The issue of collective bargaining first rose into public consciousness after the Supreme Court verdict in 2007 in favour of the BC health workers and their unions. In doing so it not only awarded the plaintiffs a $100 million in compensation but also recognized collective bargaining as a fundamental right protected by the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Collective Bargaining is defined as "the negotiating process that determines the terms and conditions of employment between an employer or employers' association and a collective group of employees, or their representatives". As a concept it is designed to protect the rights of individual employees in terms of job security, working conditions and income. In collectively representing employees it bring in the persuasion factor of majority consensus and the might of a unified workforce. This is a significant bargaining tool and it is not hard to see why employers have traditionally shied away if not actively opposed the institutionalisation and legalisation of collective bargaining.
The foundations of this thinking were laid in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 where negotiators agreed fundamentally that labour peace was the foundation for world peace. This is turn gave rise to the setting up of an International Labour Organisation whose responsibility it was to ensure that working conditions were regulated in a manner that would mitigate the risk of social unrest. As a basic human right it is enshrined in the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) adopted at The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation convened by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights in 1949 and brought into force in July 1951. .
Most recently, in March 2011, the International Commission for Labour Rights a non-profit organisation based in New York sent a statement to Wisconsin legislators stating in no uncertain terms that denying state workers the right to collective bargaining violated international law and the US constitution.. This document outlines the positions of major government and legal bodies across the globe in recognising the right to collective bargaining, including the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court verdict in 2007.
Traditionally, before March 2007, collective bargaining in Canada has been perceived as a “modern right” a right that arose out of the current economic climate and evolution of business rather than a fundamental human right. This left room for political manoeuvring and allowed legislation like the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act which precipitated the litigation by the health care unions. Since in Canada the legislation for collective bargaining was decentralised, it was also incumbent on individual provinces to decide how they legislated collective bargaining. The verdict from this case clearly raised the status of the right of collective bargaining from a modern right to a fundamental right and in doing so has brought about a sea change in the way this is viewed in Canada.
The right to collective bargaining seems to tilt the power equation strongly in favour of the labour unions. With a say in not just the issues that affect employee work conditions but also in the way these issues are administered it would seem that there is no downside to the unions’ position. Since these are also legally binding on both parties it is a powerful ideology and practice. As with all situations the true trial of the role of unions and union leaders arises in crises situations. When it comes to the crunch of balancing employee benefits and work conditions with ensuring profitability of business how will the unions vote. Will union leaders be mature enough to truly appreciate the business dynamics that necessitate cost cutting initiatives? If, in order to maintain profitability and productivity, the best business outcome is to reduce employee headcount and to curb employee benefits, will the unions be able to participate in, support and indeed implement some of these measures. If these questions are answered in the affirmative then it would mean that it is critical to business to not just ensure that unions are recommended, but indeed required by law.
The onus of the management in the environment of legalised collective bargaining seems to be one of the underdog. Held to ransom, with the Damocles sword of strike hanging over their heads they seem to be at the mercy of union leaders and union demands. Managing employee relations and union relations is therefore the most difficult and the most crucial of leadership competencies. While this may seem like an untenable situation for employers to work within, there is certain usefulness to labour unions if they are managed effectively. In theory it is the most effective model of self-governance and is designed to ensure that there is true participation in decision making between employer and employee. In a situation of high trust it may also be the most effective channel for early warning signals that can foretell and therefore forearm organisations against major crises. In crises situations the wise use of unions and union leaders as go-betweens may also insulate the upper management from the more unpleasant tasks of identifying who stays and who goes.
Essentially the position of all international legal bodies cited seems to be in agreement, upholding the fundamental right of all workers to collective bargaining. The argument against collective bargaining seems then to boil down to the fundamental difference in every single management vs. employee conflict. How do you maintain profitability in tough economic scenarios? In order to sustain the profitability and indeed the very existence of the organism that in the long term guarantees that the majority will have jobs to come back to, the management sometimes needs to make tough decisions. The consequences of these decisions could very well mean that employees will need to take cut backs. One may argue that in such a situation the role of collective bargaining bodies may be to negotiate a settlement that favours both parties. Historically, however, in such situations it is often human emotion and the protectionist attitude of defending one’s own turf that come into play and unless leaders on both sides of the table are extremely mature, this utopian equation is never achieved.
With all such arguments then the issue is always about legalisation and regulation. By ensuring that collective bargaining is recognised as a basic human right and bound by legislation, organisations are forced to think through their strategy for managing employee and union relations. By carrying out these deliberations in non-crises situations with cooler heads and in consensus with union leaders they will be able to chart out the actions that will be taken when crises arise. They will outline the various steps that both sides will take in these situations. They will work out the expectations from both sides and identify the roles of each of the parties. In doing so they will achieve in theory at least that ideal that collective bargaining aims for – a true collaboration between employees and employers that seeks to protect the interests of both the organisation and the people that make the organisation what it is, more than just a building or a brand but a group of people working together to achieve a common purpose and vision.
Works Cited
Canadian Labour Relations. n.d. 25 june 2012.
International Commission for Labour Rights. n.d. Website. 25 June 2012.
Office of the United Nations High Commisioner for Human Rights. n.d. Document. 25 June 2012.
