1. HRM4010- Labour Relations and Collective Agreements
Pre Class Assignment #1
Submitted by: Kanav Narayan Sahgal (Student ID: 101009412) Date: 18th
January, 2015
Case Incident: Hospital Employees’ Union vs. British Columbia Nurses Union
Question 1) what concerns, if any, would hospital employers have in this situation?
Answer 1) Applying Alton Craig’s “open systems approach” to union management, we see that the union raid has multi-
dimensional implications that the employer should we aware of. But before explaining those implications, it’s important
to first understand the role of the various elements involved in the union raid and how each of them relate to one
another.
First off, the legal, political and social environment would be the key environmental factors that the employer should be
concerned about. The employer should be aware of the legal implications in the case of a raid, and understand which
laws and regulations apply to protect the interests of the organization and the employees in such a case. Similarly, the
political environment, which is influenced by the political parties also affects the employers and legal environment in
much the same way via political systems. For example, Alberta is more conservative than British Columbia. This means
that it is more likely to find legislations that favour unions in British Columbia than in Alberta. Finally, the social
environment regarding the acceptance of unions and the values and perceptions of a raid need to be understood. The
actors in this case are the parties involved in the raid. They are the LPN, HEU, BCNU, the employers, the labour relations
board and finally the government. At this stage, the employer should be aware of the power distribution of each actor to
effectively understand what stand to take. For example, it was apparent that BCNU perceived they had higher power than
the HEU, which is why they initiated the raid in the first place. However, when they withdrew their application for
certification in the end, it was established that they came out as the weaker, less popular party. The next thing that
employers need to be aware of are the processes involved in labour relations in the course of this raid. Employers need to
be aware of existing legislation and political activities involved in the raid. Similarly, to ensure the interests of their
employees are fulfilled, they should keep a check on strikes and lockouts by either party. For example, since the LPN’s
earned a lower salary than registered nurses, employers need to be aware of the terms and conditions of the collective
agreement in the event of a contract negotiation. Finally, the most important thing an employer needs to be aware of is
the final outputs or results of the entire raid. Usually, raids are easily attributed to increased hostility and fear among the
members of the two conflicting unions. This could lead to lower workplace productivity and other counter productive
workplace behaviours that the employer needs to keep a check on. Furthermore, strikes and lockouts could also possibly
occur if the union hostility increases. This is another concern for the employer and it is one he must be aware of. Finally,
the employer should be abreast with legal regulations surrounding the raid, and it would help if he is aware of the
certification process. Feedback, which is the final element of the open systems approach is also crucial for the employer,
because unless he is aware of how the various elements of each stage in labour relations framework affect each other, it
would be difficult for him to make well informed decisions for the benefit of the organization. For example, in the event
of a strike by the HEU, the employer should be able to assess the impact this has on the other actors- which include the
employer himself and the BCNU. From the case, we can see the ultimate “outputs” sought by the BCNU weren’t met
(which was an increased membership into their union) and thus, this would come as a sign of relief to hospital employers
who now wouldn’t have to deal with a new union coming into power in their workplace.
There is another approach to answer the question. Suffield & Gannon (2016) have highlighted in chapter 4 of the
textbook that two of the major objectives of any employer in a unionized workplace are efficiency & productivity and
control. Thus, we can relate this to the systems framework and say that efficiency, productivity and control are the
desired ”outputs” of the employer, while the desired processes can include tactics such as contract negotiation, unilateral

2. action, court action, taking opposition measures and also undertaking contract negotiations. All of these steps can be
implemented by the employer in the case of a raid to maximize employer control and minimize productivity and efficiency
loss due to the raid. Other factors that the employer should be aware of is his own competitive strategy, experience with
unionization and raids, the power of both opposing unions and finally the legal, political and social environment
surrounding the raid.
Question 2) what arguments can be made in criticism or in defence of raiding?
Arguments can be made both in criticism of raiding and in defence of raiding. We shall explore both of them below.
Arguments in criticism of raiding: Just as with mergers and acquisitions, union raiding tends to create a climate of
hostility and fear among employees, which can be attributed to counter productive work behaviours and lower
organizational productivity. Apart from reduced organizational and individual performance, raids also create an
environment of tension and stress, both of which are now classified as workplace hazards and are deemed harmful for
the health of employees. One of the two major management objectives are maintaining control in the workplace.
However, with the existence of union raids, management control tends to be placed in a vulnerable position. Thus we can
say that union raids can definitely lead to a compromise in the power and authority of an employer, because the new
union that comes into power after the raid, might exercise its authority on the employer and force him/her to agree to
terms and conditions that he/she wouldn’t accept. Taking the case into perspective, if BCNU successfully raided HEU and
advocated higher wages for LPN’s, this could have led to further conflict between the hospital employers and employees
with respect to the wage hike and also called to question the legitimate power of the employer. A final criticism to union
raiding can be the time and resources invested in the same, which could have been used otherwise towards achieving
organizational goals. Similarly, actions such as applying for certification (and possibly appealing the decision) also lead to
higher costs and loss of valuable work hours.
Arguments in defence of raiding: In some cases, union raiding can be justified. As mentioned in the case incident, BCNU
justified its raid on the premises that LPN’s weren’t getting the wages they deserved, paid too much in the form of union
dues and worked under incompetent leaders. Without any objective evidence, these accusations stand invalid, however
with evidence, one can definitely say that these are strong arguments in favour of raids (for example, the case incident
clearly mentions that LPU’s were paid much less than registered nurses, thus, the BCNU’s argument favouring the raid on
the grounds of “lower wages” is substantiated). In 2002 the HEU had a confrontation with the government, thus, if the
new union can promise lower counts of government confrontation and greater adherence to laws and procedures, it
could also serve as a strong argument in favour of raiding because this actually benefits every single “actor” in the open
system framework, and also advocates an equitable relationship between the actors and the legal and political
environment.
References:
Suffield, L., & Gannon, G. L. (2016). Labour relations. Toronto: Pearson Canada, [2016].