Context of Employee Relations and Industrial Conflict

Guest (1995) noted that the industrial relations system may continue as a largely symbolic ‘empty shell’, insufficiently important for management to confront and eliminate, but retaining the outward appearance of health to the casual observer: ‘Management sets the agenda, which is market-driven, while industrial relations issues are relatively low on the list of concerns.’

Conclusions of the Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS) 2004

The results showed some significant changes (from 1998 survey). Most striking of all, perhaps, was the continuing decline of collective labour organisation. Employees were less likely to be union members than they were in 1998; workplaces were less likely to recognise unions for bargaining over pay and conditions; collective bargaining was less prevalent. Even so, the rate of decline seemed to have slowed down from that seen in earlier periods and the joint regulation of terms and conditions remains a reality for many employees in Britain: one-half of employees were employed in workplaces with a recognised trade union; one-third were union members; and 40 per cent had their pay set through collective bargaining.’ 3

Determining the role of trade unions and its contribution to effective employee relations

Introduction

‘Trade unions are a form of representation of the people at work. Their very basic purpose is to protect and improve people's pay and conditions of employment. They campaign for laws and policies, which benefits the working people. The very reason these institutions exist because an individual worker has very little power to influence decisions that are made about his or her job.

They are the only institutions that give a voice to workers, whose circumstances are often neglected by those in power. Unions seek to act as sectoral and occupational unions for the common defence of employment, economic and social rights. They conduct social dialogue with government and employers’ organizations; represent employees’ interests in state and municipal institutions and courts of law; provide expert consultations for drafts of laws and other legal acts and prepare proposals for amendments; and protect the interests of employees in relations with employers.

A labour union or trade union is defined as a commercial entity consisting of employees or workers having a common interest, such as all the assembly workers for one employer, or all the trades’ workers in a particular industry. The union is formed for the purpose of collectively negotiating with an employer (or employers) over wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.

The concept of trade unions began early in the industrial revolution where more and more people left farming as an occupation and began to work for employers, often in appalling conditions and for very low wages. The labour movement arose as an outgrowth of the disparity between the power of employers and the powerlessness of individual employees

Unions were illegal for many years in most countries. There were severe penalties for attempting to organize unions, including execution. Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labour law, which not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions. Many consider it an issue of fairness that workers be allowed to pool their resources in a special legal entity in a similar way to the pooling of capital resources in the form of corporations. Today a government imposing a ban on joining a union is generally considered a human right abuse. Most democratic countries have many unions, while most authoritarian regimes do not.

All sorts of jobs and industries are covered by trade unions. Some unions represent people who do a particular job or work in a specific industry – for example, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), represents journalists, and the Union for Finance Staff (UNIFI) is made up of people who do different jobs in the financial    sector. Other unions include a mixture of people in different jobs and sectors. The biggest unions in Britain - the GMB, UNISON and the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in Australia represent people working in a range of different occupations and industries in the public and private sectors. Often this is because unions have merged with other unions so that they can increase their membership and their influence.

Law on Trade Unions

Trade unions act as 'social organizations' that express workers' views, and represent and defend their employment, social and economic interests and rights.

The Law on Trade Unions, other relevant legislation, governs their activities and the unions' owns the articles of incorporation. Unions follow the principles and norms set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treaties and documents.

The Law on Trade Unions states that, in their activities, unions are to be independent of state governing and administrative institutions or other organizations. Any action, whose direct or indirect aim is the subordination of trade unions to state or other institutions and organizations, or the hindering of union activities set out in the law and their articles of incorporation, is prohibited. Trade unions are to represent the interests of employees by concluding general and collective agreements. Trade unions have the right to propose legislation through their national institutions. They have the right to call strikes, under the conditions set out in the Law on Strikes. Unions have equal rights with each other.

The Law on Trade Unions regulates the following issues such as relations between unions and state and municipal governing and administrative institutions, and with employers; the protection of unions and their members; the role of unions in examining employment, social and economic issues and disputes; and the property, business and financial activities of unions. The rights of unions to defend their members are additionally specially regulated by the Employment

Disputes Law. Further, the Employment Law stipulates that an employer may not terminate an employment contract with an employee who is a union member without the agreement of the union concerned.

Rights and Duties of Trade Union members

A union can be formed at a workplace if this is supported by at least three other people. A decision on organizing a union at a workplace is adopted by a meeting of workers, and this is then registered with the relevant sectoral union.

The rights of union members are to:

• Receiving free defence and legal assistance with regard to employment rights,
• employment protection and other socio-economic issues in relations with
• employers, state institutions etc;
• Receiving moral and material support from the union;
• Participating in the activities of union-established funds;
• Receiving information about the union’s activities; and
• Participating in elections for, and be elected to, the union’s bodies.
• The duties of union members are to:
• Observing the union’s articles of incorporation and decisions;
• Participation in the union’s activities;
• Observing professional ethics and respect their occupations; and
• Payment of membership fees set out in the articles of incorporation and performing the duties described in the collective agreements or other contracts concluded by the union.

Role of Trade Unions

Trade unions are introduced with the objective of improving workers’ welfare through better working conditions and also protecting workers’ rights in employment relations. Trade unions have also taken strides in safeguarding the interests of children being victims of child labour. Trade unions have traditionally been among the pioneers in the movement to prevent and eliminate child labour. In industries and enterprises where trade unions are present at the workplace, they can put pressure on management for the elimination of child labour, by ensuring that they are not subjected to hazardous or inhuman conditions of work. The worst forms of child labour are less likely to be found in the organized sector, where trade unions have most influence, and less in unionized than in union-free plants. For e.g.: - in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh

Building and Woodworkers' Federation provided 300 working children with access to government-sponsored schools and a food-for-education programme. Another good example to be noted is the Rural Workers' Union of Petrolina in Brazil, which organized a help for child agricultural labourers who were working long hours and handling hazardous agrochemicals. These children were removed from work, given complementary education and, together with their parents, were introduced to horticultural skills.

When trade unions remain steadfast in their commitment to democratic and accountable governance, they represent a key institution to sustaining democratic gains. The large membership and geographic reach of trade unions often can help deepen and broaden support for democratic principles and practices within a country. In countries in which there is a free and active trade union movement the movement towards more democratic, more transparent and more representative governance is more rapid and evident.

Apart from securing working rights in the work arena, Trade Unions having the power to negotiate higher wages, can also bring in a negative aspect of increasing unemployment. They might bring negative effects to the labour market by protecting some internal workers at the expense of others. . If trade unions have enough power to provide higher wages to their members and restrict labour turnover, then the unemployed have less opportunities to enter the labour market and the market does not clear. At the same time, unions can improve the functioning of the labour market by mediating information between employers and employees.

Decline in trade Unions

The ability of trade unions to secure better pay for their members, compared with non-union members, appears to be in long-term decline. Although underlying pay levels in some circumstances remain significantly higher, evidence from the late 1990s suggests no discernible difference between union and non-union pay increases

Employment in unionised workplaces in the private sector declined at an average rate of 1.8 per cent a year in the 1990s, compared with employment growth of 1.4 per cent in the non-union workplaces. An important exception was plants where unions were able to negotiate on employment as well as pay - these enjoyed similar growth to non-union plants. This is evident from the figures that in 1979 13.3 million people were members of trade unions and the proportion of employees who were union members stood at 55%. This decline in 1995, where the union membership in Britain, estimated from the Labour Force Survey, was 7.3 million. The proportion of all employees who were union members was 32%

A major influence in the decline was the severe post-war depression of 1921-1922.

Unemployment rose steeply, and so desperate was competition for the available jobs that the unions in many industries were unable to prevent wage reductions and speedup methods. The cataclysmic economic depression of the 1930s led to a tremendous rise in unemployment and to a corresponding further decline in union membership. The unions, attempting to offset the adverse effects of the depression on wages and working conditions, launched numerous strikes, but few were successful

There are several reasons for this fall in membership, including:

• A dramatic fall in the number of jobs in manufacturing industries where union
• membership was traditionally high
• Larger numbers of unemployed people
• A fall in traditional full time employment and an increase in part time and
• temporary workers who are less likely to join unions
• An increase in the proportion of the workforce employed by small companies
• where it is often difficult for unions to organize
• Hostile legislation - the Conservative government has introduced laws, which make it more difficult for unions to operate and keep their members. These laws are explored in more detail under “How have changes in the law over the last few years affected unions”.’ 4

Differentiating the roles taken by main actors in employee relations 5

Definition of Industrial Relations:

‘A broad term that may refer to relations between unions and management, unions themselves, management and government, unions and government, or between employers and unorganized employees. Within this definition, specific attention may be directed toward industrial conflict or its regulation through the formulation of work rules or agreements.

-source: (http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/business/sdlc/gi.html)

The field of industrial relations (also called labour relations) looks at the relationship between management and workers, particularly groups of workers represented by a union.

-source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_relations)

Industrial relations comprises ‘all the rules, practices and conventions governing interactions between managements and their workforces, normally involving collective employee representation and bargaining.’

(Graham and Bennett)

Industrial relations policy and practice covers areas such as:

1. Procedures for setting terms and conditions of work, profit-sharing, training targets, equal opportunities policy and so on.
2. Disciplinary and grievance procedures, both individual and collective, including external arbitration and conciliation.
3. Recognition of trade unions (if applicable) to represent worker interests through the process of collective bargaining and consultation.
4. Development of added or alternative mechanisms for employee representation and consultation (such as works councils, joint consultation committees and employee forums).
5. Determination of the structure and scope of consultation and employee involvement in decision-making, within the framework of collective bargaining, partnership agreements, works councils, general HRM policies and so on.

The parties to industrial relations are:

• the trade unions;
• shop stewards or employee representatives;
• the Trades Union Congress (the TUC);
• staff associations;
• management;
• employer’s organisations (associations and federations);
• the Confederation of British Industry;
• various institutions, agencies and officers.

The respective roles of each of these parties are:

The trade unions

A trade union is an organised association of employees who ‘consist wholly or mainly of workers of one or more description and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers and employers’.

(Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act)

An independent trade union is one which has been certified as being autonomous and financially self-supporting: not dominated by an employer because of the provision of withdrawal of financial or other support.

A single trade union might include members from different organisations in the same industry, and a single organisation might employ workers who belong to a number of different trade unions. Employees may be members of various unions, but the employer is not compelled to deal with a union unless it is ‘recognised’ for the purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. Until recently, there was no statutory provision for obtaining or enforcing recognition: that was challenged by the Employment Relations Act 1999.

A firm may recognise a number of different unions in the workplace, to represent different categories of employees. Multi-unionism has significant draw backs: encouraging demarcation disputes and the proliferation of work rules; competitive and therefore escalating pay settlements; and the cost and complexity of multiple bargaining time and machinery.

Firms desiring simplified bargaining arrangements; and to secure greater flexibility and integration will often seek to negotiate a sole recognition or single union agreement, whereby only one union is recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining: workers who want representations must join this union. Sole recognition and even more, the de-recognition of one union in favour of another is, however fraught with inter-union competition, and may not be perceived as genuinely representative of the interests of all staff. It is frequently achieved by a ‘beauty contest approach’, which arguably creates a situation in which unions must offer to fulfil the expectations of management in order to be granted recognition (and access to a fresh pool of members) rather than fulfilling the expectations of their members.

Traditionally the fundamental purpose of trade unions is to promote and protect the interests of their members. They are there to redress the balance of power between employers and employees. The basis of employment relationship is the contract of employment. But this is not a contract between equals. Employers are almost always in a stronger position to dictate the terms of the contract than individual employees. Trade unions, as indicated by Freeman and Medoff (1984), provide workers with a ‘collective voice’ to make their wishes known to management and thus bring actual and desired conditions closer together. This applies not only to terms of employment such as pay, working hours and holidays, but also to the way in which individuals are treated in such aspects of employment as the redress of grievances, discipline and redundancy. Trade unions also exist to let management know that there will be, from time to time, an alternative view on key issues affecting employees. More broadly, unions may see their role as that of participating with management on decision making on matters affecting their members’ interests.

Within this overall role, trade unions have had two specific roles, namely to secure, through collective bargaining, improved terms and conditions for their members, and to provide protection, support and advice to their members as individual employees.

An additional, role that of providing legal, financial and other services to their members, has come into prominence more recently.

Shop stewards

Shop steward or employee representatives may initially be responsible for plant negotiations, probably with the advice of full-time officials. They will certainly be involved in settling disputes and resolving collective grievances and in representing individual employees with grievances or over disciplinary matters. They may members of joint consultative committees, which could be wholly or partly composed of trade union representatives.

At one time, shop stewards were the ogres of the industrial relations scene. Undoubtedly there were cases of militant shop stewards, but where there are recognized trade unions; managements have generally recognized the value of shop stewards as points of contact and channels of communication.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC)

The TUC as the collective voice of the unions. Its roles are to:

• represent the British trade union movement in the UK and internationally;
• conduct research and develop policies on trade union, industrial, economic and social matters and to campaign actively for them;
• regulate relationships between unions;
• help unions in dispute;
• provide various services (e.g. research) to affiliated unions.

But the TUC has effectively been marginalized by successive Conservative governments and is but a shadow of its former self, especially since its interventionary role concerning union disputes over membership (the Bridlington rules) has now effectively been abolished by legislation.

International union organisations

The two main international union organisations are the European Trade Union Confederation and the International Trade Union Confederation. At present neither of these makes much impact on the UK, but this could change.

Staff associations

Staff associations may sometimes have negotiating and/or representational rights but they seldom have anything like the real power possessed by a well-organized and supported trade union. They are often suspected by employees as being no more than management’s poodle. Managements have sometimes encouraged the development of staff associations as an alternative to trade unions but this strategy has not always worked. In fact, in some organisations the existence of an unsatisfactory staff association has provided an opportunity for a trade union to gain membership and recognition. Staff associations have their uses as channels of communication, and representatives can play a role in consultative process and in representing colleagues who want to take up grievances or who are being subjected to disciplinary proceedings.

The role of management

The balance power has undoubtedly shifted to managements who now have more choice over how they conduct relationships with their employees. But the evidence is that there has been no concerted drive by managements to de-recognize unions. As Kessler and Bayliss (1992) point out: ‘If managers in large establishments and companies wanted to make changes they looked at ways of doing so within the existing arrangements and if they could produce the goods they used them. Because managers found that the unions did not stand in their way they saw no reason for getting rid of them.’ They argued that management’s industrial relations objectives are now generally to:

• control the work process;
• secure cost-effectiveness;
• reassert managerial authority;
• move towards a more unitary and individualistic approach.

As Storey (1992a) found in most of the cases he studied, there was a tendency for managements to adopt HRM approaches to employee relations while still coexisting with the unions. But they gave increasing weight to systems of employee involvement, in particular communication, which bypass trade unions.

Employers’’ organisations

Employers’ associations are voluntary private groups of employers founded to facilitate trade, communication and representation in areas of common interest. Some are national bodies covering a whole industry (for example, the Engineering Employers Federation or the Publishers Association), while others are regional or specialised in their scope.

The largest UK employers’ associations include the Engineering Employers’ Federation, the Chemical Industries Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Federation of Master Builders, the Newspaper Society and the British Clothing Industry Association.

Employers’ associations consist of companies of different sizes and organise themselves in different ways: most are consultative, rather than decision-making, bodies. Some give priority to trade matters, others to employee relations.

They were initially developed on an ad hoc basis in response to specific industrial disputes with the early trade unions, but by the end of the nineteenth century, in response to the growing influence of unionism, adopted the federated approach to organisation at an industry/national level.

The role of the associations has declined with the increasing decentralisation of industrial relations process: the growth in company- or plant-level bargaining, for example, and the decline of industry-wide agreements. Nevertheless, employers’ associations still negotiate arrangement at national level, especially in industries (such as electrical contracting and printing) which are dominated by small companies in competitive labour markets: national agreements provide industry frameworks and reduce price competition for skills. Moreover, employers wishing to influence EU policy, must be part of an employers’ association, which in turn may be affiliated to one of the EU-wide employer voices reorganised by the EU Commission for the purposes of consultation and negotiation.

The main purposes of employers associations are:

1. To give general help and advice on employee relations issues.
2. To represent members’ views to political influencers (e.g. lobbying parliament).
3. To assist member firms in the resolution of disputes (including representation at Employment Tribunals).
4. To negotiate sectoral collective agreements (where applicable) with trade unions.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

The CBI is a management organisation which is only indirectly concerned with industrial relations. It provides a means for its members to influence economic policy and it provides advice and services to them, supported by research.

Institutions, agencies and officers

There are a number of bodies and people with a role in employee relations, as described below.

The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS)

ACAS was created by the government but functions independently. It has three main statutory duties:

• to resolve disputes;
• to provide conciliatory services for individuals in , for example, unfair dismissal cases;
• to give advice, help and information on industrial relations and employment issues.

ACAS helps to resolve disputes in tree ways: collective conciliation, arbitration and mediation.

During the 1980s and early 1990s the use of ACAS’s collective conciliation and arbitration services declined considerably. But the individual conciliation case load has been very heavy and the ACAS advisory work has flourished. These are aimed at encouraging non-adversarial approaches to preventing and resolving problems at work by facilitating joint working groups of employers, employees and their representatives.

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC)

The CAC is an independent arbitration body that deals with disputes. It arbitrates at the request of one party but with the agreement of the other. It does not handle many arbitration but it deals more frequently with claims by trade unions for disclosure of information for collective bargaining purposes.

Employment tribunals

Employment tribunals (formed under the Employment Tribunals Act 1966) deal with most cases brought under employment law. They consist of an independent, legally-qualified chairperson, and two representative members, from the employer and the union. Their constitution is informal, but their decisions are legally binding. Evidence is given on oath, witnesses are called and legal representation is permitted as in a court of law. Appeals may be made (on points of law only) to the Employment Appeals Tribunal: this is a formal court, consisting of a judge and lay members representing both sides of industry, and its decisions establish legal precedent.

Other Stakeholders

A recent article in People Management (Wild, 2003) suggested that there is increasing public awareness of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in relation to labour-related globalisation issues such as the use of child labour and sweatshops in developing nations, and the widening gap between ‘fat cat’ managerial pay and that of workers. These issues have been brought to public’s attention not by trade unions, but by pressure groups (non-government organisations, or NGOs) such as Oxfam, Anti-Slavery International and Clean Clothes.

Pressure groups have arguably become lead players in employment-related issues. Industries in sporting goods, and apparel, fashion and food retail are among the targets of widespread PR pressure, consumer protest and boycott in relation to labour practices.

Role of the HR function

The HR function provides guidance and training and will develop and help to introduce and maintain formal processes; but it does not do line managers’ jobs for them. However, in their role as industrial relations specialists, HR practitioners may deal directly with trade unions and their representatives. They are also likely to have a measure of responsibility for maintaining participation and involvement processes and for managing employee communications. They can and should play a major part in developing employee relations strategies and policies that aim to:

• achieve satisfactory employment relationships, taking particular account of the importance of psychological contracts;
• build stable and cooperative relationships with employees which recognize that they are stakeholders in the organisation and minimise conflict;
• achieve commitment through employee involvement and communications processes;
• develop mutuality- a common interest in achieving the organisations goals through the development of organisational cultures based on shared values between management and employees;
• clarify industrial relations processes with trade unions and build harmonious relationships with them on a particular basis.

In these capacities HR practitioners can make a major contribution to the creation and maintenance of a good employee relations climate.’

Explain the ideological framework of industrial relations

‘Approaches to employee relations

Four approaches to employee relations policies have been identified by Industrial Relations Services (1994):

• Adversarial: the organisation decides what it wants to do, and employees are expected to fit in. Employees only exercise power by refusing to co-operate.
• Traditional: a good day-to-day working relationship but management proposes and the workforce reacts through its elected representatives.
• Partnership: the organisation involves employees in the drawing up and execution of organisation policies, but retains the right to manage.
• Power sharing: employees are involved in both day-to-day and strategic decision making.

Adversarial approaches are much less common than in the 1960s and 1970s. The traditional approach is still the most typical but more interest is being expressed in partnership. Power sharing is rare.

Nature and purpose of employee relations policies

Against the background of a preference for one of the four approaches listed above, employee relations policies express the philosophy of the organisation on what sort, of relationships between management and employees and their unions are wanted, and how they should be handled. A partnership policy will aim to develop and maintain a positive, productive, cooperative and trusting climate of employee relations.

When they are articulated, policies provide guidelines for action on employee relations issues and can help to ensure that these issues are dealt with consistently. They provide the basis for defining management’s intentions (its employee relations strategy) on key matters such as union recognition and collective bargaining.

Policy areas

The areas covered by employee relations policies are:

• Trade union recognition – whether trade unions should be reorganised or de-organised, which union or unions the organisation would prefer to deal with, bargaining and/or employee representational purposes;
• Collective bargaining – the extent to which it should be centralized or decentralized and the scope of areas to be covered by collective bargaining;
• Employee relations procedures – the nature and scope of procedures for redundancy, grievance handling and discipline;
• Participation and involvement – the extent to which the organisation is prepared to give employees a voice on matters that concern them;
• Partnership – the extent to which a partnership approach is thought to be desirable;
• The employment relationship – the extent to which terms and conditions of employment should be governed by collective agreements or based on individual contracts of employment (i.e. collectivism versus individualism);
• Harmonisation – of terms and conditions of employment for staff and manual workers;
• Working arrangements – the degree to which management has the prerogative to determine working arrangements without reference to trade unions or employees (this includes job-based or functional flexibility).

When formulating policies in these areas, organisations may be consciously or unconsciously deciding on the extent to which they want to adopt the HRM approach to employee relations. This emphasizes commitment, mutuality and forms of involvement and participation that mean that management approaches and communicates with employees directly rather than through their representatives.

Policy choices

There is, of course, no such thing as a model employee relations policy. Every organisation develops its own policies. In a mature business these will be in accordance with established custom and practice, its core values and management style and the actual or perceived balance of power between management and unions. In younger organisations, or those being established on a green field site, the policies will depend on the assumptions and beliefs of management and, where relevant, the existing philosophy and policies of the parent organisation. In both these cases policies will be affected by the type of people employed by the organisation, its business strategies, technology, the industry sector in which it operates, and its structure (for example, the extent to which it is centralized or decentralized).

The following four policy options for organisations on industrial relations and HRM have been described by Guest (1995):

• The new realism – a high emphasis on HRM and industrial relations. The aim is to integrate HRM and industrial relations. This is the policy of such organisations as Rover, Nissan and Toshiba. A review of new collaborative arrangements in the shape of single-table bargaining (IRS, 1993) found that they were almost always the result of employer initiatives, but that both employers and unions seem satisfied with them. They have facilitated greater flexibility, more multi-skilling, the removal of demarcations and improvements in quality. They can also extend consultation processes and accelerate moves towards single status.

• Traditional collectivism – priority to industrial relations without HRM. This involves retaining the traditional pluralist industrial relations arrangements within an eventually unchanged industrial relations system. Management may take the view in these circumstances that it is easier to continue to operate with a union, since it provides a useful, well-established channel for communication and for the handling of grievance, discipline and safety issues.

• Individualised HRM – high priority to HRM with no industrial relations. According to Guest, this approach is not very common, excepting North American-owned firms. It is, he believes, ‘essentially piecemeal and opportunistic’. 

• The black hole – no industrial relations. This option is becoming more prevalent in organisations in which HRM is not a policy priority for managements but where they do not see that there is a compelling reason to operate within a traditional industrial relations system. When such organisations are facing a decision on whether or not to recognise a union, they are increasingly deciding not to do so. And, as shown by Millward (1994), non-union firms are not replacing the unions with an HRM strategy. Marginson et al (1993) similarly found no support for a non-union HRM strategy.’ 6

Investigating the different types of collective dispute

Introduction

This is a situation in which two or more parties negotiate the details whereon they will co-operate with each other to resolve a problem which is of common interest to them.

(J Gennard et al, (1997) pg: 149)

Collective disputes involve pay, conditions of employment, job-security or breach of contracts and negotiated agreements.

(Marion Fieldstead, Wirral Metropolitan College, 2008)

Investigation

‘There are four features of the industrial relations scene which are important, besides the formal and informal processes that will be addressed in the next question of this assignment. These features are harmonization union membership arrangements within the organization, the ‘check-off’ system, and strikes and other forms of industrial action (which should more realistically be called industrial inaction if it involves a ‘go-slow’ or ‘work to rule’.)

Harmonization

Harmonization is the process of introducing the same conditions of employment for all employees. It is distinguished by Roberts (1990) from single and staff status as follows:

• Single status is the removal of differences in basic conditions of employment to give all employees equal status. Some organisations take this further by putting all employees into the same pay and grading structure.
• Staff status is a process whereby manual and craft employees gradually receive staff terms and conditions of employment, usually upon reaching some qualifying standard for example length of service.
• Harmonization means the reduction of differences in the pay-structure and other employment conditions between categories of employee, usually manual and staff employees. The essence of harmonization is the adoption of a common approach and criteria to pay and conditions for all employees. It differs from staff status in that, in the process of harmonization, some staff employees may have to accept some of the conditions of employment of manual workers.

According to Duncan (1989), the pressure towards harmonization has arisen for the following reasons:

• New technology- status differentials can obstruct efficient labour utilization, and concessions on harmonization are invariably given in exchange for an agreement on flexibility. Moreover, technology, by de-skilling many white collar jobs and enhancing the skills of former blue-collar workers, has made differential treatment harder to defend.
• Legislation- equal pay, the banning of sex and racial discrimination, and employment protection legislation have extended to manual workers rights that were previously the preserve of staff. The concept of equal value has been a major challenge to differentiation with staff and manual workers.
• Improving productivity- by the more flexible use of labour.
• Simplifying personnel administration- and thereby reducing costs.
• Challenging employee attitudes- and so improving commitment, motivation and morale.

In Roberts’ view, questions of morality are probably of least importance.

Union membership within organisations

The closed shop, which enforced union membership within organisations, has been made illegal. But many managers prefer that all their employees should be in the union because on the whole it makes their life easier to have one channel of representation to deal with industrial relations issues and also because it prevents conflict between members and non-members of the union.

The ‘check-off’ system

The ‘check-off’ is a system that involves management in deducting the subscription of trade union members on behalf of the union. It is popular with unions because it helps to maintain membership and provides a reasonably well guaranteed source of income. Managements have generally been willing to cooperate as a gesture of good faith to their trade union. They may support a check-off system because it enables them to find out how many employees are union members. Employers also know them to find out how many employees are union members. Employers also know that they can exert pressure in the face of industrial action by threatening to end the check-off. However, the Trade Union and Employment Rights Act 1993 provides that if an employer is lawfully to make check-off deductions from a worker’s pay, there must be prior written consent from the worker and renewed consent at least every three years. This three-year renewal provision can inhibit the maintenance of the system.

Strikes

Strikes are the most politically charged of all the features of industrial relations. The Conservative Government in the 1980s believed that ‘strikes are too often a weapon of first rather than last resort’. However, those involved in negotiation – as well as trade unions – have recognised that a strike is a legitimate last resort if all else fails. It is factor in the balance of power between the parties in a negotiation and has to be taken into account by both parties. There is "no right to strike" as such in British law, but the Human Rights Act 1998 gives a legal right of "freedom of assembly and association" (art 11) -

The Law

Collective/Trade Dispute

Industrial Relations Act, 1990

The definition of a collective dispute (or a “trade dispute” as it is known in law) is quite wide and can involve matters in dispute such as terms and conditions of employment, physical working conditions, engagement, termination, duties of employment, allocation of work, discipline and a range of other matters connected with employment relations:-

Trade Dispute – to gain immunity under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 employees and the trade union members must be pursuing a trade dispute. A trade dispute requires the right parties – employer and workers – and the right subject matter – anything connected with the employment or non-employment, terms and conditions of employment of any employee. A trade dispute can only involve strike or industrial action if there has been a secret ballot of the trade union members concerned and due notice given to the employer. In the case of single person disputes, industrial action can only take place where industrial relations procedures have been resorted to by the employees and exhausted.

"Trade dispute" has three different definitions in employment law.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) (TULRCA 1992)

The two "traditional" definitions are in TULRCA 1992, s.218 (a wide definition) and s.244 (a narrower definition). The third is a new definition in Jobseekers Act 1995, s.35 - designed to prevent those engaged in a "trade dispute" from being entitled to jobseeker's allowance.

• The wide TULRCA definition applies for the provisions under which ACAS provides conciliation services etc and for general industrial relations purposes (TULRCA 1992, s.218).

Section 218- Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part IV—

1. In this Part “trade dispute" means a dispute between employers and workers, or between workers and workers, which is connected with one or more of the following matters—

1. terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work;
2. engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more workers;
3. allocation of work or the duties of employment as between workers or groups of workers;
4. matters of discipline;
5. the membership or non-membership of a trade union on the part of a worker;
6. facilities for officials of trade unions; and
7. machinery for negotiation or consultation, and other procedures, relating to any of the foregoing matters, including the recognition by employers or employers’ associations of the right of a trade union to represent workers in any such negotiation or consultation or in the carrying out of such procedures.

2. A dispute between a Minister of the Crown and any workers shall, notwithstanding that he is not the employer of those workers, be treated for the purposes of this Part as a dispute between an employer and those workers if the dispute relates—

1. to matters which have been referred for consideration by a joint body on which, by virtue of any provision made by or under any enactment, that Minister is represented, or
2. to matters which cannot be settled without that Minister exercising a power conferred on him by or under an enactment.

3. There is a trade dispute for the purpose of this Part even though it relates to matters occurring outside Great Britain.
4. A dispute to which a trade union or employer’s association is a party shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a dispute to which workers or, as the case may be, employers are parties.
5. In this section— “employment" includes any relationship whereby one person personally does work or performs services for another; and “worker", in relation to a dispute to which an employer is a party, includes any worker even if not employed by that employer.

• The narrower TULRCA definition applies for the purposes of the rules which give trade unions immunity from civil action for acts done "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" (TULRCA 1992, ss.219 and 244).

Section 219- Protection from certain tort liabilities —

1. An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is not actionable in tort on the ground only—

1. that it induces another person to break a contract or interferes or induces another person to interfere with its performance, or
2. that it consists in his threatening that a contract (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or its performance interfered with, or that he will induce another person to break a contract or interfere with its performance.

2. An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure the doing of an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is not actionable in tort if the act is one which if done without any such agreement or combination would not be actionable in tort.
3. Nothing in subsections (1) and (2) prevents an act done in the course of picketing from being actionable in tort unless it is done in the course of attendance declared lawful by section 220 (peaceful picketing)
4. Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to sections 222 to 225 (action excluded from protection) and [to sections 226 (requirement of ballot before action by trade union) and 234A (requirement of notice to employer of industrial action); and in those sections “not protected" means excluded from the protection afforded by this section or, where the expression is used with reference to a particular person, excluded from that protection as respects that person.]

Section 244- Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V —

1. In this Part a “trade dispute" means a dispute between workers and their employer which relates wholly or mainly to one or more of the following

1. terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work;
2. engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more workers;
3. allocation of work or the duties of employment between workers or groups of workers;
4. matters of discipline;
5. a worker’s membership or non-membership of a trade union;
6. facilities for officials of trade unions; and
7. machinery for negotiation or consultation, and other procedures, relating to any of the above matters, including the recognition by employers or employers’ associations of the right of a trade union to represent workers in such negotiation or consultation or in the carrying out of such procedures.

2. A dispute between a Minister of the Crown and any workers shall, notwithstanding that he is not the employer of those workers, be treated as a dispute between those workers and their employer if the dispute relates to matters which—

1. have been referred for consideration by a joint body on which, by virtue of provision made by or under any enactment, he is represented, or

cannot be settled without him exercising a power conferred on him by or

2. under an enactment.

3. There is a trade dispute even though it relates to matters occurring outside the United Kingdom, so long as the person or persons whose actions in the United Kingdom are said to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute relating to matters occurring outside the United Kingdom are likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1) by the outcome of the dispute.
4. An act, threat or demand done or made by one person or organisation against another which, if resisted, would have led to a trade dispute with that other, shall be treated as being done or made in contemplation of a trade dispute with that other, notwithstanding that because that other submits to the act or threat or accedes to the demand no dispute arises.
5. In this section—

“employment" includes any relationship whereby one person personally does work or performs services for another; and

“worker", in relation to a dispute with an employer, means—

1. a worker employed by that employer; or
2. a person who has ceased to be so employed if his employment was terminated in connection with the dispute or if the termination of his employment was one of the circumstances giving rise to the dispute.

• A third definition in Jobseekers Act 1995, s.35 is the widest. For purposes of the Jobseekers Act a trade dispute is "any dispute between employers and employees, or between employees and employees, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of employment of any persons, whether employees in the employment of the employer with whom the dispute arises, or not".

Industrial Action

• TULRCA 1992, s.62 is entitled "Right to ballot before industrial action".
• TULRCA 1992, ss.219-246 are Part V of TULRCA entitled "Industrial Action".
• Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.3 is entitled "Ballots and notices".
• Employment Relations Act 2004 ss.22 to 28 are entitled "Law relating to Industrial Action".
• The Employment Code of Practice (Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers) Order 2005, SI 2005/2420 brings a revised 2005 Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers into effect on 1st October 2005.

For the purposes of TULRCA 1992, s.62, "industrial action" means "a strike or other industrial action by persons employed under contracts of employment".

This definition applies for the purpose of TULRCA 1992, s.62 ONLY, which is simply concerned with trade union members' rights to seek certain court orders if a union induces members to take "industrial action" without the support of a ballot (TULRCA 1992, s.62(6)).

For purposes other than TULRCA 1992, s.62 "industrial action" has a wide general meaning. It includes such matters as strikes, lock-outs, working to rule, going slow, blacking activities and work-ins. This wider, general, meaning applies for the purposes of TULRCA 1992, ss.237 and 238 (which provide that an employee cannot claim unfair dismissal if he has been dismissed while taking part in an "unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action" (see UNFAIR DISMISSAL/unofficial industrial action ).

Employment Relations Act 2004 makes various changes. The most important of these is probably that the basic 8 week period of protected industrial action during which dismissal of a striker is generally unfair dismissal is extended to 12 weeks and any lock-out days are to disregarded in calculating the 12 week period (see notes at Acts of Parliament etc/Employment Relations Act 2004 ).

A new 2005 Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers is in force from 1st October 2005 (by Employment Code of Practice (Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers) Order 2005, SI 2005/2420).

Although there are some relevant notes under Trade union matters/ballots , this program is concerned with individual employment law rather than industrial relations law and therefore, apart from providing references to full text of the new provisions, they are not considered further here). There is also a useful summary on a DTI web-site.

The following DTI booklets contain useful information:

• PL869 - Industrial action and the law: a guide for employees, trade union members and others;
• PL870 - Industrial action and the law
• PL 943 - Industrial action and the law: Citizen's right to prevent disruption

Unfair/Strike related dismissals

• TULRCA 1992, s.237, is entitled "Dismissal of those taking part in unofficial industrial action".
• TULRCA 1992, s.238 is entitled "Dismissals in connection with other industrial action"
• Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.5 (inserting TULRCA 1992 new s.238A) is entitled "Unfair dismissal of striking workers".
• Employment Relations Act 2004 ss.22 to 28 are Part II of the Act, entitled "Law relating to Industrial Action"

A strike is defined in TULRCA 1992 as "any concerted stoppage of work" (TULRCA 1992, s.246). This can include an overtime ban or a rest-day working ban called by a trade union (see Connex SE v RMT Union CA 1999 IRLR 249, CA).

The Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.3 para 6(2) provides that for the purposes of the new rules on ballots authorising industrial action an overtime or call-out ban shall count as "industrial action short of a strike".

There is no statutory definition, as such, of "official industrial action" or "official strike". However, there is a kind of definition, more of a description than a definition, of "unofficial strike" and "unofficial industrial action". Any strike or other industrial action which is not authorised or endorsed by a trade union will generally be "unofficial" (TULRCA 1992, s.237(2)).

An employee taking part in unofficial industrial action at the time he is dismissed is normally disbarred from making any unfair dismissal claim (TULRCA 1992, s.237). He will be able to make such a claim only if he was dismissed for one of the "automatically unfair" reasons specified in TULRCA 1992, s.237(1A) such as dismissal in family, health & safety, working time, employee representative and whistle blowing cases.

Individuals who take part in official industrial action have been given increased protection against dismissal since 24th April 2000 when Employment Relations Act 1999 s.16 and Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.5 came into force (see the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provision) Order 2000, SI 2000/875 and 2000/03/24 - DTI press release P/2000/209, New measures to encourage both parties to resolve differences unveiled.

The general effect is that the dismissal of an employee for taking lawfully organised, official industrial action is automatically unfair dismissal if:

• it takes place within twelve weeks (8 weeks until 6th April 2005) of the employee commencing industrial action; or
• it occurs after this 12 week period but the employee had returned to work before the end of the 12 weeks; or
• it occurs after this period and the employer has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute.

“Strikes” a general note

• ERA 1996 s.235 is entitled "Other definitions"
• TULRCA 1992, s.226 is entitled "Requirement of Ballot before action by trade union>
• TULRCA 1992, s.246 is entitled "Minor definitions".
• Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.3 is entitled "Ballots and notices".
• European Convention on Human Rights art 11 is entitled "Freedom of assembly and association"

A strike is defined in ERA 1996 s.235(5), for the purposes specified) as:

1. "the cessation of work by a body of employed persons acting in combination, or
2. a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of employed persons to continue to work for an employer in consequence of a dispute,

done as a means of compelling their employer or any employed person or body of employed persons, or to aid other employees in compelling their employer or any employed person or body of employed persons, to accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment"

There is a much shorter definition in TULRCA 1992, where a "strike" is defined simply as "any concerted stoppage of work" (TULRCA 1992, s.246, which applies for the purposes of Part X, "industrial action").

Amongst the main significant features of a strike, from the narrow point of view of employment law, are:

1. that time spent on strike is not included in calculating the length of an individual's period of continuous employment (ERA 1996 s.216(1));
2. that, in general, an employee dismissed while on unofficial strike forfeits any right to unfair dismissal compensation (TULRCA 1992, s.237(1)).
3. the three month time-limit for presenting a complaint of unfair dismissal is doubled to six months if the employee was on strike when he was dismissed (TULRCA 1992, s.239(2)(a) (see time-limits/for various applications to Employment Tribunals/unfair dismissal claims ).

There is "no right to strike" as such in British law, but the Human Rights Act 1998 gives a legal right of "freedom of assembly and association" (art 11) -

For notes concerning loss of unfair dismissal rights if an individual is dismissed while he is on unofficial strike, see DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION/unofficial strike.

The following DTI booklets contain useful information (available from any office of the Employment Service or HMSO (see ADDRESSES, TEL & FAX NOS) :

• PL869 (Rev 2) - Industrial action and the law: a guide for employees, trade unions and others;
• PL870 (Rev 2) - Industrial action and the law: a guide for employers, their customers and suppliers and others;
• PL 943 - Industrial action and the law: a guide for individuals on the right to stop the unlawful organisation of industrial action.

Unfair dismissal / automatically unfair dismissals / industrial action

• Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.5 is entitled "Unfair dismissal of striking workers".
• Employment Relations Act 2004 ss.22 to 28 are Part II of the Act, entitled "Law relating to Industrial Action"
• Employment Relations Act 2004 (Commencement No.3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2005, SI 2005/872 is effective from 6th April 2005.

Employment Relations Act 1999 sch.5 provides, subject to conditions, unfair dismissal protection for those dismissed because of their involvement in protected industrial action (see Unfair dismissal/strike related dismissals). This is done by inserting a new section 238A into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The general effect is that the dismissal of an employee for taking lawfully organised, official industrial action is automatically unfair dismissal if:

• it takes place within twelve weeks (8 weeks until 6th April 2005) of the employee commencing industrial action; or
• it occurs after this 12 week period but the employee had returned to work before the end of the 12 weeks; or
• it occurs after this period and the employer has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute.

The 12 week period noted above is an extension to the previous 8 week period won along with other related benefits by trade unions in 2004 and is provided for by Employment Relations Act 2004 s.26 (which inserts appropriate new provisions into Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.238A with effect from 6th April 2005.’ 7

Reviewing the dispute procedures and the resolution of conflict

‘Detailed procedural agreements on disputes are generally made during collective bargaining or other (non-union) negotiated agreements. A typical dispute procedure would provide for the ‘escalating’ involvement of ore senior representatives of both sides, with a guarantee of new industrial action until all stages have been followed through.

1. Meeting of union representative and middle management.
2. Meeting of district union officer and senior management
3. Meeting of regional and then national officials of the union and employers’ association (in national disputes)
4. Conciliation (if required)
5. Mediation (if required)
6. Agreement to abide by the decision of an independent arbitrator (as a last resort, since the decision then passes out of the hands of the parties involved)

“Managing Conflicts”

History

Conflict is a state of unresolved differences between two individuals, an individual and a group, or two or more groups. The differences can be real or imaginary, but the conflict will remain until the differences are resolved. For many people the term conflict means something bad or something people should avoid at all costs. Conflict has both positive and negative effects. It can be positive when conflict encourages creativity and the expression of ideas or for others to understand the reasons for a disagreement. Conflict can be negative when it creates resistance to change, establishes chaos in organizations, fosters distrust or feelings of defeat, or encumbers communication. Conflicts primarily occur in organizations when people have opposing interests and different personal perspectives. Greater possibilities of conflict exist in organizations that are more diverse. An organization contributes to the existence of conflict if its vision and employee responsibilities are unclear.

Although conflict has been in existence as long as man has, the study of conflict as it relates to business organizations is relatively new. Mary Parker Follett, known as the grandmother of management, was one of the first management theorists to determine that conflict is good and requires a leader’s attention. Her theories asserted that conflict was not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned. Prior to Follett, it was traditional for business organizations to avoid conflict all together. This belief is part of Adam Smith’s theory of bureaucracy in which he asserts that in a perfect bureaucracy, the workers perform tasks as instructed, and there is very little interaction among the workers on a personal level.

Interestingly, the famed economist Kenneth Boulding was the first to address conflict resolution in business organizations in his article “Towards a Pure Theory of Threat Systems” (Boulding 1963). Although most of this article centred on war and peace, Boulding compared the issuance of threats as a means to entice workers into performing duties, just as one nation will issue a threat of war against another if they do not comply with their demands. He further compared the counter strike threats of the workers to the counteraction threats made the by nations opposing the demands of the issuing nation. Boulding asserts that this type of act or counteract behaviour does not produce effective peace making processes in nations or businesses.

In later works, Boulding contends that conflict resolution attempts should shift the emphasis from the use of threat power to the use of exchange and integrative power. He believes that exchange power, which is associated with bargaining and compromising, and integrative power, which is associated with persuasion and transformative long-term problem solving, is the best choice within organizations to solve conflicts.

The current trend to manage rather than eliminate or ignore conflict in the workplace is dependent on successfully aligning the interest of workers and managers. Unfortunately, this trend became part of the corporate leaders’ way of thinking when employees began using organized and wildcat strikes to get what they wanted. During the 1970s, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, developed and designed procedures for resolving conflict in troubled organizations. Their quest began when leaders at the Caney Creek Coal Mine were distraught with the expensive ongoing strikes of its employees. After studying the facts surrounding the strikes, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg established three methods to use when analyzing conflict and designing a system to resolve disputes. These three methods can effectively end conflicts before differences escalate.

The study of conflict continued and many social scientist published reports indicating that conflict, if managed correctly in the workplace, could create positive changes to production and processing methods. Businesses began forming quality control circles and re-engineering teams. Assembly line workers got the power to stop the production cycles and correct defects in the production process. The new team structures were very successful in some instances, and failures in others. Comparing successful teams to the unsuccessful teams made it easy determine the reasons for the success or failure. The results pointed to the methods people use to solve conflicts. As a result, businesses started giving personality tests, such as the Myers Briggs personality type indicator, to place compatible employees on teams. Teams underwent training on conflict resolution methods and they were encouraged to solve their own conflicts as they arose.

Framework, Principles, and Tenets

Ury, Brett, and Goldberg examined the negotiation of interest, the adjudication of disputes, and the power play options that result in strikes and lockouts. Their first theory asserts that the preferred method of solving employee disputes was through the negotiating of interests. They argued that solving disputes at this level was less costly for the company and created less hostility between management and the workers. At this stage, the focus is on the desires of the parties involved. Interest-based neutral third parties are assigned to intervene in disputes, and help the parties reach agreements that meet their mutual interests rather than to determine if the other has violated one party’s rights. Examples of interest-based neutrals in organizations are mediators, ombudsperson, facilitators, and coaches. Interest-based neutral components may be designed as alternatives to rights-based processes, such as in the early stages of grievance procedures and equal employment opportunity cases, or as general workplace conflict management resources. Generally, interest-based neutrals try to maintain the protection of rights-based processes while focusing on helping the parties meet their interests in mutually agreeable terms. Mediation is the most commonly implemented interest-based neutral component in organizations. Communication that would not have flowed between two disputing parties will flow from each party to the mediator. Information unknown to either party is useful in designing agreements that meet the underlying interests of both parties. Rights-based processes involve third parties determining the outcome of a dispute based on laws, contracts, or standards of behaviour.

Examples of rights-based processes in organizations are arbitration, formal complaint investigation, and peer review panels. These methods began in companies that had unions to provide a means of resolving contract interpretation disputes without resorting to strikes or lawsuits. Rights-based procedures with third-party decision makers are effective because they create a structure in which dispute resolution is systematically improved to enhance fact-finding and reduce biases. Their enforcement powers deter subsequent violations by holding managers accountable for professional and impartial treatment of their employees. Issues not resolved at this level would naturally move on to the next level of adjudication.

The cost of arguing a case in court is both expensive and time consuming. The outcome produces a winner and a loser, and the decision is not based on the rights or the desires of the parties involved, rather it is decided on the governing statutes relating to the case. Additionally, the conflict will continue until the courts rule on the issues, which in some cases takes years. Adjudication often creates mistrust between workers and managers. The third and most objectionable method of solving disputes is by strikes or lockouts. This method is costly to both employee and employer, and always creates mistrust between the worker and management. The losing party may have a need or desire to retaliate against the wining party upon their return to work creating further conflict.

In a second theory, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg created the Dispute Systems Design to resolve “intractable” (Brahm & Ouelllet 2004) or repeated conflicts in distressed organizations. Ury, Brett, and Goldberg describe six design principles of the Dispute Systems Design. The first principle is to “focus on interests” (Brahm & Ouelllet 2004) by starting with direct negotiation or mediation methods to solve problems through interest-based bargaining. Leaders must understand that this approach is the first step in resolving conflicts. The second principle is to make available “low-cost rights and power backups” (Brahm & Ouelllet 2004). Arbitration, voting, and protests fall into this category. It is not hard to see that the second principle is less expensive than adjudication or violent force. The third principle is an avenue called "loop-backs" (Brahm & Ouelllet 2004) to negotiation. This principle allows the parties to return to negations anytime in the entire system. Make all parties clear that this is an option. Ury, Brett, and Goldberg cite settling a “lawsuit out of court” (Brahm & Ouelllet 2004) as an example. Principle number four promulgates the exchange of information before and after in the form of discussions and feedback. In the fifth principle, leaders must establish a system that resolves or attempts to resolve problems at the lowest level. This process continues to move up the ladder from low to high cost measures. This will help prevent the quick intensification of conflicts. The system has to be credible. If not, the parties will quickly resort to the method that will achieve the fastest response. In principle number six, leaders must dedicate themselves to the new systems design by making available time and resources to infuse the organization with new knowledge, skills, and behaviours.

The third piece of Ury, Brett, and Goldberg’s theory describes the four stages of dispute resolution implementation as diagnosis, design, implementation, and exit, evaluation, and diffusion. The basic premise is that there are many ways to design a dispute resolution system. Foremost, it must meet the specific needs of the organization (Brahm & Ouellette 2004). Ury also list six basic functions of an effective Dispute Systems Design. One is to develop a method to prevent disputes from arising. It will not be possible to intercept every dispute, but having a highly visible system in place will prevent many of them. Two, it is important to resolve disputes by healing the parties’ emotional wounds. Sometimes someone has to say a “sorry” or identify a mistake to mind a relationship. Three reconcile the parties’ divergent interest by ensuring all parties have a chance to be heard. Also, meet the needs of as many people as possible. Four, Determine the parties’ rights. Educate people on their rights and the norms of the organization. Violation may well be due to ignorance of a particular rule. Five test the parties’ relative power by attempting to avert the use of power. Sometime, one party will just have to put some distance between each other. Six contain unresolved disputes to prevent escalation so the dispute does not get out of hand. The goal is to resolve the dispute before irreparable harm occurs (Ury 1995). As an alternate course of action to the one set out by Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, Stephen S. Zashin developed the Alternate Dispute Resolution System.

Alternative Dispute Resolution programs provide managers and workers with fast and effective solutions to workplace problems. The program offers a cost-efficient forum that can resolve differences between managers and employees. This type of resolution process is common in situations involving unions, but some non-union companies also utilize this process. Alternative Dispute Resolution systems operate in three steps (Zashin 24: 24). Step one occurs when an employee files an internal complaint with the employer. The employer then determines whether the complaint has any merit. The Human Resource Department or a personnel specialist usually evaluates the complaint. If the employer denies the complaint or the remedy requested, the employee remains free to appeal the employer's decision. If the employee exercises that right, the case proceeds to step two. During this step a neutral mediator is brought in and attempts to bring the employer and employee to a mutually satisfactory resolution. Because mediation is non-binding, either party may choose not to resolve the dispute at this step. If the complainant and employer agree with the results of the mediation, the process is completed and the case is closed. If no agreement is achieved the process continues with step three. During step three a neutral arbitrator hears the evidence and renders a decision that binds both the employer and the employee. Enforceable alternative programs empower the arbitrator to award any damages that are available in a court of law. Rarely can the parties overturn an arbitrator's decision.

Conflict resolution theories continued to expand and managers at all levels were educated in the styles and practices of solving disputes. Newer theories suggest that there are three conflict stages, which are daily events, challenges, and battles (National Press Publication). Each stage has it own characteristics and solutions. Daily events, or stage one, are the ongoing everyday conflicts that occur and require little action. Most people have learned to cope with stage one conflict long before they enter the workplace, and often do not even realize when it occurs. People usually deal with this type of conflict by either avoiding the irritant, or by agreeing. We see and hear people doing this everyday when one walks away from someone trying to start an argument, or by agreeing to do something for someone so they will go away. Should the occasion arise where a manager must deal with stage one conflict it is best to first determine if either party involved is carrying residual emotions from another event. To settle stage one conflict it is best to identify points of agreement and use these points to rectify the issue.

Challenges, or stage two conflicts, have an imbedded element of competition. Self interest and the perception of how one looks becomes important in stage two conflicts. The parties involved see the solution as a win-lose situation. Stage two problems cannot be managed with normal coping strategies. Stage two conflicts in the workplace must be resolved or it will continue and escalate. Manager intervention is essential. The manager should setup an informal meeting between the parties on neutral ground. The manager should have an agenda, stick to it, and remain in control. Solve the dispute through the examination of the facts, teamwork, and by pushing the competing parties toward common ground. Consensus and not compromise is the goal. When people move to the battles mode, or stage three, they move from wanting to win to wanting to hurt. A person who has escalated to the level of stage three conflicts is right and wants to punish the offending party for the injustice done unto him. Stage three conflicts usually involve a long lasting dispute and efforts to dissolve the issues have failed creating mistrust between the parties. Strikes and lockouts are an example of stage three conflicts. It is often necessary to bring in a third party to resolve this type of conflict (National Press Publication).

Application of Theory to Contemporary Management Issues

The best method of applying the theories discussed is through a quick review and by applying the theories to an actual labour conflict. The case chosen for the examination of the principles outlined above is “Arrow Electric Company versus the National Labour Relations Board.” The relevance of this case to Law is not of importance. Arrow Electric Company versus the National Labor Relations Board is important because it details an ineffective dispute resolution system. This case is also significant because it has not been evaluated from a conflict resolution perspective.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and the advantages and disadvantages of ADR

The term ADR stands Alternative Dispute Resolution. This includes anyway which is used to resolve disputes without going through the courts. Many different methods may be used, ranging from simple discussions between the two parties and end up negotiating to a formal arbitration hearing. ADR can include a wide variety of ways to resolve you distribute. The main once are negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration and are the main once that will be discussed in detail in this report. Below is a detailed description of the different ways of resolving cases out of court.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) covers a range of conciliation and mediation processes, which can be applied to various aspects of the law including commercial disputes and employment disputes.

Negotiating is where anyone who has a dispute with another person will always try to resolve it by negotiating directly with him or her to come to an agreement without taking it any further. The advantages of this are considerably good as it is completely private and is the cheapest and defiantly the quickest way of resolving your dispute. If the two parties cannot to an agreement they may both decide to bring in solicitors, which will try to help negotiate a settlement but at a cost. In fact, even if a court proceeding takes place the two solicitors will try to come to an agreement to settle out of court on behalf of their customers. Once solicitors are involved there will be a cost element to the dispute and the longer the negotiations go on the higher the costs will be. If the dispute cannot be settled, the next stage is mediation.

Mediation is where the two parties appoint an independent person who will not decide the dispute, but who will work with the parties to enable them to reach a settlement. He may try to help by evaluating the strength of the parties' cases, or by acting as a go-between in negotiations. Mediation takes place on a confidential and without-prejudice basis, until a settlement is reached with which both parties are happy. A high proportion of mediations are successful - according to some figures, about 80%. Give the fact that mediation can be rapid and informal, and far cheaper than legal proceedings; its increasing popularity is no surprise. Parties have full control over the process, as contrasted with what happens when court proceedings are commenced and proceed to judgement at trial. Mediation offers a viable and intelligent alternative. It is suitable in most types of disputes and is most valuable in that the mediator acts as a catalyst to the negotiation process and works with the parties to produce creative and workable solutions. A mediator will not usually tell the parties his or her own view on the dispute; it is job to act as a piece keeper so that an agreement can be made as quickly as possible. The mediator is not working against the parties. The parties and or their solicitors do not need to convince the mediator they have a good case. They need to convince the other side that any solution achieved through the mediation is more favourable than either side could achieve by going through court. However, a mediator can be asked for their opinion and in this case, the mediator becomes more of an evaluator, which again aims at ending the dispute. However, at the end of the day mediation is only suited if there is a hope that the parties can co-operate.

Conciliation is similarities to mediation in that a third person helps to resolve the dispute, but the main difference being that the conciliator will usually play a more active role I solving the dispute than a mediator. They may suggest grounds of compromise and to do the up most to settle the dispute quickly. This is the same as mediation in that it may not be that the case is resolved and may still end up in court.  

Arbitration means appointing someone to hear both sides of the dispute and decide who is right. The arbitrator may be a lawyer or a surveyor, or some other sort of expert, or simply someone whom the parties to the dispute both trust. The process is confidential and so is any amount of compensation that the arbitrator awards. Sometimes the arbitrator makes their decision based on papers that each person gives them to support their case. At other times, they hold a hearing where both sides can present their cases. However, this is usually less formal than a court hearing. The actual procedure is left to agreement of parties in each case, so this means there are many forms of hearings. In some cases, the parties may opt for paper arbitration where both parties produce a report of their case with any points they wish to raise in writing. This is supported by any documents that may support their case. The arbitrator will then read all the documents and make his/ her decision. The date, time and place of the arbitration hearing are all matters for the parties to decide in consultation with the arbitrator. This gives a greater deal of flexibility to the parties and arrangement can be made which is convenient to both parties.

Tribunals operate alongside the court system and have become an important and integral part of the legal system.

However, unlike the other methods of ADR where the parties decide not to use the courts to solve their disputes you cannot go to court to solve disputes after deciding on a tribunal because it must be used instead of using the courts. There are many types of tribunals including social security tribunals, rent tribunals, mental health review tribunals and employment tribunals. The tribunals usually have a panel of three to hear a case the chair and two lay people with knowledge of the topic. The hearings are informal and in private except employment, tribunals are more formal and open to the public.

There are many advantages and disadvantages of using ADR and using the courts.

The two parties may choose their own mediator or arbitrator and can be help at a time and place to suite both parties also being informal. The matter is dealt with in private and with no publicity and the case will be dealt with more quickly and cheaply than it would through the courts. In negotiation, mediation and conciliation sessions the two parties are in control and can stop the proceedings at any time. An agreement will be reached if both sides accept the proposal. Using ADR it does not involve like the courts in one person winning and the other losing. The courts will not get overloaded because a large amount of cases get settled without using the courts. The main advantages are that it is cost efficient, quick and informal. ADR is more interested in getting an agreement with both parties and will help to keep the relationship with the two parties.  The arbitration can be enforced by law and are usually well established.

The disadvantages are that the other parties may walk away from the alternative and may still end up in court because an agreement is uncertain. Arbitration can be expensive to still cheaper than the courts and still has a winner loser outcome.

The role of ACAS

If dispute procedures fail to re-open negotiation or resolve conflict, the parties may consider calling in ACAS to offer the services of conciliation, mediation and arbitration.

Armstrong (2006) in agreement with IRS (2004d) identifies the process of dispute resolution as conciliation, arbitration and mediation:

• Conciliation- An attempt through informal discussions to help parties in a dispute to reach their own agreement. The third party does not recommend or decide on a settlement. One advantage of this process is that is helps the parties to retain ownership of resolution of the problem, which can, in turn, engender greater commitment to its implementation. Conciliation is the most frequently used form of third-part involvement.
• Arbitration- The parties put the issue to an independent third party for determination. The parties agree in advance to accept the arbitrators’ decision as a means of finally resolving the matter. There is sometimes a reluctance to use this method as it involves control over the final outcome from employers, employees or trade unions.
• Mediation- Formal but non-binding recommendations or proposals are put forward for further consideration by the parties. The use of dispute mediation is rare, partly because it is seen as a halfway house. There is sometimes a feeling that if conciliation cannot succeed, it may be best simply to go all the way to arbitration.

(M Armstrong (2006), pp: 787-88)

ACAS list of Services summarized on ACAS website:

Our aim is to improve organisations and working life through better employment relations, and we believe that prevention is better than cure. This is why we promote best practice in the workplace through easily accessible advice plus workplace projects and training, helping organisations improve their employment practice, and solve problems when things go wrong.

We also give individuals free advice via our website and telephone helpline.

 

We offer an independent and trusted service for dealing with disputes (between groups of workers and their employers (collective disputes). We also deal with disputes where individuals claim their employer has denied them a legal right.

- (http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1999)

Conciliation is a voluntary process of discussion, facilitated by ACAS conciliators whose role is to make constructive suggestions, provide information and manage the process. At this stage, ACAS has no power to impose or recommend settlements. ACAS will only agree to conciliate where internal dispute resolution procedures have been exhausted without result. The conciliation process typically involves:

1. Fact-finding, to explore the reasons for the dispute, often through separate meetings of the conciliator with each side.
2. Explanation of each side’s position in joint meetings, often facilitated by side meetings between the conciliator and the parties separately, to encourage parties to keep talking and to consider potential areas of movement towards settlement (which parties may not wish to consider openly in full session at first).
3. Negotiation towards a mutually acceptable position finalised in a joint agreement between the two sides.

If a voluntary settlement is not reached through conciliation, ACAS can arrange for mediation. This involves the appointment of an independent person or Board of Mediation, who will consider the case of both sides (set out in writing) and then hear both sides’ evidence and arguments at a hearing. The mediator makes a formal proposal or recommendation as a basis for settlement of the dispute, but his is not legally binding on either party.

If both parties agree to arbitration:

1. Terms of reference must be defined, setting limits to the arbitrator’s powers to the issues to be considered; traditional arbitration or pendulum arbitration may be used.
2. Parties may select the independent arbitrator from the ACAS panel, or may let ACAS appoint an arbitrator.
3. A date and venue are set for the arbitration hearing. Prior to the hearing, both sides exchange and submit to the arbitrator a written statement of their case and arguments, supporting documents and a list of those attending (usually the negotiators). The arbitrator may also request a site visit, for example if the dispute concerns the conditions under which work is done or the level of skill required.
4. An informal, private and confidential hearing is held, at which the arbitrator hears arguments from both sides. A typical procedure would allow each side an uninterrupted opportunity to state its case and critique the opposing case (as set out in the written submission), prior to questioning by the other side and by the arbitrator. The arbitrator then ensures that both parties have said or asked everything they wish to and invites closing statements.
5. The arbitrator usually considers the arguments after the hearing and delivers an award via ACAS, usually within two or three week.

In 2000/02, the ACAS Annual Report showed 1,226 completed collective conciliations, 5 successful mediations and 55 arbitration hearings.

Conflict resolution techniques

Conflict strategies                                                                                

When you become engaged in a conflict, two major concerns you have to take into account are:

1. Achieving your goals. Each person has personal goals that he or she wishes to achieve. You are in conflict. You are in conflict because your goals conflict with other person’s goals. Your goal may be placed on a continuum from being of little importance to you being highly important.

2. Maintaining a good relationship with the other person(s). Some relationships are temporary while some are long term. Some long-term relationships are vital and others are peripheral. Your relationship with the other person may be place on a continuum from being of little importance to you to being highly important.

As a manager

• Be aware of your underlying conflict-handling style

Be judicious in selecting the conflicts that you want to handle

Not every conflict is worth your time and effort to resolve. While avoidance might appear to be a ‘cop-out’, it can sometimes be the most appropriate response. You can improve your overall management effectiveness and your conflict-management skills in particular by avoiding trivial conflicts. Choose your battles judiciously, saving your efforts for the ones that count.

• Evaluate the conflict players

If you choose to manage a conflict situation, it’s impor­tant that you take the time to get to know the players. Who is involved in the conflict? What interests does each party represent? What are each player’s values, personality, feelings and resources? Your chances of success in managing a conflict will be greatly enhanced if you can view the conflict through the eyes of the conflicting parties.

• Assess the source of conflict

Conflicts have causes. Since your approach to resolving a conflict is likely to be determined largely by its causes, you need to determine the source of the conflict. Research indicates that conflicts have varying causes, they can generally be separated into three catego­ries: communication differences, structural differences and personal differences

• Communication differences

Communication differences are disagreements arising from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings and noise in the communication channels. What might first look like an interpersonal conflict based on poor communication is usually upon closer analysis, to be a disagreement caused by different role requirement goals, personalities, value systems or similar factors.

Options Available:

Each of these five styles is appropriate in some situations and inappropriate in others; supervisors therefore need not only to be able to use each of them, but also to know when each should be used.

1. Avoidance - withdrawal from of conflict or suppression.  Avoiding is unassertive and un-cooperative: you pursue neither own concerns nor those of the other person, but “let sleeping dogs”, sweeping the conflict “under the carpet” and pretending it isn’t there or perhaps hoping it will go away. Inappropriately avoiding issues leads to resentment, displacement of feelings and griping, general discontent and gossiping.

 Of course, avoiding might also take the form of diplomatic. Sidestepping an issue, postponing discussion until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. So avoiding can have its uses especially if neither the relationship nor the issue is important to you. Many potential conflict situations are just not worth the time and effort of getting involved. Or you may want to collect more information rather take immediate action. Sometimes temporary avoidance is the best policy to let everyone “cool down”. Avoidance is also a good choice when it is more appropriate for others to handle the conflict

2. Accommodation - resolving conflicts by placing another’s needs and concerns above one’s own.  Accommodating is unassertive and co-operative - the opposite of competing. It could also be called passive or submissive, because you are putting the other party’s wishes before your own. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, agreeing to another person’s request when you would prefer not to, yielding to another’s point of view against your better judgment, or resentfully submitting to another’s wishes. Even when they are sure they are right, some people don’t like taking a stand. Supervisors like this may be uncomfortable with using their power or afraid of losing the friendship or co-operation of their staff. The danger of this approach is that their staff often does not take them or their ideas seriously. But whenever an issue is less important than the relationship, accommodating behaviour may be called for — for example, when building a relationship is more important than the particular conflict or when your “stake” in the conflict or issue isn’t high. When you have a hope of having your wishes met, you may also decide to accommodate as a way of minimising your losses and maintaining a climate of Co-operation with the other party

3. Forcing - resolving conflict through the use of formal authority. Forcing is assertive and un-cooperative; in other words, it is aggressive because you pursue your own concerns at the expense of the other person. This method of managing conflict is based on power. Whatever power seems appropriate - your ability to argue, to pull rank, to use economic sanctions and so on — is used to impose a solution on the other party. The usual response to this is resentment, antagonism, hostility and lack of co-operation. Supervisors who continually compete in conflict situations, who look only for a win-lose solution, are often surrounded by “yes men”. They are often considered “hard to get on with” and don’t know when to admit they are wrong. They find it difficult to build up a good working relationship with people. When speed and decisiveness are at a premium, as they are in emergencies, it might be quite an appropriate style. When you are in conflict with parties who refuse to co-operate and who are trying to take advantage of you, competitively managing the conflict may be your best option. When safety issues are at stake or a difficult or unpopular decision needs to be made, a competitive stance may be necessary.

4. Compromise - a solution of conflict in which each party gives up something of value. Compromising is intermediate, in both assertiveness and co- cooperativeness. It involves “splitting the difference” to arrive at a solution acceptable to both parties. This falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, where you give up more than in but less than in accommodating. It addresses issues more directly avoiding but doesn’t explore them in as much depth as collaborating.  Compromising can be quick, however, and although leaves neither satisfied, it can be useful in situations where time is running out or when collaboration and/or competition have failed. It can also provide a temporary, short-term solution to a conflict while collaborative discussions continue. And sometimes, settling for a workable compromise is the best you can do.

5. Collaboration- takes time but is particularly useful in situations where         both the issue and the relationship are important, and where an outcome,

which satisfies both parties is desirable. Collaboration is also useful when all parties need to be committed to the solution and when a creative deal or solution is needed.

Techniques

The rationale behind the collaborative approach is explored in the win-win model of conflict resolution. Cornelius and Faire (1989) suggested that there are three basic ways in which a conflict or disagreement can be worked out.

1. Win-loose: one party gets what he wants at the expense of the other party. However well justified in such a solution, there is often lingering resentment on the part of the ‘loosing’ party, which may begin to damage working relationships.
2. Loose-loose: neither party gets what they really want. Compromise comes into this category. However logical such a solution is, there is often resentment and dissatisfaction on both sides: even positive compromises only result in half-satisfied needs.
3. Win-win: both parties get as close as possible to what they really want. Whether or not such an outcome is possible, the attempt to find it invariably generates more options, more creative and collaborative problem-solving, more open communication and a greater likelihood of preserved working relationships.

A basic win-win approach may be outlined as follows:

1. Find out why each party needs what they say they want?

        Probing for, and mapping, both party’s fears/concerns and needs in the         situation facilitates meaningful problem-solving. It encourages         communication, supports other people’s values, and separates the problem         from the personalities involved.

2. Find out where the differences dovetail?

        Diverging needs may seem like the cause of conflict – but they also offer         potential for more creative problem-solving, since the different needs may not         be mutually exclusive: there may be opportunities for both sets of needs to be         satisfied by different means.

3. Design more options!

        Where everyone gets more of what they need. Techniques for doing this         include:

1. Brainstorming: which temporarily (and by agreement) allows the generation of options temporarily uncensored and uncivilised by viewpoints which by definition are limited by the conflict;
2. Chunking: (breaking a big problem down into manageable chunks and seeking solutions to each); and
3. Devise usable ‘currencies’: (suggestions and concessions which are easy or low-cost for both parties, and can be traced in negotiation). The aim is mutual gain.

4. Co-operate!

        Treat the other person as a partner in problem-solving, not as an opponent in         competition.

The example given by Cornelius and Flaire is of two men fighting because they both want an orange. The win-win approach would ask each man why he needs the orange. One may need it to make orange juice, while the other needs only the skin of the orange to make candied peel: the conflict disappears if both men need the juice. Other options will be explored: sharing the juice, getting more oranges, diluting the juice, buying one man some bottled orange juice and so on. Even if compromise is settled on, the outcome will be a win-win, because both parties will have been appropriately assertive and willingly co-operative; thereby enhancing the relationship between them (which adds up to be the ‘win’ outcome).

(Cornelius and Flaire 1989, pg: 19)

What are the differences between win-lose and win-win methods?

The orientation of the parties to handling the conflict is quite different between the win-lose and win-win methods. With win-lose there is a clear “us versus them” approach, while with a win-win orientation, there is an “us together versus the problem” approach. Where the energies of the parties are directed also differs: under win-lose, energies are directed towards total victory or total defeat. With win-win, the atmosphere is one constructive co-operation and a search for outcomes desirable to both “Let’s work together to resolve this” is the attitude. Empathy also differs; under win-lose, people see the issue only from their own point of view, rather than appreciating it also from the other’s.  The focus is different too, with the emphasis being on reaching a solution under win-lose and on goals, outcomes and longer term issues under win-win.

With a win-lose approach, conflicts are often personalised rather than treated objectively and impersonally, as they are with a win-win approach. In win-lose, the parties are conflict-oriented rather than relationship­-oriented as they are with win-win, with the immediate disagreement taking priority over the long-term effects of the conflict and how it is resolved.

Example:

An Ideal Dispute resolution Procedure:

1. The Contact Officer will record the date and time of the initial contact with the Complainant in the MAS Disputes Register and allocate a unique reference number.
2. The Complainant is to be advised that a “Dispute Notification Form” must be submitted to the Contact Officer in order for MAS Administration Services to intervene in a dispute between the parties.
3. The Tools For Your Trade Dispute Notification Form and guide for completion will be accessible from the MAS Administration Services Tools For Your Trade website. Alternatively, the Contact Officer will be able to mail, fax or email a copy of the form to the Complainant.
4. The form can be completed and lodged directly via the website or by fax, mail or email.
5. Upon receipt of a Dispute notification Form, the Contact Officer will check the dispute register for the relevant reference number. If this is the first contact by the complainant, a new reference will be generated.
6. A dispute registration file, cross-referenced to the original reference number, will be raised. All correspondence and information related to the dispute will be retained on file in hardcopy form.
7. The complainant will be contacted within one business day by the Contact Officer will verify the bona fides of the complainant and the details on the Notification Form.
8. The Contact Officer will investigate and assess the claim and will, within 14 days, advise the complainant in writing of the outcomes of the investigation.
9. If the Contact Officer determines that there are no grounds for the dispute, the complainant will be advised accordingly. Contact Details of the relevant State/Territory Fair Trading Authority will made available should the complainant wish to pursue the matter independently.
10. If the Contact Officer believes that grounds exist, the Contact Officer will contact the complainant to discuss the issues and offer to negotiate informally with the other party or parties on behalf of the complainant in order to resolve the dispute.
11. If informal attempts fail to resolve the dispute, the Contact Officer will write to all parties, inviting them to attend a formal mediation meeting, giving a minimum of 21 days' notice. Every effort will be made to encourage the parties to attend the mediation meeting. However, it is recognised that MAS has no authority to compel any party to participate.
12. In the event that the dispute remains unresolved or one of the parties does not participate in the mediation process, the Contact Officer will advise the complainant that MAS Administration Services has exhausted all avenues to facilitate a negotiated outcome to their satisfaction, and they will be advised of this in writing. Contact details of the of the relevant State/Territory Fair Trading Authority will be made available should the complainant wish to pursue the matter independently.
13. If the Contact Officer is made aware that the complainant wishes to pursue the matter through the courts or relevant Fair Trading Tribunal, the Contact officer will immediately notify the Department and the Operations Manager of MAS Administration Services.
14. The Operations Manager and the DEEWR Representative will consult regarding any further action to be taken.

Coping with industrial action

While managerial focus is likely to be on avoiding industrial action, through dispute resolution procedures and the threat of sanctions, there should be contingency plans in place to minimise the disruptions caused by industrial action if and when it occurs.

Depending on the nature of the business, and the group of workers involved, key considerations may be:

• To maintain incoming deliveries of materials and supplies: e.g. for a retail organisation, or a factory threatened with picketing.
• To maintain production output or service levels: e.g. by finding suitable alternative labour (transfers of staff from other sites, or jobs, use of short-contract and casual staff), or (re-transferring production to other plants, encouraging overtime working prior to strike).
• To maintain supply of goods and services to the customer: e.g. through picket lines, by subcontracting distribution, or encouraging customer self-service.’ 8

        

Bibliography/References

Books:

• Armstrong M – A Handbook of Human Resource Practice (Kogan Page, 2006)

10th Ed; United Kingdom; ISBN-10: 0749446315; ISBN-13: 9780749446314

• Classroom Notes and Handouts; Marion Fieldstead; 2007/08; Wirral Metropolitan College; Conway Park Campus; United Kingdom, Particularly Unit 24: Employment Relations)
• John Gennard and Graham Judge – Employee Relations (IPD, 1997) 1st Ed; London; ISBN- 0852926545.
• Blyton P and Turnbull P – The Dynamics of Employee Relations (CIPD, 2000) 2nd ed; ISBN: 0333679857

Websites:

• www.google.com
• www.ask.com
• www.yahoosearch.com
• www.starware.com
• www.doceo.co.uk
• www.coursework.info
• www.bola.biz
• www.siptu.ie
• www.lra.org.uk
• www.emplaw.co.uk

References:

1. Collectively from:

• (http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/frame.htm)
• (http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/Politics/Trade_Unions/There_are_two_broad_opposing_frames_of_r_L127660.html)
• (http://www.bola.biz/unions/pluralistic.html)

2. (http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/Politics/Trade_Unions/There_are_two_broad_opposing_frames_of_r_L127660.html)

3. (M Armstrong, 2006, pp: 763-66)

4. (http://www.coursework.info/University/Business_and_Administrative_studies/Economics/Political___International_Economics/Trade_unions_L92228.html)

5. Collectively from:

• (M Armstrong, 2006, pp: 766-71)
• (Marion Fieldstead, Wirral Metropolitan College, 2008, Unit 24: Employment Relations, Handout: Parties in Industrial Relations)

6. Collectively from:

• (Marion Fieldstead, Wirral Metropolitan College, 2008, Unit 24: Employment Relations, Handout Four)

• (M Armstrong, 2006, pp: 74-76)

7. Collectively from:

• (http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/Politics/Trade_Unions/Types_of_Trade_Unions_L33928.html)
• (http://www.siptu.ie/YourRights/TUFGuideToLabourLaw/GeneralInformation/Glossary/)
• (http://www.lra.org.uk/collectivedispute.pdf)
• (http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f026083.htm)
• (http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f026083.htm)
• (http://www.emplaw.co.uk/searchfree.aspx?searchtext=Industrial+Action)
• (M Armstrong, 2006, pp: 789-91)

• (Marion Fieldstead, Wirral Metropolitan College, 2008, Unit 24: Employment Relations, Handout Five)

8. Collectively from:

• (Marion Fieldstead, Wirral Metropolitan College, 2008, Unit 24: Employment Relations, Handouts: Five & Managing Conflict)
• (http://www.coursework.info/University/Law/English_Legal_System/Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_L24052.html)
• (http://www.coursework.info/University/Business_and_Administrative_studies/Management_Studies/Managing_Conflicts_L94310.html)
• (http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/Politics/Political_Philosophy/The_ability_to_manage_conflict_is_undoub_L117583.html)
• (http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/Politics/Political_Philosophy/The_ability_to_manage_conflict_is_undoub_L117583.html)
• (http://www.toolsforyourtrade.com.au/Default.asp?Page=26)

Self Reflection & Evaluation

Reflection:

This was both an interesting and absorbing assignment.  I feel I gained a deeper knowledge and understanding of the subject by exploring the context of employee relations against a changing background and examining both the nature of industrial conflict and the resolution of collective disputes.

I made use of what I had been taught in the classroom, the course textbooks (those borrowed from the college library at Twelve Quays), course work Materials, the internet and discussion with the lecturer. These resources enabled me to cover the following criterion set out for the assignment and to provide organisational examples:

• Explain the unitary and pluralistic frames of reference
• Review the development of trade unions and the nature of industrial relations
• Determine the role of trade unions and its contribution to effective employee relations
• Differentiate the roles taken by main actors in employee relations
• Explain the ideological framework of industrial relations
• Investigate the different types of collective dispute
• Review dispute procedures and the resolution of conflict
• Critically evaluate the effectiveness of dispute procedures in resolving conflict in a given situation, by being involved in an ‘Employment Tribunal’ role play

The steps taken for completion:

• I started the assignment by reading the course notes, then relevant course text books.
• I made use of the internet and conversation with the course lecturer for further help.
• I found “A Handbook of Human Resource Practice” by Armstrong, “Employee Relations” by John Gennard and Graham Judge and “The Dynamics of Employee Relations” by Blyton P and Turnbull P useful guides to the completion of this assignment.
• Internet sites (search engines) I personally found most useful to conduct the instructive research were:-

• www.google.com
• www.starware.com
• www.yahoosearch.com
• www.ask.com

Links:

I found that this unit formed a direct link with two of the other units of the HNC Business programme, which are:

• Unit 21: Human Resource Management; and
• Unit 3: Organisation and Behaviour.

Evaluation:

I believe I made use of a sufficiently wide range of sources in researching the subject. I used all materials provided by the college and all that was reasonably available to me.

I did find it very difficult to keep within the word count while covering all of the criteria to a good standard given wide area this assignment includes.

I have met with the completion time, and have endeavoured to produce work of a standard which is above average.  

Timetable