In order to research that either the four procedures for determining worker entitlements in American laws: individual bargaining, collective bargaining, legislative regulation and adaptation of the common law are comprehensive or not one has to study this list in details. With common law the Courts in nineteenth began reassessing the position of co-employees within the workplace. Judges increasingly were referring to negligent co-employees not as agents of a mutual employer, but as fellow servants of the injured persons. Despite the quaint language of its originator, Lord Abinger, in the case of Priestley v. Fowler , the “fellow servant” rule was a provocative legal statement about the relative position of workers in regard to their employers. The fellow servant rule was an offshoot of an older rule of common law–the doctrine of common employment. The decisions stating the fellow servant rule were very well-crafted and broadly applied by judges such as Lemuel Shaw, the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The fellow servant rule, therefore, became the best-known branch of the doctrine of common employment, because it spoke to situations in which workers were employed in large-scale enterprises, such as the new railways of America. The doctrine of common employment and the fellow servant rule found voice in the United States initially in the Farwell case, which involved injury to a railway worker in Massachusetts soon after railroads began to be constructed there. Besides the fellow servant rule, courts of law in the mid- nineteenth century made two other important exceptions to respondent superior-the legal rules known as the assumption of risk doctrine, and the doctrine of contributory negligence. Judges who argued for “assumption of risk” declared that the time for employees to state their fears about workplace safety was at the moment when they were hired. Prospective workers ought to be alert enough to the possibility that they might be injured in dangerous new enterprises such as railways, that they would mention that fear to employers, as a point of negotiation about wages. In its broadest notion, a grievance is any employee complaint about the employment relationship. Some labor agreements describe a grievance in this manner. More commonly, nonetheless, a grievance is defined as a dispute that “relates in some manner to the proper interpretation or application of the collective bargaining agreement” (White, 1999, p-3). Such a definition narrows the incidence of grievances to unionized settings and to written contract language that specifically deals with grievances–although some labor agreements do not contain individual and collective bargaining and grievance like dispute resolution procedures are present in some non-union settings. Neal, (2001) offers the following definition: The individual and collective bargaining is in part the judicial process of applying the terms of the agreement to particular situations, as it is most frequently pictured. It is also the mechanism through which the first-line representatives of union and management engage in an ongoing contest over the exercise of authority in the shop–a contest which may be relatively quiescent