By Annie Hayes, HRZone Editor

The new dispute regulations come into force today (1 October 2004) introducing a three-step disciplinary and grievance procedure for managing workplace disputes; Editor’s Comment looks at the role of ‘conflict’ at work, its place in the employment relationship and the new methods for managing it.

Findings from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) published to coincide with the launch of the new regulations claim that conflict at work costs employers 450 days management time each year. The hope is that the new dispute rules will cut this cost.

Nearly 1,200 employers working in organisations employing a combined total of almost four million employees were surveyed for the report.

Of course the figure of 450 days management time hides the costs associated with mismanaged conflict at work, including lost productivity, sickness absence and high staff turnover.

Imogen Haslam, co-report author said: “Conflict costs employers hundreds of hours of management time each year. It is encouraging that employers think the new regulations will cut the number of employment tribunals. However, our survey shows that employers need to invest more in resolving disputes at the earliest possible stage before they can escalate and become subject to formal disciplinary and grievance procedures.”

While most respondents feel that the new regulations will reduce the number of employment tribunals; the jury is still out on whether it will make tribunal hearings more or less complex.

Alison Wallace, employment law partner at Steptoe Johnson & Rakisons told HRZone: “The new procedures will take some time to be understood and implemented by many employers who previously have not had any formal arrangements. Even for seasoned employers their implementation due to the consequences of getting it wrong will be slow and they seem unnecessarily complicated even for non contentious dismissals. It is unlikely in the short term at least to reduce the number of claims.”

Clearly the expense of conflicts requires a standardised approach but what is it that causes conflict and how can managers quash disputes before they escalate?

Most HR theorists would agree that the employment relationship is a mixture of conflict and co-operation, both of which are present to differing degrees in different workplaces at any one time.

HR managers today would probably also agree that the old theory of the employment relationship as typified solely by conflict and a struggle for control between managers and those whom they are seeking to manage is rather too simplistic.

Indeed if we examine the level of strike action over the years, we see that while there has been a general increase in the number of workplace disputes (most recent examples regard issues over pay and conditions raised by British Airways, Fire services and Eurostar workers for example) few bar the fire strike have escalated to full out strike action. We await to see what happens with Eurostar union members.

It is also true that the changing face of Trade Unions is playing a large part in the changing role of conflict in the employment relationship. Trade Unions are far more willing than before to offer companies positive support in carrying through workplace innovation. Indeed Trade Unions seem more allied to employers then ever before.

A study by the Economic and Social Research Council’s Future of Work Programme by Robert Taylor explains that there has been a steep decline in union membership since the late 1970s which has halted of late but the decline in collective bargaining has seen their traditional influence in the workplace wane.

It could also be argued that issues that were before catalysts for workplace conflict including the extension of employment rights are no longer valid as more and more legislation is introduced to dampen the need for dispute over rights.

Has the nature of ‘conflict’ therefore changed?

Are notions of the employment relationship being characterised by ‘structured antagonism’ outdated?

If we look at the psychological contract, we start to get to the heart of the issue. What we see in the workplace is a move towards partnership. Agreements are reached through consultation and discussion rather then coercion.

In essence the psychological contract refers to implied obligations between employer and employee.

Mayo, 1995 outlined a three-pronged contract:

• That employees will be treated fairly and honestly, and that information will be provided about changes at work, so as to meet the need for equity and justice
• That employees can expect to have some degree of security and certainty about the jobs in return for their loyalty to the employer, thus fulfilling the need for security and relative certainty
• That employees can expect employers to recognise and value their past and future contribution, so as to satisfy the need for fulfilment, satisfaction and progression.

If reciprocation doesn’t occur between the parties, conflict is often the result. Despite relatively high employment levels, market fluctuations and world events mean that a level of ‘uncertainty’ exists for employees who feel that their jobs are perhaps always under question. This can go someway to eroding loyalty and instigating conflict and dispute.

HR practitioners have, however, some tools at their finger tips for resolving disputes in the workplace including motivational and employee development methods. But says the CIPD, to manage conflict appropriately in the future employers will have to realise that line managers must get involved in employee relations.

Haslam adds: “Too many employers are still relying on HR to manage conflict at work. To make a real difference, these workplace problems must be nipped in the bud before they have to be dealt with using formal procedures. That means involving line managers much more. Training in conflict management and mediation is essential if line managers are to become more competent and confident in managing conflict. Only then will the waste of management time be reduced and more harmonious, more productive relationships at work develop,” says Haslam.

Time will tell whether the new dispute regulations will go way someway towards alleviating the heavy burden of conflict-based Employment Tribunal claims on the judicial system. Certainly employers will need to examine whether they are meeting their end of the psychological contract bargain; where fundamental issues exist conflict will continue to be an integral part of the employment relationship.