Asking where workplace conflict comes from is almost a philosophical question. Where does any conflict come from? The academic disciplines of political science, psychology, literature, and even physics wouldn’t exist without this question. I want to be more specific, however, and identify categories of conflict at work. Figuring out the why of a dispute can help lead to its resolution.
Big picture, in a unionized workplace, there are contract disputes and disciplinary disputes. There are interpersonal disputes and strategic differences. The first two happen between the employer and the union (and/or members), but the second two can happen between the employer and the union, or within management, or within the bargaining unit. In a non-union workplace, you have fewer of the first two types (contract disputes and discipline disputes) but more of the second two types.
Those categories are still pretty broad. They don’t address why these conflicts occur.
Ask someone “why” and their answer will depend a lot on their own experience at work. “Because so-and-so is a (insert insult)” or “because the supervisor has their head up their (insert body part).” Some people blame “management” or “the union.”
I’m here to tell you that whatever your answer, it’s probably right . . . and wrong.
Here are some common sources of conflict that I see as an arbitrator:
A new manager or supervisor decides to implement change without learning about the contract and/or practices. WHY? They want to improve business operations.
The union needs to mobilize members for reasons that are unclear to the employer (preparing for bargaining or a political campaign). WHY? They want to win a better contract or demonstrate their value to their members.
The contract is either silent on an issue or a particular section has never been applied before. WHY? A collective bargaining agreement cannot address every topic under the sun; the employer has management rights while the union believes the matter is covered by existing language.
The union needs to represent a member for reasons that do not relate to the underlying issue. WHY? The person is a leader in the union or has threatened to sue the union or the employer.
An employee is unwilling to adapt to the workplace culture or conform to the employer’s expectations. WHY? Their experience tells them (rightly or not) that the changes are bad for the work they do, or they have different priorities than the company. For example, I find many attendance issues arise from employees who choose to care for a family member (or celebrate something) rather than come to work.
People have personal disagreements. WHY? Because they are people.
Employees feel their workplace is “toxic” or unsafe. WHY? Either because it is unsafe, or because they haven’t identified the source of their discomfort at work. For example, “bad air” complaints are just as likely to be about black mold in the ceiling as they are about a bullying co-worker.
The employer is not soliciting the feedback of their workers or is soliciting feedback but not responding to it. WHY? The employer believes that their approach is the best way to proceed.
Something illegal, or feels illegal, is happening. WHY? Because people don’t mind breaking the law or acting unethically sometimes if they perceive it will give them power or some other advantage.
There are probably other reasons that conflict arises in the workplace, and I welcome your thoughts on other conflict scenarios you have encountered. But my main reason for laying out these sources of conflict is so that I could demonstrate that the motive behind the conflict has as much as, or more, to do with how to resolve it than you might expect. And by resolve, I don’t mean “end” or “fix.” The resolution of conflict also comes in a lot of different ways, some of which include having a third person (like me) make a decision.
A way to become better at conflict is to understand the other party’s motivations behind the conflict. Then you have two paths: (1) you can exploit that understanding to gain more power in the situation or (2) you can try to mold your response in a way that helps address the key interests of the other person or party. The first path will increase conflict; the second path will decrease it, which is the point.
If you thought this was helpful, please:
In the long run, I plan to send out these emails once or twice a week so I don’t flood your email. Over the next two weeks, I will try to post slightly more often to build up a library of information. If you prefer not to get them as emails, you can download the Substack app and read them in the app.
If you live in the LA area and want to learn more about labor law and how to present grievances at arbitration, I will be a faculty member (along with four colleagues) at the Labor Arbitration Institute’s Labor Law and Labor Arbitration Conference on January 11, 2024, at the Los Angeles Convention Center. Sorry for the short notice but I just started this newsletter.
Finally, if you received this from someone else and want to read more, please:
Thanks! Please let me know if there are specific topics you would like me to address. I don’t provide legal advice, but I might be able to point you in the right direction!