Two representatives but no representation: cases from Estonia

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to discover how non‐unionised representatives (NERs) are created and what their role is in comparison to unionised representation. The authors aim to analyse why the institution of non‐unionised employee representation is created if its functions overlap with those of the unions, including the functions of collective bargaining and information‐consultation.

Design/methodology/approach

The case study involves interviews with representatives and executive directors, as well as a survey of the employees of two companies.

Findings

The results show that when there is a weak union, the employers initiate an NER in order to involve the whole workforce in the collective agreement. The NER is elected by employees even though it was initiated by the employer. The roles of the two representatives do not differ much, the main function for both being collective bargaining with some provision for information and consultation.

Originality/value

The unique situation in Estonia, which is about to change with adoption of EU directive 14/2002/EC, enables the analysis of cases involving two different representative institutions with the same functions in the same company. This provides valuable input for researchers describing in practice the behaviour of representatives and employers in this situation. It also provides East‐European policy makers some idea about how policies that address collective bargaining and the involvement of workers should be designed.

Citation

Kallaste, E., Jaakson, K. and Eamets, R. (2008), "Two representatives but no representation: cases from Estonia", Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450810835437