Introduction
Practitioners and scholars consider workplace relations as part of the core elements of any industrial relations system. With regard to the nature of this relationship, scholars who seek to explain why certain things such as conflicts or misunderstandings often take place in this relationship have developed a number of theories.
In a broad sense, there are three perspectives that seek to explain the nature of the employment relationship. These are the Unitarist perspective, the Marxist perspective, and the Pluralist perspective. According to each of these perspectives, certain assumptions exist with the purpose of clarifying the type of the relationship between the employer and employees (Abbot 2006, p. 187).
This paper aims at discussing how the traditional employment relationship theories that rely on the three perspectives help in understanding of the conflicts that often occur in the modern Australian workplace.
Employment relations in Australia
Several competing theoretical views are present in the discipline of employment relations. As posited by Bray et al. (2009, p.5), employment relations is a complex aspect that should not be taken lightly. This assertion perhaps, may be confirmed by recent strikes in Australia.
Some of these strikes include the 22 September 2011 strike, by more than 3000 workers in Toyota Australia, who were against a proposed wage increase, which does not match the ever-increasing annual cost of living. Another outstanding strike occurred in Qantas Airlines, on 29 October last year, after workers went on a go-slow in opposition of a proposed outsourcing plan and restructuring which would undoubtedly lead to job cuts across the region.
The different perspectives and the traditional employment relation theories therein help in the understanding of the various concepts and activities such as conflicts that are involved in the employment relationship in the Australian workplace. The 2006 amendment of the Workplace Relations Act of 1996 cemented the categorization of Australian workplace conflicts despite its being considered as artificial by Abbot (2006, p. 195) since even most of the interpersonal conflicts experienced recently are based on the perception of a right.
According to Bray et al. (2009, p. 12), non-union employee representation within the country can be the major concern for management if there is no potential for any development. A huge number of neoclassical economists hold the claim that trade unions in Australia are responsible for the unnecessary increasing costs of labour, as well as the marring productivity (Dabscheck 2005, p. 145).
However, one should note that, regardless of the perspectives that given scholars and practitioners take in explaining the employment relations, in most instances, the common conclusion is that harmonious relationships between the workers and employers, as well as the perfect management of conflicts in the Australian workplace, always lead to an increase in productivity (Astor, & Chickin 2002, p. 37)
Traditional perspectives and theories of employment relations
Unitarism
Unitarists often assume that workplace conflict is not an inevitable component or characteristic of the relationship between employers and employees in the work environment (Astor & Chickin 2002, p.38). However, the school of thought does not despise the fact that conflicts usually occur in the workplace (Ackers 1994, p.38).
While conflicts may occur at given times between the workers and the employers, the unitarists hold the claim that such cases are aberrations in the relationship that should otherwise be cooperative (Abbot 2006, p. 188). According to this perspective, common interests of ensuring that the organisation is stable bind the managers / employers and employees.
The divisions and the conflicts that occur in the workplace are because of individual flaws such as personality disorders, flaws in the recruitment and promotion practices, as well as poor communication between the involved parties (Dabscheck 2005, p. 60). In this regard, the organisation is promoted to serve as the only source of authority over the workforce, and alternative power sources such are trade unions are completely discouraged, and eliminated (Ackers 1994, p. 39).
Scientific management theory
The assumptions and the values held by unitarism have led to the development of Taylor’s scientific development theory, which plays a crucial role in expounding the nature of the conflicts in the modern Australian workplace (Niland 2010, p.87). According to this theory, the employment relations choices of the management rely upon the assumption employees are utterly incompetent in their thinking and planning which is often self-centred in nature (Abbot 2006, p.190).
Much as this is always in conflict with the aspirations and plans of the organisation, direct and highly rigid measures are applied in an effort to ensure no outward manifestation of the tensions that emanate from within because of the activities of the employees (Rimmer 1997, p.74).
Employees are treated impersonally and collectively, which makes most trade unionists abhor this system (Keenoy, & Kan 2008, p.8). The main aim of the management approach under this theory towards the employment relationship is to ensure that internal tension is completely suppressed (Niland 2010, p. 89).
Based on this theory, most of the recent cases of workplace conflict have been between the managers and the employees over performance or even the terms and conditions of employments (Niland 2010, p.89). Industrial strikes are this case the only way to broker discussions with the employers (Wooden 2011, p. 256).
The human relations theory
The ability of the individual to achieve self-fulfilment in the organisation is the main force that deals with conflicts in the modern day workplace according to this theory. People view and treat workers differently from the other resources used in the production process (Frazer 2005, p. 59).
In cases whereby the workers are limited by the nature of the employment relationship to act autonomously and think creatively by being treated as extensions to the machinery, they often find ways to subvert the system, thus, resulting to conflicts (Abbot 2006, p. 193).
For instance, in the Australian companies that employ the scientific management theory, conflicts are inevitable and worker turnover rates are extremely high because of the efforts employed by the workers to subvert the system (Keenoy, & Kelly 2008, p. 12). Management under this school of thought has the responsibility of manipulating the workplace relations in manners that ensure that every employee feels satisfied by being able to participate in the growth of the organisation.
Pluralism
Pluralists differ from the Unitarists in the sense that their assumptions and values rely on the claim that conflicts in the workplace are inevitable (Abbot 2006, p.192). Trade union can represent the workers or they can also face their employers individually (Frazer 2005, p. 60). However, conflicts are a common occurrence in the modern day Australian workplace.
A central claim held by a majority of the proponents of this perspective is that complex social constructions made up of different interest groups make up the organization (Abbot 2006, p. 193). The employers/ managers and employees are perceived as among members of different interest groups whose values and objectives are utterly different (Niland 2010, p. 91).
As a result, there is always the probability of the onset of conflicts between the existing sources of authority in the organisation over the nature of the work tasks, as well as the nature and the quantity of the allocated rewards or compensation (Campling, & Gollan 2009, p. 46).
The acknowledgement of the opposing sources of authority such as shop stewards and trade unions offer a benefit in that it enables the organisations to deal with the employment relationship issues in a collective manner (Abbot 2006, p. 194). The ways in which the Australian organisations engage conflicts that arise because of the tensions between employers and employees through the mediation of trade unions can be understood from the pluralist point of view (Bray et al. 2009, p. 46).
Systems theory
The systems theory, which draws from the pluralist perspective, provides a clear hint into the understanding of the nature of the conflicts in the modern day Australian workplace. The theory holds the claim that industrial relations can be best understood if regarded as a sub-system of a wider social system (Turner, & Weed 2003, p. 252).
A wide range of norms, rules, and regulations govern the type of the work done in an organization (Bray et al. 2009, p. 48). This ranges from the recruitment process, performance, wages, work hours, and leaves among others (Sappey et al. 2006, p. 166). According to Abbot (2006, p. 195), the theory posits that the industrial actors forge the rules under the inspiration of the wider environmental contexts in which they exist.
A common interest unites them and this influences them to maintain the negotiation processes and conflict resolution measures. Several rules regarded as ‘a web of rules’ monitor closely the employment relationship whose success is also experienced by the wider social system (Sappey et al. 2006, p. 168). In the light of this theory, the Australian fair Work Act, as articulated by the government to safeguard the employment relationship, can be understood.
The strategic choice theory
This theory is an extension of the systems theory, and further develops itself to accommodate a number of changes in the contemporary practice of industrial relations. Such changes are responsible for understanding of the manner in which managers handle issues in the modern Australian workplace (Dabscheck 2005, p. 59).
Among these changes is the decline in union membership and the emergence of other industries that are not covered with the unions. This is a common occurrence in the Australian corporate world now (Wooden 2011, p. 246). A second change can be perceived through considering the manner in which collective bargaining platforms and outcomes involving trade unions are continuously being altered (Abbot 2006, p.250).
The third one is the development of new management practices that encourage information sharing, workplace cooperation, performance based incentive plans and the forging of autonomous work teams (Abbot 2006, p. 297). According to the theory, the emergence of these changes has made matters of industrial relations far more complex than they were traditionally perceived (Turner, & Weed 2003, p. 251).
Marxism
Despite the fact that the Marxist frame of reference may seem redundant considering the collapse of communism and the demise of radical thinking in the West, some theories based on it are still influential when it comes to revealing the nature of the conflicts in the modern Australian workplace (Wooden 2011, p. 261). Among the most influential employment relations, theory under the Marxist perspective is the labour process theory.
The labour process theory
The labour process theory draws prominently upon the economic assumptions that capitalistic modes of management are very exploitative and prone to conflict (Abbot 2006, p. 198). The theory, which argues that the conversion of raw materials into products through the use of labour and machinery is the key role of any form of management, can be used in an effort to understand the sources of most industrial conflicts that are experienced in the modern day Australian workplace.
Trade unions represent the employees who form the labour force in engaging the owners of the means of production in radical measures to ensure that the workers are not treated as equals of machinery and to ensure their work is fairly compensated (Sappey et al. 2006, p.172). Radical industrial strikes as those experienced recently in the Australian mining industry are a form of workplace conflict that can be understood in the light of this theory (Wooden 2011, p.255).
Conclusion
Through an analysis of the traditional employment relations theories, the conflict in the modern day Australian workplace can be understood better. Although the different perspectives taken by practitioners and scholars in discussing the nature of the employment relationship vary, a common conclusion that the harmonious existence of the parties involved in the relationship results to organisational growth can be drawn from each one of them (Astor, & Chickin 2002, p 37).
Different organisations in Australia are informed by the different theories of employment relations, which explain the varying nature of the conflicts therein. It is through a keen analysis of the traditional theories of employment relations such as those aligned to Unitarist, the pluralist, and the Marxist frames of reference that conflict in the Australian workplace can be best understood (Niland 2010, p. 90).
List of References
Abbot, K 2006, ‘A Review of Employment Relations Theories and Their Application’, Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 187-198.
Ackers, P 1994, ‘Back to basics? Industrial relations and the enterprise culture’, Employee Relations, vol. 16 no. 8, pp. 32-37.
Astor, H & Chickin, C 2002, Dispute Resolution in Australia, LexisNexis, Butterworths, Sydney.
Bray, M, Waring, P, & Cooper, R 2009, Employment Relations: Theory and Practice, McGraw Hill, Sydney.
Campling, J & Gollan, P 2009, Bargained Out: Negotiating Without Unions in Australia, The Federation Press, Sydney.
Dabscheck, B 2005, The Struggle for Australian Industrial Relations, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Frazer, A 2005, Trade unions under compulsory arbitration and enterprise bargaining: a historical perspective, Federation Press, Sydney.
Keenoy, T & Kelly, D.2008, The Employment Relationship in Australia, Thomson Inc, Southbank.
Niland, J 2010, Transforming Industrial Relations, A Green Paper, Volume II, NSW Government, Sydney.
Rimmer, M 1997, ‘The workplace Relations Act 1996’, An Historical Perspective. Australian Bulletin of Labour, vol. 23 no. 1, pp. 69-81.
Sappey, R, Burgess, J, Lyons, M, & Buultjens, J. 2006, Industrial Relations in Australia, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forrest.
Turner. S & Weed F 2003, Conflict in Organisations, Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs NJ.
Wooden, M 2011, ‘Industrial Relations Reform in Australia: Causes, Consequences and prospects’, The Australian Economic Review, vol. 34 no. 3, pp. 243-262.