Industrial Relations Crisis Analysis: Pronto Shoes Case Study Report

This report analyzes the industrial relations crisis at Pronto Shoes, a leading Egyptian shoe manufacturer. The report focuses on an incident where a labor union leader, Abasi, was unfairly treated by a business head, sparking protests and strikes. The report identifies the key players, including the laborers, the business head, and the managing director, and examines their reactions to the situation. It highlights the application of the pluralist theory to understand the conflict between management and labor, emphasizing the diverse interests, objectives, and leadership within the organization. The report concludes that industrial relations conflicts are common, and the application of theories is essential for resolving them, emphasizing the importance of a healthy working environment and the interdependence of the players involved. The report also provides background on the company's plans to sell shares and the resulting insecurity among the workers, which further fueled the conflict.

Running head: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
The IR issue of Pronto shoes......................................................................................................2
2. Main players in this issue.......................................................................................................3
3. Two main players (actors)......................................................................................................4
4. The reaction of the two actors in respect to the situations.....................................................5
5. Analysis of the behaviors of the actors..................................................................................5
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................6

2INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Introduction
The report is the analysis of the industrial relations. The issue is in connection with
the problems that are related to the workers and the reaction of the management towards the
issues. This report deals with the industrial crisis that has occurred in the powerful business
sector. In this particular report the issue that has occurred in the Pronto Shoes which belongs
to a business sector that has been taken into account. The actors therefore in this sector are
the corporate and the business actors. Pronto shoe is one of the leading shoe manufacturers
of Egypt. The concept of industrial relations is dense and there are different scopes of the
same. It deals with the problems that are related to the disputes between the manager and the
employees in the workplace. It is completely a business sector therefore the problems are
between the workers and the business directors. There are certain issues that can be
applied in order to solve such issues. The theories include the pluralist theory, the utilitarian
theory and the Marxist theory. The report concentrates on the Pluralist theory to solve the
issue that has occurred in the organization. Towards the end of the report there is a detailed
analysis of the theory. The report also consists of the role of the actors of the situation.
The IR issue of Pronto shoes
There has been a continuous issue in Pronto shoe Company. The issue has been
consistent for a longer period of time. The issue has led to innumerable strikes and protests.
The common form of protest was the strike. The issue remained as a perennial problem. The
actual reason of the essay was an incident that occurred in the company. The incident
occurred on 7th October 1995. It one happened that a labor in the Pronto shoe company
named Abasi, in a meeting was assaulted and was abused by the business head in a group
huddle. He was unethically accused for something he has not done and was later debarred
form the yearly bonus and he was not given a chance initially to justify himself and defend

3INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
himself (Light, Margot and Arthur John Richard Groom). There is a background of this
incident. The background was that the directors of Pronto shoes were planning to sell of their
shares to the other franchisee holders. The posting of the labors were not thought by the
directors and this infused anger in them as this led to insecurity in them (Jackson, Robert and
Georg Sørensen). This could lead to unemployment. The labors were not given any kind of
job guarantee for this. The labors raised their voice against this and therefore a meeting was
held for this. The labor named Abasi was the leader of their Union. He was therefore charged
for provoking the other labors and was assaulted for the same reason in the meeting in front
of all other labors. This was however a wrong action done by the business head. The business
head was however reacted in a passive manner. He was neutral to the situation. He did not
react to their demands and was did not pay any heed to the demands of the labors. It was the
director of the company who reacted to the situation and paid attention to the needs to the
needs and claims of the workers. The director, Mr. Pronto was made efforts to listen to the
demands of the workers and conducted meetings with them. He took notice of the situation
and he made efforts to reduce the heated situation that was there after the issue. He made
efforts to resolve the angers of the workers and justify the reason of their action. He
conducted a personal meeting of the labor and the business head. He managed for apology
from the business head to the labor for his partial and arrogant behavior. The pluralist theory
has been applied here. The perspective of the labors and the labor union has been focused on
in this case (Ferguson and Yale).
2. Main players in this issue
Any industrial crisis situation includes actors. Actors are basically the persons who
are the main concerns of the situation and for whom the issue has raised. In this case there
have been many players. The players in this case are the labors and the managing bodies of

4INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
the company. The crisis occurred because of the decision made by the managing body of the
company which includes the stakeholders of the company. The factory owners and the
decision makers of the company were responsible for the situation. However the managing
director has played a major role in this by intervening and solving the problem Therefore he
is another player in this situation. Al the players had a major role to play in this. All the
players had their own perspectives and own point of view which was to some extent justified
(Booth, Ken and Toni Erskine).
3. Two main players (actors)
The actors are the players of the situation and the vice versa. The actors play a huge
role in this situation. The situation intends to the crisis situation in this case. The highlighted
actors in this case are the labor who was unethically accused and the business head that was
responsible for the industrial crisis that occurred. The crisis can clearly be termed as the
Industrial crisis. The labors represented the entire workers as he spoke of against the decision
that was made by the managing committee. Another reason behind this was the same class
that the workers belonged in. The business head had the power to manage and take the initial
decision regarding the factory. This is the reason the labor was dominated and he was
penalized (Dunne, et al). The labor however was restored his job back with complete honor.
Apart from this it was same in the case of shutting down of the factory and the takeover of
the same by other company. The shareholders made the decision without giving prior notice
to the workers. The labors were the biggest sufferers in this case. The important actors in this
case were the shareholders and the workers. The ultimate sufferers of the situation were the
labors and the reason of their sufferings was the stakeholders of the company. However the
actors that are to be highlighted are the labor that was unethically treated and the business

5INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
head that was the real reason behind it. This crisis was more unethical and a more important
issue than the other issues (Dunne, et al).
4. The reaction of the two actors in respect to the situations
The reaction of both the actors was extreme. The two actors were the labor and the
business head that can be highlighted in this situation. The labor refused to agree to the
situation and he denied obeying the decisions of the management of the company. This was
the reason he raised voice against the situation as his future was at stake. He was the leader of
the union of the labors (Ludwig and David). Therefore he was the one to ask for the security
of the labors. After this when he was supported by the other labors he was unethically
accused and he was debarred from few facilities. He protested through the means of strikes in
front of the factory of the company. The reaction of the business head was passive. He was
not ready to listen to the demands of the labors. He showed an adamant behavior towards the
labors. The reaction of labors was violent and it ultimately was able to bring about a change
in the decision of the management. The business head had to finally to apologize to the union
members. This was the final reaction of the manager (Battaly, Heather).
5. Analysis of the behaviors of the actors
It is while analyzing the behavior of the actors it can be stated that the theory of the
pluralists has been applied and it can be suggested to be applied in this case. The pluralist
theory is that the organizations comprises of individuals who form distinct sectional groups
which has their own area of interests, objectives and leadership (Smith et al). This theory can
be applied when there are conflicts between the management and the workers which is the
result of the industrial and organizational factors (Ludwig, David). This comprises of not
only the industrial disputes and strikes but also the entire range of whole range of opposing
and different behaviors between the owners of the industry and the decision makers on one

6INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
side and the working people and their organization and union on the other side. The theory
can be applied in this crisis (Ackers, Peter). The crisis occurred between the managers and
the worker unions. It has laid over-emphasis on the interest alone. It overlooked the
importance of the values and the cultures (Jørgensen and Knud Erik). The workers in this
case show a common interest but they do not share the same value and ethics. The pluralists’
theory is therefore applicable in this case. The interests and the values play an important role
in uniting the groups and also in dividing them. However from the analysis of the situation
this can be stated that it is not necessary for the identity of the group to be deep rooted on any
particular common group interest as some particular common value a significant role in such
construction (Acharya, Amitav).
Conclusion
Therefore from the above analysis it can be concluded that conflicts in industrial
relations are a common forms of crisis that is observed in almost all industrial sectors. The
theories are applied to resolve such issues. The theories are applicable in all crisis situation
and they are effective in maximum situations. The actors or the players play an important role
in such crisis. The relation between the players is therefore essentially important and it is
important to keep the working environment healthy. They are dependent on each other in any
situation.

7INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
References
Acharya, Amitav. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
problem of regional order. Routledge, 2014.
Ackers, Peter. "Rethinking the employment relationship: a neo-pluralist critique of British
industrial relations orthodoxy." The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 25.18 (2014): 2608-2625.
Battaly, Heather. "A Pluralist Theory of Virtue." Current Controversies in Virtue Theory.
Routledge (2015): 7-21.
Booth, Ken, and Toni Erskine, eds. International relations theory today. John Wiley & Sons,
2016.
Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. "The end of International Relations
theory?." European Journal of International Relations 19.3 (2013): 405-425.
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories. Oxford
University Press, 2013.
Ferguson, Yale H. "Diversity in IR theory: Pluralism as an opportunity for understanding
global politics." International Studies Perspectives 16.1 (2015): 3-12. Wallace, Helen, Mark
A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, eds. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford
University Press, USA, 2015.
Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to international relations: theories and
approaches. Oxford university press, 2015.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik. International relations theory: A new introduction. Springer, 2017.

8INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Light, Margot, and Arthur John Richard Groom, eds. International relations: A handbook of
current theory. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
Ludwig, David. A Pluralist theory of the mind. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015.
Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, eds. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases.
Oxford University Press, 2016.