Abstract

While a growing evidence that employees often feel their rights have been violated by their employer, there is still little academic investigation to determine what response they are likely to adopt. In this study, we develop the view that the mobilization of rights by employees depends on the perception of violation. In parallel, we argue that perceived justice of legal structure (i.e. the perception of how the law is usually implemented) moderates the influence of violation perceptions on intention to mobilize rights (i.e, demand for support from the elected staff and representatives or intent a legal action as mediation or go to court). Building on the sub-dimensions of justice (procedural, interpersonal and informational), we develop and test - through a questionnaire survey with scenario – a set of hypotheses pertaining to the moderating role of justice. Our findings point out a nuanced and sometimes ambiguous influence of justice which has practical implications. Procedural justice appears to have no moderating effect. Interactional justice has a strong effect, showing that employees who perceive a violation will follow a longer path before intending a legal action and ask support inside the organization before going to court for example. Nevertheless, Informational justice has an ambiguous effect, suggesting that the firms keeping their employees well-informed may push them for a legal action.

Key-words:

organizational justice, legal claiming, legal reading