Procedural Justice in Examples

Procedural Justice (Global): Are the rules and procedures used by the judge fair overall?

Consistency (PJ): Whether the organization treats all employees the same way.
Several years ago I served as a sort of HR manager for a manufacturing company that had no one formally in the position, so they would ask me questions and one of their young engineers would try to carry out my suggestions. I was asked to interview several employees to gauge morale and one of those I interviewed reminded me of my mother, so we will call her Joyce.
Joyce looked like my mother and she was also quite opinionated and by the time I arrived on the scene, pretty bitter about how she had been treated. The company had started a practice of putting the names of those absent or tardy to work on the wall for everyone to see when they walked in the door. If you were absent without a doctor’s excuse you got a red dot and if you were late without a doctor’s excuse you got a yellow dot, with red dots worth two points and yellow dots worth one. If, in the course of three months, you accumulated five or more points, you went on probation and more than two points during the next three months meant you were fired.
Joyce had been on probation a number of times and nearly fired more than once, since the policy had been put in place around a year before our interview. She had actually talked them out of firing her once, even though technically she had gone over the number of points.
What bothered Joyce was that there were a few favorites of management whose points were manipulated so they stayed off the board. When she had asked management about this practice, they were told she was wrong and even lying.
When I talked to management before the interviews started, Joyce’s name came up as someone I needed to interview and they proceeded to tell me of her case and how they knew what she would say, but they wanted me to see what they put up with; how ill-tempered and difficult she could be.
After the interview, I went to management and told them I thought her accounts of things rang fairly true and that they either should stop having the names-on-the-wall system, or at least conduct it in a fair manner. Shortly after that, I went in and the board for names was taken down.
This case illustrates the consistency facet of procedural justice, as an instance where the system itself may not have been unjust, but the way it was administered was. It could even be argued that employees have the right to not be embarrassed in front of their coworkers in this manner, but unless favorites are deliberately left off the board, the system could have been equitable, although perhaps regressive and counterproductive.

Bias Suppression/Neutrality (PJ): Whether the judge is unbiased and impartial in making decisions.
The case also demonstrates bias or impartiality on the part of those making decisions. Bias led management to make partial decisions. Of course, it may be Joyce was making up her accusations, but the system was ripe for such suspicion, especially since those whose names went on the board could be expected to be hyper-vigilant about partiality given the level of embarrassment the system caused.

Accuracy (PJ): Whether the organization uses the most accurate information they can get when deciding an employee’s case.
When I worked at IBM, the story was told of three managers who had gone to a convention with their trip paid for by IBM, but before their return, word got back to management that their conference expenses had been waived due to their membership in an affiliated organization, expenses which they nonetheless had reported to IBM. When they returned to the building, their swipe cards would not open the door and they were met at the door and asked to remain outside while their personal effects were brought out to them. They were fired on the spot.
Management had the courage to act so boldly due to the perceived accuracy of their information. If there had been any element of ambiguity, they would not have acted in such a direct and forceful manner, but as it turned out, the offending managers had been caught, “red handed”. If proof of their “double-dipping” had not been available, those who fired them would have had to spend more time investigating and thus to make a slower decision.

Correctability (PJ): Whether employee has the opportunity to appeal to the organization to change the decision if he feels he is being treated unfairly.

In the above case, not only was the evidence considered to be accurate enough for a summary decision, there was no provision made for appeal. I am not sure of the exact wording of the policy, but I suspect it was to the effect justice in such cases will be fast and without appeal, if the evidence is compelling. Again, if the evidence was not so strong, IBM would have felt it necessary to ask the men to explain their position before making a decision or to have let them proceed through a pre-determined appeals process. You may, like me, think there ought to have been an appeals process and it may have occurred in the form of a lawsuit by one or more of the managers.  I never heard the end of the story, as far as that goes.

Representativeness (PJ): Is the organization’s behavior suitable to all of the different people or groups affected by the decision?
An embattled College Dean, in order to get a loyal Department Chair on the University President selection committee, and thus ensure the candidates were more likely to hear the Dean’s side of the college controversy early on in the selection process; had the Department Chair fill out bogus vote forms to get himself elected to the committee. A group of the Dean’s enemies went to the Chief Academic Officer (Provost) and told him what the Department Chair had done. The Provost was not sure whether the allegation was true, but enough of the faculty were in the accusing contingent that he felt threatened to do nothing, so he overturned the results of the election and another was held. Ultimately, a faculty member other than the Dean’s ally, was elected to the position, and within a year; the Dean was dismissed and the Department Chair retired.
It seems the easiest decision to make in the case was simply to have another election. The Provost would have been within his rights to fire both the Chair and the Dean, but that would have been a long, public, ugly battle and he knew the University could not stand such negative publicity. His decision might be considered the wise one given the circumstances and perhaps the just one, in the long run; especially as everything turned out.

Ethicality (PJ): Does the organization act in an ethical way when he makes his decision about the employee?

In November of 1974, Kerr-McGee employee, Karen Silkwood was killed in a suspicious accident on her way to deliver documents that would have proven the company was covering up dangerous levels of nuclear exposure to their employees. A movie was made of the case and the clear accusation was that Kerr-McGee had Karen Silkwood killed for her union activism and whistleblowing; clearly not only an unethical action, if true, but of course, illegal.

Notice the company actually construed their actions as justifiable given that Silkwood's actions could have brought down the entire company. I suppose the lesson here is be careful how you poke and prod at a cornered, dangerous animal. Of course, Silkwood was in the right, and a great injustice was done; but the organization temporarily suspended rationality and entered into a most sinister version of their version of what was just - in the case, retribution.

Voice/Process Control (PJ): Whether employee is allowed to fully explain to the organization, reasons for his/her behavior.

When I sold Electrolux vacuum cleaners in Terre Haute, Indiana during the summer of 1981, to say my boss was a little shady would be an understatement. He once convinced a lady to trade in her old vacuum cleaner for a new one by telling her the old one was a fire hazard, and then turned around and sold the used one to her daughter-in-law. When they came to Terre Haute to straighten the mess out, they got their money back and were met with lots of sorry-about-thats and sad faces, but once they were gone, my boss received praise for his creative approach to closing a sale. In this case, an injustice was done to the customers, but no real justice was given to the culprit because the organization was only too eager to hear “his side of the story”.

Standing (PJ): Does the organization show respect for the employee as a person?
Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, the highest-ranking female Army officer accused a colleague of fondling her, after which, he was promoted; but never court marshaled or otherwise punished. If her accusation is true it raises the question as to how respectful the Army is not just of her, but of all the women in its ranks.

Trust (PJ): Is the organization trustworthy in the way it makes decisions?
When U.S. soldiers were accused of torture and humiliation of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib in a May 2004 article in the New Yorker, the chain of command worked to control the damage by making it appear the work was that of a few renegade soldiers, but the suspicion remains that knowledge of the events or even permission, was held at much higher ranks; calling into question the integrity of the entire system.

Decision Control (PJ): Whether employee has a direct influence over the final decision made by the organization?
During any trial of a top-level official of an organization, steps must be taken to guard against the power of the person charged to influence the outcome of the decision, a concern not nearly as great when the employee ranks lower in the organization. In fact, it can be said that the opposite is the case. When the lower level person faces accusation, the full weight of top management’s influence can fall heavily on the side of the company and against the employee. The Erin Brockovich case against Pacific Gas and Electric and other whistleblowing cases offer good examples of this.