This one-day workshop gives practical insights into how to analyse and intervene in workplace conflict situations. Through practical exercises based on ‘real world’ scenarios, participants will learn how to apply a range of tools to better understand ‘what is going on’. Participants will learn about the range of formal and informal approaches that can be used to effectively address group conflicts in the workplace.

This training workshop will help you to:

* Deepen your understanding of the dynamics of inter-personal conflict in the workplace
* Identify the symptoms or signs of serious conflict
* Learn how to analyse a conflict using a range of practical tools
* Become familiar with a range of interventions techniques using third parties
* Become better able to resolve workplace conflicts

The seminar will involve formal presentations, individual and group work, participative discussion, and role play exercises. It should be attended by any line manager who either has a conflict situation now or can expect to have one in the future. For more information please see Public Affairs Ireland Brochure

The Implementation Body for the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 in its first annual report established that estimated sustainable pay bill savings in the order of €289m had been achieved during the review period. The saving was driven primarily by a 5,349 reduction in staff numbers but also other factors such as reductions in overtime costs (down 5.2%) and pay bill savings accruing from changed work practices, rationalisation etc. which are detailed in the Report.

The Body concluded that the level of sustainable savings delivered during the first year of the Agreement has exceeded the targeted savings for the public service pay bill in 2011 outlined above.

In addition, the Body found evidence that public service bodies are succeeding in generating significant non-pay cost savings through better use of resources – reorganising work and achieving greater internal efficiencies. These non-pay savings, which are detailed in the Report, arise in such areas as property rationalisation, reducing the costs of purchasing goods and services and changes in the way services are delivered.

The value of the reported non-pay savings detailed in the Report (which are not exhaustive) is some €308m. The report also provides some examples of initiatives taken by public bodies which have led to costs of €85.7m being avoided which would otherwise have been incurred.

The Agreement allows for the engagement of external financial advisors. This involves a review of the methodology, quantification and estimation used by public service managements to identify savings that have been achieved and savings that will be achieved as a result of agreements reached.
The Body engaged independent external auditors, MKO Partners Ltd., following a tendering process, to undertake independent verification of reported savings for a sample of three projects. A copy of their report is being published in conjunction with this Report. Its main findings are that:
- All three of the sample projects evaluated have demonstrated a capability to facilitate verifiable savings;
- The Public Service Agreement is playing a significant role in facilitating the implementation of the savings initiatives in each case; and
- The indicative savings reported by public service management in the case of the three projects were found to be reasonable estimates of the savings that will arise if successfully implemented.

I have started a discussion group on LinkedIn called Industrial and Employee Relations Forum People with a particular interest in IR/ER should find something of interest there either in the discussions, promotions or job advertisements. It’s an open forum so anyone can drop in and join or start a discussion or comment on someone else’s views.

Current discussions include:

* Bruton review of wage setting in sectors covered by JLCs

* Travel and subsistence and how it should be paid

* Higher public service pay in the UK

* Making the most effective use of the LRC

* Negotiation and change in the public sector

* The impact of the recession on employee relations.

Public Affairs Ireland is offering a course on how to make the most effective use of the public dispute resolution agencies, particularly the Labour Relations Commission on 8th June 2011.

Despite what we say about the potential that conflict has to generate energy, great solutions, deeper understanding and so on – the reality is that it mainly causes pain, stress and under-performance. Maybe we handle conflict badly most of the time or maybe we exaggerate its positive potential. Either way, my experience of working with people who are engaged in workplace conflicts is that they are not benefitting from it – quite the opposite.

Stress and Worry
People talk about how stressful conflict is and how much time and energy it consumes. This is as true for senior executives as it is for junior employees. Conflict, like illness, is a great leveller in that sense. Most people bring their worries home with them and family life is affected. One person told me recently that he had been banned from talking about work at home. Inevitably, individual and organisational performance suffers when people are consumed mentally by their conflicts. Very often they can’t see straight and they can’t plan ahead.

Methods for Resolving Conflicts
Most organisations have routine ways of handling inter-personal conflicts. Mediation is commonly used to resolve serious disagreements between colleagues. Where rights, standards and entitlements are at issue, grievance and disciplinary procedures, bullying and harassment policies, performance management systems etc can be used. Most organisations also have routine ways of handling management-union conflicts. Ultimately, such conflicts can be brought to the LRC for assistance.

Group Conflicts Not So Straightforward
However, when it comes to conflicts involving groups such as teams, work units, departments and so on, most organisations don’t have routine procedures that can be invoked. The absence of such procedures is surprising given that conflicts within groups can have very damaging effects on those involved as well as on the performance of teams, work units or departments. This is probably because such conflicts are less common than inter-personal conflicts. Or it may be because there is no ‘one way’ of addressing such conflicts because they are by their nature messy, complex, and often high in emotional content. Indeed, employees sometimes present such conflicts as industrial relations ones so they can then invoke established procedures to have them addressed.

Some Tried and Tested Approaches
The good news is that there are a number of very effective approaches for tackling conflict within teams, work units or departments. In general it is better to approach such conflicts through facilitation rather than mediation. A range of approaches can be effective including the following:

• Data gathering and feedback: interviews, surveys, focus groups
• Facilitated ‘confrontation’ meetings
• Mediation for pairs and small groups
• Organisational reviews
• Action planning
• Skills development
• Individual coaching
• Organisation restructuring.

Now You’re Talking
Groups usually need to ’level with each other’ and clear the air in some form of group activity before they can begin working more constructively together. If that can be achieved, then involving people in organisational improvement projects is one of the most effective ways of channelling energy away from destructive conflict. Such activities also provide really useful opportunities to build and strengthen relationships where these have been damaged. In complex situations it stands to reason that ‘off the shelf’ approaches or approaches that simply focus on one aspect of the problem are doomed to failure. Customisation is the key to success.

Independent College Dublin is hosting an important Conference on Mediation on 14th May coming. Check out the programme.

I have just issued a client newsletter which focuses on conflict in the workplace of a non-industrial relations type – within and between groups such as teams, departments, work units – and on how such conflicts can be addressed constructively through a group facilitation approach. See it here: http://email.adsmart360.com/display.php?M=11&C=24880cff131097d17354a01ca28ca4c5&uid=3501&S=10&L=1&N=1&ssp=1

Two events worth considering are the upcoming Public Affairs Ireland Conference on the Croke Park Agreement and this year’s Mediators’ Institute of Ireland Conference.

Both have strong lineups (including yours truly at MII) and sessions on topics of limmediate relevance to anyone interested in HR/IR, the public sector, and dispute resolution.

Two events worth considering are the upcoming Public Affairs Ireland Conference on the Croke Park Agreement and this year’s Mediators’ Institute of Ireland Conference.

Both have strong lineups (including yours truly at MII) and sessions on topics of immediate relevance to anyone interested in HR/IR, the public sector, and dispute resolution.

Shortly after it was negotiated, it looked like the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 was a proverbial busted flush such was the level of opposition to it. Today, barring a miracle, the Agreement will be accepted by ICTU’s Public Services Committee next Tuesday 15 June.  The ‘big battalions’ of the public service union world, SIPTU and IMPACT, have both voted by large majorities for the agreement, along with several other trade unions, thus ensuring acceptance. What are the implications of this deal going through for the various stakeholders?  And what might we expect to see happening soon in the public service when the deal is formally ratified?

Government

For government, currently languishing at a poor third position in the latest Irish Times opinion poll, the deal represents a respite from further conflict with the public service unions.  There is one less stick for the Opposition Parties to use on them.  The government will no doubt argue that ratification of the agreement provides support for the ongoing moratorium on recruitment and on the filling of vacancies and on other public service cutbacks. Internationally, the government will be hoping that the agreement will be a signal to the markets that they have resolved industrial unrest and have a measure of compliance if not active support for cuts in spending.

They will be hoping that the detail of the concessions that they had to make to secure an agreement (guarantees of no compulsory redundancies, guarantees of no further pay cuts before 2014, and a facility whereby unions can seek the return of pay losses based on savings made) will not attract attention and will not be seen as any type of cave-in on their part to union pressure. While there are distinct advantages for government in having this deal there is no denying that they have given up access to further savings through additional pay cuts in the immediate future – barring a deepening of the economic crisis to an unexpected degree.

Public Service Unions

For the public service unions generally the agreement represents an opportunity to credibly cease the campaign of industrial action which their members supported but not with great enthusiasm. The task for them is to now ensure that the agreement is implemented in full and, in particular, that over the next few years, they begin to claw back some of the pay foregone through the 2009 budgetary decisions. One of the concerns that the unions had about the agreement was that public service management would not have the will or the capacity to see through the agreed changes that, if implemented in full, might provide the basis for unions claiming back lost pay on the basis of savings made through these changes. See Croke Park Deal = New Ballgame on Public Service Pay?

It remains to be seen how matters are handled in sectors like education where there are clear divisions over the agreement between ASTI, IFUT and TUI which all voted against and the INTO which voted for. In the health arena the INMO voted against while the majority of health service employees voted for through SIPTU, IMPACT, MLSA and other trade unions. In the civil service, AHCPS, PSEU and IMPACTvoted for while CPSU and the POA voted against.

If the public service unions stick with tradition, then the unions that voted against will abide by majority rule notwithstanding some suggestions to the contrary. CPSU and some others have already indicated that they will abide by majority rule. Nevertheless it would make sense for the unions that voted for and for public service management to find ways of bringing the other unions along with them.

Unions Outside the ICTU

Some of the unions that are not affiliated to ICTU such as PDFORRA, the representative body for rank and file military personnel, voted against the Agreement while others such as the AGSI, representing garda sergeants and inspectors, voted for.  Such trade unions are not entitled under current legislation to affiliate to ICTU. They are not directly involved in the negotiations but were party to a ‘parallel process’ within the Croke Park negotiations. Interestingly, ICTU undertook to investigate the possibility of these organisations affiliating to ICTU a number of months ago during the period of union protests against public service pay cuts. Their votes will not be taken into account at the ICTU Public Services Committee but they will no doubt make their views known directly to their employers and to the government.

Public Service Management

For public service management there is now the opportunity – as well as the challenge – to deliver on all the changes that the unions have just voted through, including quire radical changes in the HSE which is on the receiving end of a lot of very negative publicity over standards of patient service. The agreement will almost certainly make life a little easier for new HSE Chief Executive Cathal Magee when he takes over the reins from Professor Drumm in the autumn. There will also be a cessation – ended in most places anyway at this stage it seems – of further industrial action on the issues covered by the agreement.

Public Service management and Trade Unions

For both public service management and trade unions there is the challenge of finding ways of quickly improving the quality of relationships in the wake of a major dispute. There is also the challenge of implementing changes together in the spirit of partnership which informs the agreement. It has often been commented that the public service suffers from management weakness and trade union strength. To some extent, the new agreement can be seen as providing a platform for management to become more assertive in pursuing the change agenda while for trade unions it provides them with vital rights to have a say in what happens on the ground.

The Public and Taxpayers

The strongest argument that government and the  public service trade unions have made in favour of the agreement is that it will lead to a ‘transformation’ (should the word be banned it has been bandied around so much?) in the delivery of public services.  The public will be watching very closely to see if standards of service improve, disimprove or remain the same. The agreement puts it up to government, public service management and trade unions to deliver now or to lose credibility very fast.

Comment

When this agreement is ratified it will be the first public service only pay agreement for more than twenty years. Since the Programme for National Recovery in 1987 national pay deals have always covered both the private and public sectors. Last year government, ICTU and IBEC failed to reach agreement on the handling of pay generally and there is now no pay agreement covering the private sector and, needless to say, no ‘social partnership’ at national level. It is highly unlikely that this new agreement will prepare the ground for a deal in the private sector, at least for the coming year if not for longer.