One Orange, Two Wins: How Education Leave Became a Matter of Fairness

I recently attended a training session on conflict style where the facilitator used the following analogy:

“Two sisters are fighting over an orange. One wants the peel for baking, the other wants the inside for juice. At first, it’s a standoff. But once they explain what they each need, they realize they can both get 100% of what they want.”

Simple? Yes. But the lesson stuck with me.

Conflict often looks like a contest—until you understand what’s actually at stake.

It brought me back to my days as a Labour Relations Officer, where the conflict wasn’t over fruit but over a denied education leave request that management insisted was “correctly handled under the collective agreement.” But when we dug deeper, it turned out this wasn’t about rules: it was about how we were reading them and what we were missing in the process.

The Case: Education Leave Denied

An employee (let’s call her Fatima) submitted a request for a year-long education leave to pursue graduate studies in a field directly aligned with her current role. She had a strong performance record, no disciplinary history, and had even outlined how her new skills could be reintegrated into her department’s evolving needs.

Her manager denied the request.

The rationale?

“We’ve already approved a leave for another team member. We can’t afford to lose two people at once.” “We’re prioritizing employees who haven’t had development opportunities yet.”

On paper, that sounds reasonable—until you examine how it was applied.

Fatima had never been granted a leave or secondment. She had outperformed expectations year after year. Her file showed nothing but dedication. But in management’s view, her strong performance meant she could "wait" her turn.

That’s when I was brought in.

The Misreading: Fairness vs. Equality

When I met with the employer’s labour advisor, I asked them one simple question:

“Help me understand what you’re trying to protect here.”

Their response was honest. They were concerned about team stability, sure, but they were also trying to avoid the appearance of favoritism and the potential opening of the proverbial "floodgates" of education leave requests. They believed that “equal access to leave” meant not giving two opportunities to high performers while others had none.

But this wasn't an equality issue. It was a misapplied equity lens.

The collective agreement didn’t require strict rotation. It provided discretion to grant leave based on operational feasibility and merit. That’s where the orange analogy came in.

Management’s focus was on team balance. The union’s concern was employee fairness. We were fighting over the same orange, until we realized we valued different parts of it.

The Shift: From Position to Interest

I invited Fatima to provide a breakdown of how her proposed leave would align with upcoming organizational priorities. She highlighted a policy area the department was already exploring, backed by her course plan and even a few ideas for how she could lead internal workshops upon her return.

That reframed the conversation.

Management didn’t actually oppose her development. They just hadn’t seen how it fit their operational needs. Once that link was made, and a temporary backfill strategy was agreed upon, the leave was approved.

Both sides got what they wanted:

• Fatima got her education leave.

• Management preserved stability and even gained a new skill set in the long run.

And no one had to lose in the process.

Three Takeaways for Collaborative Conflict Resolution

This case reminded me that behind every “no” is often an unstated “yes, but…” And that most conflicts (especially in labour relations) aren’t zero-sum.

Here are three practical strategies I’ve used to turn deadlocks into dialogue:

1. Ask: What’s the underlying concern—not just the stated one?

Most disagreements begin with surface-level reasons. But the real breakthrough comes from exploring what each side is trying to protect. In Fatima’s case, it wasn’t just about leave—it was about recognition and contribution. For management, it was about capacity and fairness.

Tip: Ask both parties: “What’s important to you in this situation?” It’s a surprisingly clarifying question.

2. Frame the ask in terms of shared benefits

Once Fatima positioned her leave not as a personal gain, but as an investment in the organization, the tone changed. She went from asking for a favour to proposing a plan. That subtle shift made a big difference.

Tip: If you’re advising employees, help them connect their goals to business outcomes. The stronger the alignment, the harder it is to say no.

3. Interpret the collective agreement with nuance, not rigidity

Agreements are guiding documents, not handcuffs. In this case, the language around education leave allowed for discretion (i.e., "The employer may grant education leave when..."). The problem wasn’t the wording. It was how narrowly it was applied.

Tip: Invite both union and management reps to revisit the spirit of the language, not just the letter. What was the clause meant to enable?

Shared Interests

We often assume that compromise means everyone gives something up. But sometimes, like the sisters and the orange, the answer isn’t in splitting the thing in half. It’s in understanding what each person needs from it.

Labour relations work taught me that people don’t just want outcomes. They want to feel heard, understood, and treated fairly.

Fatima got her leave. Management kept its team on track. And I walked away reminded that behind every positional dispute, there’s usually a shared interest—waiting to be named.