Evaporación

Regulatory provisions on their own do not automatically translate into effective representation (Walters, et. al. 2005: 113-122; Walters, 1995: 308), but are important in establishing the rules of engagement to ensure the actors meet their obligations. It is argued that when organizations implement regulations as intended, including provisions for representation, OHSM activities and outcomes are better compared to when provisions are not implemented (Walters et. al. 2005: 13). However, it is the regulatory provision that sets the tone for organizations to implement regulations as intended. James and Walters (2002), for example, in assessing the strength of the UK regulations, pointed out the strength of the regulatory lead in the SRSC 1977 Regulations in comparison with the HSCE 1996 Regulations. The SRSC 1977 Regulations provide representatives with union support and give representatives powers to request the establishment of safety committees, whereas, the HSCE 1996 regulations make general provisions for employers to consult with workers, but without details.

A strong regulatory lead is important to give legitimacy and legal backing to representatives and therefore help to determine their acceptance by the other parties responsible for OHSM. In particular, regulations provide external support by giving representatives rights to contact a State’s inspectorate (Walters et. al.

2005: 34). Regulations also outline the roles and responsibilities of the actors (management, workers, government agents) and offer support to representatives by giving them a statutory base from which to act (see eg. Walters et. al. 2016a; Olle-Espulga et. al., 2014; Hall et. al., 2006). Regulations also provide representatives with legal protection from victimization in carrying out their duties and gives them authority to perform their roles. Figure 2.2 outlines basic statutory rights for representatives in the UK as detailed in Walters and Nichols (2007: 13), but which are similar across the EU and other jurisdictions having statutory provisions for representation (Walters and Nichols 2009).

Figure 2.2: Statutory Rights of Workers’ Representatives Statutory Rights of Workers’ Representatives

Details may vary across jurisdictions, but the basic statutory rights are:- • Employees’ selection of representatives in health and safety;

• Protection of representatives from victimisation or discrimination as a result of their representative role;

• Paid time off to be allowed to carry out the function of a safety representative; • Paid time off to be trained in order to function as a safety representative; • The right to receive adequate information from the employer on current and

future hazards to the health and safety of workers at the workplace; • The right to inspect the workplace;

• The right to investigate complaints from workers on health and safety matters; • The right to make representations to the employer on these matters;

• The right to be consulted over the health and safety arrangements, including future plans;

• The right to be consulted about the use of health professionals;

• The right to accompany health and safety inspectors when they inspect the workplace and to make complaints to them when necessary.

Source: Walters and Nichols (2007: 13)

Representatives rely on the protective guarantees given in regulations to carry out their duties with confidence (Walters et. al., 2016a; Olle-Espulga et. al., 2014). Walters et. al.’s (2016a) recent study of coal mining in Australia shows continuing evidence-based support to this argument. They showed how representatives relied on regulations to support their roles in a hostile industrial relations climate.

Hall et. al. (2006), made a claim for representatives’ knowledge activism as important in their workplaces amidst waning structural supports such as unionization, legislation and external oversight. However, their study also supports the importance of regulatory structures. They compared three types of representatives: those who view OHS in technical terms and separate from labour issues; those who take an adversarial approach and use external mechanisms such as complaints to government authority; and those who use a combination of legal, technical and indigenous knowledge to press claims for improvements. Of the three, those who used “knowledge-activism” (i.e. a combination of strategies), were found to be most effective in achieving significant changes in their workplaces. In this case, while legislation alone was insufficient, as noted earlier, existing legislation was important in setting the parameters for action and supported the representatives in performing their roles.

Some jurisdictions give significant powers to representatives to stop dangerous work or issue improvement notices (Johnstone et. al. 2005; James and Walters, 1997). It is argued that such regulatory provisions are important empowering mechanisms. They give representatives legitimacy in the eyes of management and their constituents and boost the likelihood that they will be effective in their roles (Walters et. al. 2016a). Regulations that do not have a strong lead are susceptible to changing conditions (Walters and Nichols, 2007; James and Walters, 2002; Dawson et. al. 1988).

Changes in the nature of work and how regulations for representation have been undermined as a result, is a recurring theme in the literature (Robinson and Smallman, 2006; Johnstone et. al. 2005; Quinlan, et. al. 2001). Johnstone et. al. (2005) argued that the basis on which the current self-regulatory regime was built has been eroded by modern practices that have fragmented work. As such, the stable, permanent and secure workforces, largely in the manufacturing sector, are less a feature of today’s work environment and there are more workers in precarious situations where their ability to exercise “voice” is diminished (Johnstone et. al. 2005; Quinlan et. al. 2001). However, despite the weakening regulatory lead, current studies have shown that representation on OHSM may

still be effective with the presence of the other preconditions and implementation of the prevailing regulations (EU-OSHA, 2018; Walters et. al. 2016a; 2016b).