The antiquity and ubiquity of conflict in the industrial society needs no emphasis. It is a phenomenon of enormous complexity and multi-dimensionality. The theoretical explanations on its `modus operandi' are manifold. The debate on the industrial conflict still goes on in Industrial Relations (IR) theory as can be seen from the unitarianist, pluralist, radical and neo-Marxist interpretations
Industrial conflict manifests in various forms and occurs at different levels: Ranging from overt and collective action such as strikes, lockouts, gheroas and go slows on the one hand to latent and individualized responses such as sabotage (Taylor and Walton 1971) absenteeism, accidents and turnover (Handy, 1968) on the other. Though for analytical purposes, the former is labeled as `organized conflict' and the latter as `unorganized conflict', these manifestations are not dichotomous. In fact, there are interesting interrelationships between them, making the conflict phenomenon an intricate maze. For example, the relationship between strikes and absenteeism ranges from positive (Handy op. cit.) to little or no overall relationship (Scott et al., 1963).
Both the level and form of manifestation of conflict depend upon the type of conflict at issue. In this connection we will be referring to three analytical frameworks. The first one is Lockwood's (1956) distinction of three types of conflicts, viz., institutional conflict, conflict of interests and conflict of rights. Institutional conflict refers to conflicts about the legitimacy of the institutional framework within which contractual relationships take place. Conflict of interests refers to the mode of establishment of the terms of contract, and conflict of rights refers to the interpretation of the terms of contract.
|
