Search results

The article focuses on the role that ‘confidential information’ plays in relation to the work of board-level worker representatives, and their interaction with other worker participation mechanisms. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to explore the implications of confidentiality of board-level information for effective worker participation. The main argument is that if board-level worker representatives are excessively constrained by confidentiality provisions, their capacity to work effectively is brought into question.

A qualitative research was undertaken on a sample of 12 public limited companies in Slovenia. In each company, three interviews were conducted: with the CEO or board member, with a board-level worker representative and with a works councilor, who was not a board-level worker representative (36 interviews in total). Each of these interviewees has a particular role, and interest, in handling confidential information. Thus, a method of triangulation by groups was employed. The interviews were conducted at the company premises during October and November 2017. The results were analysed by the content analysis method.

This research confirms that in the majority of companies, nearly all of the material and information discussed by the board is deemed to be ‘confidential’. Consequently, communication between board-level worker representatives and the works council is rendered difficult, if not impossible. The results indicate an urgent need to redefine the concept of confidentiality and to reinforce the level of communication between management boards and works councils.

The research is limited to one country, which, by no means, is fatal, as international comparisons, although of greater breadth, often lose some depth of analysis (especially, for example, where there are differences in legal contexts). Although the issues discussed in the paper are of relevance to all those with an interest in worker participation mechanisms, they cannot be generalised mostly due to national specificities.

The question of confidentiality as between the board, board-level worker representatives, works councils, trade unions and other form of worker representation, despite its importance, has been raised quite rarely in research. In this research, three groups of stakeholders (CEO/board member, board-level workers representative and works council members) have been covered, with the aim to extend the understanding of how confidentiality obligations impact relationships between these.

This paper aims to gain insight into managers' perspectives on the concept and practice of workers' participation in management (WPM) in Indian organizations. WPM is a critical ingredient in organizational effectiveness. However, the most fundamental aspects of WPM, such as the attitudes, expectations of managers and the factors facilitating or hindering the participation process, are less explored. This paper attempts to answer those questions concerning WPM in the context of Indian organizations.

The study uses data from 138 managers of Indian public and private sector organizations. Data were collected through an online survey as well as through semi-structured interviews. The study explores potential benefits, roadblocks and supporters from the managers' perspective. Further, to test the hypothesis, the author used multiple regression analysis.

The paper demonstrates managers' perception of workers' participation at the board level as the most beneficial and supportive compared to joint consultation and joint decision-making; however, at the same time, it is the one having the most roadblocks in the present Indian Labour laws. Workers, unions and managers' lack of legislative support and intention fuel the fire. The study also found that implementation of WPM is primarily based on statutory norms, and public sector managers are more willing to take the workers on board than managers of private sector organizations.

This research is of practical significance as it extracts new visions for policymakers in India already planning to implement four new labor codes, namely, wages, industrial relations, social security and occupational safety, health and working conditions. The data from the study will facilitate the Indian labor ministry to lay down policy decisions concerning WPM. Further, the government can acclimatize this analysis to plug the ambiguities in the present WPM system.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to give insights into the manager's perspective regarding the WPM using a scenario-based approach. In addition, this paper offers valuable suggestions for policymakers to restructure and streamline the country's existing and overlapping labor laws.

In the mid‐1970s, there was an upsurge of interest in the notion of worker participation at board level. Several influences contributed to this development, including initiatives from the EEC, experience of worker directors at BSC, political commitment from the then Labour Government, culminating in the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry. It was at this time an unknown researcher with research experience of participation in joint consultative committees — amongst other things — began negotiations with the Department of Employment for monies to pursue her research interests. The outcome was the “worker director project” based at the University of Nottingham. The aim of the project was to examine the role of worker directors in private sector companies. Few companies fitting that description could be found, but of the seven which co‐operated in the research, all were different in many respects. The worker director schemes which they had fostered too were different. This monograph presents brief case descriptions of four of these firms. An attempt is made to highlight the salient features of each which were perceived to be influential in shaping the scheme. Thus various contextual factors are discussed, so too are role and role‐related issues; the extent of training and preparation of the worker director; the amount of information disclosed to and by her/him. Finally, a list of criteria are suggested as guides for assessing and evaluating such schemes, not so much by their own lights, but as a reasonably detached, independent observer.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of worker representation and consultation on occupational health and safety in the UK in a context in which, following the 1977 Safety Representatives and Safety Committees (SRSC) Regulations 1977, recognised trade unions have the right to appoint health and safety representatives who have rights to representation and consultation and to access the training and facilities needed to support these activities.

The chemical industry is the chosen site for this enquiry, because, it offers some of the most propitious conditions in which to examine the operation of what has been the preferred model in UK health and safety regulation, namely those in which there are recognised trade unions and where there are likely to be systems and structures of industrial relations in place combined with arrangements for OHS management. Five establishments are examined.

The research suggests joint arrangements make for better safety outcomes and that there is a relation between management consultation on general issues and those of health and safety. Overall, though, management capacity and commitment pose considerable constraints to employee representation on health and safety. The SRSC regulations apply in all five cases but worker representation operated below the level to be expected from the regulations.

A stronger legislative steer on worker consultation and representation in respect of workplace health and safety is required.

Demonstrates that, even in an apparently propitious environment, legal requirements are not being implemented, and that management commitment and support are vital.

Using, for the first time, a sample of European listed firms from 30 countries with different legal regimes of board-level employee representation (BLER), the purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of BLER on firms’ value of European public companies, where employee representation is voluntary or imposed by law depending on the country of origin.

Using a difference-in-differences approach and a matching procedure, the authors analyze the impact of BLER on firms' value.

The results of this paper suggest that BLER adopted voluntarily affects positively firms’ value comparing to a group of firms where employee representation is in some way mandatory. Moreover, the findings of this paper show that firms from countries where BLER is not imposed by law tend to pay higher dividends. Nevertheless, the evidence presented in this paper only holds for low levels of employee representation on the board.

This research not only provides some evidence in favor of the codetermination on corporate governance but also offers new avenues for discussing the conditions necessary for codetermination to be effective, especially the level of employees' participation on board.

This study provides to policymakers new insights for them to gain perspective, analyze and decide if codetermination is a useful tool to improve firms’ performance or at least in what conditions it should be applied.

This study incentives the discussion of the proper way to include workers in firms’ boards with expected benefits on firms’ performance, economies and societies.

This paper provides evidence of a positive (but limited) impact on firms’ value derived from voluntary codetermination.

Since the late 1970s, the study of the role, structure and functions of personnel management in the United Kingdom has been greatly facilitated by surveys emerging from a number of large‐scale surveys. A major interest in interpreting the data from these surveys has been to evaluate the impact of recession, and, latterly, recovery on the power, structure and roles of personnel departments and personnel specialists in recent years. The survey data are used comparatively to evaluate the empirical plausibility of the different scenarios which have arisen, and to account for the results that emerge.

This paper focuses on the employment practices of both multinational corporations (MNCs) and large national competitors in the German fast‐food industry, such as Burger King, Pizza Hut, Nordsee, McDonald’s, Churrasco and Blockhaus. The paper poses a number of questions. Have the activities of MNCs affected the employment practices of national companies? Are companies adopting union exclusion policies and if so why and to what extent? Does the “country of origin effect” help explain the activities of MNCs? What changes are evident in workers’ terms and conditions and how effective are statutory systems of employee representation in practice? The findings suggest that Anglo‐Saxon‐based MNCs are more likely to adopt anti‐works council and non‐union policies in the sector, suggesting that MNCs may indeed be able to transfer their management practices across borders, imposing their employer‐based systems with little regard for German institutional arrangements.

The expression “industrial democracy” was first used in the United Kingdom by Sydney and Beatrice Webb in 1891 in a book they wrote on collective bargaining and trade unions. They were then thinking of “industrial democracy” as a bargain between employers and trade unions, in other words, collective bargaining, per se and not worker participation in its modern sense.