On July 25, the members of the building union at Lend Lease projects in various parts of Australia went on strike. This industrial action was geared towards pushing for a new-fashioned nationwide Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.
The Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU) argued out that the principal reason as to why the employee had gone on strike was a disagreement that had arisen with respect to a dispute in wages, job security and site allowances (Balvane et al 2007, p.2). However, it was reported that negotiations are still under way for a better agreement with Lend Lease.
Nevertheless, CFMEU was to take that the industrial action would be carrying on even for a longer period of time, and the fight with Lend Lease would be hard (Balvane et al 2007, p.4).
Members of the CFMEU opted for this industrial action because they were optimistic as they through that they would be able to secure a decent national Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA). It is thus undeniable that the conflict between the employer and the employees was quite heated (Balvane et al 2007, p.5).
Employment relationship existing between the employer and employees is founded on harmony of interests as well as cooperation between these two parties. Both the employer and the employees work towards realizing shared objectives and goals. However, the achievement of these common goals can be difficult if a conflict exists, as in the case with the CFMEU.
According to the unitarist approach, the CFMEU was collectively opposing the management, which was a sign of irrationality (Dundon & Rollison 2007, p.23). The unitarist approach deems the management to be the sole source of authority, with managerial entitlement to be rational, acceptable and legitimate.
On the basis of this approach, it is arguable that the abovementioned industrial conflict, maturing to an industrial action, was a function of the management dwindling to avail considerable stout leadership. In addition, this conflict might have been caused by the inability of management to communicate its goals in an effective manner (Balvane et al 2007, p.10).
The members of the CFMEU, in the perspective of the unitarist approach, are not loyal to the organisation and have not accepted the management’s authority in appreciation of the shared interests and goals. These members are seemingly competing with the management, distressing the symphonic operations of the organisation at the same time (Balvane et al 2007, p.11).
On the other hand, the pluralist approach explains the CFMEU industrial action in a different perspective. According to this approach, every organisation is made up of individuals whose interests, aims and leadership are divergent (Strauss 2006, p.780). Moreover, the different groups in the organisation ordinary have different and competing goals, and as a result, conflicts within the organisation are not only rational but also inevitable.
The members of the CFMEU are pushing for decent national EBA, and this gives birth to a conflict with the management. Even in the event of a conflict, the pluralist approach puts it clear that the raised issue ought not to damage the interests of the stakeholders (Balvane et al 2007, p.12).
This is ensured through the institution of apposite rules and procedures that power and authority are evenly distributed among the stakeholders. According to the pluralist approach to the conflict, the management is obliged to acknowledge and make efforts to reconcile the stakeholders’ competing interests and goals (Strauss 2006, p.783).
In my view, therefore, the pluralist approach avails a detailed explanation on the CFMEU industrial action. First, this approach appreciates diversity and competing goals of organisations. It also documents the role that the management has to play to ensure that reconciliation is arrived at in regards to the competing interests and objectives (Dundon & Gollan 2007, p.1185).
Furthermore, it recognizes trade unions as valid representatives of employees, facilitating them to bargain over employment terms and conditions as well as to influence the decisions of the management. Through this approach, the role which both the state and the federal industrial tribunals play in determining employment conditions, wages and settlement of industrial disputes is firmly determined (Dundon & Gollan 2007, p.1190).
References
Balnave, N, Brown, J, Maconachie, G, & Stone, RJ 2007, Employment Relations in Australia, John Wiley & Sons, Australia.
Dundon, T, & Gollan, PJ 2007, ‘Reconceptualising Voice in the Non-Union Workplace’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol.18, no.7, pp.1182-1198.
Dundon, T, & Rollison, D 2007, Understanding Employment Relations, McGraw Hill Higher Education, Maidenhead.
Strauss, G 2006, ‘Work Participation- Some Under-Considered Issues’, Industrial Relations, A Journal of Economy and Society, vol.45, no.4, pp.778-803