Workplace Employment Relations Study was conducted by NatCen Social Research on behalf
of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Economic and Social Research
Council, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the Advisory, Conciliation and
Arbitration Service and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The data were
distributed by the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex.
Disclaimer
This report contains the views of the authors and does not represent the views of the Acas
Council. Any errors or inaccuracies are the responsibility of the authors alone.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 The legal and regulatory context 6
1.2 The existing evidence base 7
1.3 Key issues 8
1.4 Objectives and structure of the report 10
2 METHODOLOGY 10
2.1 The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey 10
2.2 Key concepts and measures 10
2.3 Our analysis 11
2.4 Weighting, analysis and significance 12
3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF DISCIPLINARY AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 13
3.1 The extent of disciplinary and grievance procedures 13
3.2 The changing nature of workplace disputes procedures 14
3.3 The relationship between size, sector and unionisation on disciplinary and 15
grievance procedures
3.4 Multi-variate exploration of the key factors shaping the nature and extent of 18
disciplinary and grievance procedure
3.5 Summary 21
4 THE INTRODUCTION AND USE OF MEDIATION IN BRITISH WORKPLACES 21
4.1 The extent of workplace mediation 21
4.2 Workplace and organisational size and mediation 21
4.3 Sector and workplace mediation 22
4.4 Mediation and representation 23
4.5 Shaping the provision of mediation 23
4.6 Summary 26
5 PROCEDURE, PROCESS AND THE INCIDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT 26
DISPUTES
5.1 The causes of individual employment disputes 27
5.2 The nature and extent of individual workplaces disputes 27
5.3 Disputes procedures, processes and outcomes 29
5.4 Workplace mediation and the outcome of disputes 31
5.5 Exploring the link between employee attitudes, disputes procedures and use of 32
mediation
5.6 Exploring the antecedents of the outcomes of individual employment disputes 34
5.7 Summary 37
6 CONCLUSIONS 37
REFERENCES 39
APPENDIX 1 – Definition of variables 41
APPENDIX 2 – Indices 44
APPENDIX 3 – Questions in WERS2004 not asked in WERS2011 45
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an examination of the nature and extent of disciplinary and grievance
procedures and the use of mediation in British workplaces. It also explores their links to the
incidence of grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals, employment tribunals and employee
attitudes. The analysis is based on the Workplace Employment Relations Study of 2011, and
comparisons with its immediate predecessor conducted in 2004.
Nature and extent of disciplinary and grievance procedures
The progressive spread of written procedures for handling disciplinary issues and
employee grievances has continued between 2004 and 2011. The proportion of
workplaces with written disciplinary procedures increased from 84 to 89 per cent. The
same proportion had adopted written grievance procedures by 2011 compared to 82 per
cent seven years earlier.
There was evidence that the gap between those workplaces that traditionally had robust
procedures and others with less institutionalised approaches to industrial relations was
narrowing. Adherence to the three key principles of both disciplinary and grievance
handling (as set out in the Acas Code of Practice) increased between 2004 and 2011 in a
higher proportion of smaller and non-unionised workplaces.
The presence of procedures was positively associated with organisational size. In addition
disciplinary and grievance procedures were least likely to be found in hotels and
restaurants, while wholesale and retailing workplaces were less likely to have grievance
procedures.
Organisational size was the factor most associated with adherence to the three key
principles of the Acas Code of Practice in respect of disciplinary issues and individual
grievances.
HR practitioners appeared to play a positive role in ensuring procedural compliance in
respect of disciplinary issues, but there was no relationship between the existence of
procedures and union recognition. There was a positive association between unionisation
and procedural compliance in disciplinary matters, but this was relatively weak.
The introduction and use of mediation in British workplaces
Mediation has become a significant part of workplace dispute resolution regimes, being
used in 17 per cent workplaces that experienced a formal individual grievance.
Mediation by an impartial third-party was provided for within written disputes procedures
in around two-thirds of those workplaces that had disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Organisational size was unrelated to the likelihood of mediation being provided for within
disciplinary and grievance procedures. However mediation was more likely to be used in
larger workplaces.
There was also evidence of greater use of mediation in workplaces that experienced
increasing rates of disciplinary sanctions between 2004 and 2011 and that had been
subject to employment tribunal applications. Therefore, mediation may be one response
to rising levels of conflict and the experience of litigation.
Procedures, process and the incidence of individual employment disputes
There was no evidence that the presence of procedures or the adherence to the three key
principles of the Acas Code of Practice had a moderating effect on the outcomes of
individual employment disputes. In fact adherence to the key principles was associated
with higher rates of disciplinary sanctions.
4
More positive employer attitudes in respect of employment relations and fairness were
found in workplaces in which the key principles were not adhered to.
There was little difference in the incidence of individual employment disputes in those
workplaces that provided for mediation in their written procedures and those that did not.
Workplaces in which mediation was used had significantly higher average rates of
disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and employment tribunal applications. However, this
may reflect a greater demand for mediation in organisations that experience greater
levels of conflict.
The most important predictor of the incidence of disputes was workplace size, which was
positively associated with rates of dismissals, disciplinary sanctions, grievances and
employment tribunal applications. However, workplaces with higher proportions of
women employees and also older workers were likely to have lower rates of dismissals
and disciplinary sanctions.
Conclusion
There is no evidence in WERS2011 of any reduction in formality in the wake of the
Gibbons Report and consequent changes to the regulatory framework of individual
dispute resolution. Instead, organisational practices had coalesced around the three key
stages set out in the statutory procedures and now enshrined in the Acas Code.
The provision for workplace mediation is a significant feature of British workplaces.
However, there is little to suggest that mediation is being used at an early stage to
prevent disciplinary and grievance matters entering formal procedures or resulting in
litigation. Instead, mediation use appears to be a response to experiencing employment
litigation or increased levels of conflict.
The incidence of individual employment disputes is mainly influenced by workplace and
workforce characteristics as opposed to conflict-resolution processes and procedures.
5
1. Introduction
In the four decades since the introduction of the first Acas Code of Practice on ‘Disciplinary
Practice and Procedures’ in 1977, written procedures for handling disciplinary matters and
employee grievances have become almost ubiquitous in British workplaces (Kersley, et al.,
2006; van Wanrooy, et al., 2013). Disciplinary procedures are designed to provide a framework
for dealing with issues of conduct and capability in a fair and consistent manner, and grievance
procedures are a mechanism through which employee complaints can be managed and workers
can voice their concerns. Accordingly, their use has traditionally been promoted by governments
as a way of underpinning ‘good employment practices’ (DTI, 2001: 14).
However, more recently, public policy has reflected concerns that Britain’s system of dispute
resolution encourages unduly formal approaches to workplace conflict. Consequently,
policymakers have sought to provide employers with more freedom and flexibility to manage
conflict, and to encourage the use of alternative approaches to workplace dispute resolution
such as workplace mediation (Saundry and Dix, 2014).
This report presents an examination of the nature and extent of disciplinary and grievance
procedures and the use of mediation in British workplaces. It also explores their links to the
incidence of grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals, employment tribunals and employee
attitudes. The analysis is based on the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study of 2011,
and comparisons with its immediate predecessor conducted in 2004.
1.1 The Legal and Regulatory Context
The introduction of the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance meetings under
s.10 of the Employment Relations Act of 1999 represented the first major step to legally
underpin workplace procedures for dealing with individual employment disputes. Subsequently,
the 2004 Dispute Resolution Regulations (introduced under the Employment Act 2002)
established minimum statutory dismissal and grievance procedures for the first time. These were
underpinned by three key principles: that the matter should be first put in writing; that a
meeting should be held to discuss the issue; and that the employee should have the right to
appeal against any decision.
The regulations were aimed at promoting minimum standards for handling discipline and
grievances, and encouraging employers and employees to resolve disputes within the workplace
rather than resorting to the employment tribunal system (DTI, 2001). However, while
procedures might be expected to provide a consistent basis for the internal handling and
resolution of disputes, their presence alone is no guarantee that issues will be dealt with
speedily, effectively or even fairly by the standards of all parties (Earnshaw, et al., 2000).
Neither can procedures be expected, at least in and of themselves, to reduce the incidence of
grievances or discipline cases. For while procedures may avoid employees airing frivolous
grievances, or employers disciplining workers without a strong basis, access to procedures may
create an environment in which conflict is more likely to be brought into the open. In fact, there
is no evidence to date that increased formality of discipline and grievance procedures limits the
likelihood of individual employment disputes (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009).
The extent to which procedures crowd out less formal approaches to conflict resolution and deter
managers from intervening in the early stages of conflict escalation has become a central focus
in the development of Britain’s system of dispute resolution. In 2007, the Government
commissioned Anthony Gibbons to review the British system of Dispute Resolution. In what
became known as the Gibbons’ report, Gibbons (2007: 8) concluded that disputes procedures
were not encouraging early resolution of disputes, but rather were being used “to deal with
problems which could have been resolved informally”. Inappropriate use of formal processes, it
was argued, wasted management time and heightened the stress of employees. Furthermore, it
encouraged defensive attitudes, escalated problems and made employment litigation more
likely.
Following the recommendations of the Gibbons’ Report, the statutory procedures were repealed
by the Employment Act 2008 and a revised, shorter and principles–based Acas Code of Practice
on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures was introduced in 2009. Critically, the three stages of
6
the Dispute Resolution Regulations were retained as core principles within the revised Code.
Gibbons (2007: 10) also recommended that incentives be introduced to encourage compliance
with the Code and that tribunals should take into account the “reasonableness of behaviour and
procedure when making awards and costs”. Consequently, tribunals were given the power to
increase or reduce compensatory awards if either party had unreasonably failed to adhere to the
Acas Code.
Gibbons had also called on the government to “challenge all employer and employee
organisations to commit to implementing and promoting early dispute resolution”. To encourage
this, Acas’ power to conciliate in a dispute before an ET claim was submitted was amended to a
statutory duty. Moreover, Gibbons (2007: 5) set out a “vision” “of a greatly increased role for
mediation” as a means for achieving early resolution.
Significantly, mediation was explicitly recognised in the revised Acas Code of Practice for the
first time, albeit only in the foreword, although much more extensive discussion was contained
in the accompanying Guide. There is evidence that the revision of the Code prompted increased
organisational interest in mediation (Rahim, et al., 2011). Also, the Coalition government
embraced the spirit of Gibbons, claiming that mediation could lead to improved “employer–
employee relationships, the development of organisational culture and the development of
“high-trust” relationships” (BIS, 2011: 3).
1.2 The Existing Evidence Base
The nature and extent of workplace procedures and processes for dealing with individual
employment disputes are then, of critical concern to both organisational practice and public
policy. Much of our knowledge of these is based on previous analysis of WERS data. This has
shown that while the presence of procedures has spread, this has been uneven, with slower
growth in small- and medium-sized workplaces (Kersley, et al., 2006). Indeed, part of the
rationale for the introduction of the 2004 Dispute Resolution Regulations was to encourage
greater use of minimum procedural standards in small- and medium-sized organisations. Other
structural variables may also be relevant. For example, public sector workplaces have a tradition
of detailed and quasi-judicial procedures (Saundry, et al., 2011), perhaps influenced by a strong
union presence.
There are also signs that the use of workplace mediation in Britain is increasing. Requests to
Acas for mediation on individual issues doubled between 2004/5 and 2010/11 (Acas, 2005;
2011a). Despite this, to date, most estimates have suggested that overall use remains low. For
example, research undertaken by Acas in 2011 found that just five per cent of private sector
businesses had used mediation, falling to just four per cent in small- and medium-sized
enterprises (Williams, 2011).
In terms of the impact of procedure, there is no evidence that links formal procedures with more
effective dispute resolution. Kersley, et al. (2006) found that organisations with written
procedures were more likely to be subject to employee grievances. In addition, workplaces with
written disciplinary procedures have been found to have higher rates of sanctions and dismissals
(Knight and Latreille, 2000; Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). This may reflect the fact that
procedures provide employees with more confidence to voice their concerns and for employers
to address issues of conduct and capability.
Most studies suggest that the factors shaping individual employment disputes fall into three
categories: workplace characteristics such as organisational size and sector; workforce
characteristics such as gender, age, skill; and factors relating to employment relations and the
management of conflict, such as unionisation and the use of process and procedure. In terms of
workplace characteristics, analysis of WERS2004 suggests that both employee grievances and
higher rates of disciplinary sanctions are more likely in larger workplaces (Edwards, 1995;
Knight and Latreille, 2000; Kersley, et al., 2006; Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). Furthermore,
smaller businesses are less likely to levy serious sanctions such as dismissal than larger
organisations (Forth, et al., 2006).
The relationship between personal characteristics and the incidence of employee grievances has
not been explored in great detail, partly due to the fact that it has not been possible to quantify
7
the incidence of employee grievances in previous versions of the WERS series. Lucy and
Broughton (2011) however, have argued that certain types of employee are “more likely to
report experiencing problems in the workplace” (p. 15). These include workers who are young,
female, black, parents (especially single parents), disabled or with a long-term illness, lesbian,
gay or bisexual, and have short tenure, work in routine and manual occupations, and earn less
than £25,000 per annum.
However, there is evidence on the relationship between workforce characteristics and rates of
disciplinary sanctions and dismissals. For example, the employment of women, older workers
and those in more skilled occupational groups is associated with a lower incidence of disciplinary
disputes (Knight and Latreille, 2000; Saundry and Antcliff, 2009). Ethnicity also appears to be
an important factor; more specifically, workplaces with a higher proportion of ‘non-white’
employees have been found to have higher rates of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals (Knight
and Latreille, 2000; Saundry and Antcliff, 2009).
Employment relations within an organisation also shape the nature and extent of workplace
conflict. Strong trade union organisation is associated with lower rates of disciplinary sanctions
and dismissals. This may be due to unions restraining managerial prerogative (Edwards, 2000)
or possibly playing a constructive role in conflict resolution (Saundry, et al., 2011). At the same
time, employee grievances may be more likely to be raised within workplaces in which
employees receive union support in exercising ‘voice’ and making formal complaints (Kersley, et
al., 2006). There is complementary evidence that unrepresented workers are less likely to use
formal grievance procedures (Pollert and Charlwood, 2009). Certainly, the quality of union–
employer relations is critical. Adversarial employee relations may hamper resolution and create
an environment in which conflict quickly escalates. While, high-trust union–employer relations
can underpin informal and social processes of conflict resolution (Oxenbridge and Brown, 2004;
Saundry and Wibberley, 2014)
Finally, it is anticipated that workplace mediation can help to reduce the incidence of individual
employment disputes in two respects. First, mediation is seen as a successful way of resolving
individual employment disputes that might otherwise result in formal grievances and potentially
escalate into litigation (Seargeant, 2005; CIPD, 2008; Johnston, 2008; Harris, et al., 2008;
Latreille, 2011; Saundry, et al., 2013). Second, it has been suggested that the introduction of
internal mediation schemes may have a broader impact in increasing the conflict-management
capacity of organisations through improving conflict-handling skills, which in turn improves the
climate of employment relations (Bingham, 2004; Seargeant, 2005; Latreille, 2011; Saundry,
et al., 2013).
1.3 Key Issues
Government policy in the wake of the Gibbons’ report was designed to encourage employers to
resolve conflict in the workplace and reduce employment tribunal (ET) applications. It was hoped
that by loosening legal regulation and promoting mediation that employers would increasingly
address and resolve issues at an earlier stage.
Although WERS2011 does not allow us to assess the impact of the introduction of statutory
procedures in 2004, it provides an opportunity to examine the repeal of the Dispute Resolution
Regulations in 2008. More specifically, it enables us to examine whether changes to the legal
framework may have led to some workplaces retreating from more formal approaches to
workplace conflict. This might particularly be the case in small and medium-sized organisations
with cultures that favour more informal and personal approaches to dispute resolution.
Nonetheless, as the three key principles of the statutory procedures remained in the Acas Code
of Practice and are assumed to represent good practice, we might expect no great reduction in
their use, or at least in their inclusion in procedures. Their application is also reinforced by the
regulation that non-adherence can increase compensation for unfair dismissal by up to 25 per
cent.
However, the relationship between workplace processes and the incidence of individual
employment disputes may not be straightforward. For example, it could be argued that once a
disciplinary procedure has been commenced, the likelihood of the employee avoiding dismissal
8
may be low. Managers who might otherwise prefer to use informal methods may feel compelled
to enact procedure (see for example Jones and Saundry, 2012). This is not, however, to deny
that in some instances effective disciplinary processes can facilitate dispute resolution or
changes in behaviour and so reduce the incidence of dismissals.
In the case of grievances, we would expect that workplaces without formal procedures will be
less likely to report grievances, since without procedures, employees will have no vehicle
through which their concerns and complaints can be formally identified and raised. In this sense,
grievances are products of procedures (the alternative potentially being ‘exit’). At the same
time, organisations may adopt robust grievance processes in response to the emergence of
workplace conflict.
However, the debate surrounding individual disputes is more complex than simply whether
procedures affect the incidence of grievances, disciplinary action or dismissals. First, it revolves
around the extent to which procedures drive out more informal processes that may have more
mutually satisfying outcomes and prolong the time it takes to resolve disputes. Unfortunately we
cannot address this issue using WERS data, as it does not collect information on the temporal or
informal aspects of dispute resolution.
Second, a key issue relates to the regulatory demands placed on small- and medium-sized
enterprises and organisations. We can examine if the application of procedures declined
following the removal of statutory compulsion in 2008 and also explore the extent to which any
such changes were concentrated in smaller workplaces and organisations.
Third, an important question is whether parties are better able to resolve disputes within the
workplace than in 2004 and attenuate employment litigation. Using WERS2011 data we can
assess the relationship between procedures and mediation on ET claims and (except for
mediation) any change between 2004 and 2011.
Fourth, a further dimension of the debate is the role of mediation. WERS2011 does not allow us
to explore whether mediation is being employed before the onset of formal procedure to
facilitate the early resolution of disputes. Nonetheless, we can explore whether the incidence of
individual employment disputes is lower when mediation is included in disciplinary and grievance
procedures or has been used, compared with workplaces in which mediation is not available or
used.
Fifth, there is a neglected issue of whether procedures make much difference to the average
worker’s experience at work. Since procedures are also aimed at contributing to procedural
justice in workplaces, we might expect them to be most associated with employee’s perceptions
of fairness and perhaps even of the quality of relationships between managers and employees.
Yet procedures are rather distant from the day-to-day lives of most workers who will never
experience a disciplinary or grievance issue and this could limit their impact on workers’
attitudes. Nonetheless consistent adherence to a transparent and acknowledged code of practice
may be viewed as symbolic of a reliable employer and hence may affect commitment.
Finally, WERS2011 was conducted during the recession that followed the financial crisis of 2008
and while the Government was cutting public sector expenditure (often known as the austerity
programme). Questions were included in WERS2011 on the impact of the recession, which offer
the opportunity to analyse any effects of this on the development of employment relations. We
might not expect it to have strong impacts on workplace procedure. Nonetheless, if recessionary
conditions increased the power of employers to such an extent that they felt they could flout
what was previously taken to be acceptable practice, we might expect some removal of
procedures or less adherence to them. It is more likely that the recession has an effect on the
nature and extent of grievances and disciplinary cases. Employees may be reluctant to raise
grievances in an environment characterised by vulnerability and insecurity. At the same time,
employers may be empowered to make more robust disciplinary decisions.
1.4 Objectives and Structure of the Report
In light of the discussion above, it is timely to use WERS2011 to assess:
9
1) the development and application of workplace level procedures for handling
disciplinary matters and individual employee grievances;
2) the nature and extent of workplace mediation and the key factors determining its
use; and
3) the relationship between workplace procedures, workplace mediation and key
outcomes – employee grievances, disciplinary action, ET applications and employee
attitudes.
This report presents research designed to contribute to such an assessment based on the
Workplace Employment Relations Surveys (WERS) of 2011 and 2004. The next section
introduces the survey and sets out the methods used. We then report in section three our
analysis of the nature and extent of grievance and disciplinary procedures. This section also
examines changes in the extent and application of written procedure and explores the main
factors that shape procedure and process by looking at bi-variate and multi-variate relationships
with a range of variables. Section four looks at the introduction and use of workplace mediation
in British workplaces. It also uses regression analysis to isolate the relationships between the
provision of mediation in written procedures and the use of mediation and key workplace and
workforce characteristics. Finally, section five assesses the association between the nature and
extent of grievance and disciplinary procedures and use of mediation and outcome measures.
These include rates of employee grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals, and ET
applications. It also explores the association between employee perceptions of fairness and
employment relations and the application of procedure and mediation. We conclude by drawing
out the implications of the study.
2. Methodology
2.1 The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey
The 2011 WERS is the sixth in the WERS series. Interviews for the 2011 WERS were undertaken
with around 2,700 workplace managers and 1,000 employee representatives. In addition, over
20,000 employees completed questionnaires. Previous surveys were conducted in 1980, 1984,
1990, 1998 and 2004.
WERS2011 contained two key innovations that are central to this study. First, questions on
mediation were included which assessed, for the first time, whether mediation by a third party
was provided for within disciplinary and grievance procedures, and whether mediation by a third
party had been used to resolve a disciplinary or grievance issue in the previous 12 months.
Second, questions were introduced that allowed for the calculation of the rate of employee
grievances per 100 employees. This enabled the construction of a comparative measure to
disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and ET applications – something that had not been possible in
previous surveys. However, certain questions in 2004 were excluded in 2011 (see Appendix 3)
which reduced the coverage of individual dispute resolution in the survey and therefore
restricted the scope of any subsequent analysis.
2.2 Key Concepts and Measures
Our analysis was based on three sets of variables drawn from the Management Questionnaire
(see Appendix 1). The first sought to examine the extent and nature of procedures. In relation
to disciplinary and grievance procedures, two main measures were used. The extent of
procedures can be measured by whether the workplace has a written procedure for dealing with
disciplinary matters and dismissals and also a written procedure dealing with employee
grievances. The nature of the procedures can be assessed based on questions that ask whether,
in dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues, the workplace adheres to three key principles
contained in the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures: a) setting out
the issue of concern in writing; b) holding a meeting to discuss the matter; and c) providing
employees with an opportunity to appeal the decision. In much of the analysis below, we used a
dummy variable which identifies those workplaces that always adhere to these three principles
and those that do not. For mediation, the measures outlined in 2.1 are used.
10
The second set of variables measured outcomes of workplace conflict. Variables were
constructed that measured: the rate of disciplinary sanctions per 100 employees, the rate of
dismissals per 100 employees, the rate of grievances (raised through a written grievance
procedure) per 100 employees, and the rate of ET applications per 100 employees. All these
rates were calculated on the basis of numbers of disputes in the last 12 months as against the
total number of employees 12 months previously. The main measures of employee attitudes
that were used were: the extent to which employees felt that their managers treated them
fairly, employee perceptions of employment relations, engagement, measured by displaying
initiative, and commitment to the organisation in terms of shared values, loyalty and pride.
These attitudinal measures were based on aggregating results from the employee survey by
workplace and then examining mean results for each workplace in relation to its adherence to
the Acas Code when handling disciplinary issues and the use of mediation.
The third set was made up of contextual factors that have been found in previous studies to be
associated with procedural formality and the incidence of employment disputes and include:
workplace and organisational size, whether or not the workplace is in the public or private
sector, industrial sector (based on 2003 SIC definitions to allow comparison with WERS2004),
union recognition, presence of an HR practitioner, and also whether or not the workplace was
affected by the recession.
2.3 Our Analysis
We conducted both bi-variate and multi-variate analysis of weighted data. For the multi-variate
analysis we used multiple linear regression to evaluate the unique contribution of a set of
independent variables to the various dependent variables. In contrast to Pearson correlational
analysis, which tests the association between two variables, regression analysis allows one to
isolate the relationship between a specific independent variable and the dependent variable,
controlling for the other factors. Regression helps one understand how the typical value of the
dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied while the other
independent variables are held fixed.
In our analysis, the dependent variables included: the existence of written disciplinary and
grievance procedures; adherence to the three key principles contained in the Acas Code of
Practice in respect of disciplinary and grievance procedures; the provision of mediation in
disciplinary and grievance procedures; the use of mediation; and the incidence of disciplinary
sanctions, dismissals, employee grievances, and ET applications.
The independent variables entered into each model varied, but the models use a core set of
variables that reflected: procedural presence and adherence, workplace characteristics such as
size and sector, workforce characteristics and demographics, union recognition, and the impact
of recession. It is important to note that organisational size was used in estimations that related
to process and procedure, while workplace size was entered into models predicting practice and
outcomes.
The appropriate estimator in the multi-variate models depended on the nature of the dependent
variable under consideration. Some of the dependent variables were binary (for example the
incidence of procedures or use of mediation)or a set of ordered categories (procedural
compliance)in which case we estimated logit and ordered logit regression models respectively
(see for example, Greene, 2012), which take account of and model the data more appropriately.
Similarly, some of outcome measures were significantly skewed towards and include a large
number of zero-valued observations. For example, the distribution of both the number of
grievances raised through the procedure in the workplace and the proportion of grievances per
employees (as in Figure 1), are highly skewed, rendering Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) biased
and inconsistent. Tobit regression models were used in respect of outcome measures where the
observations were clustered at the lower end of the distribution and bounded. These models
assume an underlying latent variable giving rise to the observed (censored) distribution, with
coefficients interpreted similarly to Ordinary Least Squares model, except that the reported
effect applies to the uncensored latent variable. For logit and ordered logit models, coefficient
estimates represent the effect of an explanatory variable on the log of the odds of the
dependent variable, and the sign of the coefficients shows the direction in which explanatory
variables influence the dependent variable. In all regression models, for explanatory variables
11
taking the form of categories (e.g. size groups), one of these must be omitted for identification
purposes, and effects are measured relative to this reference category (referred to as Ref in the
tables).
Figure 1 – The distribution of grievances per 100 employees
We also analysed data drawn from the WERS panel which comprised all those workplaces that
were surveyed in both 2004 and 2011. This allowed us to examine changes in the nature of
grievance, disciplinary and mediation processes in workplaces that took part in both the 2004
and 2011 surveys, and to explore links to possible outcomes. Unfortunately, because questions
in relation to mediation were asked for the first time in 2011, no direct comparison can be made
with 2004. Nonetheless, it may be that the adoption of mediation is linked to preceding changes
either in process or the incidence of disputes, and these associations are explored in the section
below. In addition, as questions allowing us to identify the rate of employee grievances per 100
employees were not asked in 2004, the only comparison that could be made was whether the
workplaces had experienced formal grievances in the past 12 months. The same variables as in
the cross-sectional analysis were used; however, in order to explore change between the two
periods, dummy variables were constructed that identified a) those workplaces in which
adherence to the three key principles contained in the Acas Code increased between 2004 and
2011 and b) those workplaces in which rates of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals increased in
the same period.
2.4 Weighting, Analysis and Significance
The analysis used weighted data throughout and employed the svyset procedure within STATA in
order to reflect the complexity of the weighted sample. With the exception of the multivariate
models, significant results were gauged as being at or below the 5% significance level.
3. Nature and extent of disciplinary and grievance procedures
In this section we will first report on the nature and extent of disciplinary and grievance
procedures. We will then examine the relationships among a range of key contextual variables
and the nature and extent of disciplinary and grievance procedures.
12
3.1 The extent of disciplinary and grievance procedures
The WERS series has charted the progressive spread of written procedures for handling
disciplinary issues and employee grievances (Kersley, et al., 2006). We found that this has
continued in the second half of the 2000s. Between 2004 and 2011, the proportion of
workplaces with written disciplinary procedures increased from 84 to 89 per cent. The same
proportion had adopted written grievance procedures by 2011 compared to 82 per cent seven
years earlier.
There was a significant degree of consistency in the application of written disciplinary
procedures, with more than four out of every five workplaces adhering to the three-step
approach that constituted the statutory regulations and are now the core principles in the Acas
Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (Table 1). In respect of employee
grievances, there was less adherence, with fewer than half of British workplaces always applying
the three key principles.
Table 1 – Adherence to key principles of disciplinary and grievance procedures – 2011
Discipline Individual grievances
% %
All three, all of the time 82 46
All three, but not all of the time 11 36
One or two, all or some of the time 5 16
None of the principles 2 2
Source: WERS2011 MEQ; Results weighted by establishment; N = 2,654 (2011). Totals do not sum to 100% due to
rounding.
Table 2 provides details of responses in relation to each of the three principles for disciplinary
and grievance procedures respectively. Again there was a difference in the level of formality
between disciplinary and grievance procedures. In 85 per cent of workplaces, the employer was
always required to provide written details of any disciplinary allegation, while just 50 per cent of
workplaces required employees to submit their grievance in writing all the time. Formal
meetings were also more commonly required in respect of disciplinary matters than employee
grievances. However, appeals were provided for in 96 per cent of workplaces in response to both
disciplinary and grievance decisions.
Table 2 – Key principles of disciplinary and grievance procedures
Discipline Individual grievances
Always Some of
the time Never Always Some of
the time Never
% % % % % %
Issue required to be
set out in writing 85 10 5 50 33 17
Formal meeting 87 9 4 69 25 7
Employees have a
right to appeal 96 0 4 96 0 5
Source WERS2011 MEQ; Results weighted by establishment; N=at least 2664. Totals do not sum to 100% due to
rounding.
The difference in the extent to which the three principles are applied in respect of disciplinary
and grievance procedures suggests that employers are often prepared to accept and address
grievances that are not submitted in writing, which reflects the greater scope for negotiation and
flexibility in grievance handling (Saundry and Wibberley, 2014).
Another core element of procedural arrangements in Britain is the statutory right, enshrined in
the Employment Relations Act 1999, for employers to be accompanied by either a work
colleague or trade union representative at disciplinary or grievance hearings. The right to be
accompanied applies to all workers irrespective of union membership or union recognition.
Overall all workplaces allowed accompaniment of some kind at disciplinary meetings while only
one per cent of workplaces did not allow employees to have a companion at formal meetings to
13
discuss individual grievances. However, the precise nature of accompaniment varied (Table 3).
Around one in three workplaces allowed anyone chosen by the employee and around one in ten
were prepared to allow legal representatives to accompany employees. Furthermore,
approximately one in five workplaces allowed accompaniment from friends or family members.
According to statute, all workplaces should allow accompaniment by a work colleague, however,
only two-thirds of respondents did so. Similarly, just four in ten respondents said that
‘employees were allowed’ to be accompanied by a trade union representative and about one-fifth
reported that accompaniment by a full time union official was permitted.
Table 3 – Type of companion allowed at grievance and disciplinary hearings
Type of companion allowed Disciplinary meeting Grievance meeting
% %
Friend or family member 20 23
Trade union representative/shop
steward 41 42
Full-time union official 20 19
Other employee representative 26 29
Work colleague 63 66
Supervisor/ line manager/ foreman 21 25
Solicitor or other legal representative 9 11
Someone else 4 4
Anyone they choose 34 31
No accompaniment allowed 0 1
Total 236 251
Source: WERS2011 MEQ; Results weighted by establishment; N=2595
3.2 The changing nature of workplace disputes procedures
Just as the presence of written procedures has continued to spread in British workplaces since
WERS2004, analysis of panel data confirmed that the application of disciplinary procedure has
become more consistent (Table 4). There has been a significant tightening of procedure, with 83
per cent of workplaces applying all three key principles enshrined in the Acas Code in all
disciplinary cases. In respect of employee grievances, there was an increase in the proportion of
workplaces applying all three principles some of the time and a sharp decrease in the proportion
of those applying ‘one or two’. Thus, while grievances were handled more flexibly, the direction
of travel is towards a more uniform application of the Acas Code.
Table 4 – Adherence to key principles of disciplinary and grievance procedures, 2004–
2011
Discipline Individual grievances
2004 2011 2004 2011
% % % %
All three, all of the time 73 81* 42 44
All three, but not all of the time 14 11 28 38*
One or two, all or some of the time 13 6* 28 15*
None of the principles 0 2* 2 3
Source: WERS 2004/2011 Panel; Results weighted by establishment; N = 977; * – significant at 5% level
There was also evidence that the gap between those workplaces which traditionally had robust
procedures and others with less institutionalised approaches to industrial relations was
narrowing. This might suggest that the driving force behind increased adherence is external
legal factors as opposed to structural and workplace level factors. Procedural adherence
increased between 2004 and 2011 in a higher proportion of smaller workplaces (22 per cent of
workplaces with 49 employees or less) compared to 15 per cent of those with between 50 and
249 employees, 5 per cent of those with between 250 and 999 employees and 10 per cent of
those with 1000 employees or more.
14
In addition, as Table 5 shows, adherence to the three key principles when dealing with
disciplinary matters increased in a larger proportion of both private and non–unionised
workplaces. For example, 23 per cent of non-unionised workplaces increased the application of
the key elements of disciplinary processes as opposed to just 10 per cent of unionised
workplaces.
Table 5 – Increase in adherence to all three key principles by sector and union
recognition, 2004–2011
Increased adherence
Discipline Individual grievances
% %
Public 16 29
Private 22 20
Union recognised 14* 26
Not recognised 23* 20
Source: WERS 2004/2011 Panel; Results weighted by establishment; N=at least 989; * significant at the 5% level
It might be expected that increased adherence could be driven by experience of conflict – for
example workplaces experiencing high levels of conflict or employment litigation could respond
by introducing or tightening procedures. However, analysis of panel data showed no evidence of
this. Notably, the pattern of change of the rate of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals was
virtually identical for those workplaces that applied greater formality and those that did not.
3.3 The relationship between size, sector and unionisation on disciplinary and
grievance procedures
A major theme within the Gibbons report was the discomfort felt by managers in smaller
organisations over putting disciplinary and grievance matters in writing, and their more general
preference for informality. Therefore, we might expect size to be a major factor in explaining the
presence of procedures and adherence to the three key principles of disciplinary and grievance
handling. Table 6 shows that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures were indeed less
likely to be found in smaller workplaces and particularly in those with fewer than ten employees.
Table 6 – Workplace size and presence of procedure
Workplace size Discipline Individual Grievances
% %
5–9 employees 82 82
10–19 employees 92 90
20–49 employees 96 97
50–99 employees 98 100
100–499 employees 100 100
500 or more 100 100
Source: WERS2011 MEQ; results weighted by establishment; N = at least 2,677.
Moreover, in very small organisations, procedures were less likely to be present than in larger
organisations. In fact, one third of organisations with 5–9 employees did not have a written
grievance procedure and 31 per cent did not have a written disciplinary procedure. However,
procedural presence increased substantially with the size of organisation: only 11 and 12 per
cent of organisations with 10–49 employees did not possess written disciplinary and grievance
procedures respectively (Table 7).
Table 7 – Organisational size and presence of procedure
Organisational size Discipline and dismissal Individual grievances
No. employees % %
5–9 69 67
15
10–49 89 88
50–249 98 96
250–499 100 100
500–999 100 98
1,000–9,999 99 100
10,000 and over 100 100
Source: WERS2011 MEQ; results weighted by establishment; N = 2547.
The extent of adherence to the three key principles of the Acas Code of Practice also varied with
workplace size. The proportion of workplaces applying all three principles all of the time
increased with the number of employees for both disciplinary and grievance procedures (Table
8).
Table 8 – Adherence to all key principles of disciplinary and grievance procedures by
workplace size
Workplace size Discipline Individual grievances
No. employees % %
5–9 76 43
10–19 81 44
20–49 90 53
50–99 94 60
100–499 97 60
500+ 97 68
Source: WERS2011 MEQ; results weighted by establishment; N=at least 2660.
Organisational size was again influential in shaping the application of procedure. In particular,
the extent to which procedure was regularly used in very small organisations was relatively low
(Table 9).
Table 9 – Adherence to all key principles of disciplinary and grievance procedures – by
organisational size
Organisational size Discipline Individual grievances
No. employees % %
5–9 65 30
10–49 80 44
50–249 86 45
250–499 86 68
500–999 98 45
1,000–9,999 91 56
10,000 and over 95 68
Source: WERS2011 MQ, results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2533.
For example, in around two-thirds of organisations with between five and nine employees, all
three principles of the code of practice were always applied when dealing with disciplinary
issues, while only 30 per cent always applied these principles when managing formal grievances;
in contrast, 95 percent and 68 percent of organisations employing 10,000 employees and over
always adhered to the three principles in respect of discipline and individual grievances
respectively.
Written procedures were more likely to be found in the public than the private sector. In the
private sector, disciplinary and grievance procedures were present within 88 per cent and 87 per
cent of workplaces respectively, while coverage was almost universal within the public sector.
However, there was greater diversity between industrial sectors. Procedural coverage was
extensive in public administration and sectors either dominated by the public sector (health and
education) or that were previously within the public sector (electricity, gas and water). In
contrast, only around three-quarters of workplaces in construction and hotels and restaurants
had written procedures (Table 10).
16
Table 10 – Presence of written procedures by industrial sector
Discipline Individual grievances
Yes No Yes No
% % % %
Manufacturing 85 15 84 16
Electricity, gas and water 100 0 100 0
Construction 74 26 75 25
Wholesale and retail 88 12 86 14
Hotels and restaurants 79 21 75 25
Transport and communication 99 1 94 6
Financial services 100 0 100 0
Other business services 90 10 93 7
Public administration 100 0 100 0
Education 97 3 97 3
Health 96 4 96 4
Other community services 89 11 90 10
Source: WERS2011 MEQ; results weighted by establishment; N=at least 2,674.
There was greater adherence to the three key principles of the Acas Code of Practice in the
public than the private sector. Some 92 per cent of public sector workplaces applied the three
principles all of the time when handling disciplinary matters compared to 80 per cent of private
sector establishments. Adherence to grievance procedures was generally lower: 63 per cent of
public sector workplaces applying all three principles all of the time compared to just 45 per cent
in the private sector (Table 11).
Table 11 – Adherence to all three key principles of disciplinary and grievance
procedures by sector and industry
Discipline Individual grievances
% %
Public sector 92 63
Private sector 80 45
Manufacturing 74 31
Electricity, gas and water 100 59
Construction 74 36
Wholesale and retail 83 47
Hotels and restaurants 67 40
Transport and communication 84 55
Financial services 91 67
Other business services 81 47
Public administration 96 66
Education 94 53
Health 89 55
Other community services 81 49
Source: WERS2011 MEQ, results are weighted by establishment N=at least 2657.
In relation to industrial sector, the application of grievance procedures was less uniform,
particularly in manufacturing, construction and hotels and restaurants, in which all three
principles were applied all the time in 31, 36 and 40 per cent of workplaces respectively. There
was less variation in respect of adherence to the three principles when managing disciplinary
issues, which may reflect concerns over the potential for unfair dismissal claims. These sectoral
variations could be explained by differences in the extent of unionisation. Indeed, there was a
strong relationship between union recognition and the presence of written disciplinary and
grievance procedures. In fact, procedures were near universal within unionised workplaces. In
contrast, in those with no recognition, just over 10 per cent did not have such procedures.
There was also greater adherence to the three key principles within the Acas Code of Practice in
unionised workplaces. For example, 42 per cent of non-unionised workplaces applied the three
key principles when responding to employee grievances all of the time compared with 63 per
17
cent in unionised workplaces. Application of the principles in disciplinary procedures was more
extensive; nonetheless almost one-quarter of workplaces in which unions were not recognised
did not routinely apply all three key principles when handling a disciplinary issue.
3.4 Multi-variate exploration of the key factors shaping the nature and extent of
disciplinary and grievance procedure
Having examined bi-variate relationships, we conducted a series of ordered logit regressions in
order to assess the unique relationship between the factors discussed above and the existence
of disciplinary and grievance procedures and the application of key principles. For example, two
of the independent variables, workplace size and union recognition, are known to be related, so
through regression analysis we were able to establish whether one was more significant than the
other.
In relation to the existence of written procedures, our analysis revealed a number of key factors
(Table 12)1. First, organisational size was uniquely and positively associated with the existence
of both disciplinary and grievance procedures. Procedures were most likely to exist in
organisations with 500–999 employees and least likely to be found in micro organisations with
5–9 employees. Second, industrial sector was significant. Both disciplinary and grievance
procedures were least likely to be found in hotels and restaurants. In addition, wholesale and
retailing workplaces were less likely to have grievance procedures while workplaces within the
transport and communication industry were disproportionately more likely to have written
disciplinary procedures. Third, the presence of an HR professional was positively associated with
the existence of both disciplinary and grievance procedures. Disciplinary and grievance
procedures were not more likely in workplaces where unions were recognized when we
controlled for size and industry. Their disproportional use in unionized workplaces can therefore
be explained by their association with size and industrial sector.
Organisational size was also the factor that was most associated with the extent to which the
three key principles of both disciplinary and grievance handling were applied in British
workplaces as measured by two indices of adherence, one each for discipline and grievance
(Table 13). Both are constructed as the sum of three elements: a requirement to set out issues
in writing; attending a meeting; and the right to appeal. The last is binary (0=no, 1=yes), while
the first two take the values 0=no, 1=yes, sometimes, and 2=yes, always. The sum of each
index thus varies from 0–5, with higher values indicating greater compliance (see Appendix 2).
The three key principles were less likely to be applied in public sector workplaces when dealing
with disciplinary matters, although more likely to be applied in education and health than
elsewhere. The strongest sectoral predictor was whether the workplace was in one of the
privatised utilities (electricity, gas and water). Similarly, adherence to the three principles when
handling employee grievances was more likely in workplaces in education, health, and other
community services.
Note that the near ubiquitous nature of (especially disciplinary) procedures led to the problem of quasi-
complete separation, in which the limited variation in the dependent variable means it may be almost perfectly predicted
by some (combination of) the independent variables. Stata drops problematic variables, while the maximum likelihood
estimates for the remaining coefficients are valid and can still be recovered.
18
1
Table 12 – Ordered logit regression of existence of written disciplinary and grievance
procedures
Discipline and dismissals Individual grievances
Organisational size (Ref: 5–9 employees)
10–49 employees 1.215*** 1.360***
(0.301) (0.300)
50–249 employees 2.370*** 1.727***
(0.775) (0.574)
250–499 employees 0 0
(omitted) (omitted)
500–999 employees 5.582*** 1.755
(1.130) (1.082)
1000–9999 employees 3.306*** 0
(0.485) (omitted)
10000+ employees 2.783** 5.706***
(1.101) (1.122)
Public sector 0 2.289*
(omitted) (1.246)
Industrial sector (Ref: Manufacturing)
Elec., gas, water 0 0
(omitted) (omitted)
Construction -0.440 -0.207
(0.641) (0.687)
Wholesale/retail -0.637 -0.932*
(0.523) (0.483)
Hotels/restaurants -1.130** -1.484***
(0.530) (0.511)
Transport and
communications 3.061*** 0.656
(1.156) (0.826)
Financial services 0 0
(omitted) (omitted)
Business services 0.164 0.630
(0.566) (0.546)
Public administration 0 0
(omitted) (omitted)
Education 0.809 1.021
(1.048) (1.052)
Health 0.617 0.718
(0.686) (0.680)
Other community services 0.130 0.442
(0.583) (0.587)
Union recognition 0.671 0.424
(1.034) (0.804)
Impact of recession -0.369 -0.659**
(0.304) (0.297)
Presence of HR practitioner 1.940** 1.974**
(0.776) (0.806)
Multi-site organisation 0.664 1.122***
(0.432) (0.413)
Constant 0.975 0.918**
(0.444) (0.423)
Weighted observations 1569 1474
Source: WERS2011 MQ, results are weighted by establishment. Statistical significance levels: *** = p<0.01,
**=p<0.05, *=p<0.1.
19
Table 13 – Ordered logit regressions of index of procedural adherence in respect of
disciplinary and grievance procedures
Adherence to three principles
– Discipline Adherence to three
principles – Grievance
Organisational size (Ref: 5–9 employees)
10–49 employees 0.841*** 0.777***
(0.273) (0.233)
50–249 employees 1.060** 0.961***
(0.424) (0.288)
250–499 employees 0.859 1.788***
(0.570) (0.434)
500–999 employees 2.875*** 0.523
(0.855) (0.373)
1000–9999 employees 1.480*** 1.413***
(0.475) (0.331)
10000+ employees 2.418*** 1.731***
(0.579) (0.352)
Public sector -0.980** -0.361
(0.420) (0.293)
Industrial sector (Ref: Manufacturing)
Elec., gas, water 3.000*** 0.358
(1.129) (0.635)
Construction 0.007 0.203
(0.509) (0.425)
Wholesale/retail 0.166 0.115
(0.433) (0.281)
Hotels/restaurants -0.826* -0.208
(0.433) (0.378)
Transport and communications 0.124 0.450
(0.556) (0.382)
Financial services 0.719 0.904
(1.305) (0.785)
Business services 0.283 0.532*
(0.428) (0.287)
Public administration 1.555 0.625
(0.981) (0.529)
Education 1.797** 0.936***
(0.788) (0.310)
Health 0.793* 0.972***
(0.453) (0.274)
Other community services 0.452 0.903***
(0.442) (0.291)
Union recognition 0.840*** 0.133
(0.319) (0.244)
Impact of recession -0.220 -0.090
(0.225) (0.145)
Presence of HR practitioner 1.094*** 0.241
(0.387) (0.184)
Multi-site organisation 0.112 0.166
(0.317) (0.212)
Weighted observations 2507 2503
Source: WERS2011 MQ, results are weighted by establishment. Statistical significance levels: *** = p<0.01,
**=p<0.05, *=p<0.1.
Trade union recognition and the presence of an HR practitioner were positively associated with
the extent to which workplaces adhered to the three key principles of the Acas Code in relation
to disciplinary matters, but were not influential in shaping the extent to which the three key
principles were applied in individual grievances. This suggests that both unions and HR
20
practitioners play a role in ensuring consistency and legal compliance particularly in relation to
issues that may give rise to unfair dismissal claims (Jones and Saundry, 2012; Saundry, et al.,
2011).
3.5 Summary
Overall, the analysis points to a continued diffusion of written procedures and a greater use of
the three main principles of disciplinary and grievance handling first mandated by the 2004
Dispute Resolution Regulations and more recently contained in the revised Acas Code of
Practice. Moreover, there was some evidence that the recent adoption of written procedures and
increased adherence to key principles centred on smaller and non-unionised workplaces. To this
extent, there was evidence of procedures becoming more uniform and coalescing around the
core principles of the Acas Code of Practice. It is notable that this had taken place against a
backdrop of a regulatory environment which aimed to provide employers with greater flexibility
and encouraged less formal approaches to dispute resolution. However, there was still a gap
between large and small workplaces. Both the presence of procedure and adherence to the three
key principles were significantly influenced by workplace and organisation size. There was also
evidence that where procedures were in place, union recognition and HR expertise were
positively associated with compliance with the Acas Code of Practice in managing disciplinary
issues.
4. The Introduction and Use of Mediation in British Workplaces
In the wake of the Gibbons Review (2007) there has been increased emphasis on the
introduction and extension of workplace mediation into British workplaces. WERS2011 provides
the first robust indication of the degree to which mediation has become a significant part of the
employment relations landscape. This section examines the extent to which mediation was
provided for in written disciplinary and grievance procedures and also used to resolve individual
employment disputes. It also assesses the key factors that influence its take-up.
4.1 The Extent of Workplace Mediation
In order to assess the nature and extent of workplace mediation we drew on data from three
questions. The first asked whether there was provision for impartial third party mediation in any
disciplinary procedure; the second if there was such provision in the grievance procedure; and
the third asked whether mediation by such a third party had been used in the workplace for
either an individual grievance or a disciplinary matter.
Respondents reported that mediation by an impartial third party was provided for within almost
two-thirds (62 per cent) of workplaces with written disciplinary and grievance procedures.
However, its use was not as extensive: just 7 per cent of all workplaces recorded having used it
in the last 12 months to resolve a dispute. However, in workplaces that had experienced
employee grievances (i.e. issues potentially amenable to mediation) 17 per cent had turned to
mediation while 14 per cent of workplaces that had dealt with disciplinary cases had used
mediation. Mediation was more likely to be used in workplaces with written procedures and also
where those procedures adhered to the three key principles set out in the Acas Code of Practice.
Although mediation use was not conditional on its inclusion within written disputes procedures, it
was more likely to be used in workplaces in which this was the case (11 per cent) compared with
those in which mediation was not provided for (3 per cent).
4.2 Workplace and Organisational Size and Mediation
Past research (see Latreille, 2011; Latreille, et al., 2012; Saundry and Dix, 2014; CIPD, 2004,
2007, 2011) has suggested that mediation is largely the preserve of larger organisations.
However, bi-variate analysis of WERS2011 showed that there was no relationship between either
workplace or organisational size and the inclusion of mediation in discipline or grievance
procedures.
As might be expected, there was however, a statistically significant relationship with workplace
size and use of mediation. While usage in workplaces with fewer than 50 employees was in
single figures, this increased to 14 per cent where 50–99 were employed, 24 per cent in
21
5–9
5–9
workplaces with between 100 and 499 employees and 42 per cent where 500 or more were
employed (Table 14). Larger workplaces may have more issues for which mediation may be
relevant.
Table 14 – Use of third party mediation to resolve grievance or disciplinary matters by
workplace size
Number of employees
10–19 20–49 50–99 100–499 500+
% % % % % %
Yes 6 4 7 14 24 42
No 94 96 93 86 76 58
Source: WERS2011 MEQ, results are weighted by establishment; N=2657
However, there was no clear relationship with organisational size. Six per cent of micro
organisations (with 5–9 employees) had used mediation as had 10 per cent of organisations
employing more than 500 employees (Table 15).
Table 15 – Use of third party mediation to resolve grievance or disciplinary matters by
organisational size
Number of employees
10–49 50–249 250–499 500–999 1,000–
9,999 10,000+
% % % % % % %
Yes 6 4 9 5 10 10 10
No 94 96 91 95 90 90 90
Source: WERS2011 MEQ, results are weighted by establishment; N=2529.
4.3 Sector and Workplace Mediation
While our analysis found that public sector workplaces were more likely to include mediation in
their procedures than their private sector counterparts (see also Latreille, 2011; Saundry, et al.,
2014), this was not reflected in whether mediation was used.
Table 16 –Workplace mediation by sector and industry
Is mediation provided for in the: Use of mediation in
last 12 months
Sector Disciplinary
procedure Grievance
procedure
Yes No Yes No Yes
% % % % %
Public sector 78 22 86 14 8
Private sector 60 40 59 41 7
Manufacturing 53 47 41 59 3
Electricity, gas and water 62 38 46 54 3
Construction 58 42 66 34 14
Wholesale and retail 58 42 61 39 8
Hotels and restaurants 69 31 73 27 9
Transport and communication 58 42 61 39 7
Financial services 38 62 37 63 4
Other business services 54 46 47 53 4
Public administration 75 25 92 8 12
Education 82 18 82 18 10
Health 73 27 77 23 6
Other community services 75 25 75 25 8
Source: WERS2011 MEQ, results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2499.
More than three-quarters of disciplinary procedures and 86 per cent of grievance procedures in
the public sector provided for third party mediation; this compared with 60 per cent and 59 per
cent respectively in the private sector (Table 16). In contrast, we found no difference between
22
the proportions of workplaces that used mediation between the public and private sector.
Nonetheless, if mediation took place in the public sector, it was more likely to be conducted by
internal mediators, which perhaps reflects the greater in-house expertise in mediation within the
public sector. Significant differences in mediation use and the provision of mediation in written
procedures between industrial sectors were found. Mediation was more likely to be provided for
in procedures within the public services such as education, public administration and health. For
example, mediation was included in grievance procedures of 92 per cent of workplaces in public
administration compared to just 41 per cent in manufacturing. Mediation was more likely to be
used in construction, education and public administration.
4.4 Mediation and representation
Mediation was also more likely to be included in procedures in unionised workplaces than in
those in which unions were not recognised. In three-quarters of unionised workplaces, mediation
was included in grievance procedures compared to 58 per cent in workplaces where unions were
not recognised. A similar differential existed in the case of disciplinary procedures: in 70 per
cent of unionised workplaces, mediation was included in disciplinary procedures compared to 60
per cent in workplaces in which unions were not recognised. In contrast, the use of mediation
was not significantly different between unionised and non-unionised workplaces (Table 17).
Table 17 – Use of third party mediation to resolve grievance or disciplinary matters
All Recognised unions No unions recognised
% % %
Yes 7 9 7
No 93 91 93
Source: WERS2011 MEQ, results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2656.
4.5 Shaping the provision of mediation
In order to disentangle the effect on mediation of the factors discussed above, logit regression
models were constructed. The first two of these examined the provision of mediation in
workplace disputes procedures (Table 18). This analysis confirmed that the provision of
mediation in workplace procedures was not associated with workplace or organisational size,
contrary to what might be expected given other research to date. However, there was evidence
that some public sector workplaces such as those in education and health were more likely to
provide for mediation in disciplinary and grievance procedures, while mediation was more likely
to be found in grievance procedures in public administration and ‘other community services’. In
the private sector, whether workplaces were in construction, hotels and restaurants and
wholesaling and retailing was positively related to the provision of mediation in grievance
procedures. Multi-site organisations were also more likely to include third party mediation in
their grievance procedures.
There was also a positive relationship between adherence to the three principles within the Acas
Code of Practice and the inclusion of mediation. This may suggest that mediation is seen as part
of, rather than an alternative to, the procedural framework of workplace dispute resolution.
Curiously, having a specialist HR manager also reduced the likelihood that mediation was
incorporated into procedures (although the association was weak in terms of grievance
procedures).
23
Table 18 – Logit regression of the provision of mediation in written disciplinary and
grievance procedures
Provision of mediation in
disciplinary procedures Provision of mediation in
grievance procedures
Organisational size (Ref: 5–9 employees)
10–49 employees -0.365 -0.315
(0.290) (0.291)
50–249 employees -(0.438) 0.088
(0.358) (0.358)
250–499 employees -0.053 0.321
(0.473) (0.487)
500–999 employees 0.080 0.557
(0.488) (0.506)
1000–9999 employees -(0.383) 0.164
(0.412) (0.410)
10000+ employees 0.142 0.653
(0.430) (0.435)
Public sector 0.269 0.535
(0.320) (0.331)
Industrial sector (Ref: Manufacturing)
Electricity, gas, water 0.394 0.016
(0.584) (0.614)
Construction 0.375 0.903**
(0.437) (0.450)
Wholesale/retail 0.318 0.827**
(0.340) (0.355)
Hotels/restaurants 0.771** 1.446***
(0.378) (0.403)
Transport and communications -0.204 0.070
(0.429) (0.464)
Financial services 0.081 0.331
(0.606) (0.637)
Business services 0.061 0.204
(0.329) (0.351)
Public administration 0.366 1.795***
(0.523) (0.526)
Education 1.034** 1.331***
(0.441) (0.444)
Health 0.746** 1.319***
(0.343) (0.362)
Other community services 0.849** 1.223***
(0.363) (0.379)
Union recognition 0.351 0.368
(0.251) (0.250)
Impact of recession -0.040 0.156
(0.167) (0.172)
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline and Grievance) 0.455*** 0.546***
(0.167) (0.172)
Presence of HR practitioner -0.476** -0.365*
(0.209) (0.211)
Multi-site organisation -0.392 -0.567**
(0.258) (0.250)
Constant 0.389 -0.353
(0.367) (0.404)
Weighted observations 2,377 2366
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; Statistical significance levels: *** = p<0.01,
**=p<0.05, *=p<0.1.
24
Table 19 – Logit Regression of the Use of Mediation
Use of mediation
Workplace size (Ref: 5–9 employees)
10–19 employees -0.768
(0.469)
20–49 employees -0.052
(0.420)
50–99 employees 0.604
(0.443)
100–499 employees 1.612***
(0.389)
500+ employees 2.801***
(0.434)
Public sector -0.302
(0.415)
Industrial sector (Ref: Manufacturing)
Electricity, gas, water -1.254*
(0.716)
Construction 1.768**
(0.752)
Wholesale/retail 0.377
(0.579)
Hotels/restaurants 0.599
(0.733)
Transport and communications 0.549
(0.694)
Financial services -0.097
(1.136)
Business services 0.056
(0.712)
Public administration 0.699
(0.688)
Education 0.764
(0.824)
Health 0.096
(0.703)
Other community services 0.107
(0.704)
Union recognition -0.036
(0.322)
Impact of recession 0.422
(0.283)
Proportion of women employees 0.002
(0.007)
Proportion of ethnic minority employees -0.000
(0.014)
Proportion of employees – 22–49 years of age -0.026***
(0.008)
Proportion of employees – 50+ years of age -0.024
(0.015)
Proportion of professional employees -0.001
(0.007)
Presence of HR practitioner -0.458
(0.337)
Multi-site organisation 0.234
(0.321)
Always adhere to key principles (Discipline and Grievance) -0.095
(0.321)
Provision of mediation (Discipline or Grievance) 1.657***
(0.371)
Constant -2.246
(1.101)
Weighted observations 2,288
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; Statistical significance levels: *** = p<0.01,
**=p<0.05, *=p<0.1.
25
Factors affecting variations in the use of mediation were somewhat different from those affecting
its inclusion in procedures (Table 19). Sector was unimportant in predicting whether mediation
had been used in the previous 12 months when other factors were controlled for. However,
mediation use was positively associated with workplace size. Compared with workplaces with
between 5 and 9 employees, marginal effects reveal the largest workplaces were 39 percentage
points more likely to have used mediation, while those with 100–499 employees were 14
percentage points more likely to have done so. In addition, there was a positive relationship
between mediation use and its inclusion in disciplinary and grievance procedures but no
relationship with adherence to the Acas code.
It might be expected that organisations use mediation or include it within their procedures in
response to one or more experiences of conflict. In order to investigate this we examined the
WERS panel data (Table 20). First, we looked at workplaces that had experienced an ET claim in
2011. Almost half of all such workplaces (48%) went on to use mediation compared to just 7%
which had not been subject to litigation. Second, we looked at workplaces that had a higher rate
of disciplinary sanctions in 2011 compared with 2004. This difference was also significant. More
than one in five workplaces that had experienced an increase in disciplinary action had used
mediation compared to 5 per cent in which there had been no change or the incidence of
disciplinary sanctions had fallen. In contrast, there was no significant relationship between these
variables and whether mediation was included in the workplace’s disciplinary procedures. Overall
our results suggest that the experience of conflict within a workplace will shape the use of
mediation but that the development of procedures may be driven by other factors.
Table 20 – Mediation and workplace conflict
Use of mediation Inclusion of mediation in
disciplinary procedure
% %
ET claim in 2011 48* 52
No ET claim in 2011 7* 62
Increase in rate of disciplinary
sanctions (2004–11) 21* 55
No increase in rate of disciplinary
sanctions (2004–11) 4* 64
Source: WERS 2004/2011 Panel; Results weighted by establishment; N=at least 937; * denotes significant at 5% level
4.6 Summary
Mediation by an impartial third party was used by just 7 per cent of workplaces responding to
WERS2011. But closer inspection suggests that it has become a significant part of workplace
dispute resolution regimes, being used in almost one in five workplaces which experienced a
formal individual grievance. Moreover, mediation was provided for within written disputes
procedures in around two-thirds of workplaces. While organisational size does not appear to
affect the likelihood of mediation being provided for within disciplinary and grievance
procedures, workplace size is positively related to mediation use, which is consistent with the
research to date (Latreille, 2011; Saundry, et al., 2014). The evidence suggests that the use of
mediation may be triggered as a response to rising levels of conflict and the experience of
litigation.
5. Procedure, Process and the Incidence of Individual Employment Disputes
This section examines the relationship between procedures and four measures of individual
employment disputes – employee grievances, disciplinary action, dismissals, ET applications –
and employee outcomes. First, we report the nature and extent of these disputes. Second, we
examine their link to disciplinary procedures, grievance procedures and mediation. Third, we
explore the relationships between procedures and process and employee attitudes in relation to
fairness, employment relations and organisational commitment. Finally, we present a series of
regression models that assess the influence of workplace characteristics, workforce composition,
procedural existence and adherence and the impact of recession on these outcomes.
26
5.1 The causes of individual employment disputes
According to WERS2011, unfair treatment or relations with a line manager or supervisor was the
most commonly cited trigger for employee grievances (39 per cent of respondents) followed by
pay, terms and conditions (28 per cent) and bullying and harassment (23 per cent) (Table 21).
Unfair treatment/relations with a line manager or supervisor and bullying were more prevalent
in the public than the private sector (52 per cent compared with 36 per cent).
Table 21 – Reasons for employee grievances
Reasons for employee grievances All Public Private
% % %
Unfair treatment, relations with line managers or supervisor 39 52 36
Pay, terms and conditions 28 23 29
Bullying at work and harassment (including from colleagues, 23 39 20
Promotion, job grading and career development 16 19 15
Working time 15 13 16
Physical working conditions, health and safety 10 11 9
Selection for redundancy 9 7 10
Some other grievance 9 9 10
Discrimination 6 10 6
Total 155 182 151
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=1540.
In relation to disciplinary action, the most commonly used sanction was a formal verbal warning
(65 per cent) followed by a formal written warning (62 per cent), while 46 per cent of
workplaces taking disciplinary action reported having dismissed an employee. There was little
difference in the extent to which warnings were used in the private and public sectors although
the use of dismissal was more widespread in the private sector (47 per cent of workplaces
compared with 35 per cent in the public sector).
The most frequent reason for disciplinary action was poor performance, followed by timekeeping
and absence (Table 22). The proportion of workplaces where these were cited was greater in the
private than the public sector, whereas abusive or violent behaviour, bullying or harassment
were more frequently cited as a reason in the public sector.
Table 22 – Reason for disciplinary sanctions in the previous 12 months – all and by
sector
All Private Public
% % %
Poor performance 58 59 43
Poor timekeeping or unauthorised absence 44 46 29
Personal use of premises or equipment, theft or dishonesty 22 22 20
Abusive or violent behaviour, bullying or harassment 19 18 28
Disobedience 16 16 18
Health and safety breaches 13 13 13
Alcohol or drug use 7 7 0
Other 15 13 35
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=1752.
5.2 The nature and extent of individual workplaces disputes
Mean rates of individual grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and ER applications broken
down by sector and union recognition are shown in Table 23. Rates of individual grievances and
ET applications were relatively stable across different workplaces. However, rates of disciplinary
sanctions and dismissals were markedly higher in private sector workplaces. In addition, there
was some indication of unionisation acting as a moderating influence but only in relation to
disciplinary issues.
27
Table 23 – Rate of grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and ET applications
per 100 employees and by sector and representation
Individual
grievances Disciplinary
sanctions Dismissals ET
applications
Mean Mean Mean Mean
All workplaces 1.35 6.23 1.54 0.19
Private sector 1.34 6.84* 1.73* 0.19
Public sector 1.47 2.29* 0.35* 0.18
Union recognised 1.39 3.81* 1.19 0.20
Union not recognised 1.35 6.77* 1.62 0.19
Base: all workplaces with five or more employees; N = at least 2188; * – significant at the 5% level
The importance of industrial sector is further examined in Table 24. Mean rates of disciplinary
sanctions and dismissals were found to be highest in construction, wholesale and retail, and in
hotels and restaurants. The construction sector also had the highest rates of ET applications (by
a considerable margin) at 1.76 per 100 employees compared with the next highest ‘other
community services’ (0.43 per 100 employees). Rates of individual grievances were highest in
‘other community services’ (3.13), followed by hotels and restaurants (1.84) and health (1.74).
Table 24 – Rate of grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and ET applications
per 100 employees by industrial sector
Individual
grievances Disciplinary
sanctions Dismissals ET
applications
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Manufacturing 0.43 6.25 1.75 0.06
Electricity, gas and water 0.53 1.91 0.51 0.04
Construction 1.18 8.88 2.18 1.79
Wholesale and retail 1.15 8.39 2.39 0.06
Hotels and restaurants 1.84 11.48 2.16 0.36
Transport and communication 2.00 6.30 1.06 0.06
Financial services 0.43 4.89 0.56 0.20
Other business services 0.68 3.36 1.17 0.05
Public administration 1.22 2.09 0.42 0.10
Education 1.33 2.99 0.45 0.22
Health 1.74 4.09 0.95 0.07
Other community services 3.13 6.72 0.87 0.43
Base: all workplaces with five or more employees; N = 2185.
Smaller workplaces had lower levels of individual grievances but higher average rates of
disciplinary sanctions (Table 25). Workplaces with more than 500 employees levied sanctions
against almost 3 employees per 100 while those with 5–9 employees took sanctions against 6
employees per 100. The largest workplaces also had the lowest mean rate of dismissals (1.05)
while the smallest workplaces had the highest rate (1.72), a statistically significant difference.
There was no association between workplace size and the rate of ET applications.
In the case of organisational size, the smallest organisations with 5–9 employees had the
highest rate of disciplinary sanctions (7.06) and of ET applications (0.49). The lowest rates of
disciplinary sanctions (2.72), dismissals (0.90) and ET applications (0.02) were found in
organisations employing between 250 and 499 people, a statistically significant difference from
other size bands (Table 26).
28
Table 25 – Rate of grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and ET applications
per 100 employees by workplace size
Workplace size Individual
grievances Disciplinary
sanctions Dismissals ET applications
No. employees Mean Mean Mean Mean
5–9 1.28 6.06 1.72 0.22
10–19 1.35 6.56 1.34 0.14
20–49 1.27 6.94 1.45 0.18
50–99 1.87 5.62 1.64 0.26
100–499 1.56 5.08 1.37 0.24
500+ 1.63 2.79 1.05 0.19
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=2188.
Table 26 – Rate of grievances, disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and ET applications
per 100 employees by organisational size
Organisational
size Individual
grievances Disciplinary
sanctions Dismissals ET
applications
No. employees Mean Mean Mean Mean
5–9 1.61 7.06 1.63 0.49
10–49 1.11 6.14 1.31 0.14
50–249 1.86 6.06 1.65 0.21
250–499 1.49 2.72 0.90 0.02
500–999 1.33 4.95 1.63 0.26
1000–9999 1.22 7.04 1.92 0.06
10000+ 1.31 6.26 1.65 0.14
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=2085.
Analysis of the panel reflected the broad thrust of existing analysis of WERS that suggests a
reduction in the incidence of observable disputes between 2004 and 2011 (van Wanrooy, et al.,
2013). Although the rate of ET applications increased from 0.15 to 0.20, this was not statistically
significant. In contrast there were significant reductions in the rate of dismissals, from 1.85 to
1.23, and the mean rate of disciplinary sanctions, from 9.16 to 4.73 (Table 27). In contrast, the
proportion of workplaces in the panel that experienced formal employee grievances increased
from 21 per cent in 2004 to 28 per cent in 2011.
Table 27 – Change in workplace conflict, 2004–2011
Rate per 100 employees 2004 2011
ET Applications 0.15 0.20
Disciplinary Sanctions 9.16 4.73*
Dismissals 1.85 1.23*
Source: WERS 2004/2011 Panel; Results are weighted by establishment; n=at least 874; * significant at the 5% level
5.3 Disputes Procedures, Processes and Outcomes
In this subsection we examine if procedures and processes shape outcomes. Do sound
procedures help to avoid dismissals and ET applications? Do mediation processes provide for
earlier resolutions without recourse to disciplinary action, employee grievances and thereby
avoid the threat of litigation?
We first explore bi-variate relationships between the nature of procedures and process and
outcomes (Table 28). The rate of disciplinary sanctions was higher where disciplinary procedures
existed and the Acas principles were always adhered to in the case of disciplinary matters.
Understandably, the rate was unrelated to the existence of grievance procedures or adherence
to Acas principles for grievances. Adherence to Acas principles but not the existence of
disciplinary procedures was related to higher rates of dismissals. The direction of causality
underlying these relationships is not obvious: it could be that the presence of procedures
provided managers with the confidence to take action against employees. Alternatively,
29
managers within organisations that deal with a larger number of disciplinary issues will be
practised in ensuring procedural compliance. The lack of an association between the existence of
procedures and dismissals may suggest that procedures may promote the use of sanctions as a
way of changing behaviour without resorting to dismissal.
Table 28 – Individual Disputes Procedures, Disciplinary Sanctions and Dismissals
Disciplinary sanctions Dismissals
Mean Mean
Disciplinary procedure 6.42* 1.58
No disciplinary procedure 2.62* 0.84
Grievance procedure 6.23 1.54
No grievance procedure 4.49 1.24
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline) 6.55* 1.73*
Do not always adhere to key
principles (Discipline) 3.98* 0.64*
Always adhere to key principles
(Grievance) 6.33 1.63
Do not adhere to key principles
(Grievance) 5.92 1.45
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2301; * – significant at 5% level.
Analysis of the WERS panel suggests that increased adherence to the three principles in the
Acas Code of Practice between 2004 and 2011 has had little impact on outcomes and the pattern
of change of the rate of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals did not differ between those
workplaces that applied greater formality and those that did not (Table 29).
Table 29 – Change in incidence of disputes by increased adherence to key principles
Increase in adherence to key
principles Rate of disciplinary
sanctions Rate of dismissals
Increased
2004–11 Reduced
2004–11 Increased
2004–11 Reduced
2004–11
Disciplinary procedures % of workplaces % of workplaces
Yes 21 37 11 13
No 29 36 16 18
Grievance procedures
Yes 25 41 14 15
No 28 35 15 18
Source: WERS 2004/2011 Panel; Results are weighted by establishment; n=at least 803.
Grievance rates were significantly higher in workplaces with written disciplinary procedures but
there was no association with adherence to the three key principles under the Acas Code of
Practice (Table 30). Mean rates of ET applications were also unrelated to the existence of written
procedures or adherence to the three key principles of the Acas Code of Practice.
The findings show that there is not a strong association between adherence to the key principles
and the level of individual grievances and ET applications, but there is between adherence and
levels of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals. This suggests that managers pay particular
attention to procedural and legal compliance when dismissing workers.
30
Table 30 – Rate of grievances per 100 employees by disputes procedures
Mean
Disciplinary procedure 1.39*
No disciplinary procedure .39*
Grievance procedure 1.36
No grievance procedure n.a.
Always adhere to key principles (disciplinary) 1.44
Do not always adhere to key principles (disciplinary) 0.94
Always adhere to key principles (grievance) 1.51
Do not adhere to key principles (grievance) 1.23
Table 31 – Workplace Mediation, Disciplinary Sanctions and Dismissals
Disciplinary
sanctions Dismissals
Mean Mean
Have used mediation by a third party 14.74* 2.02*
Have not used mediation 5.39* 1.47*
Provision for mediation by a third party included in
disciplinary procedure 6.58 1.42
No provision for mediation in disciplinary procedure 6.32 1.94
Provision for mediation by third party included in
grievance procedure 7.00 1.57
No provision for mediation in grievance procedure 5.38 1.63
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2368; * – significant at 5% level
The findings show that there is not a strong association between adherence to the key principles
and the level of individual grievances and ET applications, but there is between adherence and
levels of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals. This suggests that managers pay particular
attention to procedural and legal compliance when dismissing workers.
5.4 Workplace mediation and the outcomes of disputes
One of the key arguments supporting the extension of workplace mediation is that it facilitates
the resolution of conflict that would otherwise escalate into full-blown disputes (Latreille, 2011;
Saundry, et al., 2013; Saundry and Wibberley, 2014). However, our analysis found that
mediation use was generally associated with higher rates of individual employment disputes.
In the case of disciplinary action, rates of sanctions and dismissals were significantly higher
where mediation has been used (Table 31). It could be that mediation is more likely to be
employed in high conflict workplaces or it is being used following disciplinary action as a way of
repairing employment relationships (Latreille, 2011). But the evidence does not suggest that
mediation was being used to deal with disciplinary issues before procedure was enacted, as
Gibbons had envisaged.
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2168; * – significant at 5% level.
Moreover, in workplaces in which mediation had been used to resolve a dispute, the average
rate of grievances was more than six times that of workplaces in which mediation had not been
used (Table 32). This could reflect the fact that organisations turn to mediation as a response to
high levels of grievances. Moreover, the availability of mediation may be part of a climate in
which employees feel more able to voice concerns and raise grievances.
31
Table 32 – Rate of grievance per 100 employees by workplace mediation
Mean
Have used mediation by a third party 6.67*
Have not used mediation by a third party 0.93*
Provision for mediation by a third party included in disciplinary procedure? 1.34
No provision for mediation in disciplinary procedure 1.51
Provision for mediation by a third party included in grievance procedure? 1.46
No provision for mediation in grievance procedure 1.22
Table 33 – ET applications by workplace mediation
Mean
Have used mediation by a third party 1.75*
Have not used mediation by a third party 0.06*
Provision for mediation by a third party included in disciplinary procedure? 0.23
No provision for mediation in disciplinary procedure 0.12
Provision for mediation by a third party included in grievance procedure? 0.25
No provision for mediation in grievance procedure 0.10
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2300; * – significant at 5% level.
As Gibbons (2007) argued, mediation may offer a way of resolving disputes and repairing
relationships within the workplace and of avoiding the cost and stress of litigation. Nonetheless,
the mean rate of ET applications in workplaces that have used mediation was significantly higher
than those that have not (Table 33). We cannot know if the ET cases followed mediation, or
indeed whether the mediation was used in these cases. But this could suggest that the
experience of litigation may have encouraged organisations to turn to mediation. This is
consistent with the finding that of those workplaces that had experienced an ET application in
the previous 12 months, 48 per cent had used mediation when only 7 per cent of workplaces
that had not been subject to an ET claim used mediation.
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; N=at least 2419; * – significant at 5%
5.5 Exploring the link between employee attitudes, disputes procedures and use of
mediation
A central rationale for the extension of workplace procedures is that they provide a basis for
sound employment relations practice and for procedural fairness. Moreover, it has been argued
that mediation is associated with positive perceptions of workplace justice (Nesbit, et al., 2012;
Saundry, et al., 2014). This section examines bi-variate relationships between the application of
grievance and disciplinary procedures and use of mediation and measures of employee’s
attitudes drawn from the Employee Questionnaire of WERS2011.
Perceptions of fairness were measured by a question that asked employees whether they agreed
on a scale of 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree that managers at their workplace ‘treat
them fairly’; the responses were recoded to produce a scale of 1= strongly disagree and
5=strongly agree. Employment relations climate was measured by asking employees to rate
‘relations between managers and employees’. Again a five-point scale was recoded so that
1=very poor and 5=very good. Engagement was measured by a single item which asked
employees the extent to which they agreed with the statement ‘Using my own initiative I carry
out tasks that are not required as part of my job’. Three items were used to capture
commitment, again asking the respondents about their level of agreement with statements:
‘I share many of the values of my organisation’, ‘I feel loyal to my organisation’, ‘I am proud to
tell people who I work for’. The same scale was used as in the fairness question and thus
recoded so that 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Fairness perceptions did not differ between workplaces that adhered to the ACAS principles or
used mediation (Table 34). However, adherence to these principles for grievances (but not
discipline) and the use of mediation was related to the employment relations climate.
Employment relations were more poorly rated in workplaces in which mediation had been used
32
and key principles were adhered to when handling disciplinary matters and employee
grievances.
Table 34 – Fairness and employment relations by adherence to key procedural
principles and mediation use
Fairness Employment
Relations
Mean values Mean values
Always adhere to key principles (Discipline and
Grievance) 3.61* 3.85*
Do not always adhere to key principles (Discipline
and Grievance) 3.73* 4.04*
Have used mediation by a third party 3.58 3.80
Have not used mediation by a third party 3.69 3.97
Source: WERS2011 MQ and EQs; EQ results for each workplace were weighted by employee weight variable and then
cross- tabulations were weighted by establishment; N=at least 1905; * significant at the 5% level.
There was also no evidence of any relationship between the use of workplace mediation and
engagement and organisational commitment. There was also no significant difference in the
extent to which workers felt that they used their own initiative or shared the values of the
organisation and procedural adherence. However respondents were more positive in terms of
loyalty to, and pride in, their organisation in workplaces which did not fully adhere to the three
key principles of the Acas Code (Table 35).
Table 35 –Adherence to key procedural principles and mediation use by engagement
and commitment
Initiative Values Loyal Proud
Mean
values Mean
values Mean
values Mean
values
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline and Grievance) 3.88 3.77 3.98* 3.85*
Do not always adhere to key principles
(Discipline and Grievance) 3.88 3.81 4.12* 3.97*
Use of mediation 3.81 3.83 3.98 3.91
Non-use of mediation 3.89 3.80 4.07 3.93
Source: WERS2011 MQ and EQs; EQ results for each workplace were weighted by employee weight variable and then
cross-tabulations were weighted by establishment; N=at least 1899; * significant at the 5% level. Lower scores equate
to more positive expressions of commitment.
It could be argued that adherence to the principles contained within the Acas Code, and
particularly the use of mediation, could have a more positive impact in workplaces in which
disciplinary sanctions are more likely to be applied or that experience high levels of grievances.
In such workplaces, the application and use of mediation may be seen positively by employees
as providing fairness and equity. We therefore examined the same variables as above focusing
only on the top quartile of workplaces by disciplinary sanctions rate (7.75 per 100 employees
and above) and rate of employee grievances (2.3 per cent and above) (Table 36). However, the
findings were similar to those of the whole sample (cf Tables 31 and 32). In both high discipline
and high grievance workplaces, more positive views of both employment relations and the
fairness of employers were found where the key principles of the Acas Code were not always
adhered to. There was thus no evidence that adherence to the Acas principles or the use of
mediation generated more positive employee attitudes. In fact, more negative views of
employment relations and fairness were found in workplaces in which there was consistent
adherence to the key principles of the Acas Code of Practice. This could be explained by
workplaces with being compelled to adopt more robust processes for dealing with conflict.
33
Table 36 – High conflict workplaces – fairness and employment relations by adherence
to key procedural principles and mediation use
Fairness Employment Relations
High
discipline High
grievance High
discipline High
grievance
Mean values Mean values Mean values Mean values
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline and Grievance) 3.55* 3.31* 3.78* 3.52*
Do not always adhere to key
principles (Discipline and
Grievance)
3.73* 3.64* 4.09* 3.92*
Have used mediation by a third
party 3.67 3.50 3.93 3.76
Have not used mediation by a
third party 3.62 3.57 3.96 3.84
Source: WERS2011 MQ and EQs; EQ results for each workplace were weighted by employee weight variable and then
cross-tabulations were weighted by establishment; N=469; * significant at the 5% level.
5.6 Exploring the antecedents of the outcomes of individual employment disputes
In order to isolate the influence of procedural and process variables, we estimated regression
models designed to predict rates of: disciplinary sanctions, dismissals, rate of ET applications,
employee grievances, turnover and absence.
The results for sanctions, dismissals and ET rates (Table 37) suggest that workplace disputes
were related to four key factors. First, the incidence of disputes was associated with increasing
workplace size. Workplaces with 50–99, 100–499 and 500 and over employees were all
positively associated with rates of sanctions, dismissals and ET applications. Second, workforce
composition was significant in determining the rate of disciplinary sanctions and dismissals:
workplaces with higher proportions of women and also older employees experienced lower rates
of both measures of disputes. A similar, albeit only weak, effect was found for the proportion of
professional employees at the workplace. Thus far, these findings replicate earlier studies of
WERS data in 1998 and 2004 (Knight and Latreille, 2000; Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). Third,
whether a workplace was in the public sector was negatively related to the rate of disciplinary
sanctions. However, industrial sector was less important in defining the disciplinary profile of
workplaces or the likelihood that they may experience litigation. Fourth, the extent to which
workplaces adhered to the key principles contained within the Acas Code of Practice was
positively related to the rate of both disciplinary sanctions and dismissals. This may simply
reflect the fact that high conflict workplaces were more likely to adopt robust procedures when
dealing with discipline and grievance. In contrast however, (overall) procedural compliance does
not seem to be associated with the rate of ET applications2.
Finally, our bi-variate analysis in section 5.2 showed that disciplinary sanctions were significantly
higher in unionised workplaces compared with workplaces in which unions were not recognised.
However, when other factors such as organisational size were controlled for, this effect was not
found. In fact, trade union recognition was not significantly associated with the rate of
dismissals, disciplinary sanctions or the rate of ET applications. This represents a change from
previous studies of the WERS series that have identified trade union organisation as a key factor
in shaping the pattern of workplace conflict (Knight and Latreille, 2000; Antcliff and Saundry,
2009).
Entering the discipline and grievance indices separately in place of the full compliance measure, a weak
relationship was however observed for grievances (p=0.075).
34
2
Table 37 – Tobit regressions of disciplinary sanction rate, dismissal rate and ET
application rate on workforce and workplace characteristics
Rate of disciplinary
sanctions Rate of dismissals Rate of ET
applications
Workplace size (Ref: 5–9 employees)
10–19 employees 3.963 2.456 1.116
(2.986) (2.456) (2.953)
20–49 employees 6.471* 3.564 3.698
(3.342) (2.405) (2.395)
50–99 employees 10.010*** 10.802*** 11.393***
(3.061) (2.383) (2.027)
100–499 employees 13.626*** 12.833*** 15.994***
(3.261) (2.571) (2.314)
500+ employees 15.167*** 18.065*** 21.902***
(3.862) (3.046) (3.062)
Public sector –8.420*** –4.787* –4.193*
(3.260) (2.860) (2.260)
Industrial sector (Ref: Manufacturing)
Electricity, gas, water –11.237 –3.660 –4.800*
(7.000) (5.137) (2.851)
Construction 7.430 3.949 10.415
(5.357) (5.810) (6.752)
Wholesale/retail 4.857 7.590** –1.728
(5.001) (3.831) (3.046)
Hotels/restaurants 7.177 4.700 4.181
(5.509) (4.056) (3.750)
Transport and communications 0.515 1.553 0.749
(5.248) (3.599) (2.460)
Financial services 7.975 –3.011 3.016
(10.437) (5.383) (4.568)
Business services –3.646 2.422 –1.701
(5.121) (4.1021) (2.899)
Public administration 1.721 2.845 2.567
(6.303) (4.798) (3.450)
Education 5.257 1.283 4.328
(6.042) (4.791) (4.746)
Health 3.008 5.868 –1.500
(5.177) (4.151) (3.920)
Other community services 5.101 3.052 7.845**
(5.500) (4.272) (3.434)
Trade union recognition 0.324 0.964 3.106
(2.835) (3.218) (1.914)
Impact of recession –1.531 –1.889 2.514*
(1.980) (1.608) (1.370)
Proportion of women employees –0.116** –0.100*** –0.001
(0.050) (0.038) (0.050)
Proportion of ethnic minority 0.100* 0.067 0.031
employees (0.060) (0.045) (0.038)
Proportion of employees – –0.114 0.075 0.001
22–49 years of age (0.074) (0.056) (0.065)
Proportion of employees – –0.264*** –0.150** –0.006
50+ years of age (0.094) (0.068) (0.072)
Proportion of professional
employees –0.070* –0.052* –0.006
(0.040) (0.029) (0.029)
Presence of HR practitioner 0.340 2.564 –1.000
(2.875) (2.076) (1.380)
Multi-site organisation –0.367 –0.777 –2.169
(2.396) (1.855) (1.874)
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline) 9.188*** 8.507*** –
(3.290) (2.457) –
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline and Grievance) – – 1.618
(1.939)
Constant 2.600 –22.801*** –28.067***
(9.288) (6.813) (8.911)
Sigma 21.941*** 14.521*** 12.000***
(1.870) (1.055) (1.774)
Weighted observations 2,272 2,376 2,426
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; Statistical significance levels: *** = p<0.01,
**=p<0.05, *=p<0.1.
35
Table 38 – Tobit regressions of rate of employee grievances, turnover and rate of
absence on workforce and workplace characteristics
Rate of grievances Turnover Rate of absence
Workplace size (Ref: 5–9 employees)
10–19 employees 4.319** 1.064 0.601
(2.167) (2.295) (0.821)
20–49 employees 6.141*** 2.033 0.745
(2.111) (2.143) (0.734)
50–99 employees 12.016*** 2.373 1.309
(2.273) (2.203) (1.624)
100–499 employees 16.272*** 7.520*** 2.281**
(2.213) (2.337) (0.931)
500+ employees 21.083*** 10.603*** 0.648
(2.522) (2.834) (1.058)
Public sector –2.123 –5.066 1.491
(2.362) (3.628) (1.574)
Industrial sector (Ref: Manufacturing)
Electricity, gas, water 1.285 –3.496 0.092
(3.105) (6.132) (1.585)
Construction 1.792 5.462 0.791
(3.577) (5.326) (1.410)
Wholesale/retail 3.214 10.071*** –0.362
(2.524) (3.882) (0.826)
Hotels/restaurants 5.432* 21.195*** –0.150
(3.191) (4.869) (1.570)
Transport and communications 9.064*** 3.241 -0.075
(3.328) (4.819) (1.726)
Financial services –1.430 15.514** –2.355**
(3.809) (7.463) (1.182)
Business services 2.004 10.103** –0.856
(2.378) (3.953) (0.975)
Public administration 6.523 3.685 –3.631**
(4.067) (5.049) (1.817)
Education 5.906 8.515* -0.082
(4.104) (4.688) (2.845)
Health 7.880** 13.565*** –1.505
(3.243) (4.339) (1.544)
Other community services 10.763*** 7.627* –1.536
(3.913) (4.410) (1.333)
Trade union recognition –0.817 –2.663 –0.079
(1.531) (2.809) (1.027)
Impact of recession 1.367 –2.395 0.072
(1.473) (1.664) (0.795)
Proportion of women
employees 0.011 –0.006 0.025
(0.035) (0.039) (0.022)
Proportion of ethnic minority
employees 0.013 –0.077 0.002
(0.041) (0.051) (0.019)
Proportion of employees –
22–49 years of age –0.113* –0.072 0.016
(0.059) (0.059) (0.030)
Proportion of employees – –0.113* –0.282*** 0.038
50+ years of age (0.068) (0.067) (0.027)
Proportion of professional
employees 0.010 –0.057** –0.005
(0.025) (0.030) (0.012)
Presence of HR practitioner 0.900 1.598 –0.328
(1.720) (2.164) (1.229)
Multi-site organisation 2.056 3.771** 1.257
(1.602) (1.798) (0.932)
Always adhere to key principles
(Grievance) 1.351 – –
(1.492)
Always adhere to key principles
(Discipline and Grievance) – 2.300 0.646
(1.755) (0.699)
Constant –16.294** 6.167 -0.175
(6.590) (7.382) (3.262)
Sigma 13.995*** 19.792*** 8.517***
(1.192) (1.046) (0.678)
Weighted observations 2,260 2,352 2,148
Source: WERS2011 MQ, Results are weighted by establishment; Statistical significance levels: *** = p<0.01,
**=p<0.05, *=p<0.1.
36
Analysis of employee grievances, turnover and absence revealed that workplace size was a
predictor of both employee grievances and turnover, with larger workplaces linked to higher
rates of both (Table 38). There was no systematic relationship with rates of absence. But
industrial sector was important, with rates of grievances higher in transport and
communications, health and other community services. Higher turnover varied by sector, with
higher rates likely in wholesale and retail, hotels and restaurants, financial services, business
services and health. Moreover, workplaces with higher proportions of employees who were 50
years of age or more or which had higher proportions of professionals were likely to have lower
rates of turnover, as were those that were part of multi-site organisations. Rates of absence
were unrelated to industrial sector and there was no link between adherence to the three
principles contained within the Acas Code and any of the dependent variables.
5.7 Summary
Our findings were generally consistent with previous analyses that suggested that the key
influences of the incidence of individual employment disputes relate to workplace and workforce
characteristics as opposed to managerial actions in implementing resolution procedures and
procedures. More specifically, the most important predictors appeared to be: workplace size,
which was positively associated with all measures, with the exception of absence; a higher
proportion of women in the workplace was linked with lower rates of dismissals and disciplinary
sanctions, as was the case in workplaces with a higher proportion of older workers. Workforce
characteristics were less influential in predicting rates of grievances, however. Importantly,
there was little to suggest that procedural adherence had any impact in reducing the incidence
of individual employment disputes. Indeed it may be that those workplaces that experience
higher levels of conflict were likely to adopt more robust procedures in response. This also
appeared to apply to the use of workplace mediation.
Union recognition was unrelated to outcomes contrary to previous analysis of the WERS series.
This could indicate that unions have less influence over the outcome and resolution of individual
employment disputes at workplace level than they did in the past. It might be expected that
positive perceptions of fair treatment, employee relations and organisational commitment would
be linked to the way in which disputes are handled. However, there was little evidence that this
was the case. Indeed, the employees in workplaces in which mediation was used and procedure
was adhered to had more negative views of employment relations. The results did not differ
between high and low conflict workplaces.
6. Conclusions
A number of themes have emerged from this analysis. First, written procedures for dealing with
individual employment disputes have become more commonplace since 2004 and the principles
embodied in the Acas Code of Practice have become more consistently adhered to. If this is a
lagged effect of the introduction of statutory procedures in 2004 it may fade. But if it reflects the
fact that organisational practice is coalescing around the three key stages set out in the
statutory procedures and now enshrined in the Acas Code, it may be more permanent.
Unfortunately WERS2011 does not allow us to see whether these changes have also squeezed
out informal approaches to dispute resolution.
Second, there is a difference between the ways in which disciplinary and grievance procedures
are enacted in the workplace. Disciplinary procedures appear to be relatively uniform, at least in
respect of the three key principles in the Acas Code of Practice, but there is greater variation in
grievance procedures. This could reflect that there is greater scope for flexibility in grievance
handling, which allows for more negotiation and resolution. In contrast, the close link between
disciplinary procedures and the risk of unfair dismissal potentially provides a greater incentive
for employers to adopt more consistent procedures.
Third, our analysis of WERS2011 found that workplace mediation is a potentially important
feature of British workplaces. Most respondents claim that it is provided for in their procedures.
Yet prior evidence, not based on as systematic and representative study as WERS2011,
suggested that explicit references to mediation are not commonly included within organisational
procedures (Latreille, 2011; Saundry and Wibberley, 2014) and are particularly unlikely to be
37
found in disciplinary procedures. The WERS result may reflect respondents having a broad
conception of mediation or even their gauging it on the basis that mediation is provided for by
the fact that it is not explicitly ruled out in the procedure. On the other hand, especially as the
use of mediation is not inconsiderable, WERS may have revealed that the reach of mediation is
greater than previously thought. That between 14 and 17 per cent of workplaces experiencing
some form of dispute in the past 12 months have used third–party mediation was significant.
Moreover, our analysis suggests that meditation use is not, as some have thought, limited to
large and public sector organisations. Instead, there is evidence that mediation use is a
response to experiencing employment litigation or increased levels of conflict. However, there is
little in our analysis to suggest that mediation is being used at an early stage to prevent
disciplinary and grievance matters entering formal procedures or resulting in litigation.
Fourth, the variation in most of the results between unionised and non–unionised workplaces
from bi–variate analysis did not remain once size and industry differences were controlled for.
This is a notable contrast from previous analysis of the determinants of individual employment
disputes (Knight and Latreille, 2000; Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). In fact, our analysis suggests
that unionisation has little influence on the incidence of disciplinary sanctions, dismissals and
employee grievances. Nonetheless, it has been argued that it is the quality of union–employer
relationships that is critical to effective dispute resolution (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009; Saundry,
et al., 2011) and this is an issue for further research.
Finally, there is no evidence that the presence of procedures and also the use of mediation are
accompanied by lower rates of individual employment disputes. In fact, workplaces with written
procedures and those that used mediation tended to experience more grievances, disciplinary
issues and employment litigation. The most convincing explanation for this is that organisations
that are prone to conflict are more likely to adopt robust procedures and also to use alternative
ways of resolving disputes such as mediation.
38
REFERENCES
Antcliff, V. and Saundry R. (2009) ‘Accompaniment, Workplace Representation and Disciplinary
Outcomes in British Workplaces – Just a Formality?, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47:1,
100–121.
Bingham, L.B. (2004). ‘Employment Dispute Resolution: The Case for Mediation’,
Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22: 145–174.
BIS (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) (2011) Resolving Workplace Disputes: A
Consultation, London: BIS.
CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) (2004) Managing Conflict at Work: A
Survey of the UK and Ireland, London: CIPD.
CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) (2007) Managing Conflict at Work,
London: CIPD.
CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) (2008) Workplace Mediation – How
Employers Do It?, London: CIPD.
CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) (2011) Conflict Management – Survey
Report, London: CIPD.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2001) Routes to Resolution—Consultation Document
on Dispute Resolution and Tribunal reform. London: DTI.
Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M., and Goodman, J. (2000) ‘Unfair to whom? Discipline and
dismissal in small establishments’, Industrial Relations Journal, 31(1): 62–73.
Edwards, P. (1995) ‘Strikes and Industrial Conflict’ in Edwards, P. (ed.) Industrial Relations:
Theory and Practice in Britain, 434–460, Oxford: Blackwell.
Edwards, P. (2000) ‘Discipline: towards trust and self–discipline?’ In S. Bach and K. Sisson
(eds), Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice in Britain (3rd
edn), Oxford: Blackwell, 317–339.
Forth, J., Bewley, H., and Bryson, A. 2006.Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Findings from
the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, London: Routledge.
Gibbons, M. (2007) A Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain, London: DTI.
Greene, W.J. (2012) Econometric Analysis (7thedn), Harlow: Pearson.
Harris, L., Tuckman, A. and Snook, J. (2008) ‘Small Firms and Workplace Disputes Resolution’,
Acas Research Paper, No. 01/08.
Johnston, T. (2008) ‘Knowledge and Use of Mediation in SMEs’, Acas Research Paper, No. 02/08.
Jones, C. and Saundry, R. (2012) ‘The practice of discipline: evaluating the roles and
relationship between managers and HR professionals’, Human Resource Management Journal,
22:3, 252–26.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S. (2006) Inside
the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, London:
Routledge.
Knight, K.G. and Latreille, P.L. (2000) 'Discipline, dismissals and complaints to Employment
Tribunals', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38:4, 533–555.
39
Latreille, P.L. (2011) ‘Workplace Mediation: A Thematic Review of the Acas/CIPD Evidence’, Acas
Research Paper, 13/11.
Latreille, P.L., Buscha, F. and Conte, A. (2012) ‘Are you experienced? SME use of and attitudes
towards workplace mediation’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(3):
590–606.
Lucy, D. and Broughton, A. (2011) ‘Understanding the behaviour and decision making of
employees in conflicts and disputes at work’, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Employment Relations Research Series, No. 119.
Nesbit, R., Nabatchi, T. and Blomgren Bingham, T. (2012) Employees, supervisors, and
workplace mediation: experiences of justice and settlement, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 32:3, 260–287.
Oxenbridge, S. and Brown, W. (2004) ‘Achieving a new equilibrium? The stability of cooperative
employer-union relationships’, Industrial Relations Journal, 35:5, 388–402
Pollert, A. and Charlwood, A. (2009) ‘The vulnerable worker in Britain and problems at work’,
Work, Employment and Society, 23(2): 343–362.
Rahim, N., Brown, A. and Graham, J. (2011) ‘Evaluation of the Acas Code of Practice on
disciplinary and grievance procedures’, Acas Research Paper, 06/11.
Saundry, R. and Dix, G. (2014, forthcoming) ‘Conflict Resolution in the UK’, In W. Roche, P.
Teague, and A. Colvin (Eds.).The Oxford Handbook on Conflict Management, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Saundry, R. and Wibberley, G. (2014) ‘Workplace dispute resolution and the management of
individual conflict – a thematic analysis of 5 case studies’, Acas Research Papers, No. 06/14.
Saundry, R., Bennett, A. and Wibberley, G. (2013) ‘Workplace mediation: the participant
experience’, Acas Research Papers, No. 02/13.
Saundry, R., Jones, C., and Antcliff, V. (2011) ‘Discipline, representation and dispute
resolution—exploring the role of trade unions and employee companions in workplace discipline’,
Industrial Relations Journal, 42(2): 195–211.
Saundry, R., Latreille, P., Dickens, L., Irvine, C., Teague, P., Urwin, P. and Wibberley, G. (2014)
‘Reframing Resolution – Managing Conflict and Resolving Individual Employment Disputes in the
Contemporary Workplace, Acas Policy Series.
Saundry, R., McArdle, L. and Thomas, P. (2013) ‘Reframing workplace relations?Conflict
resolution and mediation in a Primary Care Trust’, Work, Employment and Society, 27(2), 212–
231.
Seargeant, J. (2005). ‘The Acas small firms mediation pilot: research to explore parties’
experiences and views on the value of mediation’, Acas Research Paper, No. 04/05.
Van Wanrooy, B., Bewley, H., Bryson, A., Forth, J., Freeth, S., Stokes, L. and Wood, S. (2013)
Employment Relations in the Shadow of Recession – Findings from the 2011 Workplace
Employment Relations Study, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Williams, M. (2011) ‘Workplace Conflict Management: Awareness and use of Acas code of
practice and workplace meditation—A poll of business’, Acas Research Papers, 08/11.
40
APPENDIX ONE
Definition of variables
Procedure and Process
Extent of adherence to key
principles (Grievance) Index based on responses on questions regarding the application of
grievance procedure (range: 0–5) – see Appendix 2.
Extent of adherence to key
principles (Discipline) Index based on responses on questions regarding the application of
disciplinary procedure (range: 0–5) – see Appendix 2.
Always adhere to key
principles (Discipline) Dummy variable – workplaces that adhere to the three key
principles enshrined in Acas Code all of the time in respect of
disciplinary matters
Always adhere to key
principles (Grievance) Dummy variable – workplaces that adhere to the three key
principles enshrined in Acas Code all of the time in respect of
individual grievances
Always adhere to key
principles (Discipline and
Grievance)
Dummy variable – workplaces that adhere to the three key
principles enshrined in Acas Code all of the time in respect of both
disciplinary matters and individual grievances
Use of mediation Dummy variable – workplace has used mediation by an impartial
third party to resolve an individual grievance or disciplinary matter
Provision of mediation
(Discipline) Dummy variable – the use of mediation by an impartial third party
is provided for within the disciplinary procedure
Provision of mediation
(Grievance) Dummy variable – the use of mediation by an impartial third party
is provided for within the grievance procedure
Provision of mediation
(Discipline or Grievance) Dummy variable – the use of mediation by an impartial third party
is provided for within either the discipline or the grievance
procedure
Outcomes
Rate of Dismissals Number of dismissals other than redundancies per 100 employees
in previous 12 months
Rate of Disciplinary
sanctions Number of employees who have had sanctions short of dismissal
applied in previous 12 months per 100 employees
Rate of Employment
Tribunal applications Number of applications to an Employment Tribunal in the previous
12 months per 100 employees
Rate of employee
grievances Number of grievances raised through written procedure in the
previous 12 months per 100 hundred employees
Turnover Number of voluntary resignations in the previous 12 months per
100 hundred employees
Rate of Absence Number of work days lost through employee sickness or absence in
the last twelve months per 100 employees
Fairness Extent to which employees agreed that managers at their
workplace ‘treat employees fairly’ (1 = strongly agree to 5 =
strongly disagree)
Employment relations Employees’ rating of ‘relations between managers and employees’
(1=very good to 5=very poor)
Initiative Extent to which employees agreed with the following statement:
‘Using my own initiative I carry out tasks that are not required as
part of my job’ (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree)
Values Extent to which employees agreed that ‘I share many of the values
of my organisation’ (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree)
Loyalty Extent to which employees agreed that , ‘I feel loyal to my
organisation’(1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree)
Pride Extent to which employees agreed that ‘I am proud to tell people
who I work for’ (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree)
41
Workplace Characteristics
Workplace Size
5–9 employees Dummy variable – workplace has between 5 and 9 employees
10–19 employees Dummy variable – workplace has between 10 and 19 employees
20–49 employees Dummy variable – workplace has between 20 and 49 employees
50–99 employees Dummy variable – workplace has between 50 and 99 employees
100–99 employees Dummy variable – workplace has between 100 and 499
employees
500+ employees Dummy variable – workplace has 500 employees or more
Organisational size
5–9 employees Dummy variable – organisation has between 5 and 9 employees
10–49 employees Dummy variable – organisation has between 10 and 49
employees
50–249 employees Dummy variable – organisation has between 50 and 249
employees
250–499 employees Dummy variable – organisation has between 250 and 499
employees
500–999 employees Dummy variable – organisation has between 500 and 999
employees
1000–9999 employees Dummy variable – organisation has between 1000 and 9999
employees
10000+ employees Dummy variable – organisation has 10000 employees or more
Sector (Public) Dummy variable – workplace is in the public sector
Electricity, gas, water Dummy variable – workplace is in electricity, gas or water sector.
Based on standard industrial classifications (2003)
Construction Dummy variable – workplace is in construction sector. Based on
standard industrial classifications (2003)
Wholesale/retail Dummy variable – workplace is in wholesale or retail sector.
Based on standard industrial classifications (2003)
Hotels/restaurants Dummy variable – workplace is in hotels or restaurants sector.
Based on standard industrial classifications (2003)
Transport and
communications Dummy variable – workplace is in transport or communications
sector. Based on standard industrial classifications (2003)
Financial services. Dummy variable – workplace is in financial services sector. Based
on standard industrial classifications (2003)
Business services Dummy variable – workplace is in business services sector. Based
on standard industrial classifications (2003)
Public administration Dummy variable – workplace is in public administration. Based on
standard industrial classifications (2003)
Education Dummy variable – workplace is in education. Based on standard
industrial classifications (2003)
Health Dummy variable – workplace is in the health sector. Based on
standard industrial classifications (2003)
Other community services Dummy variable – workplace is in community services. Based on
standard industrial classifications (2003)
Multi-site organisation Dummy variable – workplace is one of a number of different
workplaces in the UK belonging to the same organisation
Union recognition Dummy variable – at least one trade union is recognised at the
workplace
Impact of recession Dummy variable – workplaces that have been adversely affected
by the recession: ‘A great deal’, or ‘quite a lot’, or ‘a moderate
amount’
Presence of HR practitioner Dummy variable – workplaces in which the title of the job of the
respondent was either ‘Personnel Manager/Officer’ or ‘Human
Resource Manager/Officer’
42
Workforce Characteristics
Proportion of women
employees Proportion of employees at the workplace who are women
Proportion of ethnic
minority employees Proportion of employees at the workplace who are from a non-
white ethnic group
Proportion of employees –
22–49 years of age Proportion of employees at the workplace who are aged between
22 and 49 years of age
Proportion of employees –
50+ years of age Proportion of employees at the workplace who are aged 50 or
over
Proportion of professional
employees Proportion of employees at the workplace who are in professional
occupations
43
APPENDIX TWO
Indices – Extent of adherence to three key principles of Acas Code of Practice
Index – Extent of adherence to key principles (Grievance)
a) In raising grievances, are employees required to set out in writing the nature of the
grievance?
1) Yes, always 2
2) Yes, sometimes – depends on the issue 1
3) No 0
b) Are employees asked to attend a formal meeting with a manager to discuss the nature of
their grievance?
1) Yes, always 2
2) Yes, sometimes – depends on the issue 1
3) No 0
c) Do employees have a right to appeal against a decision made under the procedure?
1) Yes 1
2) No 0
Maximum total 5
Index – Extent of adherence to key principles (Discipline)
a) Is the employer required to set out in writing to the employee the reason for taking
disciplinary action?
1) Yes, always 2
2) Yes, sometimes – depends on the issue 1
3) No 0
b) Are employees asked to attend a formal meeting with a manager to discuss the reason for
taking disciplinary action?
1) Yes, always 2
2) Yes, sometimes – depends on the issue 1
3) No 0
Do employees have a right to appeal against a decision made under the procedure?
1) Yes 1
2) No 0
Maximum total 5
44
APPENDIX 3
Questions in WERS2004 not asked in WERS2011
1. The role of any people accompanying employees at a grievance meeting
Whether the employee’s companion was allowed to a) ask questions on behalf of the employee,
and b) answer questions on behalf of the employee.
2. The role of any people accompanying employees in a disciplinary case
Whether the employee’s companion was allowed to a) answer questions on behalf of the
employee, and b) confer privately with the employee either in the meeting room or outside.
3. A follow–up question to one asking whether any employees formally raised any
matters through the individual grievance procedure
The respondent in workplaces where none had been raised was asked, “why do you think that
is?”
4.Respondents were asked how employees were made aware of the discipline and
dismissals procedure
5. Options in the list of reasons for taking disciplinary action
Some were either omitted or combined with each other in 2011.
6. Any experience of dealing with an Employment Tribunal application had resulted in
management taking follow–up actions
Response categories for this from a list included establishing a disciplinary procedure or ensuring
an existing one was followed.
45
Published by Acas
Copyright © Acas
