MBA Case Study: Ethics and Fairness in the PATCO-FAA Conflict

This case study examines the conflict between the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) following the government's refusal to amend the existing contract terms. PATCO's response, a strike, was met with severe government action, resulting in job losses and a ban on future government employment. The analysis explores the ethical and fairness aspects of the negotiation tactics employed by both PATCO and FAA, questioning whether the union's strike was a fair negotiation tactic and if the government's response was appropriate. It identifies potential missteps by both parties, including PATCO's failure to consider the consequences of their actions and the government's lack of open communication. The study also discusses conflict resolution and bargaining strategies, such as accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, compromising, competing, distributive negotiation, and integrative negotiation, to provide insights into how the situation could have been handled more effectively. Ultimately, the study suggests that improved communication and conflict resolution strategies could have prevented the escalation of the conflict and led to a more favorable outcome for both parties. Desklib provides various solved assignments and past papers for students.

Running Head: Communication
Communication
Individual Questions

Communication P a g e | 1
Executive Summary
The case study here is based on a situation of conflict which arose between PATCO and
FAA (Federation of Aviation Authority), the conflict arose when the Government
decided not to amend the existing terms of contract given by the labour union. PATCO
reacted to it in an unfair and unethical manner by starting a protest against the
government. The repercussion of such extreme step resulted in harsh government
action, which resulted in loss of jobs and also banned them from joining any
government organization for a period of 12 years. The assignment here will discuss the
case of both PATCO and FAA in the light of ethics and fairness, and would also advise on
what could have been done in order to ensure a smooth handling of the situation.

Communication P a g e | 2
Table of Content
Question 1: Did the union use “fair” or “ethical” negotiation tactics?.........................................................3
Fair Negotiation Tactics........................................................................................................................................... 4
Ethical Negotiation..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Question 2: Was the government’s response to the strike fair and appropriate? Explain.................6
Rationale for the Fair and Appropriate action by the Government........................................................8
Question 3: Who was at fault in the negotiation breakdown and why?..................................................10
Question 4: What do you think could have been done better by PATCO? By the Government?...13
Things to be done differently by PATCO.............................................................................................................. 14
Conflict resolution Strategies.............................................................................................................................. 14
Accommodating................................................................................................................................................... 14
Avoiding.................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Collaborating......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Compromising....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Competing.............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Bargaining Strategies.............................................................................................................................................. 16
Distributive Negotiation................................................................................................................................... 17
Integrative Negotiation.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Integrative V/s Distributive Negotiation........................................................................................................ 17
Things could have been done better by the Government.............................................................................18
Openness in Communication............................................................................................................................... 18
Conflict Resolution................................................................................................................................................... 19
References........................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Communication P a g e | 3
Question 1: Did the union use “fair” or “ethical” negotiation tactics?
The case study is a classic example of a scenario where it becomes difficult and highly
subjective to find what is fair and what is ethical. As it is a known fact that what is fair
might not be ethical and vice versa. Thus, the same holds true in the case of Professional
Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) and Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in
the US. In the context here, PATCO went on strike against the FAA because the later
denied the request of PATCO to amend the terms of contract, thus as a last resort they
had to go on strike. FAA took a serious action against the union members which are as
follows:
 All striking controllers were immediately fired from their respective jobs.
 A federal injunction was obtained against the union, and the union and its
leaders were filed with millions of dollars.
 Some of the important members in the strike such as Poli were straight away put
into the Prison.
 The financial accounts of the union were impounded.
 All the striking controllers were banned from any further employment with the
US government in any capacity whatsoever. It was only in the year 1993 when
then President Bill Clinton pardoned them and gave instruction to re-hire them;
the shocker was it was 12 years after the incident occurred.
The case here looks a little lopsided and in slight favour of the PATCO. Although it can
be said that the union was not fair in their calling off strike against the FAA, it can be
however seen as ethical. Due to the reason that the FAA did not give any attention to the
demands of the Union and its members, and even after 3-4 meetings, the effort was
completely futile and the authority was in no mood to sit on the negotiating table. Thus,
Poli too was under a lot of pressure as he was representing the rights of the labour
union and wanted to extract a good deal for them, thus the impulsive decision to bring
on the strike against the FAA was taken. Poli completely forget to harbinger the
potential damage his action could potentially cause, and miscalculated the
consequences. He even forgot about the previous contract in which it was clearly
mentioned that any strike implemented by the union would be considered as illegal and

Communication P a g e | 4
the US government and FAA can take any action as they seem necessary to contain the
strike. It was this useful piece of information which the union leader Poli overlooked
and asked the union members to come together and put a strong case in front of the
FAA.
Before getting into the intricacies of whether the union used fair or ethical negotiation
tactics, it is important to first understand the implied meaning of these tactics to reach
at a conclusion.
Fair Negotiation Tactics
Negotiation can be seen as a method by which people try to settle their differences, it is
a process by which compromise or agreement is reached upon while avoiding any
argument and dispute(Yang, DeCremer & Wang, 2017). In the case of disagreement
individuals with an understanding aims to achieve the best possible outcome out of the
situation and try to make the most out of it. In this case however, Poli tried sitting on the
negotiation table with the authority, however they were in no mood to revisit the terms
of the earlier contract. This, made Poli a little agitated and he took matter in his hands
and overstepped the authority. Fair negotiation can be understood as the negotiation or
arriving at a conclusion which is mutually agreed by both parties without any coercion
or external pressure (Orbie & Martens, 2016).
In such a state, a fair negotiation is achieved provided the terms of the agreement are
just and equitable. The deal with Fair negotiation is that it has to be fair and just,
mutually agreed upon both the parties and also take into consideration that nobody gets
a setback in the process (Banai et. al., 2014). In the eye of Fair negotiation, thus it can be
said that Poli and PATCO negotiation tactic was not at all fair. It can be easily seen as an
act of militancy and trying to put in pressure or coercion on the US FAA authority by
bringing the operation to halt due to the strike. Poli while taking the call of strike wasn’t
aware of the potential ramification which can be caused by his action on the union
members. Poli had a responsibility of ensuring the right of the members and also to put
their best interests forward, however, the outcome of it was really devastating and
imposed long plight on the members and Poli. Thus, in the eye of the above evidence
and the understanding drawn from Fair negotiation we can easily draw the conclusion
that the union did not use fair negotiation tactic (Fleck, Volkema & Pereira, 2016).

Communication P a g e | 5
The same can also be seen by analysing the position of the FAA; the authority suffered a
major blow due to the strike. The employees by not coming to the work could have led
to potential and fatal accidents. Hence, it was highly unfair on the grounds of union
members and Poli who went selfish and completely forego the needs and the modalities
of their action (McDermott, 2016). At the very same time, Poli did not care about the
ramification for the family members of the union members, the lives of the people
would have been impacted due to the consequence of the strike. Thus in light of all the
stakeholders who were or would have been impacted by this strike, it can be easily
concluded that it was highly unfair (Gasper & Chen, 2016).
Ethical Negotiation
In the simplest way, the definition of ethics can be understood as a system of moral
principles or values, it is the rules or standards governing the conduct of the members
of a profession with accepted principles of right and wrong(Zohar, 2015). Many
negotiators have described ethical negotiation as “ethical climate” because ethics are
reflected in different context where expectations are that negotiators are seeking to
maximize their own gains and are using the other parties as means not end in
themselves to achieve their own goals. Hence it can be said that ethical climate is a
function of more than just the behaviour alone, and it depends on the relationship
between the negotiator and the other party (Butler, 2016).
Ethics is something which is different for every person, as it is guided by the principles,
values, beliefs and moral of an individual and is partially influenced by the society in
which the individual is raised, thus what is ethical for one might not be ethical for the
other person. Thus, ethical negotiation can vary according to the situation and
individual. In the case of PATCO and FAA, PATCO was highly unfair as thy failed to bring
just, equality and fairness in their action; the actions were solely guided by the interest
of the union without any due consideration for any kind of consequences (Kowalczyk &
Kleka, 2015).
However, PATCO tried everything at their end to bring the negotiation to a win-win
table, but due to getting ignored by the FAA authority repeatedly they had to take
matter in their hand and take some action, which I their head was highly ethical. Poli
tried to negotiate with FAA as the union was not happy with the earlier terms of

Communication P a g e | 6
agreement, and almost 90% of the people were not happy with the terms of the contract
and the agreement. Thus, it was Poli who had the responsibility of forwarding the
concern of the union members to the authority and bring out the outcome in the favour
of union members. Poli was elected from amongst the union member due to his
negotiation skill, his influencing ability and other strong personality features, thus he
was entrusted to keep the rights of the union members above all (Balsiger, 2014).
Due to all these reasons and after trying every arrow from his quiver, he was left with
no other option than to call a strike to wake up the authority so that they give their
attention to the concern of the union members. Poli, in his head was ethical, as every
person has a right to live and has a freedom to oppose what wrong is being done to hi in
a peaceful manner, keeping all this rationale in mind, the act of Poli was highly ethical.
He was fighting for the right and entitlement of the union members, who were being in a
bad shape due to the earlier terms of agreement. Thus, the negotiation tactic was highly
unfair but was ethical in the eyes of Poli and the union members, and he did not want to
leave any stone unturned which would show them in a weak light. Poli was right on the
ground of human rights and in thinking that he has to act in the best interest of the
members he is representing, if in doing so, even if certain rules and policies are being
flouted, it is still ethical according to their standards. Nobody should suffer in silence, it
is an act of barbarism, thus one has to raise the voice to support their claim and make
the authority listen to their demands.
Towards the end, in order to conclude the discussion whether union actions were fair or
ethical, there are no two doubts that the action of union was highly unfair on the ground
of justice and equality and should have been avoided at all costs. At the same time, Poli
acted on the accord of the benefit of the union members and to support claim to their
entitlement, which is ethical in practice.
Question 2: Was the government’s response to the strike fair and appropriate?
Explain
Federal aviation authority is a US body which control and manages the air traffic control
on the bastion and employees members of the Professional Air traffic controller’s
organization union. The government has a signed contract with the union members on

Communication P a g e | 7
the terms and conditions which was earlier agreed and signed by the union members.
Poli, who is the leader of the union and the representative of their rights, felt along with
the union that there is a scope of significant improvement in the terms and contract of
the agreement. FAA came up with a new agreement on the demands of the union
members and submitted the same to Poli, but more than 90 % of the members were not
satisfied with the terms and condition of the new agreement. The request for changing
the agreement was then denied by the authority, over which the union and the
members took an extreme step of calling a strike. The ramification of which were
severe, as the FAA has to create an example out of them, the actions taken were as
follows:
 All the striking controllers were immediately fired from the job.
 An injunction against the strike was obtained and both the union and the leaders
were fined millions of dollars per day for the violations.
 Poli and some other executive leaders were thrown into the prison.
 The financial accounts of the union were impounded.
 The biggest blow which the authority gave to the union members was,
prohibiting them to work in the US government for a long period of time; it was
after Bill Clinton came in power that after 12 years the punishment was called
back.
As tough, severe, heinous the ramification may sound, the previous terms of the
agreement clearly mentioned that Union members cannot call strike in any case, and in
the situation of strike it will be called as illegal and the authority can take any action
whatsoever.
The action of the government if has to be evaluated on the grounds of human context
and considering the ramification and troubles the family members of the union
members loss of pay, the action can certainly be considered as tragic and should have
been avoided at all cost. FAA could have trimmed down the punishment keeping in
mind the potential losses for other stakeholders and also the loss for the employees. But
the authority wanted to set an example in front of the union that nobody is higher than
the law, and everybody has to abide by the terms of contract which are guided by the
law.

Communication P a g e | 8
Rationale for the Fair and Appropriate action by the Government
US government is the supreme body which is embarked on the pillars of rightful law,
fairness, ethics, integrity and genuinety. The Government has to make sure that all the
organizations falling under the purview of government regulation abide by the laws set
for them and also follow the guidelines related to work. The Government also has an
added responsibility to make sure that the citizen or the members working in tandem
with the US government and in contractual agreement with the government respect the
terms and conditions as mentioned in the agreement (Lecocq & Hourcade, 2016).
Some people might think that the action taken by the government was highly unfair and
done in spite to teach union members a lesson, but in all fairness, the action was
extremely necessary and an important step to bring discipline into the system and curb
such things from happening in the near and far off future. FAA denied the request of the
union members in the peaceful manner when they wanted certain amendments in the
agreement, the request was denied politely by the government, as in their eyes the
amendments were not fair at the given point in time. The government authority already
has plethora of responsibility on them, thus few ore meeting Poli had with FAA can be
considered as futile. However, the measures and the means employed by FAA can be
seen as highly ethical, fair, transparent and peaceful. The authority was just doing its job
and obeying the commands of the senior authority by following the orders. In the
government orders, commands and respect for law is seen in a higher light, thus
government was just doing its job and to be fair it did a fantastic job.
FAA authority made it extremely clear to the PATCO and Poli that no further discussion
would be done on the aforesaid topic. However, the union and the members did not
knock the right door or used the best alternate available to make their voices heard.
They went berserk and haphazardly called strike without thinking of the consequences
for them. This was where the union went wrong and committed a mistake. They were
supposed to follow the law, raise their voice peacefully and opt for the court. Judicial
system has been created just to ensure that when someone has certain grievances and
they are not being listened to, the judicial system can be approached for the justice.
Judicial system in any state is the highest power which has been given the authority to
decide in the case of any conflict or unfair treatment. Thus, the right way to approach

Communication P a g e | 9
the situation for the union and Poli would be to approach the court, discuss their
grievances and accordingly fight the case to get the justice. If this approach would have
been used by the Union, it would have been fair and ethical by all standards, but due to
their adopted method of going forward with the strike, it resulted in unfair negotiation
from their end.
Government on the other hand was extremely fair in their conduct and their action
against the union members and the union leader, Poli. Government from its side did
everything possible, engaged in fruitful conversation with the union leader and the
members and formed a contract which was beneficial to them. However, if it was not
acceptable to them, union could have knocked the doors of higher authority and given
their grievances. Government did not do any unlawful activity; it did everything within
the purview of law and the terms and condition of the contract. It was explicitly written
in the contract that under no circumstance the FAA would tolerate strike from the union
or its members, and a strict action will be taken against the people who are involved in
such illegal activity (Gratch, Nazari & Johnson, 2016).
The hands of FAA were tied especially after the case of strike by the union members,
because the entire operation came to a halt and plethora of nuance was the order of the
house. Now, in such a situation even the hands of the government were tied as they
were not at fault, and unnecessarily calling a strike was something which was out of the
blue. Government had to go according to the contract agreement, which mentioned
clearly that if at all strike is called by the union it would be deemed as illegal and the
government is free to act on their own accord. FAA in order to set example for future
unions gave hefty punishment to the union members and the union head, they wanted
to create an example that nobody is over the law. In absence of proper communication
or grievances handling the right approach should be to knock the doors of the higher
authority such as the judicial system and not to take the matters in their own hand,
however, despite understanding the ramification of the possible action of the strike, Poli
and union members failed to comprehend to the same and thus their fate was written
by the government.
Thus, in order to conclude, it can be clearly said that Government has to go by rules,
follow the rules, follow the protocol and act accordingly. A government does not have

Communication P a g e | 10
power to act on its own accord and has to follow a system or a patter to reach at a
logical conclusion. In the case above FAA or the government did everything right, its
action was fair and ethical and within the purview of the law. Government was highly
fair and ethical and was just following the orders as were mentioned in the contract.
Imposing hefty fines and firing the employees from the job was the need of the hour. It
was not an impulsive decision but a calculated move to ensure that such incidents do
not occur in the future, as the law is above all and justice always prevails. It is essential
to always punish the miscreants who are not guided and governed by the law and just
act of their impulse nature without any consideration for the possible ramification for
any of the stakeholders (Stefandis & Banai, 2014).
Question 3: Who was at fault in the negotiation breakdown and why?
In order to achieve a desired outcome in a negotiation process, it is critical that both the
parties involved in the negotiation have a clear image of what they expect from this
negotiation. Upon identification of the same, the two parties must communicate and
offer solutions to each other. These solutions are then followed by bargaining and
finally the case is closed after involved parties reach a grey ground. However, a failure
at any step can lead to a negotiation breakdown. This is why a negotiation between two
parties is a critical process and hence must be conducted with utmost care. There are
various ethical and legal laws that bind both PATCO and FAA. In the face of a
negotiation, it is imperative that both parties remain in the boundaries created by the
laws that govern them. Respecting the sanctity of these laws comes foremost and hence
it is critical that it is maintained and respected (Zhu, Zhao & Chua, 2016).
In the negotiation process of PATCO and FAA the ground rules and legalities were
clearly violated by PATCO and hence this led to the breakdown in their negotiation.
PATCO is primarily at fault in the failure of this negotiation. Since the beginning of their
contract, it had been explicitly clear that either party is not legally allowed to conduct
any kind of strikes. This was probably done after keeping in mind the criticality of the
business. A strike does not only impact the two parties but all other stakeholders
involved in the process. Hence if a strike is conducted in such a situation, it is sure to
aggravate situation and adversely impact all the stakeholders which are directly or
indirectly impacted by the two parties (Strulovici, 2017).

Communication P a g e | 11
Union leader representative, Robert Poli has been leading the negotiation from PACTO’s
side. He was well aware of all the laws that govern his team. As a leader it was his
responsibility and accountability to ensure that the negotiation is conducted keeping all
the legalities in mind. Despite that, he encouraged his team members to go on a strike
which was strictly disallowed in the contract signed between the two parties. Therefore,
Poli’s leadership is also ineffective and highly mismanaged. This is because the primary
responsibilities of a leader are to make sure that the team does not conduct any activity
which is considered illegal in the nature of the organization (Herwig, 2014).
Every individual is allotted certain responsibility and authority in any organization and
at any position. In this case, PACTO leader, Robert Poli exceeded his authority and asked
his team to resort to a strike. The rejection of a proposed agreement is similar to a no-
confidence vote and hence efforts must be put by the other party to revise their stance
and correct the same. An extreme step such as a strike causes harm to both the parties
as well as various other stakeholders associated with either of the organizations. Hence
Robert Poli must have understood the limitations that come with his position of
authority as a union leader of PACTO and he must have respected the same. Poli must
have also respected the seniority of FAA in the entire negotiation process and not
conducted himself in an aggressive manner. This is a clear example of a flawed
leadership and this wrong step taken by Poli did not only impact the entire negotiation
process but also his team members (Kayes, 2015).
In the entire process of the negotiation as stated in the case, it has been clear that FAA
has been following the ground rules despite tormented relationships between the two
parties. They had presented a tentative agreement to the PATCO leader to negotiate a
new labor management contract. However, this agreement was rejected by PATCO
members. As per FAA, they had offered PATCO sufficient concessions and
improvements on the already existing contract between both the parties. PATCO on the
other hand resorted to aggression while responding to the offer made by FAA.
Therefore, it is clear that PATCO is largely responsible for the negotiation breakdown
between the two parties. Very often, during a negotiation, parties involved do not easily
reach a final conclusion. It takes time and is often a lengthy process. Therefore during
this time, it is highly important that parties keep working towards that much needed
grey ground (Winham, 2014).