5.Part Five: The Appeals System

Speaker A James, I'm getting very worried because of this series? Partly, but much more so because you're showing them and discussing them in front of Marian Sands. I think you're anxiety is unjustified. I thought you were uneasy. Is that why you didn't come to see the last part and works councils and other? No, no, I had a long standing appointment. But you see, these discussions with Murray and Sands make it all feel like a commitment. Andrew, there's no commitment on my side and I can see no signs of those two having the slightest intention of committing themselves. There's too much to discuss both from their point of view and ours. I think you and I are seeing these films in a different way.

Speaker B To me.

Speaker A They're not proposing innovation so much as trying to make us understand where we.

Speaker B Are Camish, quote, institutionalization or formalization of what already exists.

Speaker A Thank you. Now these ideas are obvious once they're pointed out and I want to consider them. These are very strange times and we won't deal with problems by sticking our heads in the sand. So time for frankness and be damned to secrecy. Well said Mr. Brody. You ought to teach the foreman in the shops that it's long overdue. You weren't meant to hear that.

Speaker C But you're quite right.

Speaker A Where's Mr. Sand? Eyes off sick. And being equally frank, I'd say you've got him a wee bit worried. Well, let's sit down and watch it.

Speaker B Employment hierarchies. As we discussed in the first part of the series, consist fundamentally of a series of managerial subordinate relationships. The quantity of work in a managerial role is always greater than the manager can personally perform. Thus, he must have subordinates to whom he can delegate some of his work. But the manager is accountable for the totality of the work of those subordinates. If he's to be held accountable, he must have certain degrees of authority over his subordinates. Namely the right to veto appointments, to assess and ultimately to deselect immediate subordinates. You'll remember that we use the word deselect to employ the opposite of appointing and in contrast to dismissing a person altogether from the organization. Now a logical accompaniment of giving a manager authority is to provide the subordinate with formal right of appeal to protect against possible misuse, real or false, of this authority. Few foreman possess full managerial authority. And possibly this is because in the absence of explicit appeal procedures for individuals, the granting of such authority is viewed as being dangerous and unjust.

Speaker A Hold it there Hamish. Our foreman can't deselect subordinates because Mr. Murray here and his friends would never agree. Well, I'm not saying we would agree, but the issue has never been discussed with us. Now my lads don't like feeble foreman. Neither do they like. But my recollection any discussion of their position with us shop stewards has been taboo up to date. Now if there was agreement to adopt some of that stuff on participation over policies in Dunsyth. We might very well discuss the issue. I have no intention of discussing foreman with shop stewards.

Speaker B Who not foreman. We'd be discussing Mr. Black. But the authority of foreman roles which is a very different matter. But we are straying from the subject. There are some simple underlying rules for appeals against managerial decisions which should be borne in mind.

Speaker C One subordinates must be assessed on the basis of their work performance only taking into account personal behavior only when it affects their work or the work of others.

Speaker B Consideration of race, religion, political attitudes, union activities, social relationships and so on must not be permitted to enter into managerial assessments. Part of the purpose of appeal procedures is to ensure that this does not happen.

Speaker C Two every employee should have the right to subject a manager's decision which is felt to be unfair or unjust by an appeal first to his immediate manager once removed and thereafter to successively hire managers until he reaches the most senior manager in a particular geographical area.

Speaker B To give an employee who works at a factory, say, in the Midlands the right of appeal to the managing director who is resident in London at the headquarters would impose too much delay into the hearing of the appeal.

Speaker C The employee must have discussed the subject of his appeal with his immediate manager before appealing and the right of appeal will lapse if not taken up within some short predetermined period.

Speaker B The need for such provisions is self evident. Delay is the enemy of justice. Successive stages of an appeal shall be heard with the minimum of delay. Limits of time should be agreed.

Speaker C The appellant shall have the right to be assisted in an appeal by his chosen representative.

Speaker B For example, if an appellant wants a trade union official to assist him he should have that right.

Speaker A That wouldn't work. Union officials are too busy to get hold of at short notice and appeal should surely be kept domestic to the company. Availability of union officials is our business and if any of our members wants official assistance they must be able to get it now. We needn't argue about that now, surely, but it's up. We'll discuss it later.

Speaker C If, on examination, it transpires that the objections of the appellant are against an established policy then the issue will be referred to the negotiating procedure.

Speaker B If somebody goes to court and tries to argue that the law is wrong then the judge will suggest that the person takes up his objection with his MP. In other words, a manager who presides over an appeal can't change an agreed policy because an appellant objects to it.

Speaker C When the appeal of an employee is upheld the manager whose decision has been set aside shall himself have the right of appeal to the next level of management.

Speaker B In which case, of course, the original appellant becomes the defendant and the manager becomes the appellant.

Speaker C If the appellant loses his appeal at the highest level available to him, but his case is still supported by a majority of his level of representatives. Then the issue shall be discussed between those representatives and the chief manager in the area.

Speaker B Managers can't give final judgments like judges. Firstly, because appeal procedures can't sift cases in the same detail as courts, and secondly, because it has to be realized that if there is sufficient sympathy with an appellant, negotiation is unavoidable, but the appeal procedure must be exhausted.

Speaker A First, switch that damn contraption off. These notions are daft. Managerial authority would seek as they were adopted. Oh, I've had enough of this.

Speaker B Mr. Black, please. With respect, I think you're mistaken. And I know you don't look on.

Speaker A Yourself as an absolute autocrat.

Speaker B You can make a mistake. We simply must have some proper means of correcting mistaken management decisions. As you well know, managers no longer have absolute authority, and it's wildcat strikes that has helped to reduce that authority. But it's also absence of right of.

Speaker A Appeal which causes most of those wildcat strikes, surely? That's right, that's right. Either the lads believe and see that justice is done, or else. I've spent much of my time fighting individual cases, and every time I've won, I reckon I've stopped a strike. Oh, come on, Andrew, cool it down a bit, eh? Well, we'll go ahead.

Speaker B An essential basis of the introduction of appeal procedures is a series of agreed written policies governing conditions of work. If these are not available, then it would be equivalent to having law courts without written law. It will have been realized by those who have seen this series that definitions of manager, manager subordinate relations, unanimous voting councils for agreeing policies, appeal procedures and other institutions which have been discussed are all interrelated and mutually necessary institutions. We've discussed the bare bones of an appeal procedure, but there are subtler aspects which can best be communicated by the use of simulated scenes.

Speaker D Now that the appeal is over, may I talk frankly?

Speaker B Weren't you talking frankly?

Speaker D Well, not completely. Now, you've granted Joan's appeal against being moved from his current job.

Speaker B Yes.

Speaker D Well, he's seriously late for work two or three days in the week. He can only be trusted with the simplest of jobs, and he shows a nasty temper at times. In short, he's been very unsatisfactory for months. With respect, you should never have granted his appeal. How am I to deal with him now?

Speaker B You stated in the appeal that your reason for insisting that he came off the job was because twice last week he scrapped a job. The reasons you now state in private for dealing with friend Jones are on the face of a pretty good justification. But if you discipline a man for two simple mistakes, when you know, or you should know, that in this company we don't penalize people for a couple of errors, well, then you can expect to lose the appeal. And now you tell me that your reasons are long term and different. You should have been interviewing and warning Jones for the past three months. That's laid down an agreed procedure. If you'd followed the procedure disciplined Jones, if he had persisted in his ways, then if he had appealed, he wouldn't have stood unearthly. If what you say is correct, you'll now have to grin and bear Jones and try to reform him if you can't deal with him, but you will have to wait a further three months. He's got to be told why he doesn't come up to scratch by you and given a chance to change his conduct and performance. That was an appeal which succeeded for reasons I hope, which were quite explicit. I was playing the part of presiding manager. The defendant manager would have been one of my immediate subordinates. If that scene had been actuality, I would consider it very important to ensure that my manager knew company policy better than he appeared to. Because our imaginary company had a policy. It had an internal legislature, a policymaking works council, and an appeal set up policing the boundaries of managerial decision. Now, this shop steward has had an appeal he was handling turned down. But I say that that policy is unfair.

Speaker E Maybe it is, but it was agreed between the unions and the management. I can't change it. It can only be changed by a joint agreement. And you know as well as I do that if you want company policy changed, bring it up at the council.

Speaker B Positive enough. But without agreed policies, the presiding manager couldn't possibly make a judgment which wouldn't appear arbitrary. Furthermore, such policies must be written and available to all. If they were not, managers would certainly appear to be making up the rules of the game as the appeal proceeded. Also, even if explicit policies existed but hadn't been agreed with representatives of all employees, they wouldn't be acceptable as a basis of judgment. The shop steward who claimed that the policy was unfair would have had every right to that opinion if his constituents hadn't been involved in the policy concerned. Without such agreement, how could the following case be judged fairly? The defending manager agreed policy number 15.

Speaker D On overtime working says that unless an employee has already worked 30 hours overtime in the months and as long as I give him 36 hours notice, I can instruct him to work overtime on an urgent job.

Speaker B The appellant's shop steward, if the manager.

Speaker C Would read on it, says subject to the employee not having a medical certificate of unfitness is there a certificate?

Speaker D Yes, but you know how easy it is to get them.

Speaker C The certificate says that it would be unwise for this man to work weekends.

Speaker D This man worked last weekend and the previous weekend voluntarily has a cup tie this weekend. That's what it's all about.

Speaker E We really need not spend time arguing this one. The policy means that he cannot be instructed to work overtime if a medical opinion is against it. I have to administer policies as they're written, not as some might argue they ought to be. I grant the appeal.

Speaker B It really isn't any good having clear policies unless they are strictly administered in accordance with what is written. Now, you will have noticed I have used the terms presiding manager, defendant manager, appellant, and appellant's representative. The presiding manager, as I hope I've made clear, is not a manager specifically designated to judge appeals. He's simply the immediate manager of the defendant manager in the first appeal.

Speaker F Let's get the basis of your appeal quite clear. You say you should be getting top rates because your skill and output is as good as others who are on top rate.

Speaker B That's right.

Speaker C And I can prove that I'm entitled to more.

Speaker F Well, unfortunately, it isn't a matter of proof or of measurement. It's a matter of judgment. Your only hope of winning your appeal is to convince me that your manager has introduced into his assessment of you factors which have nothing to do with work. His opinion is that you are properly placed on your current rate.

Speaker C Well, I'm not accusing him of prejudice, if that's what you mean. He's just wrong in his judgment.

Speaker F Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But the fact is that one of the jobs of every manager is to assess the performance of his immediate subordinates. I can't assess your performance. I'm not even familiar with the kind of work in your job. I can't accept your assessment of your work, for with respect, it's likely to be biased. So I must accept your manager's judgment.

Speaker A Now, what's the point of appealing in.

Speaker C An issue like I'm raising?

Speaker F To make certain that managerial assessment is based on factors affecting work and work alone. And further, to make sure that assessment procedures are carried out properly.

Speaker B It will by now be obvious that managers must know all the company policies and realize that their authority is bounded by those policies. You may think that appeals take up a great deal of time, and sometimes they do. But remember, one strike of employees for one week which an appeal procedure would have avoided will probably waste more man hours than all the time spent over appeals in many years. Appeal procedures are beneficial in other ways, too. By seeing how different managers behave in the various appeal situations that arise, seniors can keep in touch with people at lower levels of the hierarchy. Anxiety over proposed new policies is eased by the knowledge that they are subject to appeal. Representatives are put in a much easier position to deal with grievances raised by their constituents, sometimes with results that you may not expect.

Speaker A Hey, I want to see you.

Speaker C Certainly, Charlie, my old love.

Speaker A It's like this, you see. There's been a lot of overtime this last year or so. Double time on Sundays. I can do with a lolly, but I'm never asked to work on Sundays.

Speaker C Why not?

Speaker A I reckon my face don't fit any longer with Mr James.

Speaker C Have you raised the issue with him? Of course I have.

Speaker A The answer was no and he's the boss.

Speaker C Well, if you think you're being denied fair treatment have you appealed?

Speaker A No, and I'm not going to. And don't go along with these new fangled ideas. It wouldn't do any good.

Speaker C Charlie, there are rules agreed by ourselves and management about who should do overtime. Mr James is either interpreting them correctly or he isn't. And if he isn't, you'll get fair play by appealing. Have a go.

Speaker A I don't see why I shouldn't get fair play without all this nonsense. I'm not appealing. You're my shop steward. Why don't you have a go like you used to?

Speaker C Because we got an appeal system made. It's all written down and agreed and it's in the book. I'm sorry. If you don't go to the trouble of appealing, I'm not going to move.

Speaker A You can stop your appeal system. I'd rather have things the way they.

Speaker B Were in the presence of an appeals procedure. Issues which previously might have resulted in bitter arguments or even trials of strength with management either go to appeal or they won't get support from representatives. Appeals are like safety valves.

Speaker D I say the appellant is entitled to his day rate plus 80%.

Speaker A For the whole of last week, I've.

Speaker E Heard the evidence of the manager, the appellant and the appellant's representative. And I'm bound to say that unless the appellant can produce better arguments in support of his claim than I've heard already, I shall not grant the appeal.

Speaker D If this appeal is not granted, I shall get the shop to down tools.

Speaker E Unless the appellant's representative withdraws his threat immediately, I'll dismiss the appeal and report his conduct to the convener of shop stewards. Our appeal procedure is for the protection of the rights of the individual and for ensuring that agreed policy isn't breached by the managers. If I were in any way to condone the threats such as you've made, any attempts to ensure justice at future appeal hearings would be completely undermined. Those who could make the strongest threats.

Speaker C Would get the best deal.

Speaker B No appeal system can work under the threats of the use of power. Apart from giving a greatly enhanced sense of fair play, appeal procedures have other values. These need only be stated briefly. For once mentioned, the inferences are clear.

Speaker C They discourage managers from making hastily or ill considered decisions about their subordinates. They assist in the training and development of managers. They keep the relevance and appropriateness of existing policies under constant review and are sometimes the cause of changes in policy being negotiated and agreed.

Speaker A The emphasis that the man places on writing and agreeing policies could be all right for us, although of reservations, but I'd expect it to worry you. You bet it does. I think our policies in the company are pretty clear, but how we get them all down in writing and agree them. I just don't know. They're not as clear as you think. Foreman make what they like of them. I know them because it's my job to know them. You think you know them. I suppose the same could be said about me. I find it difficult to argue the case against what's said by this chap on the box. If I'm to accept this lot, Hamish, you'll have to be skilled at drafting. You twisted my elbow to see the series.

Speaker B There's a wee bit more to see. Finally, some may want to question the validity of managers hearing appeals because they're not professionally independent like judges. If all appeals had to be referred to independent tribunals, the delay and the work involved in briefing them would be tremendous. It's quite possible that the decisions arrived at would be, in many cases, unrealistic and unsatisfactory, both to employees and to management. The fact is that employee appeal procedures are not analogous to legal procedures, though they have points in common. Furthermore, if independent tribunals dealt with appeals, judgments would be final. They could not, as in the appeals procedure outlined, incorporate the final safety valve of negotiation between management and representatives. Soundly built appeal procedures have a great contribution to make to the running of all employment institutions.

Speaker A I'd rather not discuss this now, if you don't mind.

Speaker C Yes.

Speaker A Well, I'll be off.

Speaker B There is one more in the series. I haven't got it yet.

Speaker A Yes, well, I'll wait until you tell me about it. Good night, Mr. Money.

Speaker G These films are based on the results of research carried out in the Glacier Metal Company Limited, which have been in practice in the company for many years and which are described in detail in Lord Wilfred Brown's book Organization.