Employee organizations or trade unions play an important role in the labour relations of various institutions. A crucial function, amongst others, fulfilled by trade unions is their involvement on issues of grievance and disciplinary procedures in the workplace. This study aims to understand the perceptions of rank and file union members, particularly regarding the handling of grievance and disciplinary procedures. The study examines the understanding of the functioning of a union, as well as the approach of a union in representing its members during grievance and disciplinary procedures. In particular, the study looks at the challenges faced by the leadership of the union in dealing with the management of an institution during grievance and disciplinary procedures. Various circumstances which, lead to the lodging of grievances and the scheduling of disciplinary hearings in the workplace were observed. These circumstances could occur in any workplace of any given institution. It is for this very reason that the appropriate measures should be taken in resolving disputes. The measures should be followed and applied by the management of an institution when dealing with grievance and disciplinary procedures regarding its employees. Such procedures must be followed before an employee may be given a warning or be dismissed. Recognized unions represent their members during such proceedings. This study analyzes the understanding of labour relations, regarding issues of grievance and disciplinary procedures, as applied to a tertiary institution. The handling of these procedures and the experiences of union members, during their representation by a union, are assessed. Due to the diversity of scope and the composition of unions (representing both academic and non-academic staff members) which operate in a tertiary institution, the study was limited to one labour union. This research was conducted within the structure and scale of a single union (NEHAWU) operating in an institution. The study found that union representatives faced particular challenges while defending their members during disciplinary hearings. These challenges are apparent when union representatives are confronted by legal experts on labour matters. Union members expressed their dissatisfaction and their lack of confidence in their representatives during grievance and disciplinary proceedings. The union members rated the union poorly, particularly regarding the leadership of the union. They felt that more cases were lost than won. However, despite the low ratings, union members (in general) felt strongly about the right to belong to a union, believing that disciplinary processes were largely affected by “race”. This is simply because most of the union members were black subordinates serving under most white supervisors. AFRIKAANS : Werknemerorganisasies of vakbonde speel ’n belangrike rol in arbeidsverhoudinge in verskeie instellings. ’n Kritieke funksie, onder andere, wat deur vakbonde vervul word is hul betrokkenheid by griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures in die werkplek. Hierdie studie beoog om die persepsies van gewone vakbondlede, in besonder met betrekking tot die hantering van griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures te begryp. Die studie ondersoek die begrip van die funksionering van ’n vakbond, asook die benadering van ’n vakbond in die verteenwoordiging van lede tydens griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures. In besonder, word die uitdagings wat die vakbondleierskap in die gesig staar in die oorlegpleging met bestuur tydens griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures, oorweeg. Verskeie omstandighede wat tot die oplegging ’n grief en die skedulering van ’n disiplinêre verhoor in die werkplek, lei, is waargeneem. Hierdie omstandighede kan by enige werkplek in enige instelling ontstaan. Dit is om hierdie rede dat gepaste maatstawwe geneem moet word om sulke dispute op te los. Die maatstawwe behoort gevolg en toegepas te word deur die bestuur van die instelling wanneer griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures, met betrekking tot werknemers, hanteer word. Sulke prosedures behoort gevolg te word voordat ’n werknemer ’n waarskuwing gegee of ontslaan word. Erkende vakbonde verteenwoordig hul lede tydens sulke prosedures. Die studie ontleed die begrip van arbeidsverhoudinge, met betrekking tot griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures, soos deur ’n tersiêre instelling toegepas word. Die hantering van hierdie prosedures en die ervaringe van vakbondlede gedurende hul verteenwoordiging deur die vakbond word geasseseer. As gevolg van die omvang van reikwydte en die samestelling van vakbonde (wat beide akademiese en nie-akademiese personeel verteenwoordig) wat in die tersiêre instelling funksioneer, is die studie beperk tot een vakbond. Die navorsing is onderneem binne die struktuur en skaal van ’n enkele vakbond (NEHAWU) wat in die instelling werksaam is. Die studie het bevind dat vakbond verteenwoordigers bepaalde uitdagings in die gesig gestaar het in die verteenwoordiging van hul lede tydens dissiplinêre verhore. Hierdie uitdagings is duidelik wanneer die vakbond verteenwoordiger gekonfronteer word deur regskenners oor arbeidsaangeleenthede. Vakbondlede het hul misnoeë uitgespreek en min vertroue in hul verteenwoordigers tydens griewe- en dissiplinêre prosedures geopper. Vakbondlede het die unie, in besonder die leierskap, as swak beoordeel. Hulle voel dat meer sake verloor as gewen is. Ten spyte van hierdie lae taksering, voel vakbondlede sterk oor hul reg om aan ’n unie te behoort (in die algemeen), en glo hulle dat dissplinêre prosesse deur ‘ras’ beïvloed word. Dit is eenvoudig omdat meeste vakbondlede swart ondergeskiktes is wat onder wit toesighouers werk. Copyright / Dissertation (MSocSci)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Sociology / unrestricted

This study examined the beliefs, perceptions, actions, and congruency between beliefs and actions of participants completing an anonymous survey regarding if clients should be informed of the AAMFT organization, code of ethics, and grievance procedure. Two hundred thirty-one participants returned the survey, representing AAMFT clinical members, AAMFT state division officers, and the AAMFT national ethics committee board members. The findings include the respondents' beliefs, actions, and congruency between the two for informing clients about the organization, code of ethics, and grievance procedure. Most participants believe clients should be informed and the results indicate that the participants are mainly consistent with their actions, except for grievance procedures. The findings seem to indicate that as the perceived risk for the therapist increases, the amount of information shared decreases. The beliefs and actions regarding the grievance procedure seemed to be the most ambiguous. / Master of Science

O presente trabalho tem como objeto a análise dos poderes decisórios do relator nos recursos cíveis, à luz do art. 557 do CPC. Para atenuar a carga de trabalho dos tribunais, da qual resultaria, pelo menos a priori, agilização no trâmite dos recursos em geral e, de conseqüência, combate à morosidade da justiça, atribuiuse ao relator poderes para apreciar os recursos no âmbito dos tribunais, isto sem necessidade de submissão do feito ao órgão colegiado. De acordo com o ordenamento jurídico atualmente em vigor, o relator está autorizado a, unipessoalmente, decidir a admissibilidade e até mesmo sobre o mérito do recurso. Essa é a dicção do art. 557 do CPC, com a redação que lhe imprimiu a Lei n 9.756/98. A decisão proferida solitariamente pelo relator, nos casos previstos no art. 557 do CPC, sempre causou muita perplexidade na comunidade jurídica, sobretudo porque rompe com a consagrada tradição de julgamentos colegiados no âmbito dos tribunais. Entretanto, sempre pôde ela ser submetida à apreciação do colegiado através da interposição do recurso de agravo interno. O legislador ordinário, no entanto, caminha decididamente para a monocraticidade das decisões no âmbito dos tribunais. A Lei n 11.187/05 é manifestação clara dessa tendência, porquanto suprimiu o cabimento do agravo interno contra as decisões interlocutórias proferidas nos casos enumerados no parágrafo único do Art. 527 do CPC, consistentes nas hipóteses em que o relator converte o agravo de instrumento em retido, quando atribui efeito suspensivo ou defere, em antecipação de tutela, total ou parcialmente, a pretensão recursal. O estudo do Art. 557 do CPC aliado ao espírito das modificações implementadas pela Lei n 11.187/05 encarna a tendência de que o relator exerce os poderes que lhe foram concedidos pela lei e não que os exerce ad referendum do órgão colegiado que integra / This work aims to analyze the decision-making powers of the rapporteur in civil appeals in the light of art. 557 of the CPC. To alleviate the workload of the courts, which would result, at least in principle, speeding in the processing of resources in general and, in consequence, the slowness of justice fight, attributed to the rapporteur empowered to hear appeals in the courts, that without submission made to the national collegiate. In accordance with the laws currently in force, the Rapporteur is authorized, sole proprietorship, to decide the admissibility and even on the merits. This is the utterance of the art. 557 of the CPC, with wording that gave it to Law No. 9.756/98. The decision alone, by the rapporteur, as provided in Art. 557 of the CPC, always caused much perplexity in the legal community, especially because it breaks with the hallowed tradition of collegiate judgments in courts. However, it could always be submitted to the collegiate action was brought by the grievance procedure. The ordinary legislator, however, moves decisively to monocratic decisions in courts. Law No. 11.187/05 is clear manifestation of this trend, since deleted the relevancy of internal grievance against interlocutory decisions rendered in the cases listed in the paragraph of Article 527 of the CPC, consistent in situations where the rapporteur converts the wrong instrument in withheld, when you assign a suspensive effect or defers, in anticipation of trust, in whole or in part, the appellate claim. The study of Article 557 of the CPC coupled with the spirit of the changes implemented by Law No. 11.187/05 embodies the trend that the rapporteur shall exercise the powers granted to it by law and that has not ad referendum of the collegial body part

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_rasalina_freitas.pdf: 2597780 bytes, checksum: 1b4a2384c13558ba973a890d3c7eed81 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-09-22 / This work aims to analyze the decision-making powers of the rapporteur in civil appeals in the light of art. 557 of the CPC. To alleviate the workload of the courts, which would result, at least in principle, speeding in the processing of resources in general and, in consequence, the slowness of justice fight, attributed to the rapporteur empowered to hear appeals in the courts, that without submission made to the national collegiate. In accordance with the laws currently in force, the Rapporteur is authorized, sole proprietorship, to decide the admissibility and even on the merits. This is the utterance of the art. 557 of the CPC, with wording that gave it to Law No. 9.756/98. The decision alone, by the rapporteur, as provided in Art. 557 of the CPC, always caused much perplexity in the legal community, especially because it breaks with the hallowed tradition of collegiate judgments in courts. However, it could always be submitted to the collegiate action was brought by the grievance procedure. The ordinary legislator, however, moves decisively to monocratic decisions in courts. Law No. 11.187/05 is clear manifestation of this trend, since deleted the relevancy of internal grievance against interlocutory decisions rendered in the cases listed in the paragraph of Article 527 of the CPC, consistent in situations where the rapporteur converts the wrong instrument in withheld, when you assign a suspensive effect or defers, in anticipation of trust, in whole or in part, the appellate claim. The study of Article 557 of the CPC coupled with the spirit of the changes implemented by Law No. 11.187/05 embodies the trend that the rapporteur shall exercise the powers granted to it by law and that has not ad referendum of the collegial body part / O presente trabalho tem como objeto a análise dos poderes decisórios do relator nos recursos cíveis, à luz do art. 557 do CPC. Para atenuar a carga de trabalho dos tribunais, da qual resultaria, pelo menos a priori, agilização no trâmite dos recursos em geral e, de conseqüência, combate à morosidade da justiça, atribuiuse ao relator poderes para apreciar os recursos no âmbito dos tribunais, isto sem necessidade de submissão do feito ao órgão colegiado. De acordo com o ordenamento jurídico atualmente em vigor, o relator está autorizado a, unipessoalmente, decidir a admissibilidade e até mesmo sobre o mérito do recurso. Essa é a dicção do art. 557 do CPC, com a redação que lhe imprimiu a Lei nº 9.756/98. A decisão proferida solitariamente pelo relator, nos casos previstos no art. 557 do CPC, sempre causou muita perplexidade na comunidade jurídica, sobretudo porque rompe com a consagrada tradição de julgamentos colegiados no âmbito dos tribunais. Entretanto, sempre pôde ela ser submetida à apreciação do colegiado através da interposição do recurso de agravo interno. O legislador ordinário, no entanto, caminha decididamente para a monocraticidade das decisões no âmbito dos tribunais. A Lei nº 11.187/05 é manifestação clara dessa tendência, porquanto suprimiu o cabimento do agravo interno contra as decisões interlocutórias proferidas nos casos enumerados no parágrafo único do Art. 527 do CPC, consistentes nas hipóteses em que o relator converte o agravo de instrumento em retido, quando atribui efeito suspensivo ou defere, em antecipação de tutela, total ou parcialmente, a pretensão recursal. O estudo do Art. 557 do CPC aliado ao espírito das modificações implementadas pela Lei nº 11.187/05 encarna a tendência de que o relator exerce os poderes que lhe foram concedidos pela lei e não que os exerce ad referendum do órgão colegiado que integra