8–1 Chapter 8 EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION: NON-UNION Copyright © 2011 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd...

8–1

Chapter 8

EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION:NON-UNION

Copyright © 2011 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd PPT slides to accompany Employment Relations: Theory and Practice 2e by Bray, Waring & Cooper

Learning objectives

Identify the main forms of non-union employee representation—namely those sanctioned by the state and those initiated by management.

Describe the (limited) attempts by Australian governments to sanction non-union forms of employee representation and compare this experience with overseas countries.

Discuss the approach of management to providing non-union employee representation in workplaces.

Account for the general failure of Australian managers to adopt high-involvement management practices.

8–2Copyright © 2011 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd PPT slides to accompany Employment Relations: Theory and Practice 2e by Bray, Waring & Cooper

Overview

• Main forms of non-union representation

• State-sanctioned non-union representation

• Management-initiated non-union representation

• Employee representation: efficiency and equity


Forms of non-union representation

• How can non-union representation occur?

– ‘State-sponsored’ or ‘management-initiated’

– ‘Direct’ or ‘indirect’ forms of representation

– ‘Consultative’ or ‘decision-making’ forms of consultation


Classification of non-union forms of employee representation

Consultative

• Direct

– Internal memos

– Bulletin boards

– Suggestion schemes

• Indirect

– Joint consultative committees


Classification of non-union forms of employee representation

Decision-making

• Direct

– Quality circles

– Teamwork

• Indirect

– Works councils

– Employee representation on company boards


State-sanctioned non-union representation

• The state in European countries has generally promoted a dual system of employee representation:

– supporting union representation

– supporting workplace committees elected by all employees

• In some countries, such as Germany, works councils are required under law.

• These representation structures are much less common in English-speaking countries.


• This section overviews three types of non-union representation structures:

1. occupational health and safety committees

2. non-union collective bargaining and bargaining agents

3. individual contracting

8–8

The Australian experience of state-sanctioned non-union representation


1. Occupational health and safety committees:

– most widespread of non-union representative structures in Australia • by 1990, 41% of workplaces with more than 20

employees had a formal OHS committee

– established under state OHS legislation• tripartite workplace structure responsible for

managing workplace OHS

– OHS committees more likely to exist in unionised workplaces

8–9



2. Non-union collective bargaining and bargaining agents:

– non-union bargaining first commenced with the Industrial Relations Act 1991 in NSW:

• permitted collective enterprise agreements without a union respondent

• followed soon after by permutations in other states

8–10

The Australian experience of state-sanctioned non-union representation (cont.)



– Enterprise Flexibility Agreements (EFAs) were established under Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 (Cwth):

• enabled agreements that were directly negotiated between employers and employees

• employer had to be a constitutional corporation

8–11




– Enterprise Flexibility Agreements (EFAs):

• expected to enable employers to deunionise workplaces

• no evidence of this—unions typically intervened in registration

8–12




– Workplace Relations Act 1996 introduced Section 170LK agreements:

• replaced EFAs

• agreements between constitutional corporations and employees

• unions could only intervene if they had members affected by the agreement

– Ambiguous evidence on whether non-union agreements provide better employee representation.

8–13



3. Individual contracting:

– Australian system until 1990s focussed on collective employment regulation.

– First major departure: Employment Relations Act 1992 (Vic):

• created an opportunity for enforceable contracts between employer and employee

• collapsed quickly, as many workers were soon covered by federal awards

8–14




– Other states attempted to set up similar schemes:• 1993 (WA)—Individual Workplace Agreements

• 1996 (Qld)—Queensland Workplace Agreements

– Federal individual contracts under the Workplace Relations Act 1996• Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs)

8–15




– Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs):

• individual agreements, reached between employer and employee

• registered with Office of the Employment Advocate, subject to ‘no disadvantage’ test

• terms override award or agreement covering the employee

8–16





• government’s stated aims:

– to give employees choice

– to free employees from misguided agenda of union officials

– to allow new relationships to develop between employers and employees

• AWAs have limited coverage—approx. 2% of workforce

8–17





• involvement of employees covered by AWAs:

1. Are employee interests recognised when AWAs are negotiated?

» Conflicting evidence

2. Do workplaces with AWAs have better communication, consultation and involvement?

» Limited evidence suggests not

8–18





• symbolic effect of AWAs:

– AWAs used to remove union presence

– Liberal and National parties see AWAs as central to the future of Australian ER

– ALP committed to removing AWAs

8–19



Management-initiated non-union representation

• Management has had an intermittent interest in employee participation – Ramsay (1977, 1993): management interested during

times of worker strength and management weakness. Interest wanes when threat passes.

– Ackers et al. (1992): say Ramsay doesn’t explain the persistence of management interest after the threat has passed.

– Lansbury and Wailes (2003): management’s interest is conditional, but affected by a wide range of contextual factors.



• Performance gains resulting from employee participation have also been influential: – participation as pathway to employee satisfaction and

economic success. For example:

• Hackman and Oldham’s ‘job characteristics’ theory: worker autonomy a key variable in motivation

• neo-human relations school—McGregor etc.

• participation central to ‘socio-technical’ systems of work organisation



1. Management interest in teamwork and empowerment as a consequence of the downsizing of the 1990s.

2. Management interest in employee participation as a consequence of changing strategies of production:

– employee involvement essential to the ‘new’ production processes of post-Fordism



• The plausibility of such schemes has been called into question sharply on a number of points:– devolution of responsibility is limited

– teamwork is a strategy used to win more effort to achieve management’s goals, not the employees’ goals

• Management’s motives in initiating non-union representation are not clear.



Management-initiated employee representation in Australia


• Overview of the history of Australian management’s approaches to employee representation:

– until 1970s, reactive, and uninterested in employee participation

– beginnings of a more sophisticated management approach during the 1980s

– development of employee representation from the 1990s onwards

– recent studies about the implementation of management-initiated representation approaches


Management-initiated employee representation in Australia (cont.)

• No real interest on the part of management in employee representation approaches until the 1970s:– approaches implemented were typically narrow in scope

and did not challenge line management’s authority

– by end of 1980s, few formal consultative committees



• Beginnings of a more sophisticated management approach during the 1980s:

– employers more interested in employee participation in the wake of union and government interest in ‘industrial democracy’

– employers had two main concerns:

1. unions should not be the sole instrument of employee participation

2. employee participation should be voluntary, rather than legislated

– Business Council of Australia’s interest in ‘new’ management styles based on employee participation



• Development of employee representation from the 1990s:– Rhetoric of employer associations in this period

highlighted the need for more and better employee involvement:

• increased professionalism of the HR/ER management function

• increased focus on internal activities (less interest in external activities)

• implementation of ‘new’ work organisation approaches requiring increased employee involvement



• Recent studies of Australian implementation of management-initiated representation approaches:– Evidence of increased effort by employers to improve

workplace communication (Benson 2000, Kitay and Lansbury 1997).

– Increased use of employee briefings and other means of communication (Kramar 1999).

– Increased adoption of methods of employee participation but not increased employee discretion (Harley et al. 2000).

– But reduced prioritisation of employee participation and teamwork by HR staff (Fisher et al. 1999).


Employee representation: efficiency and equity

8–30

• Clear theoretical evidence exists that effective employee participation results in improved organisational efficiency and effectiveness.

• Researchers have struggled to establish an effective means of measuring the relationship between participation and efficiency.


Final observations• Non-union representation is a growing issue in

Australian public policy, given the decline in union representation.

• Increased level of employee involvement has significant implications for improved workplace equity and efficiency.

• Large body of theory points to the need for employee involvement.

• Australian Federal Government has sought to assist the development of collective and individual non-union representation approaches.


Summary• Widening ‘representation gap’, with adverse

implications for workplace efficiency and equity.

• Ways of describing non-union employee representation:– state-sanctioned and management-initiated

– direct vs indirect forms of representation

– consultative vs joint decision-making

• Management’s motives for improved employee involvement are unclear.

• Although data is limited, there is no clear evidence that employees have an increased role in workplace decision-making.

• There are methodological difficulties in determining a relationship between employee participation and organisational performance.


Date post:	27-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	georgina-manning
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

8–1 Chapter 8 EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION: NON-UNION Copyright © 2011 McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd...

Documents