Workers of the nonprofit sector, unite!

That famous Marxist quote — altered slightly here for effect — could apply to the 21% of unionized employees in Canada’s nonprofit sector. And that number could have increased since that statistic was recorded by the HR Council for the Nonprofit Sector‘s 2008 Toward a Labour Force Strategy for Canada’s Voluntary & Non-profit Sector study.

It’s of interest in light of recent events in the news, specifically an ongoing strike by 60 unionized employees of an Ottawa-area Salvation Army outlet which highlights the dangers of negotiations and working conditions going bad between a nonprofit employer and its employees and the potential effect it could have on the community being served.

Neither the union representing the employees — the Public Service Alliance of Canada — nor the Salvation Army responded to requests for interview from CharityVillage® before deadline.

This all begs the question: how can a nonprofit with unionized employees best avoid acrimony between management and workers?

Communications breakdown

The HR Council’s 2008 report noted that half of the sector’s larger employers (those with 100 or more employees) are unionized; and organizations in health and social services are more likely to be unionized than those in other areas of activity.

So how do those nonprofits keep things civil and harmonious? According to Ian Welsh, an independent human resources professional and experienced dispute resolution mediator, the first thing to establish is a clear line of communication between executive level staff and union representation so a trusting relationship can form.

“The most important thing is to have some respect and rapport between the parties. This is essential. Generally, it’s important to have an ongoing flow of respectful communications. It’s speaking as equals, with management recognizing the role of the union and vice versa,” Welsh said. “They aren’t the same, but there should always be an openness in discussions.”

He noted that in his experience, regularly timed meetings between management and union representatives helps decrease unwanted or unforeseen employment crises.

“If the organization or the union sets up an adversarial relationship, there’s little that can be achieved. This goes back to the flow of communications, so that in normal times, there is an ongoing exchange between management and the union. This way, if something critical happens, there’s nothing [for either side] to pounce on, it would only involve raising the communications to a different level,” he counseled.

This advice is echoed by the HR Council. It devotes an entire page on its website to educating interested sector parties on how best to conduct the union-management relationship.

“To foster good relationships, both parties should commit to resolving those differences and disputes in a proactive, collaborative way that embraces the principles of fairness, respect, and dignity. As much as possible, disputes should be resolved between a worker and his or her supervisor, at the first instance. An environment of respectful front-line resolution should prevail. Third party intervention should only be used as a last resort when the parties are at an impasse and cannot see their way to a voluntary resolution,” according to the HR Council.

But establishing who gets to be at the communications or negotiation table is also of crucial import.

If you want something done right…

Speaking from the union perspective, Gary Corbett, president and CEO of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), said that his main question at the bargaining table is “who am I talking to?”

His union represents the more than 60,000 “knowledge workers” in the federal and provincial governments across the country as well as some members in hospitals in the north.

Corbett said his members shy away from using more “aggressive” models of union action, like picket lines. “We like to talk about things and find compromise where we can.”

When it comes to communication and bargaining, Corbett said he finds there’s often a lack of credibility on the part of his negotiating partners. “There’s the messenger. Then there’s the messenger’s messenger; and then there’s the actual person in charge. I ask how much [decision-making] scope the person I’m dealing with has. In my case there are deputy ministers, ministers and so on. So, who am I talking to?”

He adds that a lot of times negotiators come to the table without the actual power to negotiate. “It ends up as a farce,” Corbett said.

To this Welsh lends his agreement and advice, saying it’s imperative that when management and union representatives meet, both sides should come armed with the authority to accept decisions, or at the very least recognize in each other the familiarity with the issues at hand.

“As much as possible, it should be the senior person responsible for implementing a lot of the collective agreement provisions” who’s at the table for a nonprofit; though it’s likely the staff is very small. “Generally it should be a senior person at the table and someone who understands what the provisions pertain to. But it’s important they have the authority to make decisions or concessions.”

But major concessions like wage hikes or vacation day accruals generally tend to need approval from the board on the organization’s side, and from the membership, via a vote to ratify, on the union side, he said.

“If those [representatives] have credibility and are known to understand the type of issues that occur in the day-to-day operations of the organization, then as long as there’s straightforward honesty” negotiations tend to go smoother and harmony tends to prevail, Welsh said.

And in most cases, he added, when there’s a senior person at the table, ratifications can go through without much problem.

Concluding the message

Like Welsh, the HR Council chalks up a winning union-management arrangement to excellent communications and interpersonal strategies that leave both sides open to saving face and building bridges:

“Both parties should work toward establishing and fostering a two-way communication system. They should not only come together to resolve a dispute. They should build collaborative strategies on ways to further their mutual goals, to provide efficient and effective services to their clients or customers, and to make the workplace better for the employees. A co-operative union-management relationship must be built on a foundation of mutual benefit, honesty, fairness and — most importantly — trust.”

Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf is president of WordLaunch professional writing services in Toronto. He can be reached at andy@wordlaunch.com.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and e-mail addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other web sites and e-mail addresses may no longer be accurate.