Grievance mechanism is reactive communication

I’m the human resource (HR) manager of a non-unionized factory. This week, a disgruntled worker says he’s filing a formal grievance against his manager. This is surprising because I’m used to having grievances settled only in unionized organizations. Am I correct? — Bamboo Kite.

​No. Grievance machinery is not exclusive to companies with unions. It can exist in both unionized and non-unionized establishments. The only difference is that a grievance process is governed by a collective bargaining agreement for unionized companies while it is an optional internal policy in non-union firms.�� ��

​Generally, the word “grievance” causes unnecessary stress among HR and other managers. They fear that it could ripen into a legal issue if handled badly or if the issue involves a violation of labor law that management refuses to address.

​A grievance, when handled properly, can serve as an early warning system, a risk control mechanism, and a trust builder. It’s an efficient way to solve issues, although it remains a reactive tool.

​Given your current situation, an effective grievance system could help sustain trust and fairness. But more importantly, a formal, documented grievance process shows management good faith.��

​Therefore, I suggest that you create a formal policy that includes the following process, while emphasizing its confidentiality, timelines, and a non-retaliation guarantee:

​Step 1. Start with an informal discussion. This is the first opportunity to resolve the issue without the pain of strict rules. The worker and supervisor must resolve all issues within their power. Both parties are not allowed to elevate the matter to HR, unless the issue is sensitive.

​Step 2. Elevate to the next-level manager. If the first step is unsuccessful, the aggrieved party may�� appeal to the boss of the department manager, who may call for a mediation proceeding within three days.

​Step 3. Bring the matter before an ad hoc committee. If the first two steps remain unsuccessful, the worker could file a written appeal with HR to assemble a team composed of impartial department managers and one support senior worker for the complainant.��

​Step 4. Resolve the issue with a formal statement. This is to be summarized by HR citing the specific issues, the circumstances, steps taken, dates of past meetings, and result. Further investigation may proceed if needed. HR must brief the CEO to alert him to sensitive cases.

PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION
A grievance process is tedious. It imposes a psychological and operational burden on organizations. Beyond the immediate emotional strain on those concerned, disputes like this consume vast amounts of administrative time.

​This diversion of energy disrupts workflows and erodes morale, significantly stalling collective productivity while leadership focuses on conflict resolution rather than growth. So, what’s the best option?

​One approach is to train team leaders, line supervisors, and their managers on the proper handling of employee complaints.

​But that’s not all. There are many proactive types of communication that can be adopted corporate-wide. These are one-on-one meetings, 10-minute daily morning stand-up meetings, morale and satisfaction surveys, and 360-degree feedback.

​Other common solutions include the “stay” interviews, suggestion system, town hall meetings, performance coaching, cross-functional forums, a whistle blower program, and quality-circle problem-solving teams.

​One unfamiliar option is the skip-level meeting where a manager goes directly to the workers rather than their supervisors to discover unfiltered issues. Many dynamic companies adopt many of these proactive approaches to reduce the perceived need for union representation.

REACTIVE PROCESS
Compare proactive communication with reactive strategies like exit interviews and grievance machinery, among others. You’ll soon understand why initiating positive engagement with employees is much better than having to perform an autopsy after the fact.

​For example, by the time an employee reaches an exit interview, the talent and institutional knowledge are already lost. Besides, not many resigning workers would like to burn bridges in the hope of getting a recommendation for their next employer and to fast-track the release of their clearance and terminal pay.��

​Exit interviews and grievance machinery are some examples that often foster a culture of suppressed tension, where issues only surface once they have reached a breaking point.

​This creates “feedback lag” that allows toxic behaviors or systemic inefficiencies to fester, damaging morale and productivity long before management becomes aware of it.

​Ultimately, a reactive stance tells employees their voices count only when something explodes. That’s a dangerous message. It erodes trust quietly, then suddenly -— like rust beneath polished steel. Before long, disengagement sets in, resignations follow, and leadership is left trying to manage the revolving door of talent.

​Turnover then becomes not just costly, but tragically predictable — an expensive, entirely avoidable cycle fueled by silence when it mattered most.

Consult Rey Elbo on your workplace issues for free. E-mail [email protected] or DM Facebook, LinkedIn, X or via . Anonymity is guaranteed.