A review of the existing literature suggests that employees in unionized workplaces have significantly more voice mechanisms present than in non-unionized workplaces. In India, historically, the trade unions have played the role of an agent of social and economic changes, protecting and enhancing the interest of its members and trying to squeeze more and more out of managements through bargaining or conflict. Unions protect workers directly from arbitrary discipline while providing management with a means of managing the work force that does not call on the use of overt sanctions since industrial action performed an additional voice function. It is observed that meaningful and lasting employee participation occurs only when the union has sufficient power to induce the management to forgo some of its traditional prerogatives; the union and management share a vision of how participation could serve the interests of both the parties; and when the union has substantial institutional security. Presence of a powerful collective bargaining machinery and proactive communication between the management and the unions not only minimises the grievances but also promotes healthy industrial relations. Workers have a reduced capacity to initiate issues and articulate grievances in the non-unionized workplaces and they enjoy comparatively less benefits than their unionized counterparts. While workers joined unions because they thought unions could protect them against victimization, secure the wage increases, and ensure job security and improved conditions of work, on the other hand, in the absence of unions, employees may not raise disputes because of fear of victimization, fear of being branded disloyal to the organization, and fear of reprisals by the management. Based on the literature review and analysis, a framework linking union density, employee prolificacy to raise disputes, management propensity to make decisions unilaterally, and workers intention to quit has been suggested.