A STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF GRIEVANCE HANDLING MECHANISM

SUMMER PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

R.GAYATHRI

REGISTER NO: 27348310

Under the guidance of

Mrs.R.HEMALATHA, MBAFaculty, Department Of Management Studies

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

of

MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

SRI MANAKULA VINAYAGAR ENGINNERING COLLEGE

PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

PUDUCHERRY, INDIA

SEPTEMBER 2007

SRI MANAKULA VINAYAGAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE MADAGADIPET, PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project work entitled “A STUDY ON EFFECTIVENES OF GRIEVANCE HANDLING MECHANISM” is a bonafide work done by R.GAYATHRI [REGISTER NO: 27348310] in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Master of Business Administration by Pondicherry University during the academic year 2007-2008.

GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Submitted for Viva-voce Examination held on ________________________

External Examiner

1.

2.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives us great ecstasy of pleasure to convey our deep and sincere thanks to our

Principal Dr. V.S.K. Venkatachalapathy, for his kind support, which helped us to

complete the project successfully.

We have great pleasure in expressing our sincere gratitude and hearty thanks to our

beloved Faculty, Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Department of Management Studies for

consenting to be our guide. She had been a great source of encouragement and inspired

us throughout our project. We are greatly thankful to her for everything she has done for

us.

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Mr.Jayakumar, Head of the

Department, Department of Management studies for giving constant encouragement

We express our hearty thanks to Mr.D.Umamaheswaran, Senior Personnel Officer,

Lucas –TVS Ltd., who provided valuable guidance throughout the project in his busy

schedule.

We thank our Management, Department Staffs, and Our Parents for their support and

above all to God for showering his blessing upon us.

A special word of thanks to all those we have failed to acknowledge.

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on Effectiveness of Grievance Handling Mechanism at Lucas-TVS

Limited,Puducherry.

Grievance is any kind of dissatisfaction with regard to pay,promotion,suspension,working

condition etc..

The objective of the study is to find the effectiveness of grievance handling mechanism being

followed.

The sample size is 35 and the population size is 140.

The tools used for the study are Percentage method and Correlation.

The study infers that most of employees are highly satisfied with the mechanism being followed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES i

LIST OF CHARTS ii

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Profile of the organization 1

1.2 Introduction to the study 5

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6

III OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 12

IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13

V DATA ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION

17

VI 6.1 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

6.2SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

35

37

VII CONCLUSION

38

VIII SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE

STUDY

39

APPENDICES

ANNEXURE I 40

ANNEXURE II 41

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Table name Page No:1.1 List of products manufactured 21.2 Clients 35.1 Distribution of respondents regarding temporary

relief17

5.2 Distribution of respondents based on age 185.3 Distribution of respondents towards supervisors’

level of skill19

5.4 Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees

20

5.5 Distribution of respondents towards decision given

21

5.6 Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel

22

5.7 Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance

23

5.8 Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not

24

5.9 Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference

25

5.10 Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance

26

5.11 Distribution of respondents based on qualification

28

5.12 Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees

29

5.13 Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up

31

5.14 Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors’ authority

32

5.15 Correlation between Feel about decision and Real basis identified.

33

5.16 Values for correlation 335.17 Correlation between Discussion and Conference

And Supervisor’s Skill level34

5.18 Values for correlation 34

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart No: Chart Name Page No:

5.1 Distribution of respondents regarding temporary relief 175.2 Distribution of respondents based on age 185.3 Distribution of respondents towards supervisors’ level

of skill19

5.4 Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees

20

5.5 Distribution of respondents towards decision given 215.6 Distribution of respondents towards the informal

channel22

5.7 Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance

23

5.8 Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not

24

5.9 Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference

25

5.10 Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance

27

5.11 Distribution of respondents based on qualification 285.12 Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of

various committees30

5.13 Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up

31

5.14 Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors’ authority

32

CHAPTER I

1.1 PROFILE OF THE COMPANY

Lucas - TVS was set up in 1961 as a joint venture of Lucas Industries plc., UK and T V

Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (TVS), India, to manufacture Automotive Electrical Systems. One of

the top ten automotive component suppliers in the world, Lucas Varity was formed by the merger

of the Lucas Industries of the UK and the Varity Corporation of the US in September 1996. The

company designs, manufactures and supplies advanced technology systems, products and

services to the world's automotive, after market, diesel engine and aerospace industries.

The combination of these two well-known groups has resulted in the establishment of a

vibrant company, which has had a successful track record of sustained growth over the last three

decades.TVS is one of India's twenty large industrial houses with twenty-five manufacturing

companies and a turnover in excess of US$ 1.3 billion. The turnover of Lucas-TVS and its

divisions is US$ 233 million during 2003-2004.

Incorporating the strengths of Lucas UK and the TVS Group, Lucas TVS has emerged as

one of the foremost leaders in the automotive industry today. Lucas TVS reaches out to all

segments of the automotive industry such as passenger cars, commercial vehicles, tractors, jeeps,

two-wheelers and off-highway vehicles as well as for stationary and marine applications. With

the automobile industry in India currently undergoing phenomenal changes, Lucas-TVS, with its

excellent facilities, is fully equipped to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

PRODUCTS

Lucas-TVS manufactures the most comprehensive range of auto electrical components in the

country. A range which continues to set standards in the industry. The products are designed to

meet the demands of vehicle manufacturers both in India and worldwide. With the emission

standards in India becoming increasingly stringent, Lucas-TVS has ensured that each of its

products is manufactured to meet global standards

LIST OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED

Lucas-TVS Product Range for Indian

Market

Lucas-TVS Product Range for

US/European Market

Starter Motor Starter Motor

Alternator Alternator

Headlamp Small Motor

14W Wiper Motor

WindShield Wiper Motor (GM Range)

LRW Products

Small Motor

Wiper Motor

Blower Motor

Fan Motor

Dynamo Regulator

Dynamo Regulator Dynamo

Dynamo Auto Electricals

Ignition Coil

Distributor

Diesel fuel injection

CLIENTS

CUSTOMERINTERNATIONAL

COLLABORATOR

Cars

Maruti Udyog Suzuki, Japan

Hindustan Motors Isuzu, Japan. Mitsubishi, Japan 

TATA Engineering and

Locomotive Company 

General Motors, India General Motors, USA

Ford India Ford, UK

Daewoo Motors Co., India Daewoo, Korea

Ind Auto Fiat, Italy

Hyundai Motors, India Hyundai Motors, Korea

Tractors

Mahindra & MahindraInternational Harvestor Corporation,

UK

Tractors and Farm Equipments

(TAFE)Massey Ferguson, UK

Escorts Ursus, Poland. Ford, UK

HMT Zetor, Czechoslovakia

Eicher Tractors Good Earth, Germany

Punjab Tractors   

Gujarat Tractors Zetor, Czechoslovakia

L&T Tractors Johndeer, USA

Greaves Tractors Same, Italy

DIVISIONS

Lucas TVS has grown hand in hand with the automobile industry in the country. The

company's policies have recognised the need to respond effectively to changing customer needs,

helping to propel it to a position of leadership. The company has raised its standards on quality,

productivity, reliability and flexibility by channeling its interests. 

At present, there are five divisions: 

1. Auto Electricals L-TVS  

2. Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) - DTVS

3. Electronic Ignition Systems (INEL)

4. Automotive Lighting (IJL)

5. After Market Operations (LIS)

ACHIEVEMENTS

Lucas-TVS, a TVS group company, has bagged the prestigious Deming Application Award for

the year 2004. This was announced by the Deming Prize Committee of Japanese Union of

Scientists and Engineers (JUSE).

1.2 INTRODUCTION FOR THE STUDY

1. The aim of the study is to find whether the grievance handling mechanism ensures that

employee’s problems are recognized and appropriately reviewed in a prompt and timely

manner.

2. The grievance mechanism acts as a foundation for a harmonious and healthy relationship

between employee and employer.

3. The grievance mechanism ensures a fair and just treatment of employee’s concerns and

prompt resolution of grievances without discrimination, coercion, restraint or reprisal

against any employee who may submit or be involved in a grievance.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

GRIEVANCE

Grievance is any discontent or dissatisfaction that affects organizational performance. As

such it can be stated or unvoiced, written or oral, legitimate or ridiculous. If the dissatisfaction of

employees’ goes unattended or the conditions causing it are not corrected, the irritation is likely

to increase and lead to unfavorable attitude towards the management and unhealthy relations in

the organization.

The formal mechanism for dealing with such worker’s dissatisfaction is called grievance

procedure. All companies whether unionized or not should have established and known grievance

methods of processing grievances. The primary value of grievance procedure is that it can assist

in minimizing discontent and dissatisfaction that may have adverse effects upon co-operation and

productivity. A grievance procedure is necessary in large organization which has numerous

personnel and many levels with the result that the manager is unable to keep a check on each

individual, or be involved in every aspect of working of the small organization.

The usual steps in grievance procedure are

1. Conference among the aggrieved employee, the supervisor, and the union steward.

2. Conference between middle management and middle union leadership.

3. Conference between top management and top union leadership.

4. Arbitration.

There may be variations in the procedures followed for resolving employee grievances.

Variations may result from such factors as organizational or decision-making structures or size of

the plant or company. Large organizations do tend to have formal grievance procedures involving

succession of steps.

Arbitration

Arbitration is a procedure in which a neutral third party studies the bargaining situation,

listens to both the parties and gathers information, and then makes recommendations that are

binding on the parties. Arbitration has achieved a certain degree of success in resolving disputes

between the labour and the management. The labour union generally takes initiative to go for

arbitration. When the union so decides, it notifies the management. At this point, the union and

company must select an arbitrator.

Guidelines

When processing grievances, there are several important guidelines to consider:

Check the grievant’s title and employment status to determine if he / she are included in a

union eligible classification.

Note the supervisor’s respondent obligation under the grievance procedure.

Review the requested solution to the grievance. Determine if the relief sought is beyond a

supervisor’s authority to grant.

Review all policies or other information related to the grievance.

Conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations.

Prepare a written response including the reason for the decision and provide a copy to the

grievant.

Grievance materials should be maintained in a separate file from either personnel files or

records.

Articles related to grievance

Measures of supervisory behaviors and supervisor’s knowledge of the collective

agreement should, intuitively, be related to the occurrence of grievable events, but there has been

no theory advanced to explain grievable events. Kliener , Nigkelsburg and Pilarski implicitly

assumed that supervisor monitoring of employees will increase the number of grievable events,

but a theoretical basis or rationale for this assumed relationship is not discussed.

Grievants were less satisfied with their jobs, had poorer attitudes toward their line

supervisors, had greater feelings of pay inequity, had stronger beliefs that workers should

participate in decision-making, were less satisfied with their unions, and more active in their

unions. The lower satisfaction with the union among grievant may be due to dissatisfaction with

the processing of grievances. Grievants were more younger and had less education than

nongrievants.

Gordon and Miller, Allen and Keavney and Klass note the important role that expectancy

theory could play in differentiating grievants and nongrievants. Although not a complete test of

expectancy theory, Lewin and Boroff did include the employees perceived effectiveness of the

grievance procedure as an explanatory variable. Surprisingly, this was not significantly related to

grievance filing. Further research focusing on expectancy theory and grievance filing that more

fully develops testable hypotheses derived from expectancy theory seems appropriate.

Bemmels, Reshef and Stratton-Devine included the shop stewards assessment of how

frequently employees approach them with complaints. Although most grievances are formally

filed by employees, the initiation of a grievance can come from employees or stewards.

Complaining to the shop stewards is the employees’ role in the grievance initiation process. Both

of these studies found the work group with employees who complained to the stewards more

frequently had grievance rates. Employees’ complaining to their stewards is a precursor to

grievance filing. The measure of consideration and structure were significantly related to

frequency of employee complaints in Bemmels and the steward’s assessment of the supervisors’

knowledge of the collective agreement was negatively related to complaints.

Lewin and Peterson found a positive relationship with grievance procedure structure and

grievance rates. They also found higher grievance rates under procedures that include provisions

for expedited grievance handling. It was found that provisions allowing oral presentation of

grievances was related to lower rates of written grievances, and screening of potential grievances

was related to lower rates of written grievance, and screening of potential grievances by a

committee or other union officials was associated with lower grievance rates. The number of

steps in the grievance procedure and the length of time allowed for filing a grievance were not

related to grievance rates.

Lewin and Peterson argued that evaluations of grievance procedure effectiveness should

include subjective evaluations by the participants as well as objective measures reflecting the

operation of the grievance procedure. They argued that subjective evaluations are the preferred

method for evaluating grievance procedure effectiveness. Effectiveness was difficult to interpret

from measures reflecting the operation of grievance procedures such as grievance rates,

settlement levels and arbitration rates since it was not clear what the optimal magnitudes might be

for these measures. Furthermore the purpose of grievance procedure is to resolve disputes about

the interpretation and application of collective agreements. Grievance procedures exist for the

benefit of the employees, employers and unions. If the parties were satisfied with the operation of

the grievance procedure, it seems to more important than attaining some predetermined optimal

magnitude of grievance filing or when, where, and how grievances are being resolved.

Grievance procedures are related to other attitudinal measures and the behaviors of shop

stewards in the grievance procedure. Grievance procedure effectiveness was related to union

members’ overall satisfaction with the union. Grievance procedures have been found to relate to

union commitment, employer commitment and dual commitment. Employer commitment has

found to be negatively related to absenteeism and turnover and union commitment has found to

have a positive relationship with union participation and with shop steward behavior in the

grievance procedure. Many studies still report empirical analysis with no theoretical grounding,

or only intuitive and ad hoc hypotheses.

Grievance could be classified into 4 basic types: Discrimination charges, rules violation,

general or unclassified complaints and discipline.

Discrimination was spelled out as based upon race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age,

veteran status, or handicapped.

Grievance corresponding rules violation was an employees’ interpretation of application of

policies and procedures governing personnel policies, department work rules, unsafe or unhealthy

working conditions, or other policies or procedures of a working nature.

Disciplinary actions are the category least classified as a grievance. Legalistic approach was used

to handle such cases. With the possibility of adverse legal action arising from unjust discipline,

separate systems are often established in discipline cases to ensure the employees’ complete due

process rights.

Five types of grievance systems were typically noted in the literature. They were the open door

policy, step-review method, peer-review also called the grievance committee or roundtable,

ombudsman and hearing officer. In the public sector study. The predominant method of grievance

adjudication was the step-review method used either singularly or in combination with a peer-

review committee. The step-review method had characteristics similar to the grievance /

arbitration procedures found in union contracts.

The step-review method has a preestablished set of steps for reviewing employee complaints by

succeeding higher levels of agency personnel.

Benefits of having Grievance procedure:

The grievance procedure provides a means for identifying practices, procedures, and

administrative policies that are causing employee complaints so that changes can be

considered.

They reduce costly employment suits.

A grievance procedure allows managers to establish a uniform labour policy.

A grievance system can be a reliable mechanism to learn of, and resolve employee

dissatisfaction. It can produce early settlements to disputes or provide for correction of

contested employment issues.

CHAPTER III

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of grievance handling mechanism.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

1. To identify whether the employees are aware of the grievance handling mechanism.

2. To identify whether the grievance handling system leads to a favorable attitude towards the management

3. To identify that the grievance handling system leads to a mutual understanding between workers and the management

4. To know the level of satisfaction towards the grievance handling procedure of the organization

5. To identify the factors influencing the effectiveness of the grievance handling in the organization

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH

Research is a process in which the researcher wishes to find out the end result for a given

problem and thus the solution helps in future course of action. The research has been defined as

“A careful investigation or enquiry especially through search for new fact in any branch of

knowledge”.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The procedure using, which researchers go about their work of describing, explaining and

predicting phenomena, is called Methodology. Methods compromise the procedures used for

generating, collecting, and evaluating data. Methods are the ways of obtaining information useful

for assessing explanation.

TYPES OF RESEARCH

The type of research used in this project is descriptive in nature. Descriptive research is

essentially a fact finding related largely to the present, abstracting generations by cross sectional

study of the current situation .The descriptive methods are extensively used in the physical and

natural science, for instance when physics measures, biology classifies, zoology dissects and

geology studies the rock. But its use in social science is more common, as in socio economic

surveys and job and activity analysis.

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH AIMS

To portray the characteristics of a particular individual situation or group(with or without

specific initial hypothesis about the nature of this characteristics).

To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is associated

with something else( usually , but not always ,with a specific initial hypothesis).

The descriptive method has certain limitation; one is that the research may make

description itself an end itself. Research is essentially creative and demands the discovery of facts

on order to lead a solution of the problem. A second limitation is associated whether the

statistical techniques dominate. The desire to over emphasis central tendencies and to fact in

terms of Average, Correlation, Means and dispersion may not always be either welcome. This

limitation arises because statistics which is partly a descriptive tool of analysis can aid but not

always explain causal relation.

DESIGN OF DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES:

Descriptive studies aim at portraying accurately the characteristics of a particular group or

solution. One may under take a descriptive study about the work in the factory, health and

welfare. A descriptive study may be concerned with the right to strike, capital punishment,

prohibition etc:

A descriptive study involves the following steps:

1. Formulating the objectives of the study.

2. Defining the population and selecting the sample.

3. Designing the method of data collection.

4. Analysis of the data.

5. Conclusion and recommendation for further improvement in the practices.

Description of statistical tools used

Percentage method

Correlation

Percentage method

In this project percentage method test and used. The following are the formula

Percentage of Respondent = No. of Respondent x 100

Total no. of Respondent

CORRELATION

Correlation analysis deals with the association between two or more variables. It does not tell

anything about cause and effect relationship. Correlation is describd or classified in several

different ways. Three of the most important ways of classifying correlation are :

1. Positive and Negative

2. Simple, Multiple and Partial

3. Linear and Non-Linear

Karl Pearson’s method is popularly known as Pearson’s coefficient of correlation. It is

denoted by the symbol ‘r’.

∑xy

Formula for Karl Pearson’s coefficient r = ______________

√∑x2 * ∑y2

The value of the coefficient of correlation as obtained by the above formula shall always lie

between +1 and -1. When r = 1, it means there is perfect positive correlation between

variables. When r = -1, it means there is perfect negative correlation between variables. When

r = 0, it means no relationship between variables.

Data collection method

Data was collected using Questionnaire. This method is quite popular in case of big enquires.

Private individuals, research workers, private and public organizations and even government are

adopting it. A questionnaire consists of a number of question involves both specific and general

question related to Grievance Handling.

Sources of data

The two sources of data collection are namely primary & secondary.

Primary Data:

Primary data are fresh data collected through survey from the employees using questionnaire.

Secondary Data

Secondary data are collected from books and internet.

Research design

Research design is the specification of the method and procedure for acquiring the

information needed to solve the problem.

The research design followed for this research study is descriptive research design where we find

a solution to an existing problem. The problem of this study is to find the effectiveness of

Grievance Handling at Lucas- TVS Limited.

Sample Design

Sample Element : Employees at Lucas- TVS Limited.

Sample Size : 35 samples

Sample Test : Percentage Method & Correlation

Sample Media : Questionnaire

Sampling Method : Simple Random Sampling

CHAPTER V

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Distribution of respondents regarding Temporary relief

Table: 5.1

Sl. No. Temporary relief

No. of respondents

Percentage

1 Yes 19 54.3

2 No 16 45.7

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 54.3% of respondents state that they are being provided with temporary relief and 45.7% stating they are not being provided relief.

Distribution of respondents regarding Temporary relief

Chart No: 5.1

Distribution of respondents based on age

Table: 5.2

Sl.No. Age Frequency Percentage

1 19-25 6 17.1

2 26-30 29 82.9

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 17.1% of respondents are between the age group 19-25 and 82.9% are between the age group 26-30.

Distribution of respondents based on age

Chart No: 5.2

Distribution of respondents towards supervisors’ level of skill

Table: 5.3

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 91.4% of respondents state that their supervisor are highly skilled and 8.6% state that their supervisor is moderately skilled.

Distribution of respondents towards supervisors’ level of skill

Chart No: 5.3

Sl.No.Supervisor

possess necessary skill

Frequency Percentage

1 very highly skilled 32 91.4

2 moderately skilled 3 8.6

Total 35 100

Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees

Table: 5.4

Sl.No Awareness of

committees

Frequency Percentage

1 yes 35 100.0

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 100% of respondents are aware of the various committees that are framed for redressing their grievance.

Distribution of respondents towards awareness of committees

Chart No: 5.4

Distribution of respondents towards decision given

Table: 5.5

Sl.No. Decision given is

satisfactory or not

Frequency Percentage

1 Highly satisfactory 31 88.6

2 Moderately satisfactory

4 11.4

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 88.6% of respondents are highly satisfied towards the decision given by the management and 11.4% of respondents are moderately satisfied towards the decision.

Distribution of respondents towards decision given

Chart No: 5.5

Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel

Table: 5.6

Sl.No Informal channel

No. of respondents Percentage

1 co worker 23 65.7

2 peer 12 34.3

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 65.7% of respondents communicate to their co-workers and 34.3% of respondents communicate to their peer.

Distribution of respondents towards the informal channel

Chart No: 5.6

Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance

Table: 5.7

Sl.No. Real basis Frequency Percentage

1 strongly agree 27 77.1

2 agree 8 22.9

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 77.1% of respondents strongly agree that real basis is identified and 22.9% of respondents agree that real basis is identified.

Distribution of respondents towards real basis of identification of their grievance

Chart No: 5.7

Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not

Table: 5.8

Sl.No. Mechanism resolves

grievance or not

No. of respondents

Percentage

1 yes 34 97.1

2 no 1 2.9

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 97.1% of respondents agree that mechanism resolves grievance and 2.9% of respondents disagree that mechanism does not resolve grievance.

Distribution of respondents towards mechanism followed resolves grievance or not

Chart No: 5.8

Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference

Table: 5.9

Sl.No. Discussion and conference

No. of respondents

Percentage

1 strongly agree 29 82.9

2 agree 6 17.1

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 82.9% of respondents strongly agree that discussion and conference is facilitated and 17.1% of respondents agree that discussion and conference is facilitated.

Distribution of respondents towards importance given to discussion and conference

Chart No: 5.9

Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance

TABLE NO: 5.10

Sl.No. Whom do you redress

Frequency Percentage

1 office bearers

4 11.4

2 committee members

16 45.7

3hr

3 8.6

4mangers

2 5.7

5union

members

7 20.0

6counselor

1 2.9

7friends

1 2.9

8co workers

1 2.9

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 11.4% of respondents communicate grievances through office bearers, 45.7% through committee members, 8.6% through HR, 5.7 through managers, 20% through union members, 2.9 through counselor, 2.9 through friends and 2.9 through co workers.

Distribution of respondents regarding whom they redress for grievance

Chart No: 5.10

Distribution of respondents based on qualification

Table: 5.11

Sl.No. Qualification Frequency Percentage

1 higher secondary

31 88.6

2 diploma 1 2.9

3 under graduate 3 8.6

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 88.6% of respondents are qualified up to higher secondary, 2.9% of respondents are diploma and 8.6% are under graduate.

Distribution of respondents based on qualification

Chart No: 5.11

Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees

Table: 5.12

Sl.No.Various

committees Frequency Percentage

1canteen,sga 1 2.9

2Sga,tei,

transport4 11.4

3transport,welf

are,sga6 17.1

4 transport, safety, canteen

4 11.4

5 safety,transport,sga

4 11.4

6 canteen,tei,safety,transport

3 8.6

7 tei,sga,canteen,transport

9 25.7

8 transport, welfare, safety

2 5.7

9 tei,sga,transport,welfare

2 5.7

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 2.9% of respondents are aware of canteen-sga

committee,11.4% of respondents are aware of sga-tei-transport committee,17.1% of respondents

are aware of transport-welfare-sga,11.4% t of respondents are aware transport, safety,

canteen ,11.4% of respondents are aware safety,transport,sga ,8.6% of respondents are aware of

canteen,tei,safety,transport,25.7% of respondents are aware tei,sga,canteen,transport,5.7% of

respondents are aware transport, welfare, safety and 5.7% of respondents are aware of

tei,sga,transport,welfare.

Distribution of respondents regarding awareness of various committees

Chart No: 5.12

Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up

Table: 5.13

Sl.No. Regular follow-up

No. of respondents

Percentage

1 Yes 35 100.0

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 100% of respondents have agreed that there is regular follow up to ensure right decision is given.

Distribution of respondents regarding regular follow up

Chart No: 5.13

Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors’ authority

Table: 5.14

Sl.No Supervisor has givenauthority

No. of respondents

Percentage

Valid Has given authority 35 100.0

Total 35 100

Inference:

From the above table it is inferred that 100% of respondents have agreed that supervisor is given authority.

Distribution of respondents regarding supervisors’ authority

Chart No: 5.14

ANALYSIS USING CORRELATION

To know whether there is correlation between feel about decision given and real basis identification

Let X be Feel about decision givenLet Y be Real basis identification

Table: 5.15

Table: 5.16Values for correlation

∑x2 ∑y2 ∑xy180.5 364.5 256.5

∑xyr = ______________

√ (∑x2 * ∑y2 )

Substituting the values of ∑x2, ∑y2, ∑xy in the above equation we get.

r = 1

Inference:

Since the value of r is equal to one the variables are positively correlated. A variation in one variable will cause variation in anotherANALYSIS USING CORRELATION

real basis identified Total

Strongly agree agree

Feel about decision

given

highly satisfactory

25 6 31

moderately satisfactory

2 2 4

Total 27 8 35

To know whether there is correlation between discussion and conference and supervisor has skill

Let X be Discussion and conference.Let Y be Supervisor has skill.

Table: 5.17

supervisor has skillTotal

very highly skilled

moderately skilled

discussion and

conferencestrongly agree

28 1 29

agree 4 2 6

Total32 3 35

Table: 5.18

Values for correlation

∑x2 ∑y2 ∑xy420.5 264.5 333.5

∑xyr = ______________

√ (∑x2 * ∑y2 )

Substituting the values of ∑x2, ∑y2, ∑xy in the above equation we get.

r = 1

Inference:

Since the value of r is equal to one the variables are positively correlated. A variation in one variable will cause variation in another.

CHAPTER VI

6.1 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

1. 54.3% of respondent’s state that they are being provided with temporary relief until final

decision is taken.

2. 82.9% of the respondents are between the age group 26-30.

3. 91.4% of respondents state that their supervisors are highly skilled that is the supervisors

possess necessary human relation skills.

4. 100% of respondents are aware of the various committees that are framed for redressing

their grievance.

5. 88.6% of respondents are highly satisfied towards the decision given by the management.

6. 65.7% of respondents communicate to their co-workers. It is their informal channel.

7. 77.1% of respondents strongly agree that real basis of there is identified.

8. 97.1% of respondents agree that mechanism being followed resolves their grievance.

9. 82.9% of respondents strongly agree that discussion and conference is facilitated rather

than executive authority.

10. 45.7% of respondents’ immediately redress their grievance through committee members.

11. 88.6% of respondents are qualified up to higher secondary.

12. 25.7% of respondents are aware of tei, sga, canteen, transport committees available.

13. 100% of respondents have agreed that there is regular follow up to ensure right decision is

given.

14. 100% of respondents have agreed that supervisor is given authority to take action

necessary to resolve the problem.

15. When there is deviation in the real basis identification it will be reflected in the level of

satisfaction regarding decision given.

6.2 SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Job descriptions, responsibilities should be as clear as possible. Everyone should be

informed of company’s goals and expectation including what is expected from each

individual.

2. Informal counseling helps to address and manage grievances in the workplace.

3. Conflict management in the organization will be helpful to reduce the number of

grievance rates.

4. Open door policy can be used. The barriers that exist between the various categories are

to some extent broken by personal contact and mutual understanding.

5. Suggestion boxes can be installed. This brings the problem or conflict of interest to light.

6. Accident rates, Requests for transfers, Resignations, and disciplinary cases should be

analyzed since they reveal the general patterns that are not apparent.

7. Temporary relief can be provided so that the delay does not increase his frustration and

anxiety and thereby not affecting his / her morale and productivity.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

The study reveals that the Grievance handling mechanism is satisfactory. The organization is

recognizing the importance of satisfying the employees and retaining them. Further

improvements can be made so that all members are highly satisfied with the procedure. The

suggestions and recommendations when implemented will still more benefit the organization.

CHAPTER VIII

Limitations of the study

The sample size was restricted to 100

Personal interview was not allowed.

Scope for the study

The project throws light on need for Grievance handling mechanism and this study

facilitates the management for further improvement on the same.

This study will be useful when similar kind of research is undertaken.

ANNEXURE I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aswathappa, K., Human resource and Personnel management, TATA McGraw- HILL.

2. Arun monappa and Saiyadain, Mirza S., Personnel management, TATA McGraw- HILL.

3. Flippo, Edwin B., Personnel management, McGRAW-HILL International Publications.

WEB SITE

1. www.citehr.com

2. www.findatricles.com

ANNEXURE II

QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Name:

2. Gender:

i.Male [ ]

ii.Female[ ]

3. Age:

i.19-25 [ ]

ii.26-30 [ ]

iii.31 and above[ ]

4. Edicational qualification:

i.Higher secondary[ ]

ii.Diploma [ ]

iii.Under graduate [ ]

iv.Post graduate [ ]

5. Marital status:

i.Married [ ]

ii.Unmarried[ ]

6. Are you aware of the various committees that redress the grievance?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

7. If yes for above question kindly list out the various committees available

8. Are you aware of the members of the various committees?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

9. Are you aware of the weekly/monthly meetings of the various committees which

are being held?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

10. .In case the grievance has to be immediately redressed to whom do you

communicate?

11. Is there any informal channel to redress your grievance such as

i.Co-worker[ ]

ii.Peer[ ]

iii.If others,please specify( )

12. Is the real basis of your problem identified?

iStrongly agree[ ]

ii.Agree[ ]

iii.Disagree[ ]

iv.Strongly disagree[ ]

13. Does your higher authority listen when your grievance is presented?

i.Listens patiently[ ]

ii.Shouts at you[ ]

iii.Does not listen at all[ ]

14. Is imporatance given to what is right rather than who is right?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

15. Are you constantly informed on what is being done about your grievance?

i.Very often being informed[ ]

ii.Seldom being informed [ ]

iii.Does not inform at all [ ]

16. Is an atmosphere of cordiality and co-operation facilitated through mutual discussion and

conference?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

17. Is there a positive and friendly approach during grievance handling?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

18. Do you feel that discussion and conference is given more importance rather than

executive authority?

i. Strongly agree[ ]

ii. Agree[ ]

iii. Disagree[ ]

iv. Strongly disagree[ ]

19. Is there a spirit of give and take and sharing and working together?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

20. Has the mechanism being followed resolves you grievance?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

21. How do you feel about the decision given corresponding to your grievance? Is it

i.Highly satisfactory[ ]

ii.Moderately satisfactory[ ]

iii.No satisfaction[ ]

22. Is there regular follow up to ensure that the right decision has ended up in satiafaction?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

23. Is there any temporary relief provided until proper decision is made so that it does not

raise any adverse effects within the organization?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

24. Do the various committee members actively engage in resolving your problem?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

25. If the decision is not satisfactory are you given opportunity to take it to hjgher officials?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

26. Do you feel open to share your grievances?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]

27. Do you feel that the supervisor possesses necessary human relation skills in terms of

understanding your problem?

i.Very highly skilled[ ]

ii.Moderately skilled[ ]

iii.Not skilled[ ]

28. Are the matters relevant to the grievance kept confidential?

i.highly confidential[ ]

ii.Not kept confidential[ ]

29. Are the procedures for conveying grievance simple and easy to utilize?

i.Very simple[ ]

ii.Difficult to utilize[ ]

30. Is the supervisor given authority to take action necessary to resolve the problem?

i.Has given authority[ ]

ii.Does not have authority[ ]

31. Are proper records maintained on each grievance?

i.Yes[ ]

ii.No[ ]