With history defining the manner in which workers may resist their management, one might think of the management-union conflict as a violent struggle. Though this was precisely what took place historically, contemporarily the situation is quite different. Unions are protected by law; they may resist decisions made against them and take their management to court.

Unions have been granted an immense amount of power to fight for what they believe is right, and so, in view of this power, managements have to also beware that they are not in place to dominate but to make use of their position in a fair manner. They are to bring unions to the table in order to discuss any problems faced. By doing so, managements can easily ameliorate their organizational obstacles; they stand to gain considerably from this process, as there are fewer chances of them being pulled into court.

In addition to avoiding the legal interference, an organization also does not want their routine functions to be disturbed. In implementing a new system (Skill-Based pay), it must be asserted that it is natural for unions such as the Canadian Mining Company to oppose this change. This is because of the fact that at first sight, it appears to be something that goes completely against what unions stand for. However, on negotiation, unions find out that such a pay system is one that could actually benefit them. In order to make unions realize this, they must first be brought to the table and told that there interactions in managerial processes is essential and their word counts. They (unions) need to feel that their views are significant, and if the management realizes particular views that could benefit the organization, they should go ahead and implement them (Blackard, 2000).

In the case of the management in the Canadian Mining Company, it must be asserted that the management adopted a fair role. This is because of the fact that they realized the importance of first convincing their employees regarding the importance of their word. Only then were they really successful. The management gave the union a hearing; they understood their views and then approached the topic delicately. Since unions are not conventionally in favor of non-uniform wages, they would naturally object to a pay-role that could be unjust to some employees with less skill. However, the management being aware of the potential that this plan (Skill-based pay) had, they managed to convince the union with its advantages.

Being in the position that the management was in, it can be asserted that they were not treating the union unfairly. This is because they were ready to listen to the union, as well as explain to them the importance of implementing skill-based pay. Also, since the union was not in a strong position and may have been compelled to follow whatever the management did, it can be observed that the management was still considerate; the management still called the union to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the skill-based pay role (Cohen-Rosenthal & Burton, 1993).
Being given the chance to speak up, certainly the union did not hesitate, but they also realized that this was a good offer. The union realized that their employees stood to gain considerably from. The critical point of this whole process was essentially the bargaining part, as this was a period during which there could have been chaos. However, the core aspect that was considered was the possibility of relocation and transfers. In spite of relocation and transfers being possible after the implementation of skill-based pay role, the one guarantee that employees had was that they would retain their jobs. They would also have more scope to become more skilled in other functions of the organization. With training being provided by the management, it would be an advantage to the employees, primarily due to the fact that they would be fit for other roles within the mining company or any other job related to this field (Albrecht & Albrecht, 1993).

In view of the manner in which the union was treated, it can be said that they got a fair deal from the management. Taking this experience into consideration, other organizations can follow the same example. To put it very simply, the manner in which the management dealt wit the union does not simply apply to implementing skill-based pay, as a similar approach may be used in other cases as well. However, it must be asserted that without the calm and smooth approach that the Canadian Mining Company used, the transition into skill-based pay would not have been possible.