Se afectará El área aprobada con el código predial 27-

One of the most contentious matters in recent employment relations literature has been the growth of non-union organisations. This development has figured prominently in discussions about payment systems, the character of employment protection, and the future of trade unions. It has also had a big influence on the design and operation of dispute resolution (Delaney and Feuille, 1992). The concern that cuts across these discussions is whether established employment rights are being weakened as employers opt for more market-driven procedures.

The remainder of this chapter focuses on the dispute resolution aspects to this controversial discussion. Three specific topics are discussed. The first concerns the argument frequently made by organised labour that the current public policy procedures to resolve disputes about trade union recognition are too employer-friendly. This matter is important for the future of dispute resolution because if a more permissive public policy regime were to be established on trade union recognition then, presumably, collective mechanisms for the settlement of employment conflicts would gain a shot in the arm. The second topic investigated is the nature of dispute resolution in non-union firms. The assessment focuses on whether employees are disadvantaged by these arrangements and if so, to what extent? If it is found that some positive elements exist to non-union dispute resolution procedures then the intriguing possibility opens up of unionised companies learning from these practices. The third topic

explored, which to some extent overlaps with the second, is whether organisations can operate hybrid forms of dispute resolution that combine ‘union’ and ‘non-union’ procedures and practices on a sustainable basis and if so, what are the implications for public policy on dispute resolution? These three topics are quite contentious and frequently inspire highly partisan commentaries. To avoid these pitfalls, it is important to provide an evidence-based approach to the nature and extent of change to human resource management in organisations during the past decade.

4.3.1 Changes and developments in HR management from the 1990s onwards

One story suggested anecdotally by Roche (1995) and corroborated empirically by McCartney and Teague (2004) is that several models of employment relations are emerging, side-by-side, in Ireland. McCartney and Teague use a statistical technique to group the establishments in their survey into four clusters, which have similar combinations of innovative work practices, and human resource management techniques.3 _{The characteristics of each group are} summarised in Table 8. In assessing these models, however, it is important to bear in mind that they are ideal types – characteristics that few if any companies will match exactly. Nonetheless, they indicate the broad employment philosophies that currently appear to be in use in Ireland.

The largest cluster is labelled ‘traditional union’ and is characterised by adversarial (also called pluralist) industrial relations. Typically, firms in this category adopt few, if any, innovative work practices. Many of the establishments in this cluster are indigenously owned manufacturing plants. Cluster 2 is labelled ‘hybrid non-union’. Firms in this group tend to be multinationals in the electronics sector, although this is not exclusively the case. The distinguishing feature of this group, apart from the absence of trade unions, is that they adopt a ‘pick and mix’ 3_{Scores on the following practices were used to classify establishments into the}

four clusters. For example, ‘work organisation’: job rotation; team working; Task Forces; TQM. For ‘HRM’: training; individual performance pay; group performance pay; union job protection; employer volunteered job security pledges; employee involvement (consultative); employee participation (delegative). Other identifiers used included:unionisation; competitive strategy; job autonomy.

approach to workplace reform and human resource management. While they are fundamentally traditional mass production operations, the organisations in Cluster 2 pursue greater operational flexibility through such practices as job rotation. A lack of any significant training investment is a feature of this cluster, suggesting this is achieved through multi-tasking rather than multi-skilling.

Another difference between ‘traditional’ indigenous firms and organisations in this category is that the latter expect employees to routinely contribute productivity enhancing suggestions. However, this expectation is not reciprocated by giving employees any decision-making authority to determine their own working practices etc. Finally, employees in these establishments, unlike those in the other categories, enjoy little job security. There is no union representation and no voluntary commitment from management to preserve jobs. As such, the mix of practices in this cluster appears designed to allow employers to shed labour quickly and conveniently in response to demand fluctuations. Cluster 3 is labelled ‘innovative union’. This cluster mainly contains banks, but also includes indigenous food and beverage producers, and branches of electronics multinationals that arrived in Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s. The key characteristic of firms in this group is that substantial workplace reform has occurred in a unionised environment. The incidence of innovative work practices such as Task Forces and TQM is high as is progressive human resource management policies on training and participation. The final cluster is ‘innovative non-union’. Most of the firms in this group display a high adoption of participatory work practices. Characteristically, these work practices are supported by HRM arrangements such as training and job security, which encourage employees to embrace change. Furthermore, some of the firms in this cluster appear to be using employee participation mechanisms which not only solicit employees’ involvement in operational matters, but which also devolve decision making rights in areas of broader relevance to knowledgeable and well informed employees.

A positive view of such organisational-level employment systems is that Irish establishments are experimenting widely with more participatory forms of work organisation. In addition, the majority of firms introducing participatory practices are involving a large number of employees: in terms of the scope of organisational change there appears to be no insider/outsider divide.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that some establishments endow employees with significant decision making authority in areas such as process development, work scheduling, quality control etc. This important finding lends weight to the view that team working etc. allows employees to obtain greater influence over decisions that affect them in the workplace. Finally, the information provided shows that workplace change is not the preserve of any one type of firm. Instead the evidence suggests that it can prosper in all types of organisation – unionised and non-union, big and small, indigenous and foreign owned.

Some assessments are less upbeat in their interpretation of the evidence. For example, Roche and Geary (2000) are sceptical as to whether meaningful innovations are occurring to organisational- level employment systems in Ireland. Echoing an emerging debate in the international literature, they argue that the sustainability of the workplace changes taking place as well as the distributive implications are far from clear. The most obvious concern is that although the use of individual new employment practices is widespread, the extent to which they are beneficial to employers is open to doubt. Therefore, while there is experimentation, a lot of the innovation in Irish employee relations that is taking place is tentative and occurring at the margins.

A keen debate has occurred about the respective merits of the optimistic and pessimistic perspectives on Irish employment relations. However, most of those involved in this debate share the view that Irish employment relations are fragmented – management-employee interactions do not reflect the dominance of any one employment model. Union firms co-exist alongside non- union organisations, many organisations are hybrids – happy to embrace some change to workplace practices, but also eager to retain tried and tested methods. This picture of a fragmented system of workplace employment relations impacts on the debate about the character of dispute resolution and the handling of grievances at organisation-level.

Table 8. The characteristics of Irish employment models

Practice Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3: Cluster 4: Traditional Hybrid Innovative Innovative

Union non-Union Union non-Union

Identifiers:

Unionisation High Low High Low Competitive strategy Low Road Middle Road Middle/HighHigh Road Job autonomy Low Low Moderate High

Work Organisation:

Job rotation Low Moderate High Moderate

TQM Low Low High High

Task Forces Low Low High High Team working Low Low Moderate High

HRM:

Training Low Moderate High High Individual PRP Moderate High Low Moderate Group PRP Low Low Moderate High Union job protection High Low Moderate Low Job security pledges Low Low Moderate High Employee consultation Low High Low High Employee delegation Low Moderate Moderate High % of total sample 33.8 31.0 25.3 9.9

Source: Adapted from McCartney and Teague, 2004.

4.4 Trade unions and the fate of collectively agreed