The Workplace during Negotiations - Case Study Example

Running Head: CASE STUDY: A PROPOSAL OF RESOLUTION FOR THE WORKPLACE DURING NEGOTIATIONS CASE STUDY: A Proposal of Resolution for the Workplace During Negotiations Name Introduction Conflict is often counterproductive and this aspect is most pronounced when the conflict takes place in the workplace. Instead of aspiring towards more productivity, employees are bogged down by intrigues and issues that drive them apart and jeopardize the employer’s business. At the heart of most conflicts is the failure of communication that results in misunderstanding, hurt feelings and injured pride. A case in issue is the current conflict between the flight attendants of the newly merged United Airlines and Continental Airlines belonging to two unions. As the employee integration is proceeding in the newly merged entity called United, flight attendants belonging to the AFA union, which represented the group in the defunct United Airlines and the flight attendants affiliated with the IAM, the representative union of the group in pre-merger Continental Airlines battle it out at the National Mediation Board by hurling accusations against each other. This runs counter to the very principle of unionizing, whose aim is to present a united front against a much formidable adversary in the person of the employer. This paper looks into the events surrounding the controversy at United involving its divided flight attendants and the instances of failures of communication that triggered it. It also suggests measures that could remedy the deep division between the two warring groups. Case Background In the middle of last year, two of the largest airline companies based in the United States announced a merger creating as a result the world’s biggest airline overtaking all of its closest rivals in both side of the European and North American continents. The merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines under the name United Airlines is predicted to earn a staggering $30bn annual revenue servicing about 144 million passengers in 59 countries. Despite this good news, however, there are quarters that are lukewarm to the consolidation. Consumer groups, for example, are wary that the merger would result in higher fares and less choices. On the other hand, employee unions from both the original UA and CA are worried that this would mean downsizing and lay-offs (Clark 2010). A different conflict involving flight attendants has been brewing, however, within the newly merged company that involves representation issues more than employment benefits concerns. Before the merger of the two airlines, the flight attendants of the defunct UA, numbering about 12,900, were represented by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA hereafter) while the flight attendants of the Continental Airlines, numbering about 8,300, were represented by the International Association of Machinists (IAM hereafter). Even before the Federal Aviation Administration could issue a Single Operating Certificate to the new company, representation issues have already plagued prospects of smooth labor integration and transition. Flight attendants from CA balked at joining their counterparts at the UA in talks for union representation. IAM justified its refusal to difficulty in departing from the status quo, likening it to changing horses in midstream, so to speak, considering that they were already in deep negotiations with CA for a transition package contract. Joining the AFA means discarding that agenda and embracing a unified one that may be different from its goals. On the other hand, AFA justified its position to as stronger voice in negotiating with United (Grenon 2010). In early 2011, AFA petitioned the National Mediation Board (NMB hereafter) to declare the United as a single carrier for the purpose of triggering a union representation election (AFA Initiates Process to Unite All Flight Attendants 2011). This was vehemently opposed by IAM on various grounds. In a resolution dated April 1, 2011, the NMB declared United and Continental (with CMI) as a single transportation system (In the Matter of the Application of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA 2011, pp. 124-197). A representation election was held (Union Election Begins for United-Continental Flight Attendants, 2011), with AFA garnering 11, 942 votes as opposed to IAM’s 9,745 votes (Flight Attendants Negotiation Updates 2011). This did not end the controversy, however, because the following month IAM filed a protest charging both AFA and United of violating NMB election rules (IAM Protests Repeated CWA-AFA and Carrier Misconduct in Flight Attendant Election 2011). AFA filed its response to the IAM allegations on August 5, 2011. To date, the issue remains unresolved as IAM had updated its protest with additional evidence just this month and AFA days ago filing a response (Update on NMB Filing 2011). Analysis of the AFA-IAM Flight Attendants’ Conflict in United Conflict situations often come with certain observable characteristics, according to van der Molen and Hooglar. These characteristics are: the point of difference, which has both rational and emotional aspects; different interests that necessarily conflict with each other; mutual dependence of the protagonists with each other, which is why the conflict is pronounced because it intervenes with the harmony that should characterize, for all purposes, between them; the power distribution is uneven that could have contributed to ill-will by one party or the tendency to dominate by the other, and time pressure or the lack of adequate time for both parties to thoroughly discuss their differences and come to an agreement leading to a forced solution that eventually leaves both parties dissatisfied (2005, pp. 116-117). The AFA and IAM unions for the flight attendants conflict largely stems from turf issues. AFA, for example, prided itself of being the first labor union representing flight attendants in 1945 under its old name ALSA (More than Half a Century of Milestones 2011). IAM, on the other hand, is a broad coalition of machinists, aerospace workers and workers numbering about 720,000 located all over North America (Headquarters 2010). Aside from their long histories, both unions, with their respective goals and agenda, had long fought for their rights and privileges before the merger, respectively with UA and CA. It has been bandied around that the numerically lesser group of IAM enjoyed higher salary and better benefits than its counterpart. In an IAM brochure for luring membership, the group claims to have 26% and 46% higher domestic and per diem rates than their AFA counterparts at the old UA as well as better working conditions and benefits (IAM United 2011) while AFA, the largest flight attendant union, claims to have been negotiating for the best contracts for flight attendants. It is evident that the conflicting point of interest between the two groups do not only stem from perceived differences in goals, but also from pride. Moreover, an evident lack of communication between the two groups triggered and fueled the conflict. Initially, AFA announced that it wanted the representation issue resolved as fast as possible to use it as a clout in negotiating with the newly formed United Airlines. On the other hand, IAM wanted to delay the process so it does not interfere with an ongoing negotiation with CA for a transition period bargain. This is the point of conflict between the two groups, which stoked the fire when AFA unilaterally petitioned the NMB for a declaration of a single carrier system without reaching a consensus with IAM. AFA with its bigger membership, is perceived to have the upper hand perhaps forcing IAM on a defensive stance. Evidently, the conflict between the two groups is highlighted by the fact that both are supposedly on the same side of the fence opposite United. Employees get the best bargain from management when they present a unified front in dealing with the employer and the present situation at United is far from ideal threatening employee integration and the flight attendants’ bargaining power vis-à-vis the UA management. Finally, both groups were under pressure by the perceived lack of time. AFA wanted to act immediately and forced a union election representation to use it as leverage against the employer, but the IAM wanted also time to exact their demands from CA. Evidently, effective communication primarily triggered the conflict. The Role of Communication in Conflict Resolution: The United Case According to Donohue and Kolt, conflict is “A situation in which independent people express (manifest or latent) differences in satisfying their individual needs and interests and they experience interference from each other in accomplishing these goals” (qtd. Doherty & Guyler 2008, p. 47). Conflicts are often brought about by certain attitudes that parties adopt such as tribalism as opposed to universalism, demonization as opposed to contextual rationalization and forgiveness, moralism as opposed to shared fault and responsibility, zero-sum fallacy as opposed to win-win, fight/flight as opposed to appeasement and call to battle as opposed to call for peace (Mnookin p. 18). Tribalism refers to the ‘us v. them’ stance usually characterizing group attitudes where members of the other groups are considered strangers not to be trusted and favored, while demonization is the perception that the other is ‘evil’ simply because they are outsiders (Mnookin p. 19). For both union groups to come to terms with each other, they must put aside tribalism, and concede that they are all on the same side now. Conflict is only sustained when both parties insist on taking a position that results in divisiveness rather than establishing the things and attitude that can encourage unity. Doherty and Guyler (2008) suggest undergoing both a reconstructing and deconstructing process. Deconstructing entails gaining understanding of the issues that have caused the conflict and this can only be done through communication. Conflicts are often complicated – a layer of issues and misunderstanding on top of other issues and misunderstandings resulting in a build-up of a larger conflict. To unravel these complex heaps of issues that triggered the conflict, exhaustive and careful communication must be undertaken to reveal the real and root issues. Moreover, such a deconstruction process must stay away from emotionally charged discussions, and must seriously attempt to discuss fact-based issues involving the needs and interests of each group (p. 49). The AFA-IAM flight attendants’ conflict evidently proceeded from failure of communication. AFA hastily pursued a sole carrier declaration at the NMB without having reached a consensus first with IAM flight attendants. Subsequently, accusations were hurled against each other further deepening the fracture, which could have been avoided had the parties engaged first in exhaustive discussions threshing out their positions and objections. Since this is already water under the bridge, the parties must repair whatever damage had resulted by engaging in exhaustive talks where both present their respective interests and try to come to reach the middle ground as much as possible. IAM maybe the minority, but its membership is by no means insubstantial and is capable of throwing a monkey wrench anytime in AFA’s path. Deconstructing as a means of reconstructing relationships does not end in discovering the factual issues that underpin the conflict, but must be followed by positive reconstruction methods. This involves bringing back respect, discovering shared and common interests and reframing the ground. Restoring respect entails the ability to listen honestly to each other and understanding the other’s position while discovering commonalities simply involves finding common grounds from which both parties could start from. Finally, reframing the ground means veering away from the confrontational and divisive positions into a position that is satisfactory to both parties. All of these steps involve effective communication – the ability to listen, willingness to understand and talk with candor, but with objectivity. Put another way, reframing simply means going from “I” to “we” (Doherty and Guyler 2008, pp. 49-50). Effective communication is the key to mending the relationship between AFA and IAM as well as the willingness to understand and respect each other. This is not really difficult considering that achieving such an end will evidently benefit both parties as they are now both on the same side of the fence. As long established and experienced union groups, it will not be difficult for both to realize that unity will make their goals easier to achieve than putting on a disunited front, which can be easily exploited by their common employer. However, it is also important that both parties honestly negotiate with each other to reach a compromise without being forced to accept the other’s position simply to settle the conflict. An effective negotiation is one where both parties endeavor to push for their respective interest and at the same time maintain a cordial and respectful attitude towards each other. It is positioning between one’s own interest and the other’s interest. Concessions should be made by both sides because it is important for both AFA and IAM flight attendants to come to an agreement so as not to jeopardize the entire flight attendant employees. Conclusion At the heart of most conflicts is the failure of the parties to communicate and the AFA-IAM union conflict involving flight attendants at the newly formed United is no different. When the much larger AFA group unceremoniously filed for declaration of single transportation carrier after the merger of UA and CA, without gaining the consensus of the other group, IAM, both parties had been involved in accusations and counter-accusations since then. Several months after the NMB had declared AFA the winner in the representation election, AFA is still engaged in writing and filing its response to IAM charges in the NMB. When this conflict will finally end is not certain, but what is certain is these groups must come together for the sake of the flight attendants of United whose future lie in the hands of a united flight attendants union. References (2011) Flight Attendant Election Set to Conclude. IAM. http://ll23394u.org/localnews.php?post_id=66. (2011) Flight Attendants Negotiation Updates. AFA. http://www.unitednegotiations.com/employees/flight-attendants/negotiations-updates/. (2011) IAM Protests Repeated CWA-AFA and Carrier Misconduct in Flight Attendant Election. IAM. http://ll23394u.org/localnews.php?post_id=69. (2011) IAM United. http://famergermatters.org/public_html/PDFs/IAM_UNITED_BOOK_rev8_final_final.p df. (2010) Headquarters. IAM. http://www.goiam.org/index.php/headquarters. (2011) In the Matter of the Application of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA. National Mediation Board. http://www.iamnow.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/UAL.FA.SCR_.pdf. (2011) Union Election Begins for United-Continental Flight Attendants. CWA. http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/union_election_begins_for_united- continental_flight_attendants#.TnR68llK6rk. (2011) Update on NMB Filing, AFA. http://www.unitedafa.org/news/merger/details.aspx?id=6546. Clark, A. (2010) United and Continental merge to create world’s biggest airline. TheGuardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/17/united-continental-merger-agreement. Doherty, N. and Guyler, M. (2008). The Essential Guide to Workplace Mediation & Conflict Resolution: Rebuilding Working Relationships. Kogan Page Publishers. Grenon, A.(2010) Union Dispute Could Slow Integration at United Air. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/06/us-united-idUSTRE6954HJ20101006. Mnookin, R. (2010) Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight. Simon and Schuster. Van de Molen, H. and Gramsbergen-Hoogland, Y. (2005) Communication in organizations: basic skills and conversation models. Psychology Press. Read More