, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
QUESTION 1
1. FlySafair slammed as pilots lose 12 days’ pay despite strike outcome.
1.1. Based on your understanding of the collective bargaining process, which bargaining
approach would you associate with the case study above?
Justification and explanation:
Distributive bargaining, also known as competitive, positional, or win-lose bargaining, is a process
where each party participates for self-gain without necessarily considering the other party’s interests,
often over the division of limited resources such as wages (LRM3701, Study Guide. 2020). This
approach assumes that the goals of the employer and employees are in conflict, and the more one
party gains, the less is available for the other.
The case study clearly reflects distributive bargaining for the following reasons:
Conflicting initial positions: The trade union (Solidarity) initially demanded a 10% salary
increase, while FlySafair offered a 5.7% raise. These opposing positions were predetermined,
and each party sought to maximise its own gain (LRM3701, Study Guide. 2020).
Use of pressure tactics: When negotiations reached a deadlock, the pilots resorted to strike
action. A strike is a classic power tactic used in distributive bargaining to compel the employer
to concede to employee demands (LRM3701, Study Guide. 2020).
Win-lose or compromise outcome: The final settlement resulted in a wage increase of 6% to
6.9% annually over four years—higher than the employer’s initial offer of 5.7% but lower than
the union’s original demand of 10%. The union’s secretary-general expressed dissatisfaction
that pilots “had to strike to get what they deserved and then lost 12 days’ pay,” indicating that
even with a settlement, the union perceives a loss (the 12 days’ unpaid remuneration) and a
win-lose dynamic (Amahle Cele, 2025).
Focus on wages and working conditions: The dispute centred on wages (a finite resource) and
shift-exchange rights, which are classic subjects of distributive bargaining where one party’s
gain in wages directly impacts the employer’s operational costs (LRM3701, Study Guide.
2020).
In summary, the case study illustrates distributive bargaining because both parties entered the
negotiation with fixed positions, used economic pressure (strike action), and reached a compromise
that was less than the union’s initial demand, resulting in a mixed outcome rather than a true win-win
solution.
QUESTION 1
1. FlySafair slammed as pilots lose 12 days’ pay despite strike outcome.
1.1. Based on your understanding of the collective bargaining process, which bargaining
approach would you associate with the case study above?
Justification and explanation:
Distributive bargaining, also known as competitive, positional, or win-lose bargaining, is a process
where each party participates for self-gain without necessarily considering the other party’s interests,
often over the division of limited resources such as wages (LRM3701, Study Guide. 2020). This
approach assumes that the goals of the employer and employees are in conflict, and the more one
party gains, the less is available for the other.
The case study clearly reflects distributive bargaining for the following reasons:
Conflicting initial positions: The trade union (Solidarity) initially demanded a 10% salary
increase, while FlySafair offered a 5.7% raise. These opposing positions were predetermined,
and each party sought to maximise its own gain (LRM3701, Study Guide. 2020).
Use of pressure tactics: When negotiations reached a deadlock, the pilots resorted to strike
action. A strike is a classic power tactic used in distributive bargaining to compel the employer
to concede to employee demands (LRM3701, Study Guide. 2020).
Win-lose or compromise outcome: The final settlement resulted in a wage increase of 6% to
6.9% annually over four years—higher than the employer’s initial offer of 5.7% but lower than
the union’s original demand of 10%. The union’s secretary-general expressed dissatisfaction
that pilots “had to strike to get what they deserved and then lost 12 days’ pay,” indicating that
even with a settlement, the union perceives a loss (the 12 days’ unpaid remuneration) and a
win-lose dynamic (Amahle Cele, 2025).
Focus on wages and working conditions: The dispute centred on wages (a finite resource) and
shift-exchange rights, which are classic subjects of distributive bargaining where one party’s
gain in wages directly impacts the employer’s operational costs (LRM3701, Study Guide.
2020).
In summary, the case study illustrates distributive bargaining because both parties entered the
negotiation with fixed positions, used economic pressure (strike action), and reached a compromise
that was less than the union’s initial demand, resulting in a mixed outcome rather than a true win-win
solution.
