This study looked at the effectiveness of collective bargaining as a means of resolving conflict in Nigeria’s public sector. The study included 1425 respondents drawn using a stratified random sampling technique from six (6) purposefully selected public establishments in the federal capital city of Abuja with a checkered history of work-relations conflict. The data was collected using a questionnaire with a reliability coefficient of 0.796 and a modified 5-point rating scale. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentage count, mean, and standard deviation. The findings revealed a considerable discrepancy in labor and management perspectives on collective bargaining as a conflict-resolution tool in public-sector organizations. A non-significant statistical determinate effect between collective bargaining and conflict management was also discovered in the study. The research specifically predicted that collective bargaining would be ineffectual, pointing to the expanding web of government intrigues as one of the key restraints impeding the mechanism’s effectiveness. The obvious result has been a never-ending cycle of industrial action in Nigerian government organizations. The study concluded that collective bargaining is an institutional invention for resolving opposing labor-management goals, but that the machinery has not played a central and effective role in public sector industrial relations practice.


Whether in the public or private sector of any nation’s economy, today’s work organizations are mostly made up of a variety of interest groups with varying goals and aspirations. These various agendas and interests are constantly at odds with one another (Ekwoba, Ideh and Ojikutu, 2015). As a result, while the prospect of eliminating conflict in the workplace appears unrealistic, the spectre can be recognized and controlled for the greater good of all stakeholders in businesses. As a result, collective bargaining has evolved into an accommodating device for regulating and resolving relational problems between labor and management in the workplace. The technique has proven to be an effective conflict deterrent, preventing bitter industrial actions and promoting long-term industrial relations.

Collective bargaining, according to Bendix (2011), is a rational process in which appeals to fact and logic reconcile conflicting interests in the light of both parties’ common interests. The approach is seen as a critical tool for institutionalizing and containing the problem in this context.

Workplace disagreements are common. When collective bargaining is done successfully and in good faith in dynamic workplaces, the result is frequently an agreeable resolution of mutual concerns that leads to a collective agreement between labor and management. This means that good collective bargaining provides the ground rules for parties during the duration of a collective agreement, as well as the procedure for resolving grievances that may arise (Appah and Emeh, 2012).

Conflict of interest is an unavoidable part of any working relationship.

– working relationships with management In this light, Obi (2013) defined workplace conflict as an act of dissatisfaction and contention in which workers or employers of labor exert excessive pressure on one another in order to achieve their goals. This viewpoint is in line with Muhammad (2014) and Kazimoto (2013), who define workplace conflict as the existence of a conflict of interests or objectives in worker-management relationships. In the absence of shared values in workplaces, most industrial conflicts are based on economic and aim incompatibility. However, by employing the machinery of collective bargaining, it is possible for labor and management with opposing agendas to work together and resolve their differences. Perfidy or purposeful unwillingness to honor collective agreements reached through the consensual process of collective bargaining is rampant among some public-sector employers or management representatives, he continued. Similarly, Fajana and Shadare (2012) claimed that, while collective bargaining has seen significant policy advancements, it has seen less seriousness and effectiveness in Nigeria’s diverse industrial sectors. In contrast, Ekwuoba, Ideh, and Ojikutu (2015), Owoseni (2014), and Bello and Kinge (2014) claimed that collective bargaining is a legitimate conflict management tool that has proven to be beneficial in Nigerian public sector organizations. As a result, there is a wide range of views on the usefulness of collective bargaining as a conflict-resolution strategy in the public sector.

If it isn’t the National Union of Teachers (NUT) or the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), they believe it will be health care workers or another major public sector union. As a result, public sector employees’ trust in the use of collective bargaining is rapidly eroding. This is because the only rationale for strike action in this industry is to put a dent in the collective bargaining process.

As a result, by today’s standards, collective bargaining in the Nigerian public sector appears to be in a horrible and pitiful state. According to Ibietan (2013), the apparatus and process of collective bargaining are not provided a solid foundation, especially in Nigerian public sector companies.

Leave a Comment