The focus group participants were asked to describe the features of organizations that supported good HR practice. Their responses identified the following features:
The existence of a robust HR structure, strong HR policies and leadership
Focus group members stated that HR had an important role to play regarding the prominence of good IR/HR practices in a firm. They generally agreed that where strong HR structures and policies were in existence, coupled with a strong HR leader being able to stand up to diktats from finance or other areas of senior management, a better chance for real negotiations and co-operation existed. Otherwise, according to the focus group participants, HR are ‘just there to mop up any decision that is already taken by people higher up the organisation.’ The union representatives stated that they also needed HR to uphold existing agreements in the face of challenges and to both authorize and corroborate the union’s role in these. ‘The influence or the priority given to whoever is on top of HR’ is also extremely important according to the unions.
Recognition of the union as a stakeholder
The focus group participants stated that a good HR Manager would be someone that ‘recognized the trade union as a stakeholder in the organisation and that its members are employed in the organization and are coming to the table’. This recognition or acknowledgement of the role of trade unions in an organization could also be reinforced by chief executives when they address staff. The participants also mentioned the importance of respect from the employer to the input of employees and their representatives.
‘I suppose ideally what you would say it that there would be respect by the employer for the input of the employees and their representatives and if you have that then you will get an open-minded attitude to the savings that are not just the ones the employer has come up with but that they’re prepared to look at alternatives.’
The unions, on more than one occasion, highlighted the example of two organizations doing the same thing, for example reducing headcount. They pointed out that the two organisations end up doing the same thing, however, one does it by opposing (the union) and the other one does it by consulting and reaching an agreement with the union. ‘The outcome will be that the one who does it by consulting and agreeing will have a staff who are more likely to
remain engaged in that organization, whereas the other will have a staff who are very seriously discommoded and won’t have a long term commitment.’
Related to the current difficulties in the financial services sector, one participant highlighted how two organizations took two different approaches with employees and their representatives. One of the organizations gave a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies for a period of 18 months, in exchange for pay moderation and a contribution to the pension scheme, by both the company and the union. The agreement was accepted by ninety five percent of employees on a vote. The second organization did not give any guarantees or concessions in return for pay and headcount adjustments, even though they were in a position to do so, according to the focus group participants. The outcome is that in the first organization, employees and management have ‘a very good working relationship, well relatively in the circumstances between staff and they’re all heading in the same direction, sorting out problems.’ In the other organization, employees no longer trust their employer and commitment levels are low.
Embedded collective bargaining practices and facilities
The pre-existence of good relations with unions in an organization, along with embedded practices for consultation and collective bargaining, contribute to good practice in employee relations according to the focus group participants. Where there are structures in an organization that allow for representation, including basic facilities for the professional conduct of representation on the shop floor (such as access to a phone, a computer, a room for meetings), it’s harder to ignore them because people have an understanding and a day-to- day appreciation of their function. They are a good visible indicator that there is a reasonable relationship between management and unions and it’s more difficult to dismantle such structures at local level than at national level.
I also think where you have maybe good and embedded kind of policies or ways in which you deal with things within organizations… it’s harder to dismantle that from the point of view of the influence and it’s easier to use that and you can use that very effectively very quickly.
The existence of a culture of trust between employers and employees
In distinguishing between ‘good’ and not so good employers, the union representatives highlighted the importance of building trust between employees and the employer:
…if that trust isn’t there, or if it was there in some semblance or other and has now disappeared, then we all have a major task in terms of trying to bring people back into a space whereby they all recognize the difficulties and the problems and they all work towards a solution or a resolution of those difficulties and problems.
Where a company is looking for agreement on a headcount reduction or shorter hours, then to get the trust and co-operation of staff, according to the union representatives, other issues would need to be addressed (for example, for employers to stop opposing all individual claims on a point of principle, and referring all claims to a third party) ‘where everything goes to a third party and everything is confrontational an employer can expect a proposal to reduce the working week, reduce pay or reduce headcount to be equally confrontational.’
Supportive CEO and organizational culture
Another factor influencing collective bargaining in a organization is that it can ‘depend on the personality at the top of the organization and their attitude to staff.’ Where the CEO’s attitude is respectful and caring towards staff, according to the focus group participants, this will have a positive influence on the status of collective bargaining in an organization. An example of this was provided by one of the focus group participants.
‘I think it’s the attitude of the person at the top again that it comes down to, I mean he (the CEO) would come across as having concern for staff... So he set a structure in place that allows everybody to have an input, that’s the whole idea, that they have an input into what goes on. It’s been helpful, you know, because where there have been redundancies and there are ongoing redundancies… they’re all on a voluntary basis and everything is being done on the basis of ‘if there’s an alternative to redundancy, the alternative is done.”
we had lots of problems two years ago and again it was down to the fact that the chief executive at the time had the totally opposite view and went out of his way to make sure that the trade unions weren’t involved in anything and I mean we had three or four major agreements negotiated entirely by the Labour Relations Commission, one taking six months, six months spent on one change agreement that there was no discussion to at all, that went from a position where for the whole of six months both sides never met to accept the rules and you can’t do business that way you know.
The focus group participants also mentioned the importance of the CEO personally addressing the workers and delivering good news (should there be any) in addition to the bad news.
Union organisation
There was agreement among the focus group participants that one of the key factors enabling workers to ‘stand up for themselves’ and to not allow the union to be by-passed is high union density, i.e. where a significant proportion of the workers were organized.
The normal practice would be in certain industries, the electrical industry, the building industry, that the density of people who were there, there was recognition that you had to do business with unions and most of the employers reaction was that you know, there was a consequence, a stoppage, a strike, whatever it was, a penalty somewhere along the line, they were going to lose as a consequence of not doing business with the union, not meeting the collective arrangements.
Local embedded business
Where business is embedded in the local community and links exist not just with workers and their families, but also with local schools and local community groups, this can be a feature of an organization that contributes to good practice according to the focus group participants.
Where the business is local, management have a dilemma in that they can’t separate themselves from the community. It would be highly embarrassing for a local family owned newspaper (for example) that’s embedded in the community,
to have a row with the local workforce when they’re all neighbours and friends basically you know.