The online negotiations of certain provisions in relation to Community Credit Union Pty Ltd have led to various bargaining

methodologies. These include the use of distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining which various research including that of Fells and Putnam that create a better understanding of the negotiation process. The paper will further discuss these types of bargaining models that were utilised and apply these models to the context of the negotiation process. Further analysis of the negotiation process will determine the strategies and types of models that the negotiation process had taken. The negotiation process covered various terms and provisions that Finance Union of Australia could have seen improvements. Community Credit Union Pty Ltd as an organisation was seen by the Finance Union of Australia as being a Fair employer although there were some issues that could be seen as an opportunity for the unions to better improve working conditions. These provisions included wage increase, parental leave, performance management and the duration of the agreement. On a holistic level the majority of the bargaining process took a distributive approach but the finial negotiation could be seen as having an integrative result.

The distributive bargaining as defined by Lewicki et al.(1997) as necessitating the immediate pursuit of substitutive scarce resources available in the short term by competitive means rather than pursuing outcomes designed to create any amicable relationship with the other party. This is viewed as the win-lose barraging method where for example the unions get a better deal and management gets the lesser deal. In this methodology both unions and the organisation will try to secure what they view will be most beneficial to them. The effectiveness of distributive bargaining is not very clear because if a party to the negotiations is not willing to discuss and in some cases become more lenient in certain requirements the negotiation may not be able to continue (Chamberlain & Kuhn 1986) . In addition the concept of fairness and in relation to the negations is clearly questionable If there is a win-lose situation. Distributive barraging is clearly visible within the negotiation which can be viewed in regards to negotiating the terms of parental leave [see msgs 12 April,13:30 & 18 March, 22:02. In this negotiation phase the Finance Union of Australia would like an additional six weeks of paid parental leave (24 weeks in total) and would like the organisation to pay out the difference between the 18 weeks paid by government at minimum wage rate in which

management responds under Fair Work Australia Act Employers must provide employees with a MAXIMUM of 18 weeks PAID Parental leave. So under these conditions we cannot provide employees with extra paid weeks(Fair Work Australia , Parental leave).

In contrast the integrative method is what is known as a win-win negotiating methodology. The interests of both parties as the name suggests are integrated and unlike distributive barraging there is a mutual gain on both sides. The integrative approach according to Cross (1999), involves making concessions to reach an agreementbut in addition, it involves searching for mutually profitable options and logical trade-offs negotiators search for better proposals than the obvious ones that meet only their own interests. This approach can be seen as a better approach to conducting negotiations. Unlike the win-lose concept within the distributive bargaining methodology, finding a medium between both parties is a priority.

This can be seen throughout the negotiations such as when discussing the issue of wage increase unions had asked for a 4% annual increase while management allowed only for a 2% increase[see msgs 20 April,23:12 & 21 April 15:32]. The integrative approach led to a 3% increase which was agreeable on both sides of the negotiation. But the idea of integrative bargaining can also be seen as limiting. Finding areas in which both parties can agree is a great idea in theory but if one side has fully aware that this causes great loss to the organisation or to the employee the integrative approach can be beneficial to only one party of the negotiations. This can mean bargaining in good-faith can be a means of ending negotiations even though it may cause potential economic or performance loss.

In addition to both the distributive and integrative models the issue remains to be how negotiations take place if it is only limited to either distributive or integrative bargaining and if the negotiations can include both the distributive and integrative models. In the early work of Walton and Mckerise(1965) the concept of mixing both the distributive and integrative approach was seen as too difficult and complex. This can be further seen in the negotiations conducted and the difficulties faced while using both methods of bargaining. In various times during of the process there was a stand still were negotiations could not progress due to

differing approaches then agreeing to the provisions of either party was very difficult[see msgs 19 April, 13:34 &21 April ,18:11 & 21 April 15:34]. Furthermore Walton and Mckerise(1965) argue due to the distinction and differences in both bargaining approaches the application of both will create various areas of conflict. In relation to the negotiations this can be easily identified when discussing the provisions of performance management it created more difficulty to negotiate using both methods. In contrast not using both methods could have created less bargaining in good faith which is highly important in the negotiations process. Utilising on single methodology could have caused the negotiations to fail. And thus a mixed approach is what could be considered as a better alternative for negotiations.

Further research has created a negotiation process that can include both distributive and integrative bargaining. Fells(1986) discusses this notion of a mixed bargaining system and its effect on negotiation process. Fells(1986) argues that a mixture of negotiation methods can create a more strategic outcome. Although previously it was thought that only one bargaining tool could be used a mixture could actually be the way to reaching an agreement. Fells (1986) uses five phases which can lead to a more effective and strategic way to conduct a mixed model way of negotiations. They include establishing the negotiating range, breaking up, accepting common goals, finding solutions and closure. The use of most of these phases can be clearly seen throughout the negotiation process and particularly through the discussion of the duration of the agreement [ see msgs 19 April, 13:57 & 21 April 19:59].

In addition Fells(1998) criticises Walton and Mckerise(1965) stating that it is difficult to adhere to either distributive or integrative bargaining methods as Fells(1998) believes that negotiators will eventually do it all and thus there is no reasonable way to conduct a successful negotiation just by accepting one method of negotiation when there are many available for utilisation. Within the negotiaions that occurred there is a close alignment with the research of Fells (1998). Throughout the negotiations it is indisputable that various

methods of bargaining were used and this is to find means of accepting common interests and finding a method to come to an agreement. More research in the work of Fells (1998) has introduced the research of Putnam (1990). Although Putnams work is similar to that of Fells , Putnam uses three models including the separate model, the stage model, and the interdependence model to assess the capability of the distributive and integrative models to become effective. The interdependence model analyses the inevitability of using a mixed approach in negotiations which created an improved method of negotiation. Putnam argues that the dynamics of utilising both methods creates better negotiation leading to an effective agreement. In conclusion the work of many theorists and scholars all debate the notion of mixing the bargaining tools and the effectiveness. Within the negotiation process it was clear that using just one method of negotiations would lead to a dead end with no results. Therefore the method that was most utilised was the mixed bargaining approach which was significantly applied to the negotiations.