A wide range of substantive issues is negotiated during a merger (Waddington et al 2005: 5).
Waddington and colleagues went on to suggest that the negotiations would encompass union form and union character (Waddington et al 2005: 5) (see Fryer
2000: 29-33 for a full exposition of these concepts). ‘Form’ represented those formal aspects of rules, procedures and structures within a union whilst ‘character’ referred to the more intangible concepts of ethos, ideology and relationships, formulations that characterise the local context along with the wider union. Chapter 3 will consider the incidence of ‘form and character* within this research.
There was within much of the literature an absence of consideration of the workplace level of union organisation and the branch, and their relevance to the amalgamation process. This neglect resulted in two complementary problems in developing a full understanding of the amalgamation process. First, the presence of the local workplace and branch as integral elements of union organisation that would be an influence on or be influenced by an amalgamation was ignored. Second, the lack of an analytical framework that encompassed all aspects of trade union organisation and activity inevitably limited the perspective of the research to that prescribed by the national level of organisation and activity.
This aspect confirmed the problem that I identified from my previous experience and knowledge. Although some writers cited issues of contention as barriers to amalgamation (Chaison 1986; Waddington et a /2005: 9-11; Willman 1996; Undy et
al 1981), these barriers mostly related to issues of structure and self-interest, or
personal animosity amongst national full-time officials. These issues did little to explain the experiences at a local level within or between unions going through amalgamation. Equally, the absence of the local context in the literature meant that the overarching question of the influence on and by union organisation at the workplace and branch in an amalgamation was not addressed. The paradox here is that the organisation and activity of the union at the local level is often seen as a defining feature of trade unions. Thus, its relative absence from literature concerned with unions was surprising and was likely to result in partial assessments of union amalgamation.
Exceptionally Chaison (1983) did address the particular issue of the merger of union workplace organisations within an amalgamation, the key point being the considerable variation between merging unions. Chaison found that it was a rarity to find a requirement for local mergers even where there was duplication of organisation. The influencing factors were the perceived need for local mergers, the degree of local resistance, the level of national pressure to merge, and the number of local bodies involved. However, little attempt was made to extend consideration to the wider question of workplace influence on the whole process.
Issues relevant to the workplace and branch were raised indirectly in some of the literature on merger. Thus, recent studies on merger identified concerns around articulation and co-ordination within trade unions resulting from amalgamations (Due and Keller 2005; Waddington and Hoffman 2000; Waddington 2000a, 2000b, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Waddington et al 2005:16). Articulation was defined as:
The density of inter-linkages between vertical levels of the union (Waddington 2005a. 27).
Co-ordination, in contrast was defined as:
The horizontal linkages [between different groups of members] within a union (Waddington 2005a: 27).
These issues became increasingly significant as amalgamations resulted in a growing heterogeneity in the membership of unions (Ebbinghaus 2003; Keller 2005; Waddington 2000b, 2001; Waddington et al 2005:15-16).
This literature relates closely to the extent of member participation in the local activity of the union. Those commentating specifically on the workplace level of union activity and on occasion in the literature on merger (Waddington 2000b) strongly identified that it was in the workplace that most members identified with the union. As earlier commented by Crouch (1993).
[An articulated union is] one in which strong relations of interdependence bind different vertical levels, such that the actions of the centre are
frequently predicated on securing the consent of lower levels and the autonomous action of lower levels is bounded by the rules of delegation (Crouch 1993: 54-55).
Later, Waddington commented on co-ordination that:
[A co-ordinated union is one where] dense horizontal linkages facilitate cohesion between different groups of members and thus mitigate the adverse effects of increasing membership heterogeneity on interest aggregation (Waddington 2005a: 27).
Without the workplace and the branch level being appropriately integrated into the structure and organisation of the amalgamated union, the adverse effects associated with a reduced level of articulation and co-ordination were likely to become more apparent and member participation aggravated.
Some attention has been given to attempts by individual newly amalgamated unions to introduce innovative organisational and structural forms to counter these problems (Keller 2005; Terry 1996, 2000a; Waddington 2006: 648) but there is little evidence of any coherent approach to investigating the problem from the standpoint of local union organisation. Given the importance of the issue of member participation in trade union activity identified in the literature on the workplace and now, that on the Organising Model with much of its focus also on the workplace (Heery and Kelly 1994; Heery 2002; Heery et al 2003), this failure seemed a surprising gap in the literature on amalgamation. However, the need for attention at the local level has been identified, with Waddington commenting that:
Given the current pattern of development of the merger process, it would be particularly beneficial to understand the impact [of mergers] on membership participation (Waddington 2005c: 390).
By implication, Waddington was referring to workplace and branch levels of union activity and involvement.
A partial explanation of this gap is the attention paid by many writers to motivation and implementation in all forms of union merger rather than distinguishing (in the UK context) between amalgamations and transfers of engagement (Campling & Michelson 1997; Michelson 2000; Undy 1993, 1996, 1999a, 1999b; Undy et al 1981; Waddington 1995, 1997, 2005c). Within that prism, they concentrated on national leaders as prime motivators of mergers and those with the main responsibility for negotiating the terms of the merger and its implementation. A process of amalgamation requires a simple majority in ballots of the membership in all of the unions participating in the amalgamation, rather than just in the membership of the transferor union within a transfer of arrangements. It follows that the campaign for a YES vote in an amalgamation has to be co-ordinated across all the participating unions and vigorously prosecuted amongst all the separate memberships to ensure a positive result. It is only through the national leadership that such a campaign can be successfully put together. Inevitably, this puts them at the forefront of the campaign to mobilise members in favour of the amalgamation. However, they failed to acknowledge the widespread change, including for the local level, that could emanate from an amalgamation as opposed to the complete take-over or retention of autonomy that were the usual outcome of a transfer of engagements. The role of and impact on the workplace level of organisation was a consequence of amalgamation rather than an integral part of the process itself.
Yet my experience of amalgamation from the perspective of a local union officer contradicted this assessment Prospective amalgamation was debated at all levels in the union, contentious issues were raised and hotly debated and the campaign to secure agreement in the final ballot was largely prosecuted in the workplace. After the formal amalgamation, the full impact of the agreements reached with the other unions started to impinge on union organisation at the workplace and branch. A further period of contention, negotiation and implementation ensued. Numbers of longstanding local representatives in all three previous unions either lost positions or
were not prepared to adapt to the changed situation and left active involvement. The notion that union members and local officers were virtual bystanders whilst national leaders orchestrated a major change such as amalgamation was not one that I experienced. However, despite some belated recognition in the literature that issues of member participation, articulation and co-ordination can be studied as a consequence of amalgamation, there has been little attempt to examine how they influence the whole process (for example see Waddington et al 2005: 225-231).