LRM3701
ASSIGNMENT 3
DUE DATE: 29 APRIL 2026
, LRM3701 ASSIGNMENT 3 2026
DUE 29 APRIL 2026
QUESTION 1
Q1.1.Based on your understanding of the collective bargaining process, which
bargaining approach would you associate with the case study above?
1.1 Bargaining Approach Associated with the FlySafair Case Study
Distributive bargaining is characterized by a win-lose, zero-sum interaction
where one party's gain is perceived to be the other's loss. It is typically
adversarial in nature and centres on the division of a fixed resource, most
commonly wages (Venter et al., 2014, p. 422). The case study clearly illustrates
the key features of this approach:
Adversarial Opening Positions: The parties began with conflicting and non-
negotiable positions, a hallmark of distributive bargaining. The trade union,
Solidarity, initially demanded a 10% salary increase and better working
conditions, while the employer, FlySafair, offered only a 5.7% raise (Venter et al.,
2014, p. 422). Negotiations reached a deadlock because the parties' positions
were far apart and entrenched.
Strike Action as Leverage: In a distributive bargaining scenario, when
negotiations reach an impasse, the parties resort to the application of power. The
employees' collective power is the ability to strike, which they did for 12 days.
This action is designed to inflict economic harm (lost revenue, disrupted
schedules) on the employer to force a concession, a classic dynamic in a zero-
sum negotiation for a finite resource, i.e., the wage budget (Venter et al., 2014,
p. 532).
ASSIGNMENT 3
DUE DATE: 29 APRIL 2026
, LRM3701 ASSIGNMENT 3 2026
DUE 29 APRIL 2026
QUESTION 1
Q1.1.Based on your understanding of the collective bargaining process, which
bargaining approach would you associate with the case study above?
1.1 Bargaining Approach Associated with the FlySafair Case Study
Distributive bargaining is characterized by a win-lose, zero-sum interaction
where one party's gain is perceived to be the other's loss. It is typically
adversarial in nature and centres on the division of a fixed resource, most
commonly wages (Venter et al., 2014, p. 422). The case study clearly illustrates
the key features of this approach:
Adversarial Opening Positions: The parties began with conflicting and non-
negotiable positions, a hallmark of distributive bargaining. The trade union,
Solidarity, initially demanded a 10% salary increase and better working
conditions, while the employer, FlySafair, offered only a 5.7% raise (Venter et al.,
2014, p. 422). Negotiations reached a deadlock because the parties' positions
were far apart and entrenched.
Strike Action as Leverage: In a distributive bargaining scenario, when
negotiations reach an impasse, the parties resort to the application of power. The
employees' collective power is the ability to strike, which they did for 12 days.
This action is designed to inflict economic harm (lost revenue, disrupted
schedules) on the employer to force a concession, a classic dynamic in a zero-
sum negotiation for a finite resource, i.e., the wage budget (Venter et al., 2014,
p. 532).
