Search results

In the debate leading up to the publication of the proposed Government White Paper Fairness at Work, companies which have de‐recognised unions have been portrayed by the unions as looking backwards to “Victorian” employment practices. This paper traces the development of “single status” ‐ effecively the de‐recognition of trade unions ‐ at BP Chemicals. It indicates that, after an initial phase of “macho” tactics at its Baglan Bay site, management adopted an apparently more consensual approach at its two other main sites utilising ballots of workers for the “single status” package. Further, the package introduced Employee Forums on each site which formed the basis of the establishment of a European Works Council. As such it leads to a questioning of the effectiveness of measures in the White Paper to bring about a return to trade union recognition.

New evidence from a British electronics plant on the experience of a harmonisation programme is presented and questions the generally accepted favourable image of moves towards single status working. The presentation is novel in that instead of offering a traditional literature review followed by the empirical data, the article develops two forms of case description. The first case is a fictional “Composite” account derived from previously published materials in which we have assembled the key themes into a single narrative to convey an image of harmonisation as it is presented in the literature. This can then be compared with the more contradictory experience of harmonisation found during ethnographic research at the Collaborating Company, where management was more constrained and the process was not conflict free. The two cases can be read as a contrast between image and reality which then needs to be explained.

This article considers employment policy and labour relations in three Japanese manufacturing enterprises in north‐east England. In each case, the author discusses a number of features, namely, the decision of the company to locate in the north‐east, union recognition, workforce flexibility, and industrial relations.

The development of a new “high‐tech”, “high involvement” organisation is sketched. It concentrates on the organisational design features of the new culture. These design features are compared and contrasted with those of a theoretical model of a high involvement organisation. Comment is included on progress towards the new culture and some of the difficulties encountered. The broad aim of the article is to help progress organisations′ “people” strategies from “control” to “commitment” and hence improve the effectiveness of organisations′ in an increasingly competitive operating environment.

Considers the challenge faced by management at the Blackley Manufacturing site of BICC Cables when, in 1992, a multi‐faceted change programme was planned to surmount the growing threats to the plant′s survival. Analyses the process of implementing the change programme under a tight schedule and in the face of initially sceptical and uncooperative trade union attitudes. Charts the gradual replacement of the existing by the new system of team working patterns and flexible structures, and illustrates the significant benefits in very quick time as both output (productivity up by 17 per cent) and shopfloor team enthusiasm continue to grow. Reproduces the text of the Blackley People Contract.

For some years now the contemporary management literature has been burgeoning with articles on Japanese management practice. There is debate as to how representative of reality some of these accounts actually are, which practices are crucial to business success and whether their transfer to a Western context is possible or desirable. These concerns are by no means limited to academic circles; many prominent Western companies with manufacturing operations in the UK are experimenting with elements of “Japanese” management practice, particularly within the motor industry.

This special “Anbar Abstracts” issue of Employee Relations is split into seven sections covering abstracts under the following headings: Design of Work; Performance, Productivity and Motivation; Patterns of work; Pay, incentives and pensions; Career/manpower planning, recruitment; Industrial relations and participation; Health and safety.

This paper presents the findings of a case study undertaken in a UK utility company, referred to as Energy Co. The main aim of the study was to assess how the agreement of a partnership arrangement in 1995 had affected the conduct of employment relations. The study found that partnership was born out of a poor industrial relations climate, and driven primarily by management. They hoped that it might improve industrial relations, raise employee commitment, inform and educate the workforce, and increase employee contribution. Partnership was not intended to encourage joint governance or power sharing. In practice, partnership combined direct employment involvement (EI) such as team briefing and problem solving groups, with representative participation through a formal partnership council system. Management suggested that, on balance, partnership had been successful, with benefits including improved industrial relations, quicker pay negotiations and increased legitimacy of decision making. It was also suggested that there was a positive link – albeit indirect and intangible – with organisational performance. Union representatives also proposed that partnership was a success, citing benefits including greater access to information, greater influence, inter‐union co‐operation, and more local decision making. Employee views were more mixed. There was also clear evidence of several tensions. Four were particularly noteworthy: employee apathy, management‐representative relations, employee‐representative relations, and the role of full‐time union officials (FTOs). Despite espoused partnership, management hostility to unions was evident, and a preference for non‐union employment relations clear. Consequently, the future of the partnership in its current form is uncertain.

Inability to adjust labour forces quickly and smoothly to changes in the product market has been a key characteristic of UK firms in the period up to 1980. The persistent oscillation between labour hoarding and skill shortages testified to the quantitative dimension of this flexibility. The comparatively poor productivity performance of many UK employers testified to the qualitative shortcomings. While the depth and duration of the current recession has certainly led to some supply‐side changes in labour utilisation policies at the level of the firm, much company‐level research and advisory work by IMS suggests that for the most part these adjustments have been enforced and short‐term, and as expensive in cash terms as they have been destructive of employee morale and long‐term commitment.

The purpose of this paper is to explore a number of issues pertaining to the conceptualisation, operationalisation, feasibility and effectiveness of workplace partnership arrangements in a non‐unionised setting.

The paper discusses the most common definitions of partnership to discern whether scope exists for non‐unionised forms. It then presents a detailed case study, based on 38 semi‐structured interviews with 29 interviewees, inside a non‐unionised company to analyse whether its people management arrangements conform with the definitions presented, and to examine the employees’ experience of those arrangements.

The paper notes that most partnership definitions can accommodate non‐unionised forms, if the arrangements for people management inside such firms meet certain standards on employee voice mechanisms and the exchange of mutual gains. The evidence from the case study suggests that its unusual policies and practices do conform with a viable model of non‐unionised partnership – albeit with some reservations. The benefits and concerns are discussed in the paper.

The paper presents a credible definition and observable operationalisation of partnership for researchers to adopt. It encourages future research on the extent to which so‐called “partnership” organisations, including non‐union enterprises, comply and suggests comparative research between paired unionised and non‐unionised cases. However, it is limited to one case study.

The paper's primary value is in its extension of the partnership debate beyond its current “union‐only ghetto” into examining non‐unionised forms, as well. The case study is also unique in the literature as an example of non‐unionised partnership.