Applying IR Theories: Analysis of NSW Train Workers' Dispute 2018

This case study examines the industrial relations dynamics within the New South Wales (NSW) train workers' dispute of early 2018, focusing on the application of industrial relations theories to understand the conflict between the Transportation Department and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU). It critiques the ineffective management of governmental bodies and the Union's disregard for conservative values necessary for maintaining workplace integrity. The analysis contrasts Unitarian and Pluralistic theories of employment relations, highlighting the incompatibility and conflicting nature of these approaches in the context of the dispute. The study concludes that both parties share responsibility for the chaotic situation, underscoring the failure to enforce Unitarian principles and the inherent conflicts recognized by Pluralistic theory.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Train Workers’ Dispute in
Australia

CONSERVATIVE VALUES
 The dispute highlights ineffective management of governmental bodies, and their inability to implement adequate measures
pertaining to the unified working of the troubled body.
 However, the government is not to be blamed solely for creating this chaotic situation. The Union disregards the general conservative
values which are necessary for maintaining the integrity of a particular work. By their proposed action, they seek to escape the huge
responsibility of providing service to the general public, who would have to pay the price for a dispute in which they were not
involved.
 While some of the governmental policies like those of the Workplace Relations Amendment Act, laid down by the Labour Party
government under Kevin Rudd, which largely concerned the political and economic context of Australia, were not completely
followed by the Transportation Department, the RTBU also breached the rules laid down in the ‘Fair Work Act 2009’ which they
should have strictly followed in the medium of their protest (Bray, Waring & Cooper, 2009). Thus, both parties overruled the
conservative as well as pro-management values which they were ought to follow.
 Therefore, while on one hand the dispute shows a lack of expertise on the part of the Transportation Department to implement the
basic pro-management conservative values, on the other, it represents the Union’s and worker’s show of disrespect towards those
values, which are supposed to maintain the integrity of a sustainable working system.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
 The term ‘employment relation broadly refers to the amalgamation of lateral and hierarchical relationships that
exists between the employers and the employees within an organization.
 The case in point is that of a governmental body (the Transportation Department) and the Union of workers
(RTBU; Train Workers of New South Wales). The conflict between these two bodies that took place towards the
beginning of the year represent a distorted image of employee relations in the concerned governmental sector.
On a closer look at the various concepts or theories of employment relations, and applying the same to the
given situation, it becomes clear that both parties are to be blamed for the emergence of such a chaotic
situation, where the general public ran the risk of suffering the most.
 The entire process, along with its ultimate culmination can be studied from two major perspectives – the
‘Unitarians’ theory and the ‘Pluralistic’ Theory.
 ‘Unitarianism’, much like autocracy, holds that power should be concentrated in the hands of one single body
of authority, wherefrom, workflow and business should be justly distributed and managed. It disregards the
inevitability of conflict between the management and the employee. Such conflicts may arise at times, however
it should never lead to an impasse (Tapia, Ibsen & Kochan, 2015). In order to avoid such situations, it is up to the
management to ensure that the sources of those potential conflicts are avoided. This takes into consideration
the fair and equitable distribution of revenue and promotional factors, and engage in effective communications
with the subordinate bodies. The concerned issue of dispute and strike raised by the RTBU highlight the failure to
enforce this theory into practice.
 This theory takes into consideration three smaller determining theoretical approaches – ‘scientific management
theory’, ‘human relations theory’ and human resource management. The latter two are more relevant to the
present area under discussion.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
 The factors associated with the dispute come rather close to the theory of ‘Pluralism’ which
believes in a more democratic approach, whereby the decision-making responsibility is not
concentrated on a single authoritative or governing body. Rather, it involves the
concentration of a significant amount of power in the hands of the employees and believes
that conflict is inevitable due to this complex structure of hierarchy and power politics.
Unlike unitarianism, this theory considers the management and employees as two separate
conflicting entities. Although their goals may be similar, yet there will always be a potential
for conflict, due to a difference between the work structure and the allocation or distribution
of associated rewards (Tapia, Ibsen & Kochan, 2015). This is exactly the case in the dispute
under study.
 Like the ‘Unitary’, the ‘Pluralistic’ also encompasses two smaller theoretical concepts which
the current topic of discussion adheres to – Systems Theory and Strategic Choice Theory.
 Taking the case of railway workers’ dispute under consideration, it becomes clear that the
two basic theories of employee relations - ‘Unitary’ and ‘Pluralistic’ approach, are
incompatible and essentially conflicting. A situation like this can adhere to any one particular
concept, the pluralistic in this case, at the same time, completely opposing the other.

REFERENCE LIST
 Bray, M., Waring, P. and Cooper, R. (2009). Advances in Australian employment relations.
North Ryde, N.S.W.: McGraw-Hill Australia.
 Burley, A. M. S. (2017). International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda.
In The Nature of International Law (pp. 11-46). Routledge.
 Halsall, J., Cook, I., & Wankhade, P. (2016). Global perspectives on volunteerism: Analysing
the role of the state, society and social capital. International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy, 36(7/8), 456-468.
 Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic
human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1-56.
 Johnson, C. (2018). The Ideological Contest: Election 2016. DOUBLE, 59.
 Keynes, J. M. (2018). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Springer.
 Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.
 Tapia, M., Ibsen, C. L., & Kochan, T. A. (2015). Mapping the frontier of theory in industrial
relations: the contested role of worker representation. Socio-Economic Review, 13(1), 157-
184.