Industrial relations is a critical component for any organization. In fact, Fossum (2014) opines, the relations between employees and employers to a more significant extent determines the productivity of an organization. Organizations are therefore increasingly exploring different ways of improving their relationship with employees. With increased cooperation and partnerships between unions and company management, there has always been a suggestion that more benefits can be derived from guaranteeing unions positions in the companies’ boards.

Those holding this view opine that having union representatives on the boards may be beneficial because they can bring fresh perspectives particularly on employee’s expectation to decision making (Wharton University, 2009). They can bring on boards information that the board would not have necessarily obtained. In this sense, quality decisions about the company’s operations can be made given more information.

Besides, it is assumed that having representation on the company board increases the level of trust among union members. Through their union-representative who sits on the board, the union members have access to much more information regarding the status of the company. This level of transparency improves the extent to which members can listen to views which support the position of the management. Without such representation, then union leaders who tend to align with the opinion of the management are seen as traitors. Therefore, a possibility of more significant benefits does exist since workers see themselves as part of the organization, and can positively deal with negative information delivered by the management.

On the other hand, while union representation on the boards of management may seem to be a positive thing, it also needs a serious rethink. Wharton University (2009) observe the role of the union-director has to be defined clearly, something that is not the case. For instance, the board of directors exists to protect the interest of the shareholders. With this in mind, it is difficult to see where the union-director fits in; because the role of union leaders is to protect the interest of the workers. Wharton University (2009) warns most of the time when difficult decisions have to be taken; the union-directors may find themselves at a loss because the position being taken on the negotiation table is that of the shareholders and not that of the workers. In any event, critical decisions will be decided by a vote. Hence, with only one or two seats, the union –directors cannot have a significant impact in influencing the direction of the board.

The organization that accepts an arrangement of having union representation on the boards will also be inviting trouble. Wharton University (2009) notes in most instances; workers will view the responsibility of such a director as being that of a labor advocate. To that end, there is a higher likelihood of an activist being elected to the boards by workers. This is an issue that neither the management nor the board itself may find attractive. To being with, such an individual may be a disruptive force, inhibiting smooth operations of the board, or even stalling its processes. The working environment may thus become so toxic that undertaking any meaningful work may become almost impossible.

Even if union directors meant well for the organization, Wharton University (2009) notes most of the time they find their activities constrained by the bureaucratic and legal constraints surrounding their work. Hence, the extent to which one may have the impact anticipated by workers largely depends on how well they can adapt and work around the constraints levels by the governance procedures. The inability to do this will likely hamstring these directors.

It is, therefore, necessary to critically think of what is expected of union directors, and the extent to which they can deliver on those expectations. This should be the basis upon which a decision to have union representative on the board of director should be made.