Background of the Conflict

New South Wales Train workers strike dispute was one of the most recent disputes that saw those involve coming into the war of words. There were various parties that were involved in the dispute and the most affected was the transport. Some of those that were part of the strike dispute were workers that were represented by their union, train management, the government, Fair Work Commission and commuters. These parties presented their demands with each bringing increment percentage through the suggestion of negotiation. The whole dispute resulted in argument as Fair Work Commission threatens workers to call off strike since the strike is not protected with the constitution. The dispute also shows various positions taken by each party during dispute and dispute resolution process. For instance, the pro-government organizations assumed control position while workers are subjective and collaborative position during the dispute. The following paper, therefore, seeks to explore the interrelationship between various parties within the strike dispute citing position taken by each group.       

New South Wales Train workers strike puzzles many people within the labor sector of the country early 2018. The strike notice that issued by the workers union on 16^th January 2018 as they indicated that negotiation attempts with the government or train management were not fruitful. The main issues that resulted in the strike notice were paid increment that was issued by workers against their train management that is their employer. Those parties that were involved in the conflict had their point of argument with workers through their union demanded 6% pay increase and better working conditions while the government through train management offered 2.5% pay increment. Workers, therefore, indicated the government was not willing to come to the negotiation table and had no option but to strike. Some of the parties that were involved in the conflict were trained workers mainly composes of Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), train management and the government, Fair Work Commission, commuters and NSW Treasury.

There are many different points of dispute that were presented by each party during the train workers dispute that occurred early 2018. Some of the points of dispute include a pay increase, better working conditions, wage policies, and parties rights. The point presented by these parties involved in dispute also shows the interrelationship between these parties that were involved in the dispute.

The pay increase was the main point of conflict as various parties within the dispute presented their own demand for negotiation. The negotiation process between various parties that were involved in the dispute became contentious with each party taking their own stance.  Firstly, the first party during the dispute was the workers union that composes of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) strongly presented their own demand before the negotiation. This cause the negotiation that was supposed to commence to delay causing the union to issue a strike notice to commence on January 29. The union indicated that the Sydney Trains and NSW Trains management refused to negotiate what to their view was a fair agreement.  Moreover, the union indicated that due to failed negotiation, commuters are given chance to make their own arrangement when the strike commences. During the negotiation, the union maintains that their demand was 6 percent increase of pay. This was highly refuted by the management that offered a 2.5 percent pay increase (Georgina, 2018).

Pay Increase

Secondly, the train management is another party that was within the dispute that arose fro demand of pay increase leading to the strike. The train management together with the government maintains that there is the amount of salary that can be increased in contrast to that of the workers union that demanded more pay increase (Visentin & O’Sullivan, 2018). There were many different applications that were made by the train to prevent workers from striking due to a pay increase. The train management is also related to the government since the training department is directly linked to treasury and ministry of labor. This train management was part of a dispute where it serves as the employer of workers that demanded the pay increase. The government through the ministry of labor indicated that the pay rise demand should be brought on the table for discussion. Moreover, the government also gave the union a condition that in order to negotiate with them, the organization needs to call off the strike and instead resume work without chaos. The government through the NSW Treasury also presented the overall effect of a strike if at all the strike will precede and this was to convince the union to cancel the strike (Barchiesi, 2014).

Another area of concern that those workers brought for discussion was better working conditions as they demand better working condition.  The union argues that they were working hard despite the poor working condition. In addition, the union also indicated that its members have been on the forefront of serving commuters as compared to other workers yet the government through train management was unwilling to negotiate for the better working condition with workers. The government on their side showed that they were willing to negotiate better pay but under the policy framework that also restricts the amount that is required by the policy. Moreover, the government also show that the union and their members should put workers first and call off strike a move that was refuted by the train workers union. To the union, there was no option but to strike and paralyze the train transport. Fair Work Commission within the context of better working condition that was demanded by the train worker union, the organization advised that the union should call off the strike and instead foster negotiation (Zhang, 2014).

The wage policy was another point of conflict that attracted a lot of dispute that leads to train workers calling a strike. Sydney Trains and NSW Trains management maintained that the wage policy required them to only increase the wage by 2.5 percent as compared to that of the workers union that demanded 6 percent increase in wage (Australian Associated Press, 2018). Before issuing the strike notice, workers union indicated that the wage Sydney Trains and NSW Trains management were unwilling to negotiate on their demand and instead presented their own offer of the wage increase. The government is one of those that were involved in the strike dispute argue that those wage policies that were formulated require a specific increment of wage and therefore recommended 2.5% increase. This poor view of the wage policy was refuted by the union representing workers as they see this move by the management and government as refusing to negotiate with workers (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2018).  

Better Working Condition

The basic right of the strike was another point of dispute during the strike as each party had their own view on the right of workers to strike. According to the workers union, the strike was according to the laws, rights, and rule that pertains the strike within the country. Sydney Trains and NSW Trains management, on the other hand, view the strike as unprotected and caution those striking to face the law as required. The government therefore mad different application with the industrial relations to stop the strike before its occurrence but the move was downplayed as workers were within their right to strike. In addition, workers being bound by the labor laws within the country are obliged to respect the rule of law. This was the main argument of the government through the ministry of labor (Howe & Tess, 2012).

Another organization that was also involved in the dispute and show a good relationship within the dispute was the Fair Work Commission. On their stance, the organization also caution the worker union from striking as that was an unprotected strike and with limited right to strike. The union, on the other hand, expresses their adherence to the law that is applied during strike within the country. The organization came to tries and convinces the workers union to call off the strike and continue working. Fair Work Commission tried all means to stop the strike through a various application that claimed that the right channel of industrial action was not followed by workers (NSW Ombudsman, 2014).

There are many theories that can best describe the position that is taken by various parties that involved in the disputes that affected the train service within the country. Various theories of industrial relation show the position taken those parties that are involved in the dispute, industrial action, and resolution. Some of the common industrial relations theories include unitary theory, pluralism, radical theory, and Marxist theory.

Firstly, during the dispute, the union exemplified the pluralist theory where they presented their union as a representative. The union negotiated on the behalf of their clients and presented the demands of train workers. The union took the position that their rights must be respected and their demand arrived at by both the government and the train management. Moreover, the union shows the coordination, communication and persuasive position on the behalf of their members that were the main subject of dispute. The union also presented their member’s demands to the negotiation table bearing the fact that it’s their primary responsibility to negotiate on the member’s behalf. Moreover, workers in the view of pluralist theory believe in the inevitable aspect of industrial action and therefore shown that industrial action is the only option. Workforce also believed in the radical theory of industrial relation that shows the need for industrial action as opposed to Marxist theory (Budd & Bhave, 2008).

Wage Policy

Management of the train occupies the control position and this also goes with the unitary theory of industrial relations. In this dispute, the management shows their control of the workforce and instead of negotiation directed the train workers to resume work. In addition, the management and the government occupied the controlling position and maintained their position during the dispute. The management viewed the strike as unprotected and contradicts the requirement of the constitution or work policy. Management furthermore, indicated that the right to be considered first is the right of commuter and not workers. This highly angered worker that shown their commitment to strike and had no other option besides strike (Farnham, 2008).

Fair Work Commission is also another party that was also involved in the dispute with the organization occupying control position. The organization also seems to apply the theory that is characterized by authoritarian reasoning and therefore orders workers to go back to work. The organization instead of calling for the negotiation, it resort to ordering the workers union to call off the strike and continue with work as usual. This is characteristic of the Unitarian theory that shows the organization that is in control of workers and always aims to remain authoritative over works. This is also evident by their argument of the threat to the economy that the strike presented to the county and particularly cited economic implications (Befort & Budd, 2009).

In light of various position that each party involves in the dispute taken during the dispute, there is some recommendation on the expected behaviors during such a dispute. The industrial relations conflict is one of the most common disputes that require a good approach to ensure that the conflict does not escalate to the worst situation. Therefore, there are those some adjustments that need to be made to ensure proper dispute resolution.

Firstly, the government and the train management showed their control position that needs some adjustment. The government and the train management seem to be threatening workers striking and this should not be the case. During the dispute, those involved in the dispute need to presents their side of negotiation to the table to avoid conflict. The government, therefore, needs to treat workers with undermost respect and this is also shown through the theory of pluralism (Kontominas, 2018).

Secondly, workers as one of the key parties in the conflict need some adjustment that can help foster conflict resolution during industrial action. Workers have a strong position that they were unwilling to change as they demand payment rise from the government through train management. As employees that are obliged to be loyal to their employer need to embrace peaceful negotiation and should resort to industrial action as the last option. This can help in speeding up the negotiation process to avoid any chaos as witnessed in the NSW (Norwood, 2012).

Basic Right to Strike

Thirdly, the position that the Fair Work Commission took during the dispute needs some adjustment as they maintain that the strike was not protected and ordered those striking workers to call off the strike. The organization needs to listen to workers and their demand before making a conclusion as this shows authoritarian reasoning of those in power. The view is not helpful in case of industrial dispute that is solved through mutual agreement of all parties involved. Listening to others also make the negotiation process possible as the organization can also act as arbitrator between workers and the train management (Victorian Ombudsman, 2017).   

Lastly, all parties that are involved in the payment dispute should be willing to come for negotiation as this help in preventing any problem arising from the strike. Despite the problem that is due to each party having their own perspective and demand for the dispute, all should be willing to bring to the table their demands. This is important for solving dispute since it indicates the willingness to find a solution. In the case of train workers strike, the government refused to come for negotiation and instead offering an option that is way below the demand of workers (Calveley, Allsop, Rocha & Huesmann, 2017).

In conclusion, the industrial action remains one of the most challenging issues that have an adverse impact on the economy of a country. The industrial dispute that occurred between NSW train workers and the train management is one such dispute that proved care is needed when such situation arose. The main contentious issues were the pay increment that was demanded by the workers union on behalf of workers. The government took a stance position that reduces the chance of agreement between the workers and government through train management. There are also some theories that can best describe the position that is taken by each party that was involved in the dispute.

There are common ideas that are presented by students in the class that pertains to the industrial relations. The idea that was selected is the slide number 4

The Human resource management approach to the employment relationship is great in theory, employment relationships can be harmonious. However, the Train disruptions in January 2018 (McGowen, 2018, para. 1) indicated that further theories based on conflict are essential when examining employment relationships.  Conflict is evident in all relationships and therefore must be catered for. Pluralist and Radicalism are theories that help to explain how the train dispute in January almost lead to a strike statewide.

Firstly, many students indicate that conflict remains the main tool of industrial action that assists workers to get their demands. These students give some reasons such as the failed agreement between train workers and the government that lead to strike as the only option left for the worker. Secondly, students also believe that negotiation normally fails as some parties within the dispute are not willing to come on the table for negotiations. Some students cite some of the most common fail negotiation between workers and employers that have been witnessed with the country. Thirdly, indicate that Pluralist and Radicalism remains important theories as employers are always oppressive and often unwilling to offer better working conditions for their workers. This make workers resort to conflict as the only alternative to help in the conflict action leading to strike dispute.

The conflict was resolved through available processes and the outcome adopted by both parties. Negotiation is one of the main ideas within the industrial relation of Australia and normally require all parties to come to the negotiation table and present their demands. Many students believe that strike is the only option that is normally left for those willing to get demands. Despite the beliefs that strike is a great tool for gaining demands for the government and other institutions that employ workers, negotiation has proved the best (Whalen, 2008).

Firstly, negotiation has proved to be the best option more than strike since negotiation result in a mutual agreement between parties in conflict. Negotiation ensures that rights of all people involved in the conflict are respected since each party is allowed to present their side or demand that is also counter discussed with other parties arguments. In addition, negotiation when given first priority normally gives the right result as it ensures that chaos does not ensue but instead agreement is reached (Mullins, 2016).

Secondly, understanding the situation at hand within the country is another important aspect that proves strike is not the best industrial action tool. Understanding other parties within the conflict are important as it makes a clear point of discussion during negotiation. Sometimes the economic condition and policies do not allow reaching certain conditions demanded by parties in conflict and this make strike fruitless. For instance, sometimes one party demand high pay increase that cannot be realized based on the economic situation of the employee organization. Understanding this perspective make negotiation easy and strike will remain meaningless as it will not yield demands (Calveley, Allsop, Rocha & Huesmann, 2017).

Based on my experience, negotiation is the best alternative to strike as sometimes strike does not solve issues but instead worsen the situation. For instance, where the employer enjoys laws protection strike does not help solve dispute and negotiation can bring a solution. I think all parties that are involved in strike need to understand each other in terms of rights, prevailing conditions and policies that pertain to employment. This help involving the conflict that normally ensues between employers and employees. In addition, all parties should be willing to come together and discuss the issue of conflict with the belief of finding a solution (Calveley, Allsop, Rocha & Huesmann, 2017).

Reference

Australian Associated Press (Fri 12 Jan 2018). NSW rail workers vote to strike, threatening further pain for Sydney commuters. Workers vow to fight for 6% pay rise at end of the week which saw train network face mass cancellations and delays. Guardian News and Media Limited Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/12/nsw-rail-workers-vote-to-strike-threatening-further-disruptions-for-sydney-commuters

Barchiesi, F. (2014). Conflict, Order, and Change. In Wilkinson, Adrian; Wood, Geoffrey; Deeg, Richard. The Oxford Handbook of Employment Relations: Comparative Employment Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 241–259. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695096.013.011

Before, S. F. & Budd, J. W. (2009). Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law and Public Policy Into Focus. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press

Budd, J. W. & Bhave, D. (2008). Values, Ideologies, and Frames of Reference in Industrial Relations. In Blyton, Paul; Bacon, Nicolas; Fiorito, Jack; Heery, Edmund. The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: SAGE Publications. pp. 92–112. doi:10.4135/9781849200431.n5

Calveley, M., Allsop, D., Rocha L., Huesmann, M. (2017). Managing the Employment Relationship. In Rees, Gary; Smith, Paul E. Strategic Human Resource Management: An International Perspective (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. pp. 281–323.

Fair Work Ombudsman, (2018). Effective dispute resolution: Page reference No: 2386, available at https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/best-practice-guides/effective-dispute-resolution

Farnham, D. (2008). Beatrice and Sidney Webb and the Intellectual Origins of British Industrial Relations. Employee Relations, 30 (5): 534–552. doi:10.1108/01425450810888295

Georgina, M. (2018). No other choice’: NSW train workers to strike for 24 hours over a pay dispute. The Sydney Morning Herald. retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/no-other-choice-nsw-train-workers-to-strike-for-24-hours-over-pay-dispute-20180116-h0j6g8.htmlHowe, J. & Tess, H. (2012). The Use of Enforceable Undertakings as a Strategic Labour Law Compliance Strategy, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, University of Melbourne (draft unpublished 2012), page 1.

Kontominas, B. (2018). NSW rail workers agree to a new pay deal and an end to all industrial action. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-24/nsw-rail-workers-agree-to-pay-deal/9583618

Mullins, L. J. (2016). Management and Organisational Behaviour (11th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Norwood, S. H. (2012). Strikebreaking and Intimidation. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press,

NSW Ombudsman, (2014). Investigating Complaints: A manual for investigators, June 2004, page 74.

Victorian Ombudsman, (2017). Conflict of Interest – Victorian Ombudsman’s Concerns, October 2007.

Visentin, L. & O’Sullivan M. (2018). Fair Work Commission orders NSW rail workers to abandon 24-hour strike.  The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/fair-work-commission-orders-nsw-rail-workers-to-abandon-24hour-strike-20180125-h0o1s1.html

Whalen, C. J., ed. (2008). New Directions in the Study of Work and Employment: Revitalizing Industrial Relations as an Academic Enterprise. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84844-520-8.

Zhang, Y. (2014). The Relationships between Employees and Organizations. In Zhang, Zhi-Xue; Zhang, Jianjun. Understanding Chinese Firms from Multiple Perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. pp. 227–256. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54417-0_9