INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT, RESOLUTION AND MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA ORGANIZATION (EDUCATION PROJECT TOPICS AND MATERIALS)
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The most ill feelings, witch-hunting and intransigence that constitute the pitfall for prompt resolution of conflict are attributable to the poor understanding of the nature of conflicts by all the parties involved. Conflict is an institutionalised aspect of industrial relation because the interest of the employer and the employee are usually diametrically opposed. Employer will always strive to maximize their benefits while the employee will strive to maximize his profit. As each of the parties pursues its interest, conflicts become inevitable. But since the parties need each other for the realization of their goals, such conflicts usually leads to compromise and better cooperation.
Whenever workers suspect or perceive their interest to be in jeopardy, discontent will be expressed in one way or the other. The form of expression of grievance depends on the circumstances of the case. For instance, when a group of workers lack solidarity and organization as is often the case among lower-skilled groups. When workers are however organized, as is often founded among higher-skilled occupations, they are more likely to engage in organized conflict and employ more effective sanctions to make the employer to grant them concessions.In dealing with organized labour, union leaders are actually assets to employers rather than liabilities as they are often erroneously perceived by politicians and industrial managers. This is because union leaders usually sensitize management to the potential sources of conflict in industries and also gives advise on how to avert such ugly situations when conflict inevitably ensues, union leaders serve as the arrow head for the channelling workers grievances and they also facilitate the process of conflict resolution. Union leaders can only agitate successfully on behalf of workers when there are genuine and widespread grievances. Hence, efforts to suppress industrial conflicts by ill-informed management through the victimization or sacking of union leaders, or the banning of union activities are largely counterproductive. Union leaders do not conjure the grievance upon which they agitate whereas the persistence of widespread discontent will usually produce leaders to organize such discontent whether union leaders exists or not. Leaders who emerge spontaneously to organize crisis are generally more over-zealous and more difficult to negotiate with by employers than democratically elected union leaders: Otobo(1987).
