ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFICACY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS A PATHWAY TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA’S PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Clarification of Collective Bargaining
The very commoditious term of collective bargaining is neither Nigerian nor an African concept. It is Anglo –Saxon and coined in 1891 by Beatrice Webbs in her work on the cooperative movement. Although, no explicit formal definition was given by her, she construed the concept of collective bargaining as an alternative to individual bargaining, covering negotiation between employer and work people, when both parties acted in concert and met in collective will. The term collective bargaining has since undergone some considerable refinements. Flanders (1970) gave a classic definition of collective bargaining as a social process that continually turns disagreement into agreement in an orderly fashion. This definition goes to establish that it is a mechanism for resolving conflict in a controlled manner and method to inculcate civility and equity into work organizations. Within the participation framework, Rose (2008) defined collective bargaining as a process whereby representatives of employees and employers determine and regulate decision pertaining to both substantive and procedure matters in the employment relationship. Operationalizing this, the framework of collective bargaining can be suggested to include activities such as settlement procedures, conflict management and engagement in concordance economic actions. Hence in practice, collective bargaining advocates the resolution of difference (Murton, Inman and Ossullivan, 2010). However, in Nigeria, there is no conventional definition of collective bargaining. But, under the Nigeria law, Section 91 of the Labour Act, 2004, declared it as a process of arriving at or attempting to arrive at collective agreement. This alludes that collective bargaining defines the rights and responsibilities of both labour and management and where successful, produces a collective agreement which is an outcome of resolved conflict. From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that the approach is an essential strategy of industrial rule – making in which management share decision – making with employees in work – organizations.
2.2 Historical Overview of Collective Bargaining Practice in Nigeria’s Public Sector
The origin of collective bargaining was considered to have begun in the public sector, where the modern trade unionism first evolved and nurtured in Nigeria. As Fashoyin (1999) put it, the near absence of the private sector in Nigeria at the turn of the 19th century was responsible. Other scholars (Onah, 2008; Uvieghara, 2001; and Ojo, 1998) corroborated this fact of history, that the genesis of collective bargaining is traceable to the public sector in Nigeria. However, the reverse is the case in the developed nations where collective bargaining gained its roots from the private sector and then moved into the public sector. (Anyim, Elegbede and Gbajumo-Sherrif, 2011). Nevertheless, the first formal attempt of collective bargaining practice in the Nigeria public sector began with Hunt Commission of 1934 and this agency was enlarged in 1942 to include the representatives of workers. But indeed, both the commission and workers body provided no avenues for grievances resolution (Okogwu, 1992). In consequence, the Cowan Commission of 1951 was established and which recommended the setting-up of the Whitely Councils and departments. According to Omole and Adegoke (1997), the Whitley Councils thus became the machinery for collective bargaining in the public sector, while the departments remained as in – house grievance and consultative bodies. Despite this arrangement, various agitations and discontentment witnessed the labour scene at different periods, culminating in the establishment of numerous commissions of inquiry until the forming of the National Public Sector Negotiation Councils (NPSNCS) in 1974.
The NPSNCS provided the framework for collective bargaining between the public sector as a negotiation unit (comprising the federal and state governments) and the representatives of the Eight (8) civil service unions. But in practice, the NPSNCS were only contrivances which modified the scope and structure and not the efficacy of collective bargaining practice in the public sector organizations in Nigeria. Rather, the use of Ad-hoc Wages Commission periodically appointed by governments was the mode by which employment conditions were regulated and not through the machinery of collective bargaining. This primacy use of Ad-hoc Commission in addressing workers demand such as wages determination and other conditions of employment is unilateral and undemocratic as it negates good industrial relations principle which collective bargaining portends. (Chidi, 2010). The promulgation of 2005 Trade Union Amendment Act and the 2006 Government White paper of the Presidential Committee on the consolidation of Emoluments in the Nigeria public sector headed by Shonekan (a former Interim government President in the country) appeared only partially to have altered the pattern of collective bargaining practice. The Shonekan report recommended new bargaining structures with collegiate representations of management and representatives of all industrial unions in public sector organizations. This new status notwithstanding, the efficacious practice of collective bargaining still seems to be far-fetched. The precept in most public establishments for workers to participate in decision making through collective bargaining machinery has no cogent appeal to management in Nigeria public organizations. Management already has the final decision and only persuades the union or workers’ representatives to accept its decision (Longe, 2014).
2.3 Constraints to Collective Bargaining Practice
In Nigeria, a number of impediments inhibited the effectiveness of the practice of collective bargaining. As pointed out by Bello and Kinge (2014) one of the major constraints that predisposed this anomalous situation is the government interventionist approach. Such interventionist measures include use of force or threat on workers during collective bargaining session, lack of seriousness to engage in collective bargaining process, proscription of trade union, unilateral action of government and continuous issuance of circular on wages award without consultation with the labour representatives. Instead of allowing collective bargaining to thrive, government still pays lip service to its use by resorting to primacy of wage commission as a means of granting wage award which often has cosmic applicability in the public sector. This use of fiat in Nigeria public service is a mockery to collective bargaining and hence not in line with the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions and standards (Ekwoaba, Ideh and Ojikutu, 2015).
Aside the overbearing antics of the government, (both past and present), the enactment of the Trade Union Amendment Act of 2005 has not totally encouraged freedom of association to operate within the orbit of labour legislation in Nigeria. The freedom of association principle is fully guaranteed under the Nigerian constitution but the Act forbids the formation of new industrial union, which is inhibitory of collective bargaining practice and contradictory of the freedom of Association principle as entrenched in the constitution of the country. The Trade Union Amendment Act of 2005 is viewed as unhealthy invention in industrial relations (Ndifon, Nwagbara and Odey, 2008). Also, the ILO monitoring reports have urged the Nigerian government to revisit its policy and to re-amend the Trade Union Act, 2005, with the sole object of democratizing trade union and collective bargaining process (Fajana and Shadare, 2012). Although, under the democratically elected government in the country, some visible gains of democracy have filtered into public sector establishments but not in terms of right to strike and parity of power which are the fulcrums of collective bargaining practice. From the perspective of the trade unions, without the right to strike, collective bargaining would be nothing but collective begging (Weiss, 2005). Disharmonious relations is also most likely to occur when management has a distinct power advantage over the workers’ representatives in bargaining matters as presently being witnessed in Nigeria’s public sector organizations.
The essence of collective bargaining in a developing nation like Nigeria is the containment of industrial conflicts. However, the approach has lost some of its latitudes for manouvres as a result of weak structures in the Nigeria public sector establishments. In the words of Anyim, Elegbede and Gbajumo-Sheriff (2011) the collective bargaining mechanism is defiledly and poorly structured in Nigeria public organizations. As such, the existing bargaining structure arrangement in the public service is seen to be frail. Relatedly, unwillingness to negotiate in good faith and non-observance of the sanctity of collective agreement by management are part of the banes of collective bargaining practice in the public sector organizations of Nigeria. Generally, the effectiveness of collective bargaining often depends largely on how previous agreements were implemented. Akhaukwa, Maru and Byruhanga (2013) argued that collective bargaining process is thus expected to be fair and legal and should take place in an environment of trust for parties to achieve workable relationship. In contrast however, what obtains as reality in public sector organizations in Nigeria is the reverse. The collective bargaining approach is not only widely undiffused but also defective and deceptive. Government as the largest employer of labour has continuously reneged to fully implement the basic outcome of collective bargaining. For instance, Adibe (2009) reported that the federal government neglected, ignored, failed and refused to implement the 2009 FGN/ASUU agreement after more than two years of its signing. Thus, the government has abandoned the main tenet of industrial democracy that agreements freely entered into must be honoured (Ajayi, 2014). This creeping web of governments’ intrigues has largely undermined collective bargaining practice in public sector organizations in Nigeria.
2.4 Concept of Industrial Conflicts
Many discussion s of industrial conflicts simply refers to strikes (Fashoyin, 1980).Strikes are the most overt and the most significant aspect of industrial conflicts, But they are unfortunately only part of the phenomenon of conflicts. An off-quoted definition of industrial conflict is the one provided by Kornhanser, Dubin and Rose (1954).
… the total range of behaviour and attitudes that express opposition and divergent orientations between industrial owners and managers on the hand and working people and their organization on the other".
This definition suggests that industrial conflict occur between group that is at the collective level, personality and other structural variables come into play. But it tends to restrict the phenomenon to what transpires between two opposing groups, owners/managers versus working people and their organizations. As many studies have revealed and is a common place, there is intra-management conflict just as conflicts do occur between and among groups of workers and their organization. Clearly then, there is also conflict at the levels of individuals often referred to as personality conflicts.
It is said that industrial conflicts may be organized or unorganized. Organized conflicts are likely to form part of conscious strategy to change the situation, which identified as the source of discontent. While unorganized conflicts, the worker respond to the situation in the only way open to him as individual that is by withdrawal from the source of discontent or individuals sabotage and rudeness. Such reaction, it has been argued, rarely derives from any calculative strategy; indeed unorganized expressions of conflicts are often not regarded as conflict by the persons in the situations (Otobo, 2000).
More often than not the attempt by management and employees to advance set objectives result in altercations which usually degenerate into strike action, demonstration, ill -feeling and general lack of requisite goodwill and commitment necessary in work situations. As a result, industrial conflict has become a common feature virtually every organization.
Admitting this universalism, Chandan, (1987), observes "the concept of conflict being an outcome of behaviour is an integral part of life" just like LASU and other Universities.
A study by Thomas and Schmidt, (1976) found that managers spend up to 20% of their time in dealing with conflict situation. In the intendment of this discourse, manager is not limited to the organizational heads but include all persons holding positions of trust in political system such as the members of the arms of government and others whom people are subordinate. As it concerns Nigeria, conflict, whether of ethnic, religious, community or organizational colourations are fast becoming an entrenched way of life with particular emphasis on organizational conflicts.
Ezeani (2002) posited that:
For the average Nigerian it does not longer come as a surprise to hear that industrial conflict in the form of strike is taking place in any part of the Nigerian public organizations.
2.5 Theoretical Framework on Conflict Management
In a research, the essence of theoretical framework as a guide can never be over emphasised. Thus, theoretical framework of this research is the Conflict Management Theory Propounded by Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) as cited in Ngu, (1994).
She holds the view that conflict is inevitable in all organizations or societies where two or more people are brought together to achieve a pre-determined end. She explains that conflict is simply an exhibition of differences in ideas or opinions on given situations. Conflict could also be a display of different methodology of interpreting phenomena. Conflict to her arises as a result of different approaches to issues or different approaches to existing conflict resolutions. She opined that conflict could be good or bad or neither good or nor bad depending on the situation. Conflict also provides good or bad results or outcome depending on the manners it is interpreted, understand and resolved by the affected parties. In an article entitled "Constructive Conflict" she noted that three different ways or methods of conflict resolution; domination, compromise, and integration.
Domination: According to her, resolving conflict through domination is not the best option for any organization; because this would entails victory of one over the other .It would require the use offeree and suppression of the weaker party by the strong. Using this approach in conflict resolution does not mean victory has gone to the right party or that has marked the end of the conflict. As far as Mary Parker Follett is concerned, this method of conflictresolution is like sweeping the dust under the carpet, which is a common feature of political, economic and sub-systems in Africa states and other developing nations.
Compromise: The second major method of conflict resolution as identified by Mary Parker Follett is compromise. Under this method, each party is the conflict situation surrenders certain values in order to allow peace to reign, she warns however, that a conflict resolved through this method is not the best, because it may simply suspend yet a greater magnitude of the problem which is likely to resurface in either the same form or in an entirely different manner.
Integration: This is the third method of conflict resolution in organization as recommended by Mary Parker Follett. She approved integration as the best method for conflict resolution in organizations. To resolve a conflict through integration requires each party to recognize the importance of ex-raying all the various aspects of the conflict to be put forward for discussion, usually in a roundtable conference which is in line with the principle of collective bargaining.
2.5.1The Relevance of Conflict Management to the Study
The relevance of this theory (conflict management) is the fact that our Universities consists of people who come together with the aim of achieving a given objective, as such conflict is inevitable in such a situation. As suggested by Mary Parker Follett, conflict can be resolved through any of the following methods namely domination, compromise and integration.
Furthermore, our Universities are made up of actors (lecturers and management) which must interact together for the purpose of achieving the organizational goals and objectives. I n the course of interaction, differences in ideas or opinion on given situation may arise which if not properly handled might result to industrial conflict. However, the need for the survival andcontinuity of Universities mean that conflicts need to be handled/managed in such a way that parties do not necessarily bring about severe and damaging consequences to the system.
Using the integration approach by the management will bring about the expected industrial harmony to the Nigerian Universities system. This is because, the divergent interest or demands of these actors are critically analyzed put forward for discussion, usually in a roundtable conference with the aim coming out with lasting solution to the cause(s) of conflicts. Conflict resolved in this fashion (integration approach) is constructive because each side is fully satisfied win-win situation. If the actors in our University's system can integrate their demands with the intention of proffering solutions to crises that has characterised our Universities for quite sometimes now, the industrial harmony will be restored again. This integration method is in line with collective bargaining principle, which is the process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions. This by will create room for progress and sustainability in our educational system.