Collective Bargaining
Process and Its
Outcome
College of Business & Economics
CHED Center of Development in Business & Management Education
Collective Bargaining Process
and Its Outcome
SERIES 1999-03
Divina M. Edralin, Ph.D.
De La Salle University, Philippines
The CBERD Working Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions.
They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for purposes of soliciting comments and
suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and
opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center. Not for
quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Center.
For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact:
Center for Business and Economics Research and Development (CBERD)
2nd Floor, Medrano Hall, La Salle Bldg., 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila, Philippines
Tel Nos: (632) 3030869 and (632) 5244611 loc. 149; Fax No: (632) 3030869;
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Or visit our website at http://www.dlsu.edu.ph
About the Author
Dr. Divina M. Edralin is a Full Professor at the Business Management
Department of the College of Business and Economics (CBE) of De La
Salle University-Manila. She is also the Director of the Center for
Business and Economics Research and Development (CBERD). She also
holds the Don Antonio L. Tambunting Sr., Professorial Chair in Business
Administration. She earned her Doctor in Management from De La Salle
University-Manila, and her MA Industrial Relations from the Institute of
Industrial Relations of the University of the Philippines. Her areas of
expertise and research interest include human resource management,
entrepreneurship, collective bargaining, and labor issues.
Abstract
Dr. Divina Edralin
This research on the collective bargaining process as initiated by trade unions
and the results of such efforts had been undertaken on the premise that trade unions
are founded on the principle of strength in numbers, and organized to fight for the
worker’s rights, get better terms and conditions of work, and improve the overall
quality of life and political power of its members, primarily through collective
bargaining with employers. A survey was conducted among 90 unionized firms in
Metro Manila, with both union and management representatives taken as
respondents. Content analysis of the existing CBA in the unionized firms was done
to determine the common economic and political issues negotiated by collective
bargaining.
Results indicate that the collective bargaining process is time-consuming
because of the le ngth of time involved in preparing the proposals and counter
proposals, the long hours spent during negotiations which is stretched over an
average of nine (9) months, and the monitoring of the implementation of the CBA
which is for a period of three to five years. The collective bargaining process is also
a complicated encounter because of the varying strategies and tactics used by both
parties in the pre-negotiation and actual negotiation stages. Other factors that add to
the complexity of the process include the composition of the respective panels of
negotiators (particularly the presence of a lawyer), and the differing attitudes and
goals of the panel members.
The study also reveals that the type of industry to which the company
belongs, and the union’s membership in a federation have no correlation with the
number of strategies and success factors identified by both union and management.
The number of economic issues negotiated are significantly different
according to the type of industry, with unions in the non-manufacturing sector getting
more than those in the manufacturing sector. On the other hand, the number of
political issues bargained by the federated unions are significantly different from the
number bargained by the independent unions, with the federated unions getting more,
particularly provisions related to union assistance.
Lastly, both management and union have the same perception on the factors
that will contribute to the success of the collective bargaining process foremost of
which is trust between parties.
Collective Bargaining Process and Its Outcome
Dr. Divina Edralin*
“Good labor relations…. Cannot be brought about by legislation….
I believe that enlightened labor and enlightened management working
together, can accomplish far more by peaceful bargaining than is
possible though legislation.” (Harry Truman)
1.
Introduction
The trade union, as a form of organization among workers, evolved in
different parts of the world, in widely differing conditions and for varying reasons.
Its historical formation from the early 1800s can be traced to economic, political, and
social theories. As cited by Flippo (1984), trade unions are formed by the workers
“to promote, protect, and improve, through collective action, the social,
economic, and political interests of its members.” Corrollarily, Hoxie (1986)
argued that labor unions’ primary aim is to protect and pursue the economic interests
(such as raise wages, shorten
hours of work, and increase the security of
employment) of its own members. The Constitution and By-laws of one of the most
active national trade unions in the Philippines, which is called the National Union of
Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries, stipulates that its four main
objectives are to: (1) unite and organize all workers into one union; (2) promote job
security and defend workers’ rights to self- organization, collective bargaining, and
concerted action; (3) secure better terms and conditions of work; and (4) promote and
advance the interests and general welfare of workers. These objectives are very
similar to those cited in the economic, political and social theories on the formation of
unions. Even the Philippine Labor Code (1998) defines a labor organization as “any
union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the
purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms
and conditions of employment.”
The available literature also show that the development of trade unions over
the years had been very complicated, and like a pendulum, swings as much between
experiences of failures as well as of successes. Today’s labor unions, however, have
reached a critical point in their history, and their role in society is hotly disputed
(McConville, 1986). This situation may be attributed to the fact that trade unions, as
observed by Dijillas (1994), have considerable varying impact on the economic
growth and political stability of the country.
On the premise that trade unions are founded on the principle of strength in numbers,
and organized to fight for workers’ rights, get better terms and conditions of work,
and improve the overall quality of life and political power of its members, primarily
through collective bargaining with employers, this research on the collective
*
I wish to acknowledge Ms. Ma. Theresa Mosquito for her assistance in the tabulation and statistical analysis
of the sample data. Thanks are accorded to Mr. Eleazar Tolledo for facilitating the collection of the data
through his Industrial Relations students under the Applied Corporate Management Program of the Business
Management Department. I also thank Mr. Raymund Habaradas for editing the paper.
bargaining process as initiated by trade unions, and the results of such efforts, had
been undertaken. Specifically, this paper aimed to:
1.
identify the dynamics of the collective bargaining process in terms of its:
1.1
principles
1.2
stages
1.3
composition of the panel of negotiators
1.4
strategies used in the negotiation
2.
determine the outcome of the collective bargaining process in terms of the
common political and economic issues covered in the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA);
3.
identify significant differences in the number of strategies used by the parties,
number of political and economic issues negotiated, and number of success
factors experienced in the collective bargaining process based on the type of
industry of the firms and union affiliation with a federation.
4.
correlate the number of strategies used by the parties, number of political and
economic issues negotiated, and number of success factors experienced based
on the type of industry of the firms and union affiliation with a federation.
5.
analyze the difficulties/problems encountered by the union and management
during the collective bargaining negotiations; and
6.
determine the factors that contribute to the success of collective bargaining
negotiations.
2.
Theoretical Framework
Collective bargaining is a long, complex, and emotional-rational process, the
outcome of which depends on the balance of power between the union and
management and their bargaining stances (Ballot, 1992).
It is defined by Byars and Rue (1991) as a process that involves the
negotiation, drafting, administration, and interpretation of a written agreement
between an employer and a union for a specific period of time . This process
therefore involves proposals and counter-proposals, demands and counter-demands
wherein each party tries to obtain for itself the best or most favorable terms and
conditions. It also involves constant communication between the union and the
management during the effectivity of the written contract in order to avoid disputes in
the interpretation and implementation of its provisions.
By the same token, Baldoz (1995) explained that collective bargaining, which
is basically a wage-setting and dispute settlement system, is the centerpiece of the
industrial relations in the Philippines. It is a procedure whose end result is the
making of collective agreements between employer and accredited representatives of
employees concerning political and economic issues of employment. It requires both
parties to deal with each other with open
and fair minds, and to sincerely endeavor to overcome obstacles existing between
them to the end that industrial relations may be successful, peaceful, and beneficial to
both parties. However, collective bargaining does not end with the execution of an
agreement. It is a continuous process and involves a continuing legal duty.
As indicated, the end result of the collective bargaining process is a contract
which is called the Collective Bargaining Agreement or simply CBA. The CBA
stipulates the joint understanding of the union and management concerning wages,
hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment within the
bargaining unit, including mandatory provisions for grievance and arbitration
machinery (BLES, 1998). In the USA, about 2.4 million workers are under major
collective bargaining agreements (those covering 1,000 workers or more) which are
scheduled to expire or be reopened in 1996. These workers constitute about 30
percent of the 8.2 million employees under such agreements in private industry and
State and local governments (Monthly Labor Review, 1996). In the Philippines,
683,000 workers or 23.8% of the total 2.865 million workforce of 6,540
establishments were reported to be covered by collective bargaining agreements
(CBAs) in 1997. The said companies with CBAs represented 15.1% of the total
number of 43,358 firms in the country in 1997. Per type of industry, the
manufacturing sector, which constituted the bulk of establishments, only had 18.3%
of such firms with CBAs; while the financing, insurance real estate and business
services had 33.1% of such firms covered by CBAs making it the industry with the
biggest slice of companies with CBAs (BLES, 1998). Refer to Appendix 1 for
details.
It can also be noted that the collective bargaining process seems to differ more
in style than in substance. Scarth (1994) in his study identified two styles, namely:
(1) the adversarial and (2) the cooperative. The adversarial style involves a high
degree of animosity and antagonism between the union and management during the
negotiation, while the cooperative style is more of a collaborative effort between the
union and management to arrive at an agreement. Power (1996) added a new
contract negotiation style called target-specific bargaining. This model is a teambased, interactive process which helps one organization and its bargaining unit/s bury
old tensions and sign long-term agreements.
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C
S
I
T
U
A
T
I
O
N
UNION SITUATION
• Federated or Not • Number of Years • Number of • Relationship with
in Operation
Members
Management
INPUT
Collective Bargaining
Process
• Principles
• Stages
• Composition of
Panel
• Strategies
• Success Factors
CONVERSION
OUTPUT
Collective Bargaining
Agreement
• Factors of
Success
• Problems
Encountered
COMPANY SITUATION
• Financial Position • Type of Industry • Type of Owners
CBA Provisions
•• Economic Issues
•• Political Issues
• Relationship with the
Union
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Collective Bargaining Process
P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L
S
I
T
U
A
T
I
O
N
Viewing collective bargaining as a dynamic and complex process of encounter
between the management and the union, whose respective goals differ from one
another, the above diagram summarizes the collective bargaining framework of the
study. Using the input-output model of Kast and Rosenweig (1974), the collective
bargaining process is considered as the input, while the collective bargaining
agreement which stipulates the economic and political issues negotiated is the output.
The factors of success and the problems encountered are then considered to be the
conversion variables. The input-output process is then assumed to be affected by both
the internal environment represented by the union and company situations and the
external environment the most important factors of which are the economic and
political scenarios.
3.
Methodology
Descriptive and comparative research designs were employed to realize the
objectives of the study.
A survey among 90 unionized firms in Metro Manila was conducted with both
the union and management representatives taken as respondents for the survey. Table
1 presents the distribution of the actual samples.
The three page survey questionnaire, which had been pre-tested, focused on
gathering data related to company profile, union profile, strategies used by the union
and the management in the CBA negotiation, problems the parties encountered during
negotiation, and the factors of success experienced in CBA negotiations.
Content analysis of the existing CBA in each unionized firm was done to
determine the common economic and political issues negotiated by collective
bargaining.
The collected data were analyzed with the use of the SPSS (Statistical
Package for Social Sciences) program. The percentage, mean, and simple ranking
were utilized for the descriptive part. To test the null hypothesis for equality of means
for the groups, a non-parametric approach was used.
Significance tests for
differences between the groups (by type of industry:
manufacturing vs. nonmanufacturing; by type of union affiliation:
independent vs. federated, by
respondent: union vs. management) was done. The independent samples t- test and
Mann-Whitney or U test were used to test for the equality of means. The MannWhitney test is an alternative test which made use of the ranks to test the equality of
means. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was also used to test if the two groups compared come
from the same distribution. Furthermore, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients
were obtained and significance tests of these coefficients were made to test the null
hypothesis on whether there is a correlation between the different variables under
study.
4.
Findings
4.1
Profile of the Firms and their Unions
Ninety (90) unionized firms, composed of 42 manufacturing (47%) and 48
non-manufacturing (53%) establishments, participated in the survey. Classified by
size of employment, 6.67% are small, 10% are medium and 83.33% are large
companies with an average of 1,613 employees.
By ownership, 34% are
multinationals, 29% are Filipino-Chinese, 22% are Filipino, 7% are Chinese, and 7%
are owned by other nationalities.
Moreover, these companies, which are
predominantly corporations (98%), had been in existence for an average of 37 years,
with some of the firms operating for at least five years, and for as long as
more than 80 years. (Refer to Table 2)
Table 1. Distribution of Sample Firms and the Type of Respondents
Union
Management
Total
Representatives
(Frequency)
Representatives
(Frequency)
Number
of
Samples
(over
Total)
3
3
6
3.33
2
5
5
5
3
2
5
5
5
3
4
10
10
10
6
2.22
5.56
5.56
5.56
3.33
2
2
8
6
1
2
2
8
6
1
4
4
16
12
2
2.22
2.22
8.89
6.67
1.11
Subtotal (Manufacturing)
42
42
84
46.67
Non-Manufacturing Companies
Banking
Cargo/Transportation
Computer Products
Construction Materials
Electricity
Hospital
Hotels, Restaurants, and Resorts
Insurance
Manpower Services
Pharmaceutical and Chemicals
Retail/Wholesale
Telecommunications
14
4
1
1
1
2
10
4
1
4
2
4
14
4
1
1
1
2
10
4
1
4
2
4
28
8
2
2
2
4
20
8
2
8
4
8
15.56
4.44
1.11
1.11
1.11
2.22
11.11
4.44
1.11
4.44
2.22
4.44
Subtotal (Non-Manufacturing)
48
48
96
53.33
Over-All Total
90
90
180
100.00
Type of Industry
Manufacturing Companies
Appliances and Electronic
Products
Ceramics
Construction Materials
Consumer Products
Food and Beverage
Industrial Chemicals,Rubber,
and Paints
Machinery and Equipment
Packaging
Pharmaceutical and Chemicals
Textile and Garments
Tobacco
%
Table 2. Profile of Respondent Companies
Characteristics
Type of Industry
Manufacturing
Non-Manufacturing
Total
Size Based on Employment
SMALL (10-99 Employees)
MEDIUM (100-199 Employees)
LARGE (200 or MORE)
Total
Average Number of Employees
Standard Deviation
Minimum No. of Employees
Maximum No. of Employees
Type of Ownership
Filipino
Chinese
Filipino-Chinese
Multinational/Transnational
Others
Total
Form of Ownership
Single Proprietorship
Partnership
Corporation
Total
Years of Existence
5-20 Years
21-40 Years
41-60 Years
61-80 Years
80 Years or More
Total
Average Years of Existence
Minimum (in Years)
Maximum (in Years)
Number Of
Firms
%
42
48
90
46.67
53.33
100.00
6
9
75
90
1,613
2,380
44
10,000
6.67
10.00
83.33
100.00
20
7
26
31
6
90
22.22
7.78
28.89
34.44
6.67
100.00
1
1
88
90
1.11
1.11
97.78
100.00
23
31
26
5
5
90
37
6
147
25.56
34.44
28.89
5.56
5.56
100.00
In unionized companies, the union had been operating for an average of 18
years covering about 21%-90% of the bulk of the rank and file employee population.
The average number of union members, given this percentage of coverage, is 807
employees with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 6,753 members. There are 48
(53%) independent local unions and 42 (47%) federated workers’ organizations. The
federated local unions have been affiliates of national trade union centers like the
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP); national unions such as the
National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries
(NUWHRAIN); and federations such as the Federation of Free Workers(FFW) for an
average of 12 years. The unions have had an average of 4 CBAs with the same
employer. It took an average of nine months for their negotiations on their present
CBA to be concluded.
Table 3. Union Profile
Characteristics
Number Of
Firms
%
Years of Existence
1-10 Years
11-20 Years
21-30 Years
31 Years or More
Total
Average Years of Existence
Minimum (in Years)
Maximum (in Years)
Membership as a Percentage of Employee Population
Less Than 10%
10-20%
21-50%
51-70%
71-90%
90% or More
Total
Average Number of Union Members
Minimum No. of Union Members
Maximum No. of Union Members
Type of Union Affiliation
Independent
Federated
Total
33
19
13
25
90
18
1
45
36.67
21.11
14.44
27.78
100.00
5
10
24
20
26
5
90
807
40
6,753
5.56
11.11
26.67
22.22
28.89
5.56
100.00
48
42
90
53.33
46.67
100.00
Table 3. Continued
No. of Firms
Characteristics
Number of CBAs
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-11
Do Not Know/No Answer
Total
Average Number of CBAs
Minimum No. of CBAs
Maximum No. of CBAs
Number of Months of Negotiations for Present CBA
Less Than 1 Month
1-3 Months
4-6 Months
7-9 Months
10-12 Months
More Than 12 Months
Do Not Know/No Answer
Total
Average Number of Months
Minimum
Maximum
Federation/National Center
All Workers Alliance Trade Unions (AWATU-TUCP)
Alliance of Filipino Workers (AFW-LMLC)
Anglo – Kilusang Mayo Uno (ANGLO-KMU)
Associated Trade Unions (ATU-TUCP)
Confederation of Free Workers (CFW-PDMP)
Confederation of Labor and Allied Social
Services (CLASS-TUCP)
Drug and Food Alliance (DFA-KMU)
Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
February Six Movement (FSM-NCL)
National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU-NCL)
National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU-KMU)
%
43
17
7
9
14
90
4
1
11
47.78
18.89
7.78
10.00
15.56
100.00
7
27
27
8
4
7
10
90
9
2 Days
54 Months
7.78
30.00
30.00
8.89
4.44
7.78
11.11
100.00
1
1
2
6
3
2
2.38
2.38
4.76
14.29
7.14
4.76
3
4
1
2
3
7.14
9.52
2.38
4.76
7.14
Table 3. Continued
Characteristics
No. of
Firms
%
1
2.38
1
5
2.38
11.90
6
14.29
National Asociation of Trade Unions
(NATU-PDMP)
National Labor Union (NLU-TUCP)
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBELMLC)
National Union of Workers In Hotel And
Restaurant and Allied Industries
(NUWHRAIN-APL)
Philippine Transport and General
Workers Organization (PTGWO-TUCP)
Total
1
2.38
42
100.00
Number of Years with the Federation
1-5 Years
6-10 Years
11-15 Years
16-20 Years
More Than 20 Years
Total
Average Number Of Years With The Federation
Minimum (In Years)
Maximum (In Years)
7
10
4
9
12
42
12
1
35
16.67
23.81
9.52
21.43
28.57
100.00
4.2
Collective Bargaining Process
4.2.1 Principles Used
The collective bargaining process in the surveyed unionized establishments
was based on four (4) principles which were not forms of begging that appealed to the
goodwill of the employer. These principles were:
(1)
Recognition of opposing interests between labor and management - The
management’s interest is to get the most from the workers, at the lowest
possible cost, in order to maximize profit. This means offering low wages
and poor working conditions. In contrast to the employer’s aim to reduce
production cost to a minimum level, workers are interested in getting the best
possible conditions for their work: good wages, safe and healthful workplace,
an acceptable length of the working day, and other fringe benefits which
would allow them to live decently.
(2)
(3)
(4)
Settlement of the clash of interest by means of a compromise between the
workers’ demands and employer’s offer - A compromise requires good
faith and a flexible “give and take attitude” on both sides. Both parties
present their demands not as rigidly as a choice between “all-or-nothing”,
but with the willingness to concede, if necessary.
Non-violence The use of strike/ lockout and other forms of threat or
harassment to get one’s demands or offers accepted in the initial stages of the
negotiations is not deemed to be advantageous to both parties. Such restraint
prevented an early deadlock, and allowed the parties to exhaustively tackle all
issues involved. Peaceful alternative means are utilized by both parties to
arrive at an agreement.
Bargaining autonomy - The shaping of working conditions through the
conclusion of collective bargaining agreements is solely the responsibility of
unions and employers. Government only gets into the picture in cases of
deadlock, usually involving economic issues, particularly on wage.
Aside from these four principles, Byars and Rue (1991) also added the following
basic tenets of the collective bargaining process, to which the 90 unionized firms adhered :
1.
2.
3.
4.
Negotiation of relevant issues in good faith by both management and
the union.
Incorporation of the parties’ agreements into a written contract,
which is the CBA.
Administration of the daily working relationships according to the
terms and conditions of employment specified in the contract.
Resolution of disputes in the interpretation of the terms of the
contract through established procedures, like the grievance machinery.
4.2.2
Stages
The collective bargaining process of the sample companies involves three
major stages. These are:
(1)
Pre-negotiation - This involved the union’s collection and analysis of
data which enabled it to outline its demands, come up with bases/
justifications for the demands, prioritize the demands, and write the
CBA proposal and present such proposal within 60 days prior to the
expiration of the existing contract. Both parties, particularly the union,
found the need to conduct extensive research related to the needs of
workers, the economy, the financial condition of the company, and
other relevant data to prepare and justify its proposals. On the other
hand, management reviewed thoroughly the union’s demands to be
able to give its counter proposals, particularly on those that have major
financial implications and those impinging on management
prerogatives.
(2)
Actual Negotiation - This included stating the initial offer; further
research to justify demands and counter-offers; deadlock on issues;
and final agreement. This stage also necessitated the use of strategies
and tactics by the respective panels designed to improve their chances
of securing provisions in
the contract more beneficial to their
respective sides.
(3)
Implementation of CBA - This was after both parties had signed the
contract, and the union members had ratified the same. Thus, the CBA
had taken effect. At this stage the union and management found it
necessary to have the same interpretation of the provisions of the
CBA to avoid disputes. The effectivity of the contracts covered a
variety of time periods, between one year and five years, the most
common being three years.
4.2.3
Composition of the CBA Negotiating Panel
One of the critical factors in the collective bargaining process is the people involved
in the actual negotiations. These negotiators at the bargaining table vary slightly as to job
title or position in the organization and number, depending on the type of union. Table 4
presents the usual members of the panel from both parties based on the survey.
Table 4. Common CBA Panel of Negotiators
Union Panel
Member of
a National
Union,
Federation
Or Center
Independent
Enterprise
Union
Local Officers
• President
• Vice President
• Secretary
• Treasurer
• Auditor
Federation Representative
• President
• Secretary General
• Adviser
• Legal Counsel
Observers/Research
Officers
• President
• Vice President
• Board Members
• Secretary
• PRO
Lawyer
Freq
42
30
3
48
5
%
Management Panel
100.00 IR/HRD Manager
Lawyer
Manufacturing/Plant
General Manager*
Employee Relations
Controller
71.43
7.14
100.00 IR/HRD Manager
Lawyer
Senior Vice
Controller
Manufacturing/Plant
Finance
10.42 General Manager*
Employee Relations
Sales Manager
Freq
%
42
35
10
3
1
1
100.00
83.33
23.81
7.14
2.38
2.38
48
15
8
3
3
2
2
1
1
100.00
31.25
16.67
6.25
6.25
4.17
4.17
2.08
2.08
When the union was affiliated with a federation, the federation representative, such as
the President, Secretary-General, Legal Counsel or Adviser formed part of the union panel
together with the local officers. If the union was independent, it was the officers composed of
the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and other authorized board members,
together with their lawyer, if any, who sat as the panel of negotiators.
On the side of management , whether the union was independent or federated, the
usual panel of negotiators were the IR/HRD, manager, and company lawyer.
The General Managers of the large companies rarely joined the negotiations, except
when there was an impending or an actual deadlock in the issues which would have a major
impact on the company, such as issues related to wages. The use of a lawyer as a panel
member was common to many companies since management tended to be legalistic in its
approach to the bargaining process.
In the context of the tripartite industrial relations system, the government only
mediates when there exists a deadlock in the collective bargaining negotiations, for which a
notice of strike or request for preventive mediation had been formally filed with the Labor
Department, particularly its National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
4.3
Strategies in Collective Bargaining Negotiations
4.3.1 Strategies Used by the Union
The strategies utilized by the union in the entire duration of the collective bargaining
process contributed significantly towards determining the nature, type or extent of the
political and economic demands that they will be able to get from management.
Based on the responses of the 90 union representatives, their respective union panels
utilized an average of 18 strategies, the least of which was six and the most of which was 23.
The top five strategies commonly employed by the union in the collective bargaining
negotiations were: (1) Examining final copies before final signing; becoming extra careful
(82%);(2) Identifying which proposal/s can be compromised, to what extent, and in exchange
for what (79%); (3) Defining the ground rules (74%); (4) Identifying which proposal/s cannot
be compromised (72%); and (5) Listing information that can be obtained during negotiation;
keeping a scoresheet of what were discussed and the results of the discussion; and; showing
conviction in saying “No” and presenting facts to substantiate the arguments (70%).
On the other hand, the least frequently used strategies cited by less than the majority
were: If facts are vague, suspending judgement and negotiation on such issues (45%);
Identifying friends of labor in the Department of Labor & Employment (36%); and Not
agreeing on anything until you have agreed on everything (36%). Refer to Table 5.
Table 5. Strategies Used by the Union
Number of
Firms
74
%
82.22
Rank
1
71
78.89
2
67
65
63
74.44
72.22
70.00
3
4
6
63
70.00
6
63
70.00
6
62
61
68.89
67.78
8
9
59
65.56
10
56
62.22
11
Pinpointing the best and most appropriate time
to negotiate and when a strike would be
most effective
Making the opening statements, with the management
making the response
Practicing equal footing during negotiation.
Avoid using “Boss” or “Sir” in addressing the management
panel
Expecting unforeseen crises and developments
that might occur in the course of bargaining
which requires new strategies and tactics
In case of deadlock, getting ready for a strike
Controlling the discussion and always taking the
initiative
Offering to write the draft of the final agreement
Building up a substantial collective bargaining
(strike) fund
If facts are vague, suspending judgement and
negotiation on such issues
Not agreeing on anything until they have agreed
on everything
Identifying friends of labor in Department of Labor and
Employment
55
61.11
12
53
58.89
13
51
56.67
14
50
55.56
15.5
50
48
55.56
53.33
15.5
17
47
45
52.22
50.00
18
19
41
45.56
20
32
35.56
21.5
32
35.56
21.5
Others
16
17.78
23
Strategies
Examining final copies before final signing;
becoming extra careful
Identifying which proposal can be compromised,
to what extent, and in exchange for what
Defining the ground rules
Identifying which proposal can be compromised
Listing information that can be obtained during
negotiation
Keeping a scoresheet of what were discussed
and the result of the discussion
Showing conviction in saying “No,” and presenting
facts to substantiate the arguments
Signing the final draft as basis of the final copies
Conducting continuous research to be able to
support/justify demands
Deciding what information to give/withhold during
negotiation
Having alternative proposals that will respond to
management’s unrealistic counter proposals
Table 5. continued.
Agree on certain terms of references before the start of negotiations
Appoint somebody with a loud voice to be a speaker
Conduct a seminar on CBA tactics before negotiations
Create an atmosphere of openness
Create an atmosphere of trust between parties
Identify management's possible fears about the outcome of
negotiation
Keep in close contact with members to prepare for any
possibilities
Let lawyer be an observer only. Have consultants from
academe/economists
Make sure that when bluffs are made, the union can sustain them
Make the net income of the company a basis for proposal
negotiations
Show sincerity in presenting arguments
Using "on and off the record" during negotiation/Off the Record minutes
Minimum Number of Strategies Used
Maximum Number of Strategies Used
Average Number of Strategies Used
6
23
18
By the type of industry, the manufacturing firm unions used an average of 18
strategies with a minimum of nine strategies and a maximum of 23. However, the unions in
the non-manufacturing business utilized an average of 17 strategies, with a minimum of six
and a maximum of 23. Moreover, the item analysis (Refer to Table 6) shows that “defining
the ground rules” and “examining final copies before final signing; becoming extra careful”
was used by a big bulk (93%) of the unions in the manufacturing, while the strategy of “not
agreeing on anything until they have agreed on everything” is the least frequently used
strategy. Among the non-manufacturing establishments, a great majority (73%) of the unions
employed the “examining final copies before final signing; becoming extra careful”, while
the least used was “identifying friends of labor in the DOLE.” The t-test (t=-0.92;
ρ=0.359) as well as the Mann-Whitney test (z = -0.8362; p = 0.403) reveal that at 95%
confidence level, there is no significant difference in the mean number of strategies used by
the unions by type of industry. The Kolmogorov Smirnov test ( K-S z = 0.507; p = 0.959)
indicates that the number of strategies used by unions in the manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms do not come from the same distribution. The results of the tests are
shown on Table 7. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (0.0886; p = 0.406) proves
the absence of correlation between the number of strategies used by union and the type of
industry. The correlation table is shown on Table 8.
Table 6. Strategies Used By Union By Type of Industry
Manufacturing
Non-Manufacturing
%
Strategies
Examining final copies before final signing;
Becoming extra careful
Identifying which proposal can be compromised, to
what extent, and in exchange for what
Defining the ground rules
Identifying which proposal can be compromised
Listing information that can be obtained
during negotiation
Keeping a scoresheet of what were discussed and the
result of the discussion
Showing conviction in saying “No,” and
Presenting facts to substantiate the
arguments
Signing the final draft as basis of the final
Copies
Conducting continuous research to be able
To support/justify demands
Deciding what information to give/withhold
during negotiation
Having alternative proposals that will
respond to counter proposals management’s
unrealistic
Pinpointing the best and most appropriate
would be most effective
Making the opening statements, with the
management making the response
Practicing equal footing during negotiation.
Avoid using “Boss” or “Sir” in Addressing the
management panel
Expecting unforeseen crises and developments that
might occur in the course of
bargaining which requires new strategies
and tactics
In case of deadlock, getting ready for a
Strike
Controlling the discussion and always
taking the initiative
Offering to write the draft of the final
agreement
Building up a substantial collective
bargaining (strike) fund
If facts are vague, suspending judgement
and negotiation on such issues
No. of
Firms
(Over 42
FIRMS)
39
%
Rank
No. Of
Firms
(Over 48
FIRMS)
Rank
92.86
1.5
35
72.92
1
37
88.10
3
34
70.83
2
39
33
31
92.86
78.57
73.81
1.5
7
8.5
28
32
32
58.33
66.67
66.67
8.5
4.5
4.5
33
78.57
6
30
62.50
6
35
83.33
4
28
58.33
8.5
29
69.05
11
33
68.75
3
34
80.95
5
27
56.25
11.5
31
73.81
9
28
58.33
8.5
28
66.67 14.5
28
58.33
8.5
29
69.05
26
54.17
13.5
28
66.67 14.5
25
52.05
15.5
28
66.67 14.5
23
47.92
17
28
66.67 14.5
22
45.83
18
23
54.76
17
27
56.25
11.5
22
52.38
18
25
52.08
15.5
19
45.24
20
26
54.17
13.5
21
50.00
19
20
41.67
19
11
Table 6 continued.
Manufacturing
Non-Manufacturing
%
%
No. of
Firms
(Over 42
FIRMS)
15
35.71
17
Others (Refer to Table 5 for details)
8
Minimum Number of Strategies
Used
Maximum Number of Strategies
Used
Average Number of Strategies
Used
9
6
23
23
18
17
Strategies
Not agreeing on anything until they have
agreed on everything
Identifying friends of labor in Department of
Labor and Employment
Rank
No. Of
Firms
(Over 48
FIRMS)
Rank
22
17
35.42
21
40.48
21
15
31.25
22
19.05
23
8
16.67
23
Table 7. Significance Tests
Type Of Industry
Variables
Result
oF T-Test
(Equality
of Means)
Result
oF Mann
Whitney U
Test
Type of Union Affiliation
Result
OF
Kolmogorov
Smirnov Test
Result
OF T-Test
(Equality
of Means)
Result
OF Mann
Whitney U
Test
Respondent (Union/Mgmt.)
Result
OF
Kolmogorov
Smirnov Test
Result
OF T-Test
(Equality
of Means)
Result
OF Mann
Whitney U
Test
Result
OF
Kolmogorov
Smirnov Test
Number of Strategies
Used by Union
t = -0.92
p = 0.359
z = -.8362
p = 0.403
z = 0.507
p = 0.959
t = -0.9
p = 0.373
z = -1.2097 z = 0.732
p = 0.2264 p = 0.657
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Number of Strategies
Used by Management
t = 0.65
p=0.515
z = -0.6197
p = 0.5355
z = 0.493
p = 0.968
t = - 0.64
p=0.522
z = -1.2760 z = 0.789
p = 0.202 p = 0.562
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Number of Economic
Issues Covered
t = 3.26**
p = 0.002
z = -3.1813**
p = 0.0015
z = 1.507**
p = 0.021
t = -0.39 z = -0.5684 z = 0.676
p = 0.696 p = 0.5698 p = 0.751
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
t = -0.65
z = -0.8689
z = 0.831
t = -5.37** z=- 4.9118**
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
p = 0.516
p = 0.3849
p = 0.495
p = .000
p = .000
z =
2.507**
p = 0.000
t = 0.94
p=0.351
z = -0.9177
p = 0.358
z = 0.929
p = 0.354
t = - 0.79
p=0.432
z = 0.732
p = 0.657
z = 0.789
p = 0.562
t =- 0.14
p=0.890
Number of Political
Issues Covered
Number of Success
Factors Experienced
z = -0.220 z = 0.246
p = 0.8243 p = 1.000
Legend:
** t/z is significant when ρ<0.05 which means that there is a significant difference between the means of the two groups (manufacturing vs. non-manufacturing, union vs. management,
independent vs. federated)
* NA – Computations are Not Applicable
Table 8. Correlation Table (Using Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation)
Variables
Type of
Business
Type of
Union
Affiliation
Respondent
(Union/Mgmt)
Number of
Strategies Used
By Union
Number of
Strategies Used
by Management
Number Of
Economic Issues
Covered
Number Of
Political Issues
Covered
Number Of
Success Factors
Experienced
0.0886
p = 0.406
0.1282
p = 0.228
-0.1353
p=0.204
0.0657
p = 0.5390
-0.3372**
p = 0.001
0.0602
p = 0.573
0.0921
p = 0.388
0.5206**
p = 0.000
0.0688
p = 0.360
0.0405
p = 0.5400
Coefficient
cannot
be computed
Coefficient
cannot
be computed
0.0000
p = 1.0000
0.0000
p = 1.0000
0.0166
p = 0.8250
Legend:
** p < 0.05, significant correlation
NOTE : Correlation coefficient values above the p values indicate the variability explained by the relationship between the two variables but do not
necessarily explain a cause and effect relationship
According to the type of union affiliation, independent unions employed an average
of 17 strategies, with a minimum of six and a maximum of 23. The federated unions, on the
other hand, utilized an average of 18, with as few as nine and as many as 23 strategies.
(Refer to Table 9).The item analysis confirms that by type of union affiliation, the number
one frequently used strategy was
“examining final copies before signing” (77% for
independent and 83% for federated) and the least employed strategy for independent unions
was “not agreeing on anything until they have agreed on everything“ (25%). For federated
unions, the least used strategy was “identifying friends of labor at DOLE” (33%). The t- test
outcome (t=-0.9; ρ =0.373) and the Mann Whitney U test (z = -1.2097; p =0.2264) illustrate
that there is no significant difference in the mean number of strategies used by the unions by
their type of affiliation. This is further confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S z =
0.732; p = 0.657) which illustrates that there is no significant difference in the distribution of
samples from the two groups (independent and federated unions based on number of
strategies used by the union negotiators (Refer to Table 7). The Spearman rank order
correlation coefficient computed value (0.1282, p=0.228) also pinpointed that there is no
correlation with the number of strategies used and the type of union affiliation (Refer to
Table 8)
Table 9. Strategies Used By Union By Type of Union Affiliation
Strategies
Examining final copies before final
signing: becoming extra careful
Identifying which proposal can be
compromised to what extent, and in
exchange for what
Defining the ground rules
Identifying which proposal can be
compromised
Listing information that can be obtained
during negotiation
Keeping a scoresheet of what were
discussed and the result
and the result of the discussion
Showing conviction in saying “No,” and
presenting facts to substantiate the
Arguments
Signing the final draft as basis of the
final copies
Conducting continuous research to be
able to support/justify demands
No. of
Firms
Independent
%
Rank
(Over
48 FIRMS)
No. of
Firms
Federated
%
(Over
42 FIRMS)
Rank
37
77.08
1
35
83.33
1
36
75.00
2
33
78.57
1.5
34
34
70.83
70.83
3.5
3.5
30
29
71.43
69.05
6
9.5
32
66.67
5.5
25
59.52
15
32
66.67
5.5
30
71.43
6
29
60.42
9
32
76.19
4
29
60.42
9
29
69.05
9.5
29
60.42
9
33
78.57
1.5
Table 9. Continued
Strategies
Independent
%
No. of
(Over
Firms
48 FIRMS)
Rank
Federated
%
No. of
(Over
Firms 42 FIRMS)
Rank
Deciding what information to give/withhold
during negotiation
Having alternative proposals that will
respond to management’s unrealistic
counter proposals
Pinpointing the best and most to
negotiate and when a strike would
be most effective
Making the opening statements, with the
management making the response
Practicing equal footing during
negotiation. Avoid using “Boss” or
“Sir” in addressing the management
panel
Expecting unforeseen crises and
developments that might occur in the
course of bargaining which requires
new strategies and tactics
In case of deadlock, getting ready for a
strike
Controlling the discussion and always
taking the initiative
Offering to write the draft of the final
agreement
Building up a substantial collective
bargaining (strike) fund
If facts are vague, suspending judgement and negotiation on such issues
Not agreeing on anything until they have
agreed on everything
Identifying friends of labor in Department
of Labor and Employment
Others (Refer to Table 5 for details)
29
60.42
9
28
66.67
13
25
52.08
14.5
29
69.05
9.5
26
54.17
13
26
61.90
14
27
56.25
12
24
57.14
16
28
58.33
11
30
71.43
6
24
50.00
16
29
69.05
9.5
20
41.67
19.5
28
66.67
13
21
43.75
18
21
50.00
18
25
52.08
14.5
20
47.62
19
20
41.67
19.5
23
54.76
17
23
47.92
17
16
38.10
21
12
25.00
22
19
45.24
20
17
35.42
21
14
33.33
22
7
14.58
23
9
21.43
23
Minimum Number of Strategies
Maximum Number of Strategies
Average Number of Strategies Used
6
23
17
9
23
18
4.3.2
Strategies Used by Management
Management utilizes various negotiation strategies to lessen costs (most
directly in terms of lost sales and profits) since management works with a relatively
defined set of objectives (primarily profit maximization) and determines the overall
programs to reach these objectives. Based on the replies of the 90 management
representatives in the survey, their management panels employed an average of three
strategies with as few as one and as many as nine. The top three frequently
mentioned strategies were (1) “examining meticulously the details of each union
proposal” (58%); (2) “offering a “package deal” to save on labor costs” and
“background checking of the negotiation panel of the union” (50%); and (3) “offering
the least as a counter proposal to the union” (47%). The admitted least utilized
strategy by management is “harassing union negotiation panel members” (3%).
Table 10. Strategies Used by Management
Strategies
No. of firms
Examining meticulously the details of each proposal
52
Background checking of the union's negotiation panel
45
Offering a “package deal” to save on labor costs
45
Offering the least as a counter proposal
42
Explaining that the company is not generating profit
34
Adding or subtracting a few significant points in the
28
Final minutes of the CBA
Not giving the true financial condition of the company
21
Bluffing
21
Others
15
Preparing several proposals for each provision
Emphasize that all activities in the company are geared
towards labor-management partnership
Base the initial proposals on previous CBA
Take time to listen and show that management
understand the position of union
Create an atmosphere of trust and open communication
Define the ground rules
Agree to avoid foul language during negotiations
Present CBAs of other companies from the same industry for comparison
Maintain a friendly atmosphere
Practice an open-book policy regarding the financial standing of company
Sending pro-management workers during union
10
meeting to spy
Harassing union negotiation panel members
3
Minimum Number of Strategies Used
1
Maximum Number of Strategies Used
9
Average Number of Strategies Used
3
Rank
%
57.78
1
50.00 2.5
50.00 2.5
46.67
4
37.78
5
31.11
6
23.33
23.33
16.67
7.5
7.5
9
11.11
10
3.33
11
Classified by type of industry, the manufacturing sector reply shows an
average of three strategies, with the use of at least one and as many as nine, in their
negotiations with the union. While, the non-manufacturing management panels
employ an average of four strategies, and the same range of strategies as that of the
manufacturing group.
Table 11. Strategies Used By Management By Type of Industry
Manufacturing
Strategies
Examining meticulously the details of
each proposal
Background checking of the union's
negotiation panel
Offering a “package deal” to save on
labor costs
Offering the least as a counter proposal
Explaining that the company is not
generating profit
Adding or subtracting a few significant
points in the final minutes of the CBA
Not giving the true financial condition of
the company
Bluffing
Others (Refer to Table 10 for details)
Sending pro-management workers
during union meeting to spy
Harassing union negotiation panel
Minimum Number of Strategies
Maximum Number of Strategies
Average Number of Strategies
Non-Manufacturing
No. of
Firms
%
(Over
42
Firms)
No. of
Firms
%
(Over
48
Firms)
Rank
Rank
32
76.19
1
20
41.67
1
27
64.29
2
18
37.50
2
29
69.05
3
16
33.33
4
25
19
59.52
45.24
4
5
17
15
35.42
31.25
3
5
17
40.48
6
11
22.92
8
8
19.05
8
13
27.08
6
9
5
5
21.43
11.90
11.90
7
9.5
9.5
12
10
5
25.00
20.83
10.42
7
9
10
1
1
9
3
2.38
11
2
1
9
4
4.17
11
Furthermore, the content analysis of the responses reveals that, in both
industry sectors, “examining meticulously the details of each proposal” ranks first and
“harassing union negotiation panel members” ranks last. See Table 11. The t- test ( t=
0.65; p=0.515) as well as the Mann-Whitney test (z= -0.6197; p =0.5355) show that
there is no significant difference in the mean number of strategies employed by the
management panel by type of industry. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S z =
0.493; p = 0.968) also indicates that the number of strategies used by management in
these two industry groups do not differ in their distribution.
Table 12. Strategies Used By Management By Type of Union Affiliation
Independent
Strategies
Federated
%
(Over 48
No. of Firms)
No. of
Firms
Rank Firms
%
(Over 42
Firms)
Rank
Examining meticulously the details of
each proposal
Background checking of the union's
negotiation panel
Offering a “package deal” to save on
labor costs
Offering the least as a counter
proposal
Explaining that the company is not
generating profit
Adding or subtracting a few
significant points in the
final minutes of the CBA
Not giving the true financial condition
of the company
Bluffing
Others (Please refer to Table 10 for
details)
Sending pro-management workers
during union meeting to spy
Harassing union negotiation panel
Members
24
50.00
1
28
66.67
1
22
45.83
2
21
50.00
3
21
43.75
3
23
54.76
2
19
39.58
4
20
47.62
4
18
37.50
5
14
33.33
5
14
29.17
6
13
30.95
6
9
18.75
7.5
10
23.81
8
7
9
14.58
18.75
9
7.5
12
6
28.57
14.29
7
9.5
4
8.33
10
6
14.29
9.5
1
2.08
11
2
4.76
11
Minimum Number of Strategies
Maximum Number of Strategies
Average Number of Strategies
1
9
3
1
9
4
5.
Common Political and Economic Issues
The CBAs cover a variety of issues, which may be broadly categorized as:
political and economic.
The
political issues are those related to: (1)
coverage/scope; (2) union security; (3) job security or security of tenure (4) rights
and responsibilities of parties; (5) company rules and regulations; (6) management
prerogatives; (7) strikes/lockouts; (8) check off; (9) grievance procedure; (10)
disciplinary measures; (11) labor-management council/committee (12) union leave;
(13) union holiday-off; and (14) union assistance . The economic issues, on the other
hand, are those related to: (1) wages; (2) premiums; (3) allowances; (4) bonuses; (5)
hospitalization; (6) insurance; (7) retirement; (8) productivity incentives; (9) meal
subsidies; (10) uniforms; (11) promotions; and (12) leaves.
Based on this classification of CBA issues, the content analysis of the existing
contracts of the 90 unionized firms reveals a number of interesting patterns.
5.1
Economic Issues
On the major economic issues covered, all (100%) CBAs have wage
provisions which stipulate among others, across the board increases ranging from a
minimum of 10%/P150 per month, to a maximum of 15%/P2,200 per month with an
average of 13%/P786 per month for three years. One hundred percent (100%) of the
union contracts contain provisions on premiums mandated by law. These are
payment for services rendered
for night duty, overtime, holiday and rest day. All
(100%) companies also have CBA provisions on vacation and sick leave benefits,
with a minimum entitlement of 10 days to a maximum of 21 days, or an average of 15
days per year. Other leaves such as emergency, birthday, bereavement and funeral,
are also manifested in 98% of the CBAs. These leaves range from one day up to 15
days with an average of seven days. The third most frequently (89%) negotiated
economic provision is hospitalization. This benefit gives at least P5,000 and as
much as P130,000, with an average of P40,879, per year. Bonus provisions are
included in 76% of the CBAs. This benefit is over and above the 13th month pay.
Workers receive at least one month to a maximum of four months with an average of
two months yearly bonus. Retirement provisions are also indicated in a considerable
number of contracts (71%). The retirement benefit is equivalent to 15 days’ to three
months’ pay with an average of one month salary per year of service. Allowances
provisions rank fifth (66%), with a minimum of P100 to P4,000, and an average of
P1,343 per month as employee allowance. The insurance provisions, on the other
hand, cover life insurance benefits for employees, ranging from P11,000 to
P600,000, with an average of P164,937. Uniform benefit is also stipulated in 60%
of the CBAs. Employees receive two sets/P500 to six sets/P6,000, with an average
of four sets/P1,922 per year. Meal subsidies are negotiated in 54% of the contracts.
Management subsidizes about P8.00 to P100 with an average of P41.00 per duty
meal. However, hotel and restaurant workers get free meals because of the nature of
their establishments.
The least stipulated economic issues are on promotion (47%) and productivity
incentives (39%). Productivity incentives are computed differently in CBAs which
contain this provision. This is either based on percentage of sales or on actual peso
value. Further analysis of the 90 CBA on the economic issues illustrates that the
average number of negotiated provisions is 10, with a minimum of four and a
maximum of 14 (Refer to Table 13).
Table 13. Economic Issues Covered in the CBAs
Coverage*
Issues
Minimum
Maximum
Wages
Premiums
a. Night
Differential
b. Overtime
c. Holiday Pay
d. Holiday-Rest
e. Rest day
Leaves (VL/SL)
Other leaves
(Emergency,
Birthday etc.)
Hospitalization
Bonuses
Retirement
Allowances
Insurance plan
Uniforms
Meal subsidies
Promotion
Productivity
Incentives
Signing bonus
10% increase
annually
PHP 150.00
15% increase 13% increase
annually
annually
PHP 2,200.00 PHP 786.00
+ 15%
+ 55%
+ 31%
+ 33%
+ 30%
+ 50%
+ 50%
10 Days
1 Day
+ 70%
+ 100%
+ 80%
+ 75%
21 Days
15 days
+ 47%
+ 55%
+ 62%
+ 55%
15 Days
7 Days
PHP 5,000.00
1 Month
15 Days
PHP 100.00
PHP 16,000
2 Sets/ year
PHP 1,000.00
PHP 8.00/ day
Number of Issues
Average
2,500.00
1.5 months
salary
4
PHP 130,000 PHP 40,879
4 Months
2 Months
3 Months
1 Month
PHP 4,000.00 PHP 1,343.00
PHP 600,000 PHP 164,937
6 Sets/ year
4 Sets/ year
PHP 6,000.00 PHP 1,922.00
PHP 100/ day PHP 41/day
15,000.00
2 months
Salary
14
6,625.00
1.5 months
salary
10
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
90
100.00
2
90
100.00
2
90
88
100.00
97.78
2
4
80
68
64
59
58
54
88.89
75.56
71.11
65.56
64.44
60.00
5
6
7
8
9
10
49
42
35
54.44
46.67
38.89
11
12
13
12
13.33
14
* For details, refer to Appendix 2
Grouped by type of industry, the manufacturing sector has as an average of
nine provisions with a minimum of fourand a maximum of 13.
The nonmanufacturing group has an average of 11 provisions with a minimum of four and
also a maximum of 14 (Refer to Table 14). The t-test (t=3.26; ρ=0.002) proved that
there is significant difference in the mean number of specific economic issues
stipulated in the CBAs based on the type of industry. The Mann Whitney test (z=3.1813; p =0.0015) and Kolmogorov Smirnov test (K-S z = 1.507; p = 0.021) further
confirmed this finding (Refer to Table 7). Also, the Spearman rank order correlation
coefficient (-0.3372; p = 0.001) implied that there is a linear relationship that exists
between the number of economic issues negotiated and the type of industry to which
the firm belongs. The data illustrate that economic benefits negotiated by unions in
the non-manufacturing sector are more compared to those in the manufacturing sector
and 34% of the variability in the number of economic provisions negotiated is
explained by the type of industry to which the companies belong.
Table 14. Economic Issues Covered in the CBAs by Type of Industry
Manufacturing
Non- Manufacturing
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
(48
Firms)
Rank
100.00
100.00
2
2
48
48
100.00
100.00
2.5
2.5
42
40
100.00
95.24
2
4
48
48
100.00
100.00
2.5
2.5
35
28
26
21
22
24
16
15
14
8
83.33
66.67
61.90
50.00
52.38
57.14
38.10
35.71
33.33
19.05
5
6
7
10
9
8
11
12
13
14
45
40
38
38
36
30
33
27
21
4
93.75
83.33
79.17
79.17
75.00
62.50
68.75
56.25
43.75
8.33
5
6
7.5
7.5
9
11
10
12
13
14
No. of
Firms
%
(42 Firms)
Wages
Premiums
A. Night Differential
B. Overtime
C. Holiday Pay
D. Holiday-Rest Day
E. Rest Day
Leaves
Other Leaves (Emergency,
Birthday, Bereavement,
Relocation Etc.)
Hospitalization
Bonuses
Retirement Plan
Allowances
Insurance Plan
Uniforms
Meal Subsidies
Promotion
Productivity Incentives
Signing Bonus
42
42
Minimum Number Of
Economic Issues
Maximum Number Of
Economic Issues
Average Number Of
Economic Issues
4
4
13
14
9
11
Economic Issues
By type of affiliation, the independent unions have an average of 10 provisions
with a minimum of four and a maximum of 14. The federated unions have also an average
of 10 provisions with at least five and as many as 13 (See Table 15). The t- test (t = 0.39; p = 0.696) pinpoints that there is no significant difference in the mean number of
specific economic issues provided for in the CBAs based on the union affiliation. The
Mann-Whitney test (z= - .05684; p =0.5698) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S z =
0.676; p = 0.751) further proved this result (See Table 7). The Spearman rank order
correlation value (0.602; p = 0.573) expressed that there is no significant relationship
between the number of economic issues negotiated and the type of union affiliation.
Table 15. Economic Issues Covered in the CBAs by Type of Union Affiliation
Independent
Economic Issues
No. Of
Firms
Federated
%
(48 Firms)
Rank
No. Of
Firms
%
(42
Firms)
Rank
Wages
Premiums
A. Night Differential
B. Overtime
C. Holiday Pay
D. Holiday-Rest Day
E. Rest Day
Leaves
Other Leaves (Emergency,
Birthday, Bereavement,
Relocation Etc.)
Hospitalization
Bonuses
Retirement Plan
Allowances
Insurance Plan
Uniforms
Meal Subsidies
Productivity Incentives
Promotion
Signing Bonus
48
48
100.00
100.00
2
2
42
42
100.00
100.00
2.5
2.5
48
46
100.00
95.83
2
4
42
42
100.00
100.00
2.5
2.5
42
32
32
28
26
27
25
15
18
4
87.50
66.67
66.67
58.33
54.17
56.25
52.08
31.25
37.50
8.33
5
6.5
6.5
8
10
9
11
13
12
14
38
36
32
31
32
27
24
20
24
8
90.48
85.71
76.19
73.81
76.19
64.29
57.14
47.62
57.14
19.05
5
6
7.5
9
7.5
10
11.5
13
11.5
14
Minimum Number of
Economic Issues
Maximum Number of
Economic Issues
Average Number of
Economic Issues
4
5
14
13
10
10
4.2
Political Issues
Going over the specific political issues covered in the 90 CBAs, some
noticeable trends exist. All (100%) contracts have a job security/security of tenure
provision which includes the classification of employees, grounds and procedures for
employee termination, and retrenchment of employees. The second most specified
issue (90%) is the grievance procedure which defines the mechanism for the
settlement of dispute and grievances arising from the interpretation and
implementation of the terms of the CBA. The grievance machinery includes the
definition and steps involved in the processing of grievance/s, who has the right to
present the grievance to the company and who is supposed to respond to this; the
number of days for the resolution of the complaint; and the voluntary arbitration
procedure. A majority (87%) of the CBAs also defines the coverage/scope of the
collective bargaining unit
(CBU).
It specifies the definition of the word
“employee/s” and the coverage of the collective bargaining unit (CBU), usually of the
regular rank-and-file employees, excluding those occupying “sensitive or
confidential” positions, like the secretary to the GM/President, HRD assistant,
assistant to the Controller. The union security issues are the fourth top priority (83%)
in the negotiation. This section seeks to preserve and protect the union’s existence
and effectiveness as an organization by ensuring its continued membership among
CBU employees, and efficient collection of dues and other assessments. The
common provision shown is either a maintenance of membership clause where
employees are given the option to join the union or not, but once they join, they are
required to continue their membership in good standing during the effectivity of the
CBA. Another is the union shop security clause where employees must join the
union within a specified period of
time (usually 15-30 days from date of
regularization), as a condition for their continued employment.
Surprisingly, only 82% of the reviewed contracts contains a provision on
management prerogatives which emphasize the right of management to hire,
transfer, promote, assess performance, and conduct job standardization. The sixth
(6th) commonly included provision is the no strikes/lockouts clause. This section
stipulates the obligations of the union with regards to when a strike could be initiated
(e.g. on issues like union busting, and violation/s of CBA provisions). By the same
token it also stipulates what management should follow regarding lockouts. The
article on rights and responsibilities of parties is written in 71% of the CBAs. This
article confirms the rights of management, recognizes the rights and privileges of the
union and the obligations of both the union and management to implement in good
faith the agreed terms & conditions of employment, and comply with all the other
CBA provisions. The check off provision is guaranteed by 62% of the unions. This
issue is concerned with the employer’s regular deduction from the employees’
salaries the amounts corresponding to their union dues, strike fund contributions,
fines, agency fees, and other special assessments and remit these to the union.
The least stipulated political provisions are those related to labormanagement council/committee (42%) and disciplinary measures (34%). The
labor-management committee (or LMC) article specifies its objective to serve as a
venue to solve problems affecting employees and management, and its mechanisms,
including its composition of management and union representatives and the frequency
of its meeting. The disciplinary measures sections, on one hand, generally list the
offenses that may be committed by the employees and their corresponding sanctions
after due process. Lastly, as part of the political issue classification, the CBAs
contain provisions on union assistance (21%)
which come in the form of
educational fund , loan, assistance to cooperative, signing privilege, and support for
union activities. This union benefit costs at least P 10,000 to P 150,000 or an average
of P 75,000 a year.
Table 19. Political Issues Covered in the CBA
Issues
Job security/
security of
tenure
Company rules and
regulations
Grievance
machinery
Coverage/scope
Union security
Management
prerogatives
Strikes/lockouts
Rights and
responsibilities
of parties
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
Classification of Employment, Dismissal
and Due Process, Retrenchment
90
100.00
1.5
Wearing of Uniform, Grace Periods, Meal
Breaks, Working Hours
Committee/Governing Body, Procedure
90
100.00
1.5
81
90.00
3
Definition of Employees, Bargaining
Unit, Coverage of Agreement
78
86.67
4
Union/Maintenance Shop, Security
against Dismissal, Coercion, Intimidation
In joining union, Communication on
75
83.33
5
74
82.22
6
68
64
75.56
71.11
7
8
Coverage
Status of Negotiation
Employee Hiring, Transfer and Promotion,
Job Standardization, Evaluation
No Strike/No Lockout Clause
Right of management to supervise, hire, evaluate,
train, dismiss, maintain
standards. Right of union to communicate,
investigate grievances, conduct meetings, have
free access to company premises for federation
representatives, have a bulletin board and office
inside company premises
Table 19. Continued
NO. OF
Firms
%
Rank
Schedule of Check-off, Notices,
Remittance
Minimum : 40 Days
Maximum: 275 Days
Average : 145 Days
Committee Composition, Objectives,
Responsibilities
Code of Discipline, Penalties, Due Process
56
62.22
9
55
61.11
10
38
42.22
11
31
34.44
12
Minimum : PHP 10,000.00
Maximum: PHP 150,000.00
19
21.11
13
8
8.89
14
Issues
Check-off
Union leave
Labor-management
committee
Disciplinary
measures
Union assistance
(educational
fund, loan,
assistance to
Cooperative,
signing privilege,
Union holiday off
Minimum number
of political issues
Maximum number of
political issues
Average number of
political issues
Covered in CBA
Coverage
2 Days
3
14
8
The analysis of the major political issues covered by the CBAs reveals that the
average number of issues negotiated is eight, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 14.
Classified by type of industry, the manufacturing sector has an average of 9 provisions, with
three as the lowest and 12 as the highest number of such provisions. The nonmanufacturing unions were able to negotiate an average of eight political demands from a
minimum of four and a maximum of 14 (Refer to Table 20). The t-test value (t=-0.65;
ρ=0.516) revealed that there is no significant difference in the number of political demands
negotiated by type of industry. This is further confirmed by the Mann-Whitney U test (z=
0.8689; p = 0.3849) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S z = 0.831; p = 0.495). Neither is
there a correlation between the number of political issues covered and the type of industry,
based on the Spearman rank order correlation (0.0921; p = 0.388).
Table 20. Political Issues Covered in the CBAs By Type of Industry
Issues
Job security/security of tenure
Company rules and regulations
Grievance machinery
Coverage/scope
Union security
Management prerogatives
Strikes/lockouts
Rights and responsibilities of
parties
Check-off
Union leave
Labor-management committee
Disciplinary measures
Union assistance (educational
fund, loan, assistance to
cooperative, Signing Privilege,
support for Union Activities)
Union Holiday off
Minimum number of Political
issues covered
Maximum number of Political
Issues covered
Average number of Political issues
MANUFACTURING
%
No. Of
(42
Rank
Firms
Firms)
NONMANUFACTURING
No. of
%
Firms
(48
Firms)
Rank
42
42
42
41
41
41
37
34
100.00
100.00
100.00
97.62
97.62
97.62
88.10
80.95
2
2
2
5
5
5
7
8
48
48
39
37
34
33
31
30
100.00
100.00
81.25
77.08
70.83
68.75
64.58
62.50
1.5
1.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
32
29
20
15
9
76.19
69.05
47.62
35.71
21.43
9
10
11
12
13
24
26
18
16
10
50.00
54.17
37.50
33.33
20.83
10
9
11
12
13
2
4.76
14
6
12.50
14
3
4
12
14
9
8
Table 21. Political Issues Covered in the CBAs By Type of Union Affiliation
Independent
Federated
No. of
Firms
%
(48 Firms)
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
(42 Firms)
Rank
Job security/security of tenure
48
100.00
1
42
100.00
1
Company rules and regulations
Grievance machinery
Coverage/scope
Union security
Management prerogatives
Strikes/lockouts
Rights and responsibilities of
parties
Check-off
Union leave
Labor-management committee
Disciplinary measures
Union assistance (educational
fund, loan assistance to
cooperative, signing
privilege, support for union
activities)
Union Holiday off
16
41
41
35
42
30
32
33.33
85.42
85.42
72.92
87.50
62.50
66.67
9
3.5
3.5
5
2
7
6
14
40
37
40
32
38
32
33.33
95.24
88.10
95.24
76.19
90.48
76.19
13
3
6
3
7.5
5
7.5
29
15
11
13
4
60.42
31.25
22.92
27.08
8.33
8
10
12
11
13.5
27
40
27
18
15
64.29
95.24
64.29
42.86
35.71
9.5
3
9.5
11
12
4
8.33
13.5
4
9.52
14
Issues
Minimum number of Political
Issues
Maximum number of Political
Issues
Average number of Political
Issues
3
4
12
14
7
10
When analyzed by type of union affiliation, the independent unions only were able to
secure in their CBAs an average of seven political demands, with a minimum three and as
many as 12. On the other hand, the federated unions were able to bargain for a higher
average of 10 political provisions with a minimum pegged at four and the maximum at 14.
The t-test (t=-5.37; p = 0.000) , Mann- Whitney U test (z = -4.9118; p = 0.000), and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S z = 2.507; p = 0.000) computation results all indicate that
there is a significant difference in the number of political issues negotiated by type of
union affiliation. The Spearman rank order correlation value (0.5206; p = 0.000) verified
that there is a significant relationship between the number of political issues bargained and
the type of union affiliation. The information clearly illustrates that there are more political
issues negotiated by federated unions compared to the independent unions, and 52% of the
variability in the number of political provisions bargained is explained by the type of union
affiliation.
6.
Problems Encountered During CBA Negotiations
Mondy and Noe (1981) opined that diversity is probably the key characteristic of
collective bargaining. As such, the negotiation process is affected by the differing attitudes
and goals of the union and management toward the main issues under discussion. When the
negotiating parties are in the distributive bargaining strategy framework which is defined
by Ballot (1992) as the “set of strategies, tactics, and activities utilized by negotiators
when their goals or objectives are in direct conflict,” difficulties or problems are bound to
be encountered.
When asked regarding the problems experienced by the union during CBA
negotiations, a number of specific difficulties were enumerated by the union officers as
presented in Table 22.
The most prevalent (41%) concern was the “lack of skills for negotiation.” The other
noticeable (39%) constraint as perceived by the union was the “conflicts related to panel
composition.” The union also experienced difficulties due to the “lack of willingeness to
compromise” and “inadequate organizational capability” (32%).
On the other hand, the management representatives identified fewer problems
compared to the union. As manifested in Table 22, they ranked the “lack of willingness to
compromise”
at the top (55%) of the list. This was followed by the “lack of skills for
negotiation” and “use of power play tactics” (21%).
Over-all, the most frequently (42%) cited problem by both parties is the “lack of
willingness to compromise”.
Table 22. Problems Encountered by Union and Management
Union
Problems
I Conflicts Related to Panel Composition
No. of
Firms
Management
%
(44 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
Over-All
%
(33 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
(77 Resp)
Rank
17
38.64
2
6
18.18
4
23
29.87
3
18
40.91
1
7
21.21
2.5
25
32.47
2
?Management panel members do not have power
and authority to decide
? Absence of owners during negotiation, represented
only by managers and counsel
? Newly-hired manager included in panel
? Exclusion of Federation President in panel
? Lawyers included in the panel makes period of
negotiation long
? Legal counsel of union prolongs and affects
negotiation
? Intervention of lawyers included in panel
II Negotiators Lack Skills for Negotiation
? ?Lack of education on CBA technicalities/skills
? Inexperience in negotiation of some union panelists
? ?Some union panel members do not understand the
The purpose of the negotiation and just air their gripes
Table 22.Continued
Union
Problems
No. of
Firms
Management
%
(44 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
Over-All
%
(33 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
(77 Resp)
Rank
?D
? ifficulty in justifying demands/proposals
? ?Difficulty in understanding Management/Union
Positions
III Non-Availability of Accurate
Information to Make Informed Decision
6
13.64
7
1
3.03
8
7
9.09
9
11
25.00
5
3
9.09
6
14
18.18
5
? Absence of accurate information on company's
financial condition
? Difficulty in assessing company's real financial
standing
? Financial statements are fake
?Management not showing true financial condition
? Different data/facts presented by both parties
? Incomplete facts and data to present union proposals
IV Lack of Focus in Negotiations
? Delays due to schedule of panelists
? Poor management attendance
? Delay by Managers who has to attend to some work
?Managers always on call during negotiations
Table 22.Continued
Union
Problems
V Lack of Willingness to Compromise
?
?
?
?
?
?
Rank
No. of
Firms
Over-All
%
(33 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
14
31.82
3.5
18
54.55
1
32
41.56
1
5
11.36
8
4
12.12
5
9
11.69
8
10
22.73
6
10
12.99
7
Closed mind of management
Hardline attitude of management/union
Hardline position of management/union
No one wants to compromise
Unreasonable proposals/counter proposals
Disagreement on certain proposals
VI Economic Constraints During
Negotiations
?
?
?
?
No. of
Firms
Management
%
(44 Resp)
Company has poor financial condition due to crisis
Difficult to bargain if the company is not doing well
Wage orders declared during negotiations
Peso devaluated resulting on loss - difficulty in
explaining to union
VII Lack of Sincerity
?Management uses delaying tactics
?Management is bluffing
Table 22.Continued
Union
Problems
No. of
Firms
Over-All
Management
%
(44 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
9
7
%
(33 Resp)
Rank
No. of
Firms
2.5
11
%
(77 Resp)
Rank
? Disinformation tactics by management
?Management panel members not honest and
transparent
?Some management panel members only want chairman's attention
?Management too friendly with union panel
? Dimunition of benefits already negotiated
VIII Use of Power Play Tactics
? Political harassment on union members by
Personnel Manager
? Pressure caused by Supervisor-Rank and File
relationship
? Union threatens strike
? Acts of agitation by members during negotiation
? Disobedience campaign promoted by not wearing
uniform
?Management has big influence in government and
Media
4
9.09
21.21
14.29
6
Table 22.Continued
Union
Problems
IX Inadequate Organizational Capability
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
No. of
Firms
14
%
(44 Resp)
31.82
Over-All
Management
Rank
No. of
Firms
3.5
2
%
(33 Resp)
6.06
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
(77
Resp)
Rank
7
16
20.78
4
Lack of preparation on union strategies
Union lacks funds for negotiations
There are financial constraints for union officers
Lack of committed union officers
Lack of information among members
Lack of information dissemination
Inability of officers to communicate negotiation
status to members resulting in confusion
Total
99
48
147
7.
Factors of Success Experienced in CBA Negotiations
It is imperative that an effective collective bargaining negotiation process be
established in order that meaningful results/outcomes, which are truly relevant and beneficial
to both parties, could be mutually agreed upon. Therefore, there are a number of factors that
should be present in the collective bargaining process to ensure its success.
Out of the nine enumerated success factors, both union and management
representatives indicated experiencing an average of seven factors, with a minimum of three
for union and two for management. The top three most frequently checked items by the
respondents in the list of factors of success experienced were: (1) “trust between parties” ( 84
%), (2) “confidence of the members in their representatives in the negotiations” (83%), and
(3) “open and honest communication” (83%). (Refer to Table 23)
The average number
of success factors experienced by the union and
(
X
=
7
)
management when they were grouped by industry, was the same for the manufacturing and
non-manufacturing establishments. The same result was also obtained when they were
classified by union affiliation. The statistical values (as presented in Table 7) proved that
there is no significant difference in the number of success factors experienced in the CBA
negotiations by union and management panels. There is also no difference when the number
of success factors are classified by type of industry and type of union affiliation. The
Spearman rank order correlation test also showed that there is no significant relationship
that exists between the number of success factors experienced in the CBA negotiations and
the type of industry and union affiliation.
Table 23. Success Factors for Management and Union
Union
Success Factors
Trust between parties
Confidence of the members
In their representatives in
the negotiations
Open and honest
Communication
Group participation
Negotiators must possess
the required skills for
negotiation
Establishment of clear
procedures and group
Rules for negotiation
The resolution of conflicts
during negotiation
No. of
Firms
%
74
75
82.22
83.33
75
Management
No. of
Firms
%
3
1.5
78
75
86.67
83.33
83.33
1.5
75
72
69
80.00
76.67
4
5
68
75.56
58
64.44
Over-All
No. of
Firms
%
1
2.5
152
150
84.44
83.33
1
2.5
83.33
2.5
150
83.33
2.5
69
72
76.67
80.00
5
4
141
141
78.33
78.33
4.5
4.5
6
65
72.22
6
133
73.89
6
7
58
64.44
7.5
116
64.44
7
Rank
Rank
Rank
Table 23. Continued
Union
Management
%
Accessibility of information
to make informed
decisions
Use of the problem-solving
team approach to identify
issues and come up with
options to discuss
during negotiations
57
63.33
57
63.33
Minimum No. Of Success
Factors
Maximum No. Of Success
Factors
Average Number Of
Success Factors
3
2
2
9
9
9
7
7
7
Success Factors
No. of
Firms
%
8.5
58
64.44
8.5
57
63.33
Over-All
No. of
Firms
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
7.5
115
63.89
8.5
9
114
63.33
8.5
Rank
Rank
Table 24. Success Factors for Management and Union by Type of Industry
Manufacturing
Non- Manufacturing
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
Trust between parties
Confidence of the members in their
representatives in the negotiations
Open and honest communication
Group participation
Negotiators must possess the
required skills for negotiation
Establishment of clear procedures
and group rules for negotiation
The resolution of conflicts during
negotiation
Accessibility of information to make
informed decisions
Use of the problem-solving team
approach to identify issues and
come up with options to discuss
during negotiations
79
74
87.78
82.22
1
2
73
76
81.11
84.44
5
1
73
66
72
81.11
73.33
80.00
3
5
4
77
75
69
85.56
83.33
76.67
2
3.5
6
58
64.44
6
75
83.33
3.5
52
57.78
8
64
71.11
7
51
56.67
9
64
71.11
8
56
62.22
7
58
64.44
9
Minimum No. of Success Factors
Maximum No. of Success Factors
Average Number of Success
Factors Experienced
2
9
7
Success Factors
2
9
7
Table 25. Success Factors for Management and Union By
Type of Union Affiliation
Independent
Success Factors
Trust between parties
Confidence of the members in their
representatives in the negotiations
Open and honest communication
Group participation
Negotiators must possess the
required skills for negotiation
Establishment of clear procedures
and group rules for negotiation
The resolution of conflicts during
negotiation
Accessibility of information to make
informed decisions
Use of the problem-solving team
approach to identify issues and
come up with options to discuss
during negotiations
Minimum No. of Success Factors
Maximum No. of Success Factors
Average Number of Success Factors
Federated
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
No. of
Firms
%
Rank
73
76
81.11
84.44
2
1
73
74
81.11
82.22
3
2
71
72
70
78.89
80.00
77.78
4
3
5.5
75
69
71
83.33
76.67
78.89
1
5
4
70
77.78
5.5
63
70.00
6
56
62.22
9
60
66.67
7
60
66.67
8
54
60.00
8
67
74.44
7
47
52.22
9
2
9
7
2
9
7
8.
Conclusion
Although the Philippine Labor Code guarantees the right to collective
bargaining to workers through their trade unions, and stipulates the procedures for the
administration of collective bargaining agreements, the collective bargaining process
remains to be a time-consuming and complicated encounter between management and
union.
It becomes time-consuming because of the length involved in preparing the
proposals and counter proposals, the long hours spent during negotiations which is
stretched over an average of nine (9) months, and the monitoring of the
implementation of the CBA which is for a period of three-five years.
It is complicated because of the varying strategies and tactics used by both
parties in the pre-negotiation and actual negotiation stages of the collective
bargaining process. The composition of the respective panels of negotiators add to
the complexity of the process, particularly the presence of a lawyer which makes it
even more legalistic. The differing attitudes and goals of the panel members might
have dictated the number and types of specific strategies each party employ in the
entire process of the bargaining.
Since the negotiating parties are in the distributive bargaining strategy
framework, they encountered several problems during the negotiations. The union
expressed more difficulties than management and the most prevalent concern was the
lack of skills for negotiations while management cited the lack to willingness of the
union to compromise.
However, the type of industry to which the company belongs, and the union’s
membership in a federation, have no correlation with the numbers of strategies and
success factors identified by both union and management. These two realities also did
not lead to any significant differences in the number of strategies employed by the
parties and the member of success factors experienced by both panel of negotiation..
The actual CBA political and economic provisions are focused primarily on
wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment in the bargaining unit,
including mandatory provisions for grievance. The number of economic issues
negotiated by the union are significantly different according to the type of industry.
The unions in the non-manufacturing sector were able to get more than the
manufacturing industry.
On the other hand, number of political issues bargained by the federated
unions are significantly different from the independent unions. They are able to get
more than the unions which are independent. These provisions are related to union
leave, union security, and union assistance.
Lastly, both management and union have the same perception on the factors
that will contribute to the success of the collective bargaining process. The foremost
of which is trust between parties.
“While so much has been done in recent years to identify and reduce
some of the prime causes of industrial conflict, the future depends on the
will of management and trade unions to resolve issues which may divide
them and to develop more constructive relationships.” (ACAS leaflet
Improving Industrial Relations, 1985)
References
Allen, S. and Clark, R. (1986). “Union, pension, wealth, and age compensation profit.”,
Industrial and Labor Relation Review.
Ballot, M. (1996). Labor-management relations in a changing environment.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp61-169
New York:
Byars, L. L. and Rue, L.W. (1994). Human resource management, (4th ed.) Illinois: Irwin
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. (1996). Current Labor Statistics: July-August.
Cascio, W.F. (1992). Managing Human Resources (3rd ed.)
Dejillas, L. (1994). Trade union behavior in the Philippines 1946-1990.
Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Quezon City:
Dessler, G. (1997). Human Resource Management. (7th ed.)
Erickson, C. (1996). “A re-interpretation of pattern bargaining.
Relations Review, Vol. 49. Issue 4. P615
Industrial
and Labor
Flippo, E.. (1984). Personnel Management, (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Foz, V.. (1998). The labor code of the Philippines and its implementing rules and
regulations. (ed). Quezon City: Philippine Law Gazette. pp 41-43.
Hoxie, R. (1986). The economic program of trade unions. (Reprinted in Trade Unions, ed.).
W.E.J. McMarthy. pp 35-46.
International Labor Organization (1982). Wages: A worker’s education manual. Geneva:
International labor Organization.
Ivancevich, J. (1992). Human resource management - Foundation of personnel (5th ed.).
Kast, F. and Rosenweig, J. (1974). Organization and management (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill Book Company. pp106-111
Kilberg, William. (1990). “How we pay people” American Enterprise.
Macalinao, D. (1981). Organizational effectiveness of labor unions in selected hotels and
restaurants. Quezon City: U.P. unpublished masteral thesis.
McConville, B. (1986). The role of trade unions. London: Macdonald & Co. Ltd.
Monthly Labor Review. (1996). Bargaining outlook for 1996.
Personnel Journal. (1996). Labor adversaries bury the hatchet .
Milkovich, G.T. and Newman, J.M. (1990). Compensation (3rd ed.).
: Irwin.
Homewood, Illinois
Mondy, W. and Noe, R. (1996). Human resource management (6th ed.).
Prentice-Hall Int’l Inc. p462-530.
New Jersey:
___________________.
(1981). Personnel: The management of human resources. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc. pp406-430.
Patrick, D.C. Successful nonadversarial collective bargaining practices.
Abstracts International. Volume: 55-11, Sec.: A, p:3952.
Dissertation
Robert S. (1979). “Are unions an anachronism?” Haward Business Review.
Scarth, Gary N. (1996). A case study analysis of the transition from adhersarial to
cooperative collective bargaining. Dissertation Abstracts International. Volume:
55-04, Section: A, page: 0824.