19-11-2012, 01:21 PM
Collective Bargaining And Conflict Resolution: The Federal Government Of Nigeria And The Nigeria Labour Congress Impasse.
1Collective Bargaining And Conflict.doc (Size: 99 KB / Downloads: 655)
ABSTRACT
The use of collective bargaining in conflict resolution in Industry has gained much acceptance but its efficiency in resolving conflict has been neglected. This paper is an attempt to find out the efficient and effective use of collective bargaining as a mechanism for conflict resolution in Industries in Nigeria, using the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Nigerian Labour Congress impasse during the past Military and present Civilian Governments as a case study. The objective of the study is to show that employers/management often neglect collective agreements reached between parties in industrial conflicts; as well as determine the role the State plays in Industrial Relations in Nigeria. Using data collected from both primary and secondary sources, it finds out that (a) collective bargaining is not always an effective mechanism for conflict resolution in industries in Nigeria (b) that successful bargaining between management and workers depend on the relative ability of the parties to abide by the agreements reached; and © that the nature of the state affects collective bargaining. Following the findings, the study therefore recommends that employers/management of labour should always endeavour to honour every agreement it enters into in order to instill confidence in workers and make collective bargaining effective. It also suggests that government should re-examine its position with regard to compulsory arbitration and income guidelines.
INTRODUCTION
Collective Bargaining is a method of establishing wages, working conditions and other aspects of employment by means of negotiation between employers and the representatives of employees organized collectively [Abercrombie et al 1980: 45]. It is assumed to be a mechanism for workers participation in industries, extension of the rights of citizenship into the economic sphere and the resolution of conflict in industries. According to Chamberlain N. A. (1995:127), “Bargaining power refers to another person’s inducement to agree on your terms. Or, to put it in another way, your bargaining power is my cost of disagreeing on your terms. This ratio measures the extent of my inducement to accept what you propose. Similarly, my bargaining power is your cost of disagreeing on my terms relative to your cost of agreeing on my terms.” This presupposes that Collective Bargaining is a process of decision making with an overriding purpose, the negotiation of an agreed set of rules to govern both the substantive and procedural terms of the employment relationship between the bargaining parties [management and union] themselves. The substantive terms regulate the wages and working conditions or other employment relationships while the procedural terms regulate the procedure that the parties intend to follow in settling their disputes or other aspects of their collective relation.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
There are many theories, which attempt to explain social relations in industries. But Farnham and Pilmot (1983:50-70) have categorized these theories into four perspectives thus: the Unitary Perspective, the Systems Perspective, the Class Analysis/Marxian Perspective, and the Industrial Conflict Perspective.
The Unitary perspective conceives every work organization as an integrative harmonious whole, which exists for a common goal. It sees the role of labour as complementary to that of capital. The manager has the responsibility of giving order and exercising authority, while the worker has to comply in order to achieve the common goal of increased productivity of the industry. More so, employees are not expected to challenge managerial decisions or the right to manage, while trade unionism is viewed as an illegitimate intrusion into the unified and co-operative structure of the work place. This perspective is pro-management biased and cannot adequately account for the sources of conflict as well as change in industrial relations structure.
DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS
The study makes use of certain concepts, which need explanation. This is due to the relativity of concepts and the meaning, which are given to phenomena by individuals because of their perception and ideological disposition. The definition will therefore remove ambiguity and make room for easy comprehension of the study. Some of these concepts explained are: industrial conflicts, power, trade union, Nigerian Labour Congress and so on.
a) Industrial Relations: this covers the relationship in employment and the institution associated with it. For the purpose of this study, we adopt the political economy approach, which sees industrial relations as an inevitable spin off of capitalist relations of production, in which the interest of capital and labour are diametrically opposed. It is a pleasant term for the permanent conflict either overt or covert existing between capital and labour. It refers to the process of control by capital and resistance from labour.
b) Industrial Conflict: this is conflict that takes place within an industrial organization, where the parties involved in competition wants to occupy the position of the other irrespective of the fact that they are aware of the incompatibility of their interests. March and Simeon see it as a break down in the standard mechanisms of decision making so that the individual of group of individuals experience difficulties in selecting alternative causes of action. However, for the purpose of this study, we see industrial conflict as the overt and covert antagonistic manifestation of grievance(s) in the work place between management and workers (most times) arising from either management or workers non-compliance with or misinterpretation of the collective agreement jointly reached. In terms of the various forms, which conflicts take in industry, we will concern ourselves with the conflicts between management and union. It is a kind of institutionalized conflict in industrial organization, which is resolved by collective bargaining and or the memorandum of agreement.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
According to Ubeku (1983:157) “labor disputes may be grouped into two types, namely: disputes concerning an individual and disputes concerning the group, the union. In some cases, the dispute that begins as an individual dispute can develop into a collective dispute”. The individual dispute may arise when an individual feels that the management is deviating from the laid down procedures and rules that govern workmen, and has deprived him/her of his/her right. While the collective dispute is concerned mainly with the economic matters, except in cases where individual disputes develop into collective disputes. Ubeku shows further that the economic matters that cause collective disputes are those that relate to collective bargaining. “The disputes may arise either because of a breakdown in collective bargaining or may be the result of the interpretation of the collective agreement, or yet other cases, the non implementation of the whole or parts of the agreement”.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
In carrying out this research, the following methods were used for the collection of relevant data thus: Documentary Analysis, Personal Interview, and Non-Participant Observation. The choice of these methods was influenced by the subject matter of the research as well as the period of study.
The subject matter of this research is centered on the examination of the inefficient use of collective bargaining process in resolving the crisis between the workers represented by the Nigerian Labour Congress, and Federal Government. This calls to question the causes of such inefficiency? Are there factors that were not considered in the agreements or in the collective bargaining process? Such questions are not easily answered through cross-sectional survey methods. Even though these questions could easily be asked via such methods, their answers are not likely to illuminate sufficiently the issues and processes that we considered critical to this study because the validity of data collected would be questionable.