Hoyt N. Wheeler

The Individual Decision to Unionize

This study examines determinates of two employee behaviors in the union organizing process: pro-union activism in the organizing campaign, and vote for union certification. Using data gathered from six union or ganizing attempts, campaign activism and voting behavior is analyzed in terms of hypotheses drawn from Wheelers (1985) theory of industrial conflict. Results indicate that support for union certification is influenced by a perceived lack of job security, managements lack of respect for employees, the belief that union representation would be effective, favor able attitudes about unions, and anger at the employer. Few differences were found for union activism and vote, suggesting that distinctive forms of union support are not influenced by different determinants.

Decision-Making about Workplace Disputes: A Policy-Capturing Study of Employment Arbitrators, Labor Arbitrators, and Jurors

Firms are increasingly turning to the controversial practice of employment arbitration to resolve workplace disputes. Yet little is know about how decisions are made by employment arbitrators or how their decisions compare to those made in traditional dispute-resolution forums. This study uses a policy-capturing design and hierarchical linear modeling to compare how decisions about termination cases are made by employment arbitrators, labor arbitrators, and jurors. The results indicate significant differences in the overall willingness to uphold termination, with labor arbitrators being the most likely to rule in favor of the employee, followed by jurors, employment arbitrators judging statutory and for-cause claims, and employment arbitrators judging statutory-only claims. Significant differences were also observed between categories of decision makers in the weight given to procedural compliance, evidence of discrimination, employee work history, and stress-inducing personal circumstances.

Justice at Work: An International Comparison

National systems of workplace justice contain bodies of principles that set out the obligations of employees, the behaviors that violate those obligations, and the penalties that employers may assess for those violations. These principles establish the standards for determining just cause for discipline and termination of employment. This study is an international comparison of the laws that establish these principles and their application in practice. It finds a broad commonality but some interesting differences.

Supervisors and their response to poor performance: A study of disciplinary decision making

This study examines how first-level supervisors make disciplinary decisions when faced with a performance problem. Using a policy-capturing design, subjects (supervisors from a nonunion financial services organization) were asked to make disciplinary decisions about cases that varied in terms of six different factors: magnitude of the performance decrement, documented warning, waiver, tenure, past performance, and the manner of the employee. The impact of these factors was examined in order to gain insight into the degree to which key social and institutional norms impact disciplinary decisions and, in turn, generate nascent rights for employees. The findings are suggestive as to the relative importance of these norms within the sample as a whole as well as for individual managers within the sample. The implications for our understanding of the role of nascent rights within disciplinary systems are discussed.