The Maturing of the Union Management Relationship
In organizational development courses students learn about Tuckman’s model of group development (1965) which suggests that groups progress through several stages on their way to reaching maturity. These stages have been labelled: forming–storming–norming–performing[1]. These stages arguably are necessary and an inevitable as part of what could be seen as a collective maturation process and are founded on the concept of the establishment of group norms. Norms ultimately are the key to sustainable successful interactions within any group.
By applying this model to how unions impact on organizational performance we can gain insight into how to manage well within a new dynamic that introduces another stakeholder, a union into the relationship between management and employees.
The success or impact of a union can be viewed in two ways. The first perspective is to view the union as an entity that organizes workers to provide them with the resources and support necessary to identify and attain goals and objectives tied to working conditions and remuneration. To the extent that the union is able to negotiate a collective agreement that satisfies the needs of its members, it can be said to be performing well. The second perspective however is to look at the broader context of how the union impacts the overall performance of the organization.
If we assume the first perspective, then the relationship between the organization and any union that represents some of its employees is transactional. In this case the union is seen solely as an agent of the employee, its role is narrow and has limited impact with respect to the overall success of the organization. Under such a perspective the union is a third-party intermediary with a restricted role. This is common to the North American experience and results in labour relations being viewed as a function that is transactional and which therefore holds little weight in furthering value or detracting value for the organization.
Under the second perspective there is an acknowledgement that there has been a substantive and transformational change in the employment relationship and the union is seen as a new and additional stakeholder that plays a vital role in furthering the success of the organization. While some might think of this as a partnership it is actually a relationship of a completely different nature. A partnership implicitly involves the development of common goals; whereas the relationship between labour and management is better thought of as seeking shared value. With this perspective of the relationship the parties work to facilitate the attainment of mutual value but recognizes differentiated measures of success (for example paying employees more base salary meets a need compensation need of the employee but also meets an organizational need to reduce turnover – both parties share in the value hence the term “shared value”). The distinction is nuanced but is ultimately important.
When a union first becomes certified (forming stage) to represent the workers in a particular organization the union typically faces management antipathy. This aversion is fueled by feelings of being let down by the employees coupled with a sense that management has somehow failed to gain the affections of their workers and that the workers have turned on them. It is manifest in a begrudging acceptance of the union and reflected in often adversarial and tentative approaches to bargaining the first agreement. For example, the Sobey’s Inc. warehouse in Vaughan, Ontario earlier in 2023 was organized by Teamsters Local 419 with a slim 53% employee vote in support of the union. Its first agreement bargaining has recently broken down and the result is the site is currently on strike. The union believes that the Company has dragged its feet in negotiations because of the close certification vote as almost half of the workers did not want to join the union.
This situation has the unfortunate consequence of shaping the relationship between Sobey’s, its workers, and the Teamsters for years to come. When a strike occurs in furtherance of a first contract the impact on the future productivity in the operations is bound to be negative. This occurs for many reasons: both immediately seen in increased turnover and divisive relations amongst employees and seen ongoing as it the organization slowly learns and develops new policies and practices to manage with a new stakeholder in the mix. In general, if there has been a strike, it is very difficult to overcome the lingering poor morale caused by such an event. Under this kind of scenario, both parties have destroyed opportunities to terms with the new relationship in ways that forge a quick and productive path forward. This leads to a prolonged storming stage.
The consequence of a strike during the storming stage is to establish a gap between the expectations of the union and those of management that is difficult to bridge. This has a knock on effect of encouraging, employees to be active in the union, particularly employees who have low affinity for the company. They may harbour grudges or feel they are vulnerable in some way and therefore seek protection from the union. Others disengage and simply choose to accept the unionization of the company as a fait accompli. Regardless, without the right rapport with the union and its elected employee representatives, management risks continued erosion in overall employee engagement which results in the entrenchment of the union as an opposing force rather than as a potential positive stakeholder with a goal of shared value.
During the storming stage the parties feel each other out in order to make every effort to build trust. However, when the organization has been strongly resistant to the introduction of the union this process will often take many years to sort out. At the core of the matter is the reluctance of management to truly recognize the legitimacy of the union and its role. In one sense the duty to bargain in good faith requires the company to accept the union and make every reasonable effort to negotiate a fair deal. However, this is a legal requirement and does not necessarily result in a true acceptance of the changed dynamic.
It takes tact and diplomacy to get through the storming stage and enter into the norming stage where, not surprisingly, norms are developed! This stage is key to the future relationship as norms not only dictate how the relationship will evolve but are the critical elements that define the organizations culture. The norms of a productive union-management relations are the subject of a much longer dissertation. However, the important point we are making here is, in establishing norms, management must understand that the employees are stakeholders in the enterprise and the union is a separate and distinct stakeholder. The union has a legitimate role and how it exercises that role is wholly dependent on how management behaves towards the union and its unionized employees. If management is hostile, then the company will get the union it deserves.
During the storming and norming stages we expect there to be conflicts and the Canadian labour relations system has been built to direct the resolution of conflicts and disputes (grievances) to peaceful means for resolution (i.e. required grievance procedures and arbitration). However, resolving disputes through the assertion of legal and collective agreement rights does not lead to a better relationship. In fact, it can add to the dissonance between the parties. Strict rights-based assertions tend to ignore the underlying issues that may have led to the dispute. Often employee grievances are not founded on actual rights violations but are based on emotional reactions to how the employees feel they are being treated. Alternatively claims may be made that are not validated by strict interpretation of the collective agreement contract but rather are based on what the grieving party hoped the contract would provide for. It is important to remember that employee relations, whether in a unionized or non union environment is fraught with emotional tension that needs resolution.
In labour relations we sometimes say that management can be right …to a fault. Strict interpretations of the collective agreement that favour the company may be seen as wins but do little for improving the relationship. What is required is forbearance, meaning the action of refraining from exercising a legal right. Management can act with forbearance by taking the time investigating root causes that lead to grievances in order to resolve the true issues without necessarily giving up any management rights. The exercise of forbearance is part of the art of managing in a unionized environment.
It most cases, but not all, management and the union eventually establish a relationship of mutual acceptance under which they can operate in a state of equilibrium[2]. That is manifest as a balanced relationship in which disputes are resolved relatively quickly and bargaining is seen as a mutually beneficial process and not a forum for carrying on disputes. In a mature relationship the parties are able to establish common objectives and to evolve into a performing stage characterized by productivity that exceeds levels that would have been obtained in the absence of the union.
Many people in management deny this however in a recent US Treasury Report it cites data that supports the fact that unionized workers tend to be more productive than their non-union counterparts. One of the primary reasons this occurs is because the workers are free from concerns about the terms and conditions of employment and their mental focus is on their value added to the work. Their affinity is not so much for the company or even the union but for the work and the way the work reflects on the workers sense of self-worth.
In the end it behooves management to understand how the group relationship maturation process works and to adopt behaviours which facilitate moving through the stages as quickly and painlessly as possible in order to arrive at the desired state of high performance, innovation and a calm stability in labour relations.
[1] In some subsequent studies and commentary on Tuckman’s model others added a 5th stage called Adjourning. Regardless of the efficacy of this fifth stage, adjournment for all intents and purposes, is not applicable to a Labour Management relationship which rarely if ever ends and if so is regulated through a decertification process.
[2] Equilibrium can for various planned and unplanned reasons be disrupted. In which case, the stages of forming, storming and norming and performing can regress and must be reset. This most often happens when players or business situations change. In which case the parties must go back and re-form, re-storm and possibly re-norm.
The union itself can and often does take on the role of norm disrupter. They have the power to exercise this disruption through renewal bargaining or through day to day labour relations mechanisms.