ABSTRACT
I N light of the current deterioration in American relations be-tween union and management, and the climate of mutual hostili-ty and distrust between labor and management (Banks, 1982; Marth, 1982; Seligman, 1982), an understanding of the role of communication in negotiations between union and management has become increasingly important. Disputes between union and management have been characterized as conflict in which each party "has an interest in making the total resources as large as possible for itself' (Pondy, 1967, p. 313). These conflicts rarely become manifest, however, where collective bargaining and other administrative mechanisms for resolving conflict are operating efficiently (Pondy, 1967). Collective bargaining, and the grievance procedure specifically, have been identified as a central means by which an organization can manage conflict between interest groups (Pondy, 1967; Putnam & Jones, 1982a). Collective bargaining involves "the process whereby . . . parties attempt to settle what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction between them" (Rubin & Brown, 1975, p. 2). In this context, the grievance procedure is an organizational system designed to prevent open confrontation between union and management by regulating the conflict within socially accepted boundaries (Jandt, 1973). The grievance procedure has been described as a forum in which "complaints of workers, employers, and unions can be aired and discussed," and as "an avenue of bilateral communication on matters of interest" to both parties (Sloane & Witney, 1972, p. 217). The purpose of the research reported here was to explore the types of communication that occur among labor and management participants in one step of the grievance procedure.
