Lana Roelandts

220032777
ECON 351

ECON 351
ASSIGNMENT
WORD
COUNT:
3835
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

Is conflict inevitable?

The pluralist perspective of Industrial Relations states that conflict within the workplace is inevitable.

I tend to agree with this perspective of Industrial Relations; I, in fact, believe that conflict is

inevitable. This is because, in a workplace setting, the interests of the employer differ from the

interests of the employee. A key area for differing interests is, for example, financial interests. The

financial interests of the employer are fundamentally different from that of employees – regardless

of industry. The key financial interests and goals of the employer are ultimately to generate high

company profits, whereas the financial interests and goals of most employees are to maximise their

own individual wages and conditions. Therefore, this conflict in interests and expectations has the

potential to bring about conflict in the workplace. However, in the workplace, there is also the

opportunity for conflict to occur between two parties of employees and also between two parties of

unions. However, conflict between unions and employers, and employees and employers are the

most prevalent.

The pluralist perspective of Industrial Relations differs to that of what is known as the unitarist

perspective of Industrial Relations. The unitarist perspective in Industrial Relations Theory suggests

that the workplace ia continuously proactive environment and that the goals and interests of the

employer and the employee are the same – that the success and survival of the organisation are of

primary importance in the workplace, and therefore is what both employers and employees strive

for. Thus, it suggests that there is no basis for workplace conflict to occur. The unitarist perspective

also suggests that there is no need for union involvement because the employer and employees

interests are common and equal, thus eliminating the need for workplace bargaining and
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

intervention by unions. The unitarist approach “assumes common interests between employers and

employees, and attempts to encourage commitment by both inclusive (e.g. communication,

consultation, reward systems) and exclusive (e.g. discouragement of union membership...) means.”

(Nankervis et al. 6th Ed, 2008, p.11)

This suggests that conflict can be avoided through the distribution of appropriate rewards, through a

high level of communication between employers and employees, and through adequate

consultation of employees regarding, for example, significant workplace changes that may impact

upon employees. Unitarism Industrial Relations Theory therefore implies that employees who are

adequately rewarded and consulted on workplace issues will be more likely to strive towards

organisational and workplace goals and interests, furthermore, removing the need for union

membership and union representation.

In the unitarist Industrial Relations view, if conflict exists, it is deemed to be only relatively minor and

attributed to minor causes such a temporary lapse in communication between employees and

management. Though, unitarism views this as minor, temporary and manageable.

However, the pluralist perspective, as previously stated, views conflict as an inevitable occurrence in

the workplace, and is attributed to the conflicting interests of employer and employee, specifically

regarding “the distribution of income, status and power.” (Sappey et al. 2 nd Ed, 2009, p.10) The

pluralist view states that “employers and their employees will inevitably experience conflicts of

interest, which HRM (Human Resource Management) will need to negotiate and resolve in order to

meet organisational goals.” (Nankervis et al. 6 th Ed, 2008, p.11). This therefore suggests that it is

these differing interests regarding the distribution of income, status and power, that can result in

unequal effort in the workplace, therefore potentially increasing the likelihood that some individuals

in the workplace are likely to benefit at the expense of others. This assumption is generally

employers will benefit at the expense of employees, with regards to time and effort.
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

Pluralist perspective also states that conflict is structural and that there is no amount of managerial

practice that can eradicate it, though it may temporarily be eased. This is not suggestive that there is

constant militant conflict in the workplace, it is merely stating that conflict at one time or another is

going to occur in the workplace.

In comparison, the pluralist perspective of Industrial Relations seems more comprehensible than the

unitarist approach. This is mainly because it seems unfathomable that all employees are going to be

totally satisfied with their wages, conditions and roles in the organisation, and that their interests

are always going to align with that of the employer and the organisation.

When discussing the pluralist perspective of Industrial Relations with regards to conflict inevitability,

we must keep in mind that this theory is constructed significantly around the concept of what is

known as ‘Labour Process Theory’. This Labour Process Theory is linked to pluralism, as, it dictates

that when an organisation hires an employee, they are purchasing the employee’s potential to work

and their ability to work. Labour Process Theory stipulates that it is the employers duty as a member

of management, to convert the employee’s potential labour into actual labour, and therefore

products and, or services. This is crucial to the understanding of not only thee pluralist perspective

of Industrial Relations, but also the understanding of a major underlying reason for conflict

occurrence in the workplace environment. This is because, when the employer and thee employee

enter into an employment relationship, they enter into an unwritten, unstated bargain/agreement,

which is referred to as the “work-effort bargain”. The work-effort bargain is defined as “the

assessment of the amount of work effort needed in relation to wages received in return” (Baldamus,

1961).
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

This work-effort bargain, that all employers have with their employees, does possess the potential to

create workplace conflict. This is because the work-effort bargain is open to interpretation by both

employee and employer as to the implied meaning and exact requirements entailed in it. This

interpretation is therefore open to ambiguity of understanding, which can lead to

employer/employee conflict and complications. The main areas open to ambiguity that often result

in conflict are areas such as the amount of autonomy provided to employees surrounding particular

workplace tasks, specific work duties that employees are expected to perform, and also the exact

amount of effort an employee should be putting into their required tasks. With an implied

agreement, these areas are often open to scrutiny of understanding, however it is the breakdown of

the work-effort bargain that contributes to industrial conflict.

According to Keenoy and Kelly (1996), there are three main and specific areas of conflict in the

workplace. They are:

- Conflict over interests;

- Conflict over control; and

- Conflict over motivation

It is these “three great struggles” (Keenoy and Kelly, 1996) that are most prominent causes of

industrial conflict in the workplace, in their opinion. In order to understand them, and how they fit

into the pluralist perspective of industrial relations, they first must be defined.

Conflict over interests reverts back to this concept previously discussed by Nankervis et al, and also

Sappey et al. It deals with this notion that employers and employees interests in the workplace are

different. This is true regarding both financial and interpersonal interests. Keenoy and Kelly’s
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

argument is a basis for pluralist perspective. Most prominently, the financial interest of the two

differing parties in the employment relationship is different. As stated previously, employers seek

significant organisational profits, as opposed to employees. Keenoy and Kelly state, that as

employees, “it is in our interest to maximise our income from employment.” This is because basic

pluralist theory states that employers will seek to settle on the lowest possible price paid to

employees for wages, and employees will settle on the highest possible wage price. Keenoy and Kelly

simply state that “the nature of the employment relationship is such that the employee’s interest in

maximising income comes into direct conflict with the employers’ interest in minimising costs.”

(Keenoy and Kelly, 1996). Hence, there is a major conflict of interest regarding the price of potential

and/or actual labour, which can then develop into industrial conflict, which could potentially evolve

into industrial action, where employees will seek to rectify the wage imbalance.

Conflict over control is the second of the three great struggles faced in a workplace environment,

with regards to the potential for conflict. The idea of conflict over control is that when an employee

accepts employment within an organisation, they are agreeing to submit to the hierarchy of

authoritative control in the organisation. The potential for conflict arises as employees may become

confused about the amount of control that an employer has. This links back to the concept of the

work-effort bargain, and the possibility for ambiguous interpretation of the work-effort bargain. This,

as stated, involves aspects such as ambiguity regarding employee duties and job description, the

exact amount of effort required to be exerted by employees while performing required duties, and

also the amount of autonomy employees will have in performing tasks. This is a big issue, as

employees may have difficulty coming to terms with the amount of supervision employers and/or

managers are going to provide to employees. Some employees may enjoy a very autonomous and

independent working environment, where they are free to make their own decisions when dealing
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

with certain aspects of their work, whereas some employees may prefer a work environment where

they are always given detailed instructions by the employer, regarding the tasks and duties they are

to perform. The work-effort bargain exists to attempt to rectify task ambiguity, but it is assumed that

inevitably there will be misunderstandings about the amount of effort required and the amount of

supervision and control and employer has over employees in the workplace. It is this ambiguity that

will lead to conflict in the workplace, and as Keenoy and Kelly argue, “Given such lack of specificity, it

is hardly surprising unforeseen problems may occur once the employee starts work.” (Keenoy and

Kelly, 1996).

The third and final of the three great struggles depicted by Keenoy and Kelly is this concept of

conflict over motivation. This concept is potentially the most important to rectify, in order to

encourage employees to fulfil their duties to the best of their abilities. Conflict over motivation deals

with the idea that conflict is bound to occur within the workplace due to a managers lack of ability

to cater to all the specific human and interpersonal needs of the employee, while also meeting all

the needs of management, such as appropriate production levels and profit margins. It identifies the

need for employers to be constantly seeking new ways to continue to motivate employees to

perform at their peak. The pluralist view states that these conflicting needs of employees and

employers are not always so easily managed and create basis for conflict because the two needs are

not always synchronised.

Employees are not only motivated by money to perform at their peak operating levels.

“Understanding the motivation to work and the factors which promote or hinder job satisfaction is

central to understanding employee behaviour and productivity” (Keenoy and Kelly, 1996). There are

also many interpersonal (intrinsic) rewards that motivate employees to perform at a higher level.

Rewards such as an adequate work/life balance are what many employees in a modern working life

strive to achieve. Employers can accommodate this request through rewards such as more flexible
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

working hours, or providing the option for employees to work from home. For some employees, job

enrichment may be a great motivation. Job enrichment increases the scope of tasks employees are

to perform, and usually involves employees performing a larger range of tasks and undertaking more

responsibility and becoming more autonomous in the workplace environment. Some employees

truly cherish this kind of intrinsic reward or autonomy in the workplace, so this is a great way to

achieve that. Providing methods for employee advancement is another great way for employers to

motivate employees, by providing retraining and further training and advancement opportunities

required in order for advancement and promotion within the organisation.

Pluralist theory states, that these human requirements of employees conflict greatly with the

organisational requirements of management, as management are faced with the dilemma that

“despite all those humane good intentions, once labour has been purchased at the right price in the

labour and after it has been set to work in an appropriate set of controls in the organisational

hierarchy, the employer still faces a residual problem: how to motivate it” (Keenoy and Kelly, 1996).

In stating this, Keenoy and Kelly also state that management needs to find a balance between

employee motivation and control as, “labour must be controlled to ensure tasks are carried out as

efficiently and cost-effectively as possible yet, at the same time, labour must remain motivated and

sufficiently loyal”. As can be seen here, the concept of these three great struggles that Keenoy and

Kelly have identified, are all inextricably linked to one another and overlap in a number of areas. It

illustrates that motivation is linked to interests and control, as a lot of what interests employees is

what motivates them, and managers are still required to find a suitable balance between these three

key things in order to make the organisation run smoothly. Quite often the task of addressing the

concerns of both parties is almost impossible, and it is this inability to sufficiently cater to the needs

of everyone, that this inevitability of conflict occurs.

Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

In order to alleviate conflict in the workplace, sometimes employees take matters into their own

hands and engage in some form of industrial action. Industrial action is defined as “the withdrawal

of labour, in full or in part, by employees, including the performance of work in a manner different

from that in which it is customarily performed; a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of

work or specific work tasks; a failure or refusal to attend for work; or a failure or refusal to perform

any work at all by employees who attend for work” (Sappey et al, 2 nd Ed, 2009, p. 410).

Historically, strikes are one form of industrial action which have had a significance in shaping the

current climate with regards to industrial relations legislation and also with regards to dispute

resolution procedures in Australia. Most notably in Australian history, the pastoralist and waterfront

disputes of the 1890s. These cross-colony strikes have contributed to the implication of the third

party Federal tribunal appointed for overseeing regulation and legislative proceedings, as well as

responsible for providing conciliatory and arbitrary assistance to the mitigation of nationwide

industrial action. This third party, (previously known as the Australian Industrial Relations

Commission) known as Fair Work Australia, was also instrumental in developing legislation in the

Federal Constitution which dictates terms and gives power to this commission regarding the correct

procedure when faced with nationwide industrial action, like that of the 1890s (see Section 51, sub

section 35 of the Constitution for full disclosure). Section 51, sub section 35 is the clause in the

Constitution which gives (the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it was known

when the legislative amendment was conceived) its powers to intervene during times of cross-state

and nationwide industrial action, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, was the Act which

established the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and provides it with the

powers to conciliate and arbitrate between the two conflicting parties.

Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

“Conciliation and arbitration refers to the process of settling industrial relations disputes through the

intervention of a third party – federal or State industrial commissions” (Robbins et al, 1986, p.394).

For a more specific definitions of the two terms, individually, “conciliation is a the process by which

an agreement is arrived at by parties to a dispute using a chairman in the role of advisor or

mediator” (Robbins et al, 1986, p.394), and “arbitration is the process by which a determination or

award is handed down by a commissioner or tribunal according to the substantial merits of the case”

(Robbins et al, 1986, p.394).

Arbitration is also an effective method that can be employed regarding intra-organisational disputes

between two employees.

As well as strikes, there are also other means of industrial action that employees can undertake in

order to resolve conflict, however, the main concern in industrial disputes are the two parties –

management and labour. With regards to disputes between these two parties, there are

representatives for both parties. In the case of large organisations, “there is usually a sophisticated

personnel department with full-time industrial relations experts”, whereas employees are generally

represented by unions that they are a member of. For example, if there is a wage dispute between

workers on a building site and an organisation which employs them, the union that would represent

the builders on their behalf is generally the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF).

While discussing the topic of union involvement in workplace industrial disputes, it must also be

noted that there is a type of industrial action that exists that puts two unions against each other.

This type of industrial action is known as a demarcation dispute. A demarcation dispute is defined as

“the allocation of work tasks separating groups of employees from other groups, often within one
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

workplace based on particular skills or occupations. A demarcation dispute occurs when these

barriers are not clear-cut and there is a dispute over which workers have the right to perform a type

of work or task” (Sappey et al, 2nd Ed, 2009, p.408). These disputes cause unions disputes because, if

it is unclear as to which tasks and jobs employees are to perform, then it is also unclear as to which

union group is more suitable in representing them when it comes to decisions regarding industrial

action and enterprise bargaining, also known as a jurisdictional dispute. This problem is not as

prevalent in the current industrial relations climate, as in some cases there has been amalgamations

between several union groups.

As well as these kinds of industrial action, there is also, bans, usually regarding the fulfilling of

certain tasks and duties, or using specific pieces of machinery and equipment; limitations, which

generally place restrictions on the amount of output employees are willing to produce, or the

amount of time they are willing to donate to the completion of a task. These types of industrial

action are overt form of action. There are also covert forms of industrial action employees take.

Covert industrial action includes actions such as absenteeism, where an employee does not turn up

for work; sabotage, which involves employees tampering with tools and equipment in order to

minimise productivity, this also includes wastage. Wastage is usually concerned with the wasting of

time and resources. Labour turnover is another form of covert industrial action. It involves the

permanent withdrawal of labour (in other words, employees quitting from the workforce). This is a

rather extreme form of industrial action, yet it does occur in the workplace.
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

It is not only employees who engage in industrial action. Employers also have the ability to stop the

process of work, mainly through lockouts. This is where employers remove all employees from the

organisation and literally lock them out. This is usually done so when there is still adequate labour in

the form of management to continue production levels within the organisation, however it does give

relative power to the employers.

Although in the past there has been many different forms of both overt and covert industrial action,

in the modern economic climate, industrial relations is much more regulated. The main governing

body of industrial disputes and complaints is Fair Work Australia, and it seeks to minimise industrial

action, but also seeks to alleviate any complications that may occur between two opposing parties.

In the current climate, industrial action is still permitted to occur, but only in certain conditions.

When enterprise bargaining is taking place, then it is permitted for unions to go on strike, in an

attempt to secure better working conditions and wages for an employee’s agreement. However,

there is a process that must be followed in order to commence industrial action. This process is the

conduction of a secret ballot by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), determining which

employees wish to go on strike or engage in industrial action. In order for unions to go on strike, 50

per cent of employees must vote in the secret ballot, and of those 50 per cent, 51 per cent must

vote in favour of a strike. The union officials must then give employers at least 3 days notice of their

intentions to go on strike. This process is sometimes lengthy, and therefore deters many from

engaging in industrial action, which was perhaps what the liberal government had in mind when

bringing in the industrial relations reform under the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

Although industrial action and conflict do take such a prominent role in the workplace, it is unfair to

assume that all conflict is negative and reactive. There are many positives to come out of industrial

conflict and subsequent industrial action. In many instances it encourages creativity in the

workplace, it sets benchmarks for future employees of a particular organisation regarding wages,

conditions and other employee benefits, and it also has the potential to give managers insight into

the employees perceptions of work and the workplace, which can then help managers better

manage conflict as it arises, by catering to employees needs in the employment relationship.

In conclusion, the pluralist perspective of industrial relations stipulates that conflict in the workplace

is in fact inevitable. The main areas of conflict in the employment relationship are the areas of

interests (both interpersonal and financial), control, and motivation, according to industrial relations

experts Keenoy and Kelly, with conflicting interests being the most prominent area for conflict and

industrial disputes in the workplace. The pluralist perspective also dictates that conflict within the

workplace is structural and unavoidable, no matter how prevalent the managerial practices in the

workplace are.

The most common means of alleviating pent up conflict in the workplace, on method is through

seeking industrial action, in order for employees to have their demands in the workplace met. The

major forms of industrial action, both overt and covert, are strikes, bans, limitations, sabotage,

absenteeism and labour turnover. Employers can also engage in industrial action through the use of

lockouts. As workplace conflict has become increasingly prevalent in the current economic climate,

there was an increasing amount of pressure for industrial action to be regulated in such a way that

both employees and employers could gain from the benefits of such action. In the modern industrial
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351

relations conditions, all major industrial relations disputes regarding nationwide industrial action is

regulated through Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Act (Cth 2009). It is Fair Work Australia that

settles cross-state disputes and nationwide disputes through its powers of conciliation and

arbitration.

So, although workplace conflict is in fact inevitable, it can also be beneficial to both parties involved,

as employees can achieve maximum income and conditions, while also reap the intrinsic benefits of

job enrichment and increased autonomy in workplace tasks. Managers and employers can attain a

great standard of employee loyalty, work place participation and productivity in the workplace, and

perhaps also achieve all of these in a cost-effective way.

Reference List

 Sappey, R., Burgess, J., Lyons, M., Buultjens, J, Pearson Australia, 2 nd Ed., 2009, Industrial

Relations in Australia: Work and Workplaces)

 Robbins, S., Low, P., Mourell, M., Prentice-Hall Australia, 1986, Managing Human Resources)

 Nankervis, A., Compton, R., Baird, M., Cengage Learning ,6 th Ed , 2008, Human Resource

Management: Strategies & Processes)

 Baldamus, W, 1961, Efficiency and effort: an analysis of industrial administration, Tavistock,

London.

 Keenoy, T. & Kelly D. , 1996, The employment relationship in Australia, Harcourt Brace.
Lana Roelandts
220032777
ECON 351