Prepared for

June 2011

An Evaluation of the Learning Representatives

Programme

heathrose research ltd

2 PAGE

Contents

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................3  Executive  Summary ...........................................................................................................................4  Introduction  and  background............................................................................................................6  Purpose  of  the  research ....................................................................................................................7  Research  questions/issues ................................................................................................................8  Literature  review:  the  big  picture ...................................................................................................10  History  and  development  of  NZ  programme ..................................................................................12  The  Learning  Reps  programme .......................................................................................................15  Methodology...................................................................................................................................18  Findings ...........................................................................................................................................21  Impacts  on  learning  and  development  activities ............................................................................24  Participation  in  literacy  and  numeracy  skill  development ..............................................................27  Participation  in  industry  training.....................................................................................................28  Factors  contributing  to  an  effective  Learning  Reps  programme.....................................................32  Discussion........................................................................................................................................35  Towards  sustainability.....................................................................................................................36  Summary  and  conclusions...............................................................................................................38  Appendix  One:    UK  Experiences  with  Learning  Reps.......................................................................40  Appendix  Two:    CTU  Model  Learning  Agreement ...........................................................................46  Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................48  

3 PAGE

Acknowledgements  The Heathrose Research team was Dr Rose Ryan, Helen Lomax and Dr Keren Brooking.

The project was overseen by a Steering Group comprised of:

Sandy O’Neil, NZ Council of Trade Unions (Chair) Bill Rosenberg, NZ Council of Trade Unions

Carrie Murdoch, Business NZ

Denise Udy / Dion Williams, Tertiary Education Commission

Nicky Murray / Jenny Connor, Industry Training Federation

Peter Coolbear, Ako Aotearoa Kirsty Weir, Ako Aotearoa.

We wish to sincerely thank all of those who generously gave of their time in discussions, interviews and in responding to surveys that enabled this evaluation to be conducted.

4 PAGE

Executive Summary This document reports on an evaluation of the Learning Representatives programme that is managed by the NZ Council of Trade Unions (CTU). The Tertiary Education Commission-funded programme has been in existence since 2005 and is based around the role of Learning Representatives (Learning Reps) as employees who act as advocates and guides in industry training and workplace-based literacy, language and numeracy (LLN) programmes.

This evaluation has provided an opportunity to look at the Learning Reps programme in its historical and economic context. This has enabled a close examination of what has worked, what hasn’t worked and using that information and analysis, to make some suggestions for the programme’s future direction.

The approach taken in this evaluation was shaped by previous research on similar programmes based overseas, in particular the United Kingdom-based Union Learning Representatives programme which provided the original basis for the New Zealand initiative.

The NZ Learning Reps programme was established through the tripartite Unified Skills Strategy developed to increase workforce skills in the context of improving productivity. It is also linked to the NZ National Qualifications Framework and specifically developed Unit Standards were incorporated into the training programme for Learning Reps.

Key findings

The overall conclusion of the researchers is that the Learning Reps programme has been successful at achieving its goals in the face of limited resourcing and a drop-off in employer investment in training as a result of recession since 2009.

Despite this, the programme was found to deliver a number of benefits. It has a high degree of value in workplaces where managers and workers are actively supportive of the programme’s main aim of raising awareness among workers and employers of opportunities to access and participate in LLN and industry training.

The evaluation uncovered a significant positive impact on worker attitudes to learning. Many who engaged in the programme were people who had negative experiences in the school system. Learners and managers believed that the change in attitude among these workers could be attributed to the success of Learning Reps in encouraging workers back into learning. This in turn resulted in improved LLN skills among these workers and there was evidence of faster completion of study. While a number of factors have contributed to this change, Learning Reps were clearly regarded by many managers as a key factor.

The workplace benefits of increased LLN skills included workers being better equipped to do the job, greater levels of skill, work teams that functioned better as individual workers became more confident, and in some cases, workers received pay increases as a result. The benefits often went beyond the workplace to a greater satisfaction in workers’ personal lives. Examples of this included helping children and grandchildren with homework and a greater interest in the external world through increased use of the Internet and newspapers.

5 PAGE

This evaluation documents some of the reasons for the programme not making the progress

that was hoped and expected. Initial expectations of what could be achieved with limited

resources were perhaps unrealistic and based on an optimistic view of the world. There was

a view that Learning Reps would be trained and immediately become effective in their role;

that employers would develop an appreciation for the role and devote sufficient resources to

it; and that workplace programmes would go from strength to strength under their own

steam. In reality, the CTU has spent considerable time encouraging workplaces that

expressed some interest in the programme. In most of these workplaces however, the

actual outcome is uncertain and considerable resources have gone into persuading

managers at different levels to participate in the programme.

The evaluation highlights some major challenges ahead for the CTU. It needs ongoing and sustainable funding to continue to run the programme and to build and develop it, particularly at industry level. Reduced funding, combined with one-year funding agreements, has thrown the CTU into an internal change management process. This has contributed to losses in staff with institutional skills and knowledge and existing relationships. Without ongoing funding, the CTU may need to make some hard choices about trade-offs between sustaining existing workplace programmes and growing the numbers.

We flag some areas that need clarification including the role of the Learning Reps and the purpose and function of Learning Rep Committees. We also note that there may be value in workplaces negotiating and developing a programme that is customised and responds to each local situation. It was common for programmes to have a big impact following their introduction, but they need to participate in ongoing development and renewal for momentum to be maintained. Any changes to the current programme are of course dependent on increased funding or current funding being reprioritised.

6 PAGE

Introduction and background The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi (CTU) has run a Learning Representatives programme Akorangi Ngätahi (initially based on the successful United Kingdom model) since 2005. The programme trains and supports elected Learning Representatives (Learning Reps)1 to advocate learning among their peers and build learning cultures in workplaces. There is a particular focus on raising awareness and building understanding of literacy, language and numeracy (LLN) issues. The programme recognises the value of a collective setting supporting lifelong learning and has a strong focus on improving completion rates for industry training and other in-house training and development.

This report sets out the findings of an evaluation on the effectiveness of the Learning Reps

programme conducted between February and April 2011. The evaluation is based on a

review of documentation and case studies carried out in seven workplaces within four

organisations.

The findings show that the programme has had a significant impact in the workplaces in

which it has been implemented and been able to be sustained. This success is despite

limited funding and changes of objectives.

The programme has in some ways been experimental, and has been subject to various

changes since it began. Some of these were initiated by the CTU to improve the

programme, while others were at the behest of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) as

the prime funder. Some changes have improved the programme while others have

disrupted its momentum. This evaluation has been an opportunity to consider the operation

of the programme in a holistic way, as well as in its historical and economic context. It has

also provided a chance to consider what has worked and what hasn’t, and to make some

suggestions for its future.

The first part of the report covers the purpose of the research; the context in which the

programme was set up; previous research on Learning Reps in New Zealand (NZ) and

United Kingdom (UK); and the effectiveness of peer-to-peer learning programmes and

workplace take-up of LLN skill development programmes. We then describe the

development of the programme since its inception including a description of its aims and

objectives.

In the second part, we describe the research process and outline the findings based on the

six key research questions. Lastly, the discussion section outlines our thoughts on the six

dimensions of effectiveness and the extent to which the Learning Reps programme has

made a contribution. We conclude with some thoughts about the future direction of the

programme.

1  “Learning  Reps”  is  the  term  most  commonly  used  to  refer  to  Learning  Representatives  and  will  be  used  in  the  rest  of  this  report.

7 PAGE

Purpose of the research The overall original purpose of the research was threefold: to assess whether or not the

Learning Reps programme has been effective; to ascertain whether it is more or less

effective than other models of learning intervention; and to identify the key enabling factors

and barriers associated with the programme. In assessing effectiveness, it was intended the

research would consider the value of the programme for Learning Reps themselves, for

other learners on site, and for the employer and the unions involved.

It is important to assess the effectiveness of the programme in relation to its intended

objectives. For the Learning Reps programme these have been to:

• Achieve a greater awareness of opportunities to access literacy, language and

numeracy (LLN) support among workers in targeted sectors

• Achieve greater employer support for the role of Learning Reps in the context of LLN.

• Promote quality, structured learning and qualifications in the workplace

• Build evidence about what works for increasing worker awareness of the benefits of

LLN skills, supporting successful worker engagement in LLN training, and

maximising workplace value from training.

Thus, the key research questions for the evaluation have been centred on effectiveness

and impact. In approaching the evaluation, we identified the range of dimensions for

assessing this. They included:

• The effectiveness or impact of the programme in raising awareness of opportunities

to access and participate in LLN and industry training. We looked at this first among

Learning Reps and then among workers and employers

• The relative effectiveness of the programme in raising awareness of opportunities to

access and participate in LLN in comparison to other learning interventions (primarily

employer-initiated interventions)

• Those individual, workplace and structural factors that impact on effectiveness and

that make it work well.

It is important however, to recognise that a key issue in assessing impact or effectiveness

rests on an understanding of ways in which the dynamics of the employment relationship

(and in particular the imbalance of power in this relationship) can affect impact. For

example, employer resistance to taking workers off frontline duties to participate in training

has been identified in several studies (e.g. Shaw et al, 2002; Wood and Moore, 2005). In

addition, Farr (2008) notes that among Pacific Island workers, social and cultural

understandings can impact on their reluctance to take on workplace leadership positions,

particularly where individuals are selected by the employer rather than the group.

Thus, a fourth and fifth dimension to effectiveness that must be considered are:

• Whether positive impacts are distributed equally among Learning Reps, workers,

employers and unions

8 PAGE

• Whether increased awareness raising translates into increased commitment to

investment in skill development by employers and engagement in learning by

workers.

The sixth and final dimension relates to the impact of the programme on the relationships

between key stakeholders. This dimension assesses:

• The effectiveness of the programme in improving employee-management, union-

management and employee-union relationships.

Finally, we felt it was important that effectiveness was assessed in the context of the

structural, economic and historical factors in play at the time the programme was

implemented. This was not originally included as a research question but has proved to be

a significant aspect. As a result, we have considered the impact of the tightened fiscal

environment on the funding arrangements, changes in objectives that occurred as the

programme was being implemented and the internal evolution of the progamme. This

includes the impact on the programme’s objectives and activities of the TEC’s requirements

as the funder of the programme.

Research questions/issues Four specific areas of interest were addressed in the evaluation:

• What is the nature and extent of Learning Rep activity?

• What is the impact at workplaces for workers and employers with regard to attitudes

to learning, workplace relationships and workplace performance?

• To what extent does Learning Rep activity impact on workplace and worker

participation in LLN skill development and industry training?

• What are the barriers and enablers that contribute to Learning Reps having a positive

impact on skill development at workplaces?

Existing research suggests there continue to be workplace-related barriers to increasing LLN

skills among the existing workforce. This evaluation offered an opportunity to explore in

further detail issues such as:

• The workplace supports that make the most difference to effective operation of the

Learning Reps programme

• The activities Learning Reps undertake that make the most difference to learners.

Existing research provided some basis for this evaluation. For example, UK research on the

range of roles that Union Learning Representatives (ULRs) perform provides a useful basis

for comparison. Most ULRs provide information and advice on learning opportunities and

9 PAGE

participate in networking with ULRs from other workplaces, but fewer are involved in

conducting needs assessments or arranging funding for training2.

Other questions may be more problematic to answer. For example, UK research has

pointed to the difficulty of measuring impact in a robust and quantifiable way for two reasons;

first, employers and unions do not always collect and monitor information on variables of

interest. Little information is gathered on training needs, and information on learner

progression has only been able to be analysed using data included on a national database

(similar to that maintained by the NZ Qualifications Authority) related to formal qualifications.

Second, there are major difficulties in attributing changes in UK workplace performance

(such as increases in productivity) to training interventions or the ULR activity. Recent

evaluations have largely relied on employer and ULR perceptions of impact, such as a

perceived increase in awareness of training among colleagues, and improvements in

industrial relations at the workplace.

Some of the key impacts found in recent UK evaluations (Stuart et al 2010; Saundry et al,

2010; Bacon and Hoque, 2009) that we were conscious of when writing this report include:

• The establishment of a workplace infrastructure (e.g. agreements between unions

and employers, establishment of committees or consultation processes) to support

learning

• Positive impact on union-employer relationships and employee-manager

relationships

• Increased equity in access to learning opportunities for groups that have traditionally

not participated in training

• Increased numbers attaining qualifications

• Increased take-up of job-related training

• Reduced skill gaps

• Improvements in performance indicators and employee indicators

• Expressed intent to continue to be involved with learning activities.

Barriers and enablers for effective operation of the ULR system were also included in the

evaluation. In the UK, the biggest barriers were mainly time-related (see both in Stuart et al,

2010; and Saundry et al, 2010), and include employers not making time available for

learning, learners themselves not making time available for learning, and time pressures on

ULRs.

2  A  summary  of  research  on  the  nature  and  extent  of  ULR  activity  in  the  UK,  together  with  discussions  about  effectiveness,  is  set  out  in  Appendix  One.    

10 PAGE

Literature review: the big picture The Learning Reps programme operates in the context of the NZ industry training system

and other government priorities for training and skill development within the overall

framework of the Tertiary Education Strategy. Over the time the Learning Reps programme

has been in place, these priorities have included increasing participation in industry training

(particularly at Level 4 and above on the NZ National Qualifications Framework), increasing

LLN levels in the workforce, and increasing the numbers of people achieving advanced

trade, technical and professional qualifications (Tertiary Education Commission, 2008). The

rationale for funding the Learning Reps programme was based on Learning Reps being

seen as an additional tool for achieving these priorities. They were seen as being able to

help overcome barriers to participation in training and achievement of qualifications.

Industry training & LLN in NZ

The NZ industry training system is unique in that vocational training linked to national

qualifications is provided at the workplace. Since 2000, the industry training system has

grown at a faster rate than other forms of tertiary education (Mahoney, 2009). Neverthless,

as Mahoney notes, there is little research into the industry training system and the dynamics

of on-the-job training. One of the most significant issues currently facing the industry training

system is the relatively high rate of non-completion of qualifications. This is because of a

range of factors including trainees changing jobs, poor quality training, the cost of training,

some training being perceived as not job-relevant, and unsuitable training delivery models

(Curson, 2004).

A focus on LLN has also been evident. Over recent years, funding has been provided to

support Industry Training Organisations (ITOs) to embed LLN provision in industry training.

In those ITOs where embedding has taken place, this has taken the form of upskilling off-job

and some on-job tutors to be able to address LLN issues among trainees as part of teaching

and assesssment processes. It has also involved the development of improved learning

resources, and increased industry awareness. This LLN investment has been accompanied

by a considerable amount of research. The characteristics, jobs, and education and training

patterns of workers with low LLN skills have been analysed (Department of Labour, 2010a),

and literature reviews on workplace learning (Vaughan, 2008), workplace mentoring

(Holland, 2009) and effective adult LLN teaching (Ministry of Education, 2005) have been

undertaken.

Empirical research has also been conducted but there is no clear overall picture emerging

about the extent to which workplace practices are changing. On the one hand, some

employers have seen the need for and committed to strategies for LLN skill development in

their workplaces. Some have reported major improvements in performance as a result.

From an employee perspective, skill development has also been found to contribute to

improved job satisfaction, reduced turnover, increased earnings and better access to

additional training and career development opportunities.

On the other hand, LLN programmes have commonly faced hurdles to implementation.

These include lack of access to suitable trainers, poor quality provision, employer resistance

to releasing employees for training in relation to the perceived costs and benefits, lack of

11 PAGE

information on learner gains, and a high dropout rate. A limited understanding of the

different (and potentially conflicting) outcomes sought by workers, employers and other

stakeholders in relation to LLN has emerged as a key issue. A richer understanding of the

benefits and costs of improved LLN requires an understanding of how workplaces operate

as an ecosystem involving not just the production of goods and services, but a set of

relationships between employers (and supervisors and managers as their agents) and

employees (and their representatives).

In the context of these priorities, the Learning Reps programme was established to assist in

identifying barriers to employee participation in industry training and LLN initiatives. In

particular, the argument for Learning Reps rests on a recognition that participation in training

and successful completion of qualifications requires a supportive workplace culture as much

as it does good learning resources and effective teaching processes (Harris, Piercy and

Law, 2009).

Peer support and Learning Reps

Despite an increase in research findings on the features of supportive workplace learning

environments, the need for senior management support is commonly identified, while less

attention is paid to the importance of peer support or mentoring. Where it has addressed

this question, research has found that mentoring based on trusted relationships is important

(Misko, 2008) and that a culture that places learners at the centre of practice creates a more

supportive atmosphere for learners to participate (Tett and MacLachlan, 2007). In addition,

collaborative learning and group interactions result in improved outcomes in LLN, and

advocates argue for a partnership between industry, communities and literacy specialists

who pursue a 'whole organisational approach' which meets each organisation’s particular

needs and circumstances (Leach et al, 2009).

Research has shown that Learning Reps have had a significant impact on training and

development activities in UK workplaces, including the incidence of job-related training not

leading to formal qualifications, training in LLN, and training leading to national qualifications

(Saundry et al, 2010). In addition, workplaces where employers and unions work in

partnership on learning have higher increases in organisational performance indicators than

other surveyed employers (Clough, 2010). Successive evaluations of the UK Union

Learning Fund have also found its projects have had increasing impact as it has become

more entrenched over time and as scale has increased.

In the UK, the activities most frequently performed by ULRs include providing information to

individual workers (94%) and meeting or networking with ULRs from other workplaces

(79%). Smaller numbers undertake activities such as conducting learning needs

assessments (Saundry et al, 2010).

However, the UK scheme has some significant differences to the New Zealand one, and has

been in place for longer. Established in 1997, ULRs are more focussed on individual

learning needs (as opposed to being limited to industry training and LLN) and have close

links with local education providers. In addition, ULRs have statutory recognition of their

role, along with a right to paid time off for training and carrying out their functions.

Workplaces with ULRs are much more likely to have signed agreements between unions

12 PAGE

and employers that set out the operation of the system in individual workplaces. The system

in the UK has also been given impetus by employees having a statutory right to request

training, and ULRs have a role in this process (Clough, 2010). Finally, the amount of

funding available to support the operation of the ULR system in the UK is substantially

greater than in New Zealand, with £121 million having been distributed since establishment

of the initiative.

The literature summarised above helped to inform the questions and design of this

evaluation. In the next section we describe the development of the Learning Reps

programme in New Zealand and how the system operates in practice.

History and development of NZ programme The CTU Learning Reps programme was first funded in late 2004. It was originally

established through the tripartite Unified Skills Strategy3, developed to increase workforce

skills in the context of improving productivity.

An initial sum of $160,000 was allocated for scoping and set-up of the programme over an

eight-month period. Set-up was intended to include:

• Establishment of a reference group

• Seminars for CTU affiliates and workers

• Identification of Learning Reps from constituencies of workers and “Learning

Champions” from the business sector and economic development agencies4

• Relationship development with key stakeholders including Business NZ, industry

associations and ITOs

• Development of training materials for Learning Reps linked to the NZ National

Qualifications Framework through specially developed Unit Standards, together with

assessment guides

• Promotional material and development of a website.

The original rollout date for the programme of 1 July 2005 was ambitious within the

timeframe allowed and resources available. The development of an infrastructure for the

programme – including accreditation of the CTU as a Private Training Establishment (PTE),

registration of Unit Standards, development of handbooks for Learning Reps and employers,

development of a Model Learning Agreement, and early engagement with affiliates about the

intent of the programme – was needed prior to being able to sign up workplaces and

3  The  Skill  NZ  Tripartite  Forum  operated  from  2004  to  2009  and  brought  together  government  Ministers  and  officials,  Business  NZ,  

CTU  and  the  Industry  Training  Federation,  to  work  in  partnership  to  develop  and  implement  the  then  Government’s  Unified  Skills  

Strategy.  4  It  was  intended  at  the  initial  stages  of  the  programme  that  Learning  Reps  (worker  representatives)  would  work  in  conjunction  with  Learning  Champions  (employer  and  industry  representatives)  to  jointly  link  to  Industry  Training  Organisations  and  Modern  

Apprenticeship  Coordinators  as  advocates  for  industry  training,  Unit  Standards  and  National  Certificates  registered  in  the  National  

Qualifications  Framework.    However,  the  Learning  Champions  aspect  of  the  programme  never  really  received  the  support  from  

employers  and  industry  groups  needed  to  make  the  programme  as  a  whole  run  effectively.  

13 PAGE

industries to the programme. It took until August 2005 to complete development of the Unit

Standards to the standard required by NZ Qualifications Authority (NZQA), and longer still

for these to be registered on the National Qualifications Framework.

Following the initial set-up and scoping that ended in July 2005, a pilot programme was

funded at $300,000 (including GST) per year for a two-year period (2005–2007). The pilot

was focussed on implementation but with a clear emphasis on growth in numbers of

Learning Reps and workplaces with Learning Reps. The aim was to have 100 Learning

Reps commenced training by the completion of the pilot, as well as networks of

representatives within industry groups. The outcomes sought for the programme were for

the widest possible participation of workplaces and “an appreciable development of a

lifelong learning culture in NZ workplaces, with which employees identify and in which they

have a personal interest.”5 At the same time, the CTU was dealing with approval and

registration as a PTE and with associated compliance with accreditation, quality assurance

and monitoring processes. This finally occurred at the end of 2005. By November, a

preliminary training programme was approved, and three Unit Standards relating to the skills

and knowledge needed by Learning Reps were registered on the National Qualifications

Framework. This included work completed on assessment guidelines and production of

assessment material and workbooks.

Meeting notes from the CTU’s internal reference group illustrate some of the frustrations and

teething problems as the pilot was implemented. In particular, it was evident that while there

was industry interest in the programme (including the wood, plastics, dairy and seafood

industries), it was taking longer than expected to build sufficient momentum. Interest from

individual employers was dependent on competing priorities (including collective agreement

negotiations, and industry involvement with other projects). In addition, differing views from

managers at different levels in a workplace about the rationale for their involvement meant

that progress was frequently “two steps forward, one step back”. While the CTU invested

considerable resources in building relationships, there was no guarantee management

would commit to participating in the programme. In some instances, management agreed to

participate, Learning Reps were trained, and new managers then came on board and

withdrew support for the programme.

There were also difficulties in realising the vision for Learning Reps to become part of an

industry network, rather than simply operating in individual workplaces. Employers, even

within a single industry, had different perceptions and levels of interest in the role and

importance of industry-based training and development (as opposed to employer-specific

training).

Industry employers and ITOs did not always share enthusiasm for the role of Learning Reps,

leading to debates that impeded the development of a common view at industry level. It is

evident the CTU faced a number of battles in its initial attempts to gain traction for the

Learning Reps programme. At times it had to make difficult decisions about resource

allocation in the face of competing priorities (e.g. how much energy should be invested in

maintaining existing projects where initial interest had been expressed but now appeared to

5  CTU  Funding  Agreement  with  TEC  dated  2005.    

14 PAGE

be waning, or whether to shift resources into projects in newly-interested workplaces or

industries).

Pilot programme

By the end of 2006, the design of an initial training programme, run over two days with a

further half-day follow-up, had been completed and was piloted in the rail and ports sectors.

During 2007, there were 10 student intakes, and three groups who participated in the

programme through distance learning. Throughout the course of the pilot, Learning Reps

were trained in a range of largely manufacturing and healthcare industries, including dairy,

seafood processing, aged and disability care, roading, ports and railways.

An evaluation of the pilot undertaken by the TEC in June 2008 found the programme had

succeeded in creating greater awareness of industry training and workplace learning. It had

also met its numerical targets, and had done so within budget, although the evaluation noted

a slower start than expected.

The evaluation identified areas for improvement for the next phase of the programme with

two findings in particular having a significant influence on future development. The first was

the need for ongoing support for Learning Reps once initial training had been completed.

This led to a change in programme design with additional resources targeted to ongoing

support for sustainability rather than a simple expansion of numbers. The second finding

was the formal recognition of the LLN barriers faced by workers in relation to workplace

learning and participation in industry training. Since 2006, the government had implemented

a range of interventions to address concerns about the overall level of functional LLN

suggested by the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS). The argument was made

that the Learning Reps programme could be used as a vehicle for helping to improve LLN

skills at the workplace.

Re-launch, expansion and funding changes

These changes were reflected in a new funding agreement, with increased funding to

refocus the programme around LLN and to increase its reach into NZ workplaces through an

expansion of the programme. The term of the agreement was for the period from October

2008 to June 2010 (with backdating to July 2008), but the agreement signalled an

expectation of funding continuing past that point. The agreement included a reference to

annual targets for defining the number of Learning Reps to be engaged in the programme to

be agreed annually from June 2010.

With the expectation of increased funding on an ongoing basis, staffing for implementation of

the project was increased with the employment of a specialist LLN advisor and additional

educator/organisers. Expectations of programme delivery were also raised significantly, with

an increase in the expected number of Learning Reps to be trained, revision of existing

materials, and greater depth and ongoing support for Learning Reps. The programme

began to pick up momentum, with 280 Learning Reps trained by the end of 2009 – just 20

short of the agreed target of 300.

Unfortunately, just as this momentum was gathering pace, Government budget cuts in 2009

reduced funding to $300,000. In addition, the new funding agreement was for one year only,

15 PAGE

introducing a level of uncertainty about the future of the programme. At the same time, the

requirements placed on the CTU around service delivery and activity monitoring were

increased, meaning that a greater proportion of the funding was being spent to meet these

requirements.6 In the face of these changes, the momentum that had been built up since

2008 was disrupted. Over the course of 2010 and 2011, trade-offs were needed to maintain

a balance between supporting existing Learning Reps and training new ones. In a number

of workplaces, the programme fell over, either because an existing Learning Rep changed

jobs or because of the employment of a new manager who did not support the programme.

In addition, investment in industry training decreased in many workplaces as a result of the

recession.

The Learning Reps programme The Learning Reps training programme is based around the role of a Learning Rep as an

employee who acts as an advocate and guide with regard to industry training and LLN

programmes in the workplace. The role of advocate includes working with management to

identify training plans to promote ongoing learning and professional development

opportunities and to encourage lifelong learning for all employees within the existing

structured industry training environment. This advocacy takes the form of promoting the

benefits of engaging in workplace learning to employers and employees, and identifying

barriers to employee participation in workplace learning opportunities. The Learning Rep’s

role is to guide employees towards learning and assist in setting up a learning culture in the

workplace. They also provide support to individual employees, but not as a tutor or formal

mentor. Where feasible, it is intended that Learning Reps support collaborative learning

processes at the workplace. This might involve, for example, setting up learning groups to

support and encourage peers to learn together, or organising coaching or group discussions

to refresh knowledge on previous training sessions.

The primary focus of the programme is promoting structured industry training leading to

national qualifications, rather than informal staff training programmes.7 The support offered

by Learning Reps should be directed towards broad vocational education to industry

standards and training, to underpin ongoing viability and development of the industry, as

much as to the specific needs of the enterprise. As noted earlier, this focus was expanded

in the second phase of the programme to include workplace LLN skill development.

Learning Reps are trained at a two-day workshop, with a half or full day follow-up workshop.8

The initial workshop covers perceptions of learning, the role of the Learning Rep,

overcoming barriers to learning, identifying learning opportunities, principles of adult

learning, LLN, and workplace relationships. The workshop ends with the Learning Reps

developing an action plan for their workplaces. In the nine months to end March 2011, 61

two-day training workshops were held across NZ, as well as 67 follow-up workshops.

6  This  is  reflected  in  the  fact  that  the  agreed  Service  Delivery  plan  increased  from  9  pages  for  the  2009/10  year  to  23  pages  in  the  2010/11  year,  with  significant  KPIs  to  be  met  and  additional  reporting  frequency.

7  As  noted  earlier,  the  origins  of  the  Learning  Reps  programme  were  based  in  the  tripartite  Unified  Skills  Strategy.    Learning  Reps  

were  not  intended  to  be  a  stand-­‐alone  initiative,  but  rather  were  a  specified  line  of  work  within  the  10  action  points  of  the  strategy.  

8  In  some  workplaces  where  Learning  Reps  have  been  in  place  for  some  time,  refresher  workshops  are  also  held.    

16 PAGE

Course participants have consistently evaluated the training courses positively as providing

an increased understanding of the need for worker-centred learning, the role of a Learning

Rep, LLN issues, and barriers to learning. Courses have also been rated positively in their

ability to provide the skills and tools Learning Reps need for their role.

Once training is completed, Learning Reps may engage in a variety of activities at their

workplaces. This commonly includes advertising their role using posters and noticeboards,

attending team and face-to-face meetings, and having other direct forms of contact with

fellow workers. One of their first tasks is to set up a Learning Committee, usually in

conjunction with management. Learning Reps are encouraged to meet together regularly

and work with management to identify training issues. A range of mechanisms are needed

to support the activities of Learning Reps including the negotiation of Learning Agreements

(see Appendix Two) and formal company policies to enable, for example, access to

telephone and copying facilities.

Unit Standards

The CTU has been registered as a PTE since 2005, and as such is accredited to deliver

training in the subfield of Occupational Health and Safety and the Domain Employment

Relations. As a PTE, it has been subject to regular audits. Its last NZQA audit was in 2008,

at which time it was concluded that:

NZCTU PTE was achieving its goals and objectives and was able to

demonstrate that it operates a sound and stable training

environment for its trainees. This was demonstrated by effective

course delivery, stakeholder engagement and programme review.9

Training is designed to prepare Learning Reps for their roles but also offers the opportunity

to complete Unit Standards. There are three Unit Standards specific to Learning Reps at

level 3 of the Employment Relations domain. These are:

• 23023: Strategies required for the role of a Learning Representative

• 23024: How workplace learning operates in New Zealand and the role of unions in

the process

• 23025: Demonstrate knowledge of the purpose and role of a Learning

Representative.

A fourth Unit Standard was recently recognised at level 2.

Each of these Unit Standards has an assessment schedule setting out the evidence required

to demonstrate learning. Participants are accredited on completion of assessment

workbooks to the required standard.

Since the relaunch of the programme in 2009, there has been a concerted attempt to

encourage Learning Reps to complete Unit Standards. This has led to a significant increase

in the achievement of Unit Standards with 230 Learning Reps having at least one Unit

9    NZQA  audit  report:    www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/provider-­‐reports/7669.pdf  

17 PAGE

Standard and 165 having two or more (as at 31 March 2011). Altogether, 422 people were

registered as Learning Reps and are employed in 150 workplaces in 94 different

organisations. While the vast majority of workplaces have a single Learning Rep, others

have several employed in different geographical locations or departments. The largest

numbers of Learning Reps, by far, are employed in Health and Community Services, with

high numbers also employed in food processing, manufacturing and transport. Table One

shows the demographic profile of current Learning Reps.

Table One: Learning Reps: Demographic breakdown (as at 31 March 2011)

NZ

Euro/Pākeha NZ Māori Pacific

Island Indian Other Unknown Ethnicity

154 69 22 5 86 22

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Unknown Age

17 70 111 77 37 46

Male Female Unknown Gender

175 169 14

As well as delivering Learning Reps training, the CTU performs a number of other activities

to support the programme. These include:

• Awareness raising among unions, employers, industry groups and others to develop

support for the programme. There is a particular focus on raising awareness of LLN

issues, building demand for LLN provisions and promoting industry training

• Working with employers and employees to set up Learning Reps programmes within

workplaces

• Setting up systems (such as Learning Reps Committees and Learning Agreements)

for effective operation of workplace programmes

• Ongoing support of Learning Reps and workplace Learning Reps Committees

• Moderation of teaching and facilitation practice, teaching and assessment materials

and Unit Standard-related work.

This adds up to a considerable amount of activity. For example, in the nine months to 31

March 2011, there were174 awareness raising presentations delivered and support was

offered on 52 occasions to Learning Reps and Learning Reps Committees.

18 PAGE

Eleven CTU-affiliated unions are engaged with the programme with a small number of

unions ensuring that staff organising workplaces with Learning Reps have completed

Learning Rep training themselves and understand the nature and operation of the

programme. Nevertheless, active involvement in the programme remains a challenge for

many union organisers in the face of competing industrial priorities.

A governance group and an advisory group oversee the Learning Reps programme at a

national level. The governance group is made up of senior trade union leaders, academics,

and adult education specialists and provides strategic advice on the programme as a whole.

The advisory group is made up of practitioners and trade union educators, and provides

expert advice on programme design and delivery. Both groups meet on a regular basis to

discuss the programme.

Methodology The evaluation was carried out using a mixed-method approach including document

analysis; workplace case studies involving interviews with Learning Reps, managers, union

officials and learners; and an electronic survey.

The CTU provided open access to its filing system, which allowed analysis of historical and

current documentation. This was used to construct an understanding of the historical

development of the programme, how it had changed over time, and the reasons for those

changes. It has also provided information about the content and delivery model for Learning

Rep training, the functions of Learning Reps and the activities they perform, and the

achievements of the programme to date.

We’ve also analysed documentation that enabled us to understand the programme in its

administrative context. This included the requirements on the CTU from both the TEC as the

programme’s primary funder, the NZQA as the organisation overseeing the assessment of

Unit Standards and quality assurance of Private Training Providers.

Case studies

The bulk of the data for this evaluation was collected through case studies. The primary

criterion for selection of the case studies was a company’s willingness to take part in the

evaluation (including releasing staff in work time for interviews and focus groups), and their

ability to provide the information needed to answer the research questions.

19 PAGE

Across the evaluation as a whole, criteria for selection of case studies included:10

• Sites that started the scheme during the pilot phase (2005–2008) and those that

started the scheme from mid-2008

• A mix of industries/sectors

• A mix of organisations focused on LLN or industry training.

A selection of workplaces that met these criteria was identified by the CTU. In each case,

the CTU facilitated an introduction to the workplace for the research team, who were then

responsible for discussing potential participation with management.

In the end, seven workplaces from four organisations participated in the research. A brief

description of each of the participants is set out in Table Two.

Table Two: Profile of case study workplaces

Organisation

Number of participating sites

Industry sector Year started with Learning Reps programme

A 1 Manufacturing 2008

B 1 Manufacturing 2009

C 3 Health and disability

services 2006

D 2 Health and disability

services 2010

10 Originally it had been intended that criteria would also include the ability of workplaces to supply the evaluation team with hard (and

longitudinal) data on:

• Percentage of employees participating in formal industry training, and particularly completion rates, for employees within the

workplace

• Data on literacy and numeracy levels for employees within the workplace

• Data on the impact of training on individual performance

• Data on the impact of training on organisational performance and KPIs

• Data on the impact of training on workplace relationships

• Comparison for these figures prior to the introduction of the Learning Reps programme and afterwards.

However, this was dropped as a criteria, as few workplaces had collected data on these areas. Subjective management assessments were,

however, included in the interview schedules.

20 PAGE

In all but one of the case study workplaces, the focus of the programme and Learning Rep

activity has included both industry training and LLN. In two workplaces, the programme was

given impetus through participation in the government programme put in place in 2009

through which the government paid a subsidy to employers reducing their hours of work to a

nine-day fortnight. In three organisations, while the initial focus of Learning Reps was on

industry training, it had become evident (quite quickly in some workplaces) that LLN issues

needed to be addressed, and in one workplace, this had become the major focus for

Learning Rep activity.

Case studies in each of the organisations were carried out through interviews and focus

groups with Learning Reps, learners themselves and management representatives.

Wherever possible, interviews were also held with local union organisers, LLN tutors, ITO

representatives and training providers. Across all case studies, interviews were held with 18

managers, 17 Learning Reps, 18 learners, five union officials and six “others”. A common

interview framework11 was used for all interviews to ensure consistent information was

collected across all sites. The framework was developed from the research questions, initial

thinking around an intervention logic based on dimensions of effectiveness, and the explicit

objectives for the Learning Reps programme, as agreed with the programme funders. The

framework included six distinct components:

• The extent and nature of Learning Rep activity at the workplace

• The impact of Learning Rep activity on attitudes and behaviour at work

• The impact of Learning Rep activity on participation in training and learning

• Barriers and enablers for effective implementation of the Learning Reps programme

• The effectiveness of workplace supports for Learning Reps

• Innovations that occurred during implementation.

Online survey

In addition to the case studies, and in an attempt to widen the range of workplaces from

which data was received, an electronic survey of Learning Reps was also undertaken. The

sample frame was provided by the CTU and included all registered Learning Reps.

The decision was taken to send the survey to the 126 people on the database who had

completed Learning Rep Unit Standards, had a status of “current” and had a valid email

address. Of these, 25 email addresses “bounced” while 33 responses were received from

current Learning Reps. An additional three responses were received from people who had

completed the Learning Rep training but were union officials (as opposed to playing a

Learning Rep role in their workplaces). Because of the low response rate, the data collected

from the survey has been used in this report to check and verify findings from interviews, but

has not been relied on to any great extent.

11  This was customised according to role, with separate schedules being used for Learning Reps, learners, managers and union officials.    

21 PAGE

We now move into a discussion of findings from the case studies, which will be followed by a

look at these in relation to the six dimensions of effectiveness identified earlier in this report.

We will then discuss some issues for future development of the programme in a manner that

is sustainable for the CTU.

Findings We start this section by considering how the Learning Reps system works in practice at the

case study workplaces, including the workplace supports that have been put in place to

ensure effective operation of the system. We then move on to consider the extent to which

the programme has been able to achieve its primary objective to raise awareness of

managers and employees about learning opportunities. Lastly, we look at whether this

increased awareness has translated into increased participation in both LLN skill

development activities and participation in industry training.

How the Learning Rep system works in practice

Because the Learning Reps programme is still relatively new, it is in many respects still

bedding down in most workplaces, including those that participated in the research as case

studies. Of the Learning Reps who responded to the survey, and those we spoke to when

doing the case studies, around 90% had been trained in 2009 or 2010. In the case study

workplaces, the length of time that Learning Reps had been in place ranged from one

workplace where an initial pilot scheme was being trialled, through to one workplace where

Learning Reps had been in place for nearly three years.

Across the programme as a whole, about half of the Learning Reps are the only one at their

workplace, or they are one of two Learning Reps. The case study workplaces were unusual

in this regard with all having more than one Learning Rep, and in two workplaces there were

more than 10 people trained as Learning Reps. Most Learning Reps are engaged in their

role for around one hour a week, generally during work time.

Who are Learning Reps and what do they do?

The profile of Learning Reps at any individual workplace varies significantly, and in part

reflects the ways in which they are selected. While it was intended they would be elected

by their peers, in general Learning Reps tend to be those who have put themselves forward

for the position by expressing an interest in the role. Several of the workplaces believed

Learning Reps were expected to be union delegates.

In other workplaces, managers had put forward

people in team leader positions because they had

some degree of responsibility for training matters

within their teams (including roles as verifiers or

assessors for industry training).

It was originally intended that Learning Rep training would be completed primarily by

employees and delegates from the frontline or shop floor. However, in a small number of

workplaces, (including two of the case study workplaces), training was also completed by

team leaders, supervisors and managers. Others with an interest in the workplace (such as

ITO staff, training providers and union organisers) also completed the training.

“The Team Leader and Learning Rep role are very similar to me; we help new staff with paperwork anyway.”

Learning Rep

22 PAGE

Having supervisors and managers undertake the training was seen to have both advantages

and disadvantages. Perceived advantages were that workers and managers had a common

view of what the programme was set up to achieve, and how it would do this. It was also

seen as demonstrating management commitment to workplace training and Learning Reps.

Learning Reps who also had other training responsibilities suggested that there were

synergies between these two functions and that each added value to the other.

On the other hand, it could sometimes lead to role confusion. For example, a manager who

was also a Learning Rep expressed the view that he was not doing anything that he wouldn’t

have been expected to do as a manager. However another Learning Rep, who was also an

assessor for industry training, reported feeling uncertain about whether she should be

helping people get through their training (as a Learning Rep) or standing aside from them

(as an assessor) to make sure they were able to perform the tasks required of them. In

addition, the operation of Learning Reps sometimes showed management the value of

increased investment in training, leading them to appoint people to undertake tasks intended

to be done by Learning Reps.

As noted earlier, the Learning Rep role has been established to advocate for the learning

aspirations of workers at the workplace. One of the key tasks for Learning Reps is to act as

an intermediary between workers and managers. This was the most common activity

undertaken by Learning Reps in the case studies and

reported by 77% of those Learning Reps who

responded to the electronic survey. This involved

telling workers about availability of training and how to

access it, pointing them in the direction of assistance,

talking about further opportunities available to them

and the advantages of industry training, and using

skills gained in the Learning Reps training to be able

to source other learning opportunities through libraries

and the Internet. Learning Reps also frequently act as the “eyes and ears” for managers by

bridging the gulf between them and workers who are skilled at masking their learning needs.

Learning Reps also had an important role in helping to overcome barriers to training. Some

of the activities identified through the case studies as being particularly useful included:

• Reminding staff that training courses they were booked to attend were about to start.

This reduced rates of unexpected non-attendance

• Helping sort out things that might get in the way of attendance at training (e.g.

transport to training, availability of childcare, providing cover for shift shortages, and

general encouragement where workers expressed reservations or anxiety about their

ability to successfully complete the training)

• Support to set up study groups with other workers, including organising group

sessions for workers to complete workbooks

• Monitoring individual completion of training components, matching these with

upcoming training

“If it hadn’t been for the Learning Rep who identified literacy needs of three staff, they [the staff] wouldn’t have achieved their qualification.”

Manager

23 PAGE

• Having a dedicated office space that was useful for meetings, discussions and

workshopping

• Being at a regular place at a regular time and making this known to workers in order

to be more approachable

• Providing regular briefings to team meetings at the workplace so as to “normalise”

Learning Rep activity as “business as usual”

• Providing advice to individual workers on training available in their industry or region,

including the availability of LLN support. Where this was available, Learning Reps

often played a critical role in pointing people in the direction of available support.

However, possibly the most important role of a Learning Rep was to act as a peer support

person to workers who struggle to be learners. In this role, Learning Reps provide

encouragement and support to their colleagues, who

frequently had had negative experiences with earlier

schooling and education, and who had often been

away from learning for many years. For these people,

expressions of support and encouragement were

crucial.

A range of personal skills and attributes were identified

as being critical in order to be an effective Learning

Rep. Those best appreciated by learners included

someone who was approachable and easy to talk to,

being able to keep information confidential, providing

support and encouragement, and expressing their

belief in the individual’s skills and abilities. Most

importantly, an effective Learning Rep needed to have been a successful learner in order to

be a role model for others. In particular, they needed to have demonstrated their ability to

overcome obstacles to learning.

In summary, the main focus of Learning Rep activity is providing learner support and acting

as a go-between for learners and managers. Across all the case study workplaces,

Learning Reps reported being motivated by a desire to help their workmates by taking on a

hands-on role. This included “buddying” with people and assisting them to work through

industry training workbooks, helping people with LLN-related tasks, and general

encouragement. In some cases, Learning Reps also play a role as interpreters for people

whose first language is not English and acting as reader-writers. In this sense, Learning

Reps in the case study workplaces played an important role in enhancing access to training

for people who face significant barriers as a result of their age, LLN skills, English language

ability or lack of confidence.

There was less evidence that Learning Reps play a role in promoting up-skilling of the

workforce. In general, they work within the confines of a pre-existing management training

strategy, and provide support to achieve the objectives of that strategy. There was only one

case study workplace where the operation of the Learning Reps programme changed the

“I didn't do well at school, [Learning Reps] were a big help. I had to juggle to get appointments to get support, it was a bit difficult at times, but I decided it was for me...I could ask the Learning Rep in confidence... [It's] very hard to ask for help, I wanted to do the qualification so it was important, persisting was important.”

Worker

24 PAGE

workplace strategy for training and development, and had resulted in workers gaining new

opportunities for up-skilling that they had not had previously.

Similarly, while a common role for Learning Reps is to participate in joint committees

overseeing training activities, the role of those committees is generally limited to monitoring

and oversight of progress by individuals, rather than being strategic and forward-looking.

Across the different case studies, committees varied in terms of both frequency of meeting,

purpose and effectiveness. Some met monthly while others met three-monthly, but none

appeared to have a work plan or objectives independent of management’s own training

objectives, nor did any appear to have reviewed their role and achievements.

On the other hand, in one workplace, the committee had played an important role in devising

a skills matrix that helped to identify gaps in skills and training needs. This was

accompanied by the development of a skills-based pay system negotiated with the union.

The combination of these two changes resulted in increased levels of skill and fewer skill

gaps across the workplace as a whole, and increased production flexibility made possible by

the fact that workers were trained on a wider range of machines.

The case studies also suggested a lack of clarity for Learning Reps about their role. Those

taking a hands-on role by providing individual support for learners were the most satisfied.

As one Learning Rep noted: “What I like is that I’m a practical person and it means I can

give practical help”. Others were less certain about their role, noting that they weren’t sure

whether they were doing the “right things”, or what their functions were. While one Learning

Rep commented her role could be fulltime by expanding into a range of activities, managers

were more likely to mention ways Learning Reps could expand their role.

These comments also reflect the fact that in the case

study workplaces Learning Reps had played a major role

in successfully building momentum around training

activity and increased skill levels. However, there was

some uncertainty about their ongoing role, particularly

where training objectives had been achieved and staff

turnover was low. In one workplace that had made use

of the nine-day fortnight to increase their investment in

training, this had led to a significant increase in the

number of Unit Standards achieved by staff. In another,

also using the nine-day fortnight, a dedicated training officer was appointed. In these

workplaces, however, there was uncertainty about the ongoing role of Learning Reps once

initial training objectives had been achieved. This raised the need to think about how their

programmes could be renewed with an ongoing agenda.

Impacts on learning and development activit ies As noted earlier, a key question for this study was to consider the effectiveness of Learning

Reps on workplace learning and development activities. The analysis below shows that the

programme has had a major impact on worker attitudes to learning and has also provided

“After the initial impact, I’m not sure how effective they [Learning Reps] have been. But we have a number of ideas about how we can use them effectively if we can shape our own programme.”

Manager

25 PAGE

reinforcement for management activity around commitment to training. We also consider the

extent to which this has impacted on access to, and participation in, training.

Worker attitudes to learning

The workplaces in which Learning Reps are operating tend to be workplaces where the

majority of jobs require a level of skill and qualification at around Levels 2 to 4 on the

National Qualifications Framework. As noted earlier, it was common for people working in

these jobs to have had negative experiences in the formal schooling system.

Perhaps the most significant achievement for the programme has been the fact that

Learning Reps have been able to reach these workers and encourage them back into

learning. All the case study workplaces provided examples of individuals who had achieved

learning gains through the intervention of

Learning Reps.

There appear to be two ways in which Learning

Reps bridge the gap and provide a pathway

into learning. The first is around providing

people with confidence about their ability to

achieve. For those who view themselves as

unsuccessful learners, having someone “take

them under their wing” (as one learner

described it) made the difference between

wanting to take on the challenge of training, and being able to do so. The second way

Learning Reps supported workers was by helping them navigate a pathway through the

education and training system. This was especially important for those unfamiliar with it.

The training and qualifications system and structure has changed significantly over the past

20 years, and for those whose last experiences of learning were prior to the education

reforms of the 1980s and 90s, it is often a mystery. In addition, new migrants, some of

whom have difficulties with English language, find it useful to have access to someone who

knows their way around “the system” and who can provide them with information about how

to access training resources.

Two Learning Reps (who were also team leaders) from one workplace but who work at two

different sites had been able to identify workers

with LLN needs as a result of their Learning Rep

training. One arranged external LLN support for

these trainees and a workshop for all trainees to

help them complete assessment workbooks.

The other Learning Rep had changed her

approach as a team leader following the

realisation that trainees who were less engaged

in training may have LLN needs. Other trainees

consequently expressed an interest in wanting

LLN help as a result of what they observed in

their supported co-workers.

“The Learning Reps training programme made a big difference by identifying people who changed their mindset about training. They responded in a way you wouldn’t have predicted. It was voluntary and people stepped up. It identified leaders.”

Learning Rep

“Learning Reps are safe people for them to talk to. I think this is a big reason why we're getting better turnouts. People are more honest about weaknesses. They come to core training and say they don't always understand the questions, so help me understand.”

Manager

26 PAGE

Attitudes In the case study workplaces, there were distinct benefits in terms of workers reporting

feeling more enthusiastic about learning, often in a context where schooling and education

had resulted in their being reluctant participants. It had resulted in a number of benefits for

individuals, including greater confidence, the ability to proceed through training more quickly

and finding it easier to do their job. The boost to self-esteem had been significant for many

individuals and resulted in a change of attitude towards their own learning, and them

becoming a role model for colleagues and family members.

This effect appeared to be most significant for those workers with low rates of participation in

tertiary education, and included women, workers aged 40plus in mid-career, Māori, and

those whose first language is not English.

Having said that, it is also evident that where worker attitudes are being influenced, the

impact is greatest for those who make up the majority of the workforce at the case study

workplaces – mostly frontline service workers or shop floor production staff. Learning Reps

have yet to be able to make an impact on the establishment of a “learning culture” that

reaches other occupations in the workplace. In addition, at all the case study workplaces it

was clear that not all workers were interested in participation in training for reasons of their

own. This was sometimes attributed to age and/or seniority, while workers who had

successfully worked in a role for a number of years could see little benefit in participating in

training activities.

Management attitudes to training

In addition to the impact on worker attitudes, both Learning Reps and management

respondents suggested that there has been a positive impact on management practices. It

must be noted that the case study workplaces, by virtue of their interest and participation in

the Learning Reps programme, should be regarded as already having a supportive training

environment. However, both Learning Reps and managers agreed that having the Learning

Reps programme in place had reinforced expressed commitment and ensured that this

translated into tangible action. While some managers

were of the view that the improvements that had been

gained were more to do with management commitment

to training than to Learning Reps per se, others

suggested that Learning Reps had helped to “keep

management honest” and had made an important

contribution to development of a workplace culture that

is more supportive of learning.

It would appear that, while a large number of workplaces express their commitment to

training, in the case study workplaces there was greater evidence of structure as part of the

training environment. This included, for example, the development of specific training plans

(that outlined the competencies that individuals needed to learn), the timeframes within

which they were expected to develop those competencies, and specific accountabilities for

who was responsible for ensuring that they had the opportunity to develop those skills.

“Learning Reps are the eyes in the workplace to see [staff training] needs. I tend to go to the team leader to find out who might benefit from training.”

Manager

27 PAGE

Having Learning Reps in place at the workplace is not always easy for managers to deal

with. Some were of the view that there was no need for the role, and that it was replicating

their own responsibility. This was largely the case in workplaces where training was

designed solely to equip workers with the skills they needed to carry out the job they were

employed to do. Other managers appreciated the potential for Learning Reps to encourage

workers into higher-level skills development, thus supporting them to overcome barriers to

learning in order to maximise their ability to perform tasks at a higher level of skill. Union

organisers also reported that Learning Reps had given them a valuable platform for

engaging much more positively with managers about workers, compared to dealing with

disciplinary issues, disputes and pay increases.

The process of bringing managers on board can take time. In each of the case study

workplaces, senior management commitment to participate in the Learning Reps

programme had not automatically resulted in enthusiasm among all managers. It was

common for there to be a time lag before some managers were won over. While some saw

the value immediately, others took time and until a “tipping point” is reached, some may stay

neutral. This was most evident in the workplace that was still in its pilot phase, and where

managers were still cautious, whereas in the workplaces where the programme had been in

operation for longer managers were more likely to talk about having been “won over” as

benefits were experienced.

One of the biggest benefits identified by managers was that Learning Reps were much

better able to identify those people having difficulties learning. This was because they are

much closer to them and can “see through” strategies that workers use to disguise areas

where they might not be as capable as they would like to be.

Participation in LLN skil l development As noted earlier, since 2008 a major focus for the Learning Reps programme has been on

supporting workers to access opportunities to participate in LLN skill development. In three

of the four case study organisations, LLN were identified as a barrier to workers completing

industry training and improved workplace performance. Learning Reps consciously

addressed these barriers in the support that they offered to workers.

In these three workplaces, Learning Reps were seen as

highly successful in facilitating access to support for learners

where LLN issues limited their participation in training or the

achievement of their potential capability. In all cases, access

to support had been through external LLN providers, using

the Workplace Literacy Fund administered by TEC. For a

number of workers interviewed, Learning Reps had been

instrumental in overcoming “fear of failure” and were key to

their ability to complete industry qualifications. In fact, the outcome went well beyond the

workplace and appears to have been responsible for general improvements in the skills and

quality of life for individuals and communities.

“In my [worksite], once this group has gone through, others I know will put their hands up for literacy training.”

Learning Rep

28 PAGE

Despite this positive outcome, Learning Reps are not a silver bullet for overcoming the

stigmatisation associated with LLN difficulties. The learning culture of a workplace needs to

change in order to have a greater degree of acceptability for

addressing these issues, and for it to be approached from a

positive perspective rather than a deficit model. There is a

need to ensure that a focus on LLN skill development does not

overshadow a focus on industry training. For example, a

worker at one workplace talked about having dropped out of a

literacy support programme when teased by colleagues who

saw them talking to a Learning Rep.

For many of the workers who participated in programmes that improved their LLN skills, the

impact was quite transformative. There was evidence of significant benefits at a number of

levels. It not only improved their ability to do the job, but it also provided them with

confidence to try new activities both at work and in their personal lives. One worker ended

up rewriting machine operating manuals, which had in turn resulted in a higher-level position

together with a pay rise. A Learning Rep reported that workers receiving external LLN

support shared their learning in a workshop to assist their peers, many with similar issues,

thus helping them to complete their qualification together. A number of workers talked about

the satisfaction of being able to participate in activities such as spending time with children

or grandchildren on homework or reading stories, and having a greater interest in the

external world through reading the newspaper or searching the Internet.

Participation in industry training The original purpose of the Learning Reps programme was tied to increased participation in

industry training along with completion of qualifications, and this remains the foundation of

the programme. While in all of the case study workplaces there has been increased

investment in training associated with Unit Standards and National Certificates, it is

extremely difficult to establish a causal link with the operation of Learning Reps. In most of

the case study workplaces, participation in the programme was associated with an existing

strategy by management to increase investment in training, and Learning Reps were part of

the range of tools they used to do this. In two of the case study workplaces, this also

reflected use of the nine-day fortnight arrangements that were put in place in 2009 as a

policy response to the recession.

“More competent and confident to do my work. I'm taking literacy more seriously than I did before, more careful about spelling.”

Learner

29 PAGE

Nevertheless, as with improved LLN, there were benefits beyond the immediate goals of the

Learning Reps programme. In each of the case study workplaces, there had been

suggestions of increased rates of participation and

faster completion of study over the previous two

years. While this cannot be attributed to the

presence of Learning Reps alone, it was

nevertheless the view of managers that Learning

Reps played a role in both increasing rates of

participation and speeding up completions. The

range of activities undertaken by Learning Reps

that contributed to this included providing access to

LLN support, helping people to work through

workbooks for Unit Standards (either individually or

in group settings) tracking progress through the training components, and reminding people

to both attend training and complete the paperwork associated with completion of Unit

Standards.

Learning Reps in some workplaces have, however, gone beyond just encouraging

individuals and have also played a role in making participation easier. For example, in one

workplace they were instrumental in customising ITO written material to reflect the specific

machines and processes operating in their particular workplace. This contextualisation

meant workers were better able to understand the resource material and apply the

theoretical knowledge that was part of the learning to practical situations. Participating in

industry training was highly valued by many of the workers spoken to. While some learners

experienced some intrinsic satisfaction in participating in training and development activities,

others valued certification as important for recognising their achievements.

Nevertheless, there are limits to the extent to which

Learning Reps can influence industry training

participation rates. The quality of training offered by a

training provider and the structure of a qualification

can act as powerful disincentives in some cases. In

addition, an absence of incentives (such as the

opportunity for promotion or a higher wage rate) can

deter workers from taking up opportunities for training.

However, in several of the case study workplaces,

there were signs of a changed culture around training,

with increased enrolments not only in core job-related skills, but also enrolment in other

work-relevant training such as assessor training and computer skills.

Increased participation in learning and development as a result of Learning Rep activity was seen as having a positive impact on attitudes to learning and particpation in skill development, as well as on performance at individual, team and organisational levels.

“People would turn up for training but we wouldn't see completion and follow up. Learning Reps programme has improved tracking and completion because they [Learning Reps] stay at it, they are on it every week.”

Manager

“The fact people have actually achieved certificates is a huge boost to their self esteem. It's acknowledgement that their knowledge and skills are very valuable. I have seen improvement in people’s work performance.”

Manager

30 PAGE

Individual performance and capability

Both learners and managers identified an increase

in the confidence of individual workers across all

workplaces as the most significant difference of

Learning Reps. The importance of this

achievement cannot be underestimated. In many

cases, Learning Reps are supporting workers who

have not been successful in the formal education

system, and as a result, had no sense of self-efficacy in relation to learning. Some gained

confidence in their ability to succeed in this arena for the first time in their lives. The benefits

extend beyond the individual to others in their work teams; workers perform their tasks

without hesitation, more quickly, and without the need for external assistance.

Managers and colleagues noted a variety of ways the

positive outcomes were seen. These included less

concerns about excessive alcohol and drug use and

some workers showing a greater willingness to

socialise with workmates. Also noted were greater

attention to detail, accurate and reliable completion of

paperwork and greater likelihood of putting forward

suggestions for improvements.

Achievement at a higher skill level meant workers were

able to undertake tasks with less effort than previously.

In the case of training new workers, it was often reported they learned the correct way to

complete a task early in their careers, rather than picking up “bad habits” that later had to be

corrected. In other cases it was because

they had learned new techniques for

completing tasks, or now understood

either the theory behind what it was that

they were trying to do (such as the

operation of a machine process). In

addition, it provided some workers with a

skill or qualification that they needed to be

able to apply for a job at a higher skill

level or pay rate. Newly-qualified workers in service roles had more confidence to assert the

correct (i.e. trained) way to do things and were more likely to challenge poor practice

modelled by long serving, but unqualified, peers.

Managers believed several different factors contributed to improved performance at an

individual level. In some cases, participation in skill development has resulted in better

understanding by workers of the job through having a better appreciation of the context

within which their job operates. For example, in one of the manufacturing firms, training had

resulted in an improved understanding of the principles of maths and physics, which had in

turn led to greater attention to preventative maintenance and improved problem-solving. In

“Staff are more likely to source things, they seem to know where to go, what to do. They're more productive, there's less sitting around time, more seeing what they can do.”

Learning Rep

“[Workers] are contributing more, confident to contribute in team meetings. One said it’s given her more confidence outside work.”

Learning Rep

“I have more understanding of the requirements and responsibilities, like risk management, lifestyle plans, profiles, people's safety, reporting events, hazards, day-to-day health, dealing with (professionals).”

Worker

31 PAGE

the service industry, a better understanding of context has led to greater awareness of the

rights of the service users.

Team performance

Improved performance at an individual level is frequently translated into improved team

performance. Benefits include better compliance with paperwork and administrative

requirements, a reduction in faults, more accurate data entry and records, more reliable and

detailed shift changeover notes, and improved understanding of standard operating

procedures and manuals.

Skill development led to improved understanding of the wider context in which work was

being performed, whether this was as a result of customer requirements, or contractual (and

sometimes legal) obligations. This was seen, for example, in the need for workers in the

aged care sector to be able to understand the legal implication of the Code of Patient’s

Rights, and the implications for their work. More in-depth understanding led to a greater

likelihood that workers would ask questions about work processes and take the initiative to

address issues before they became a problem. It also resulted in better workplace

relationships, based on recognition of skill and knowledge rather than seniority. Some of the

workers suggested this brought a greater sense of equity to

the workplace, and resulted in an improved sense of co-

operation and collegiality.

Improved understanding was also seen as contributing to a

greater sense of workflow. It resulted in less confusion, with

everyone having a clear sense of what their job was and how

they contributed. More tangible benefits were realised through improved health and safety

compliance, including, more reporting of incidents and near misses.

The discussion above leads to the logical recognition that for the case study workplaces,

increased participation in skill development had resulted in improved workplace

relationships, particularly around co-operation and participation. Interviewees also

suggested the process of implementation of a Learning Reps programme had resulted in the

development of a more positive learning environment, as opposed to training being regarded

as a compliance activity. By and large, the operation of Learning Reps had provided a focus

for constructive union-management dialogue, even in situations where there were

disagreements around other employment relations issues.

Overall capability

Improvements in organisational performance were seen by research participants to have

occurred at most of the case study workplaces, although in some cases it was some time

before improvements were experienced. To some extent, organisational performance gains

result from an accumulation of benefits achieved at individual and team levels. For example,

increased worker confidence in their job role can result in suggested process improvements

that solve workflow problems, or greater attention being paid to the needs of service users

(particularly important in the health and community services sector).

“Now everyone knows where they stand.”

Learner

32 PAGE

Multi-skilling of workers can also result in greater production flexibility leading to improved

efficiencies. Higher skill levels also contribute to improved organisational capability in other

ways. In all of the case study workplaces, managers were engaged in business

improvement initiatives – either through formal processes such as Lean Manufacturing or

more informally by seeking ways to become more productive. Managers suggested that the

synergies between these programmes had played a part in reinforcing the positive effects

across programmes, so that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.

While the researchers attempted to disentangle the separate contributions of business

improvement initiatives and the operation of Learning Reps programmes, it was clear that

managers found it difficult to do so. While improvements had occurred over time, they could

not be directly attributed to the implementation of a Learning Reps programme, but at the

same time, managers believed that Learning Reps had played a role in facilitating these

improvements.

Factors contributing to an effective Learning Reps programme The Learning Reps programme has been implemented in different ways in different workplaces. The history of the programme in each of the case study workplaces, together with the views of people who had experienced the operation of the programme in a wider range of workplaces, suggested some common factors that contribute to effectiveness.

Management support

The most critical of these is management support for the programme. This was noted in the first evaluation of the programme, and continues to be the case. The “spirit” in which the

programme is implemented makes a difference, and was seen in organisations where Learning Reps operated across a range of sites. For Learning Reps to be able to operate effectively, the workplace needs to function in a way that allows them to be available at times and in places that are learner-centred.

Where managers are quietly less than enthusiastic, this is perceived by potential learners and forms a barrier to their communication with Learning Reps. On the other hand, where managers are actively supportive of Learning Reps, this communicates the importance of learning across all employee groups.

An indicator of effectiveness that was commonly demonstrated in the case study organisations was opportunities for Learning Reps to engage with managers in scheduled Learning Rep meetings, as well as informally when needed. Management support and Learning Rep capability was further reinforced by the CTU educators/organisers actively facilitating meetings.

Formal communication

More formal communication systems are also important. All the learners we spoke to had found out about Learning Reps through multiple means, and this helped reinforce messages about the existence and availablity of the Learning Reps. Communication about the

“Self-esteem is up 10 points. They've achieved their qualification. Standard of their work, especially written evaluations and report writing has much better information. Staff are a lot more positive, training has helped them know that we value their skills.”

Manager

33 PAGE

Learning Reps’ role needs to be constant and repeated often (e.g. by having a regular spot at team meetings as well as updated information always available). Including Learning Reps in the induction process reinforces the importance of learning to new workers. Factoring in geographic coverage and shift times when choosing Learning Reps also helped improve access to Learning Reps support, as did opportunities for informal communication.

Practical support

Practical supports need to be in place to assist Learning Reps. These may be enshrined in formal workplace policies and guidelines, learning agreements, and collective agreements; or they may simply be a matter of custom and practice. We note however that formalised and written agreements are less susceptible to being overturned by newly-appointed managers. Practical supports include access to a landline or work cellphone, fax machines, photocopying and photocopiers, an email address to communicate with external providers, internet access to be able to search for resources and learning opportunities, time off to attend meetings, and office space or the ability to book meeting rooms. In some of the case study workplaces, Learning Reps also had the authority to be able to arrange relief cover so that learners could attend training sessions or complete workbooks. They were also able to by-pass line managers in favour of meeting with more senior ones if issues needed resolution. In workplaces where there were multiple Learning Reps, funding the costs of coordination also helped ensure they were all working on the same agenda.

One factor that appeared to influence the credibility of Learning Reps was their own success as learners. Those that had been actively engaged in learning themselves and had overcome barriers to learning, tended to generate enthusiasm among workers. Furthermore, Learning Reps with effective personal qualities were able relate to workers and provide them with good support, avoiding the alternative possiblity of pushing them away, causing them to disengage in learning and training.

Union support

It is not only management support that is needed for effective operation of the programme.

Support for Learning Reps from the CTU and local union organisers was also valued for

providing some structure and direction for Learning Reps. Ongoing CTU support was noted

by both management and Learning Reps as being crucial for the continued development of

Learning Reps, buy-in of managers and for innovation in workplace practice. However,

engagement of the union primarily responsible for organising the site was also critical. It

was clear that, where local union organisers (who have the most direct relationship with local

management) were closely involved in the operation of the Learning Reps programme, a

shared agenda was most evident. In one of the case study organisations, the involvement

of the local union in negotiating written guidelines around the operation of the Learning Reps

programme had resulted in greater clarity about the roles and responsibilities of Learning

Reps themselves, local union organisers and CTU programme staff.

Improving effectiveness

There were three areas where the Learning Reps programme appeared less effective than it might otherwise be. The first relates to clarity of the role of Learning Reps. As noted earlier, both Learning Reps and managers were uncertain about exactly what the role of a Learning Rep is. Written agreements between managers and unions about what tasks Learning Reps

34 PAGE

are expected to perform together with any standards of expected performance would help to clarify expectations at a workplace level.

Related to this is the effectiveness and purpose of Learning Rep Committees. In several workplaces these were perceived as having little value, and both the frequency of meetings and attendance had fallen away. Committees tended to be limited to the monitoring of learning activity in the workplace, with no clear structure and purpose or a work plan or agenda. The researchers felt that these committees needed a clearer purpose and plan of action, and needed to undertake a review of activities in order to provide a sense of progress. In addition, Learning Rep Committees work more effectively when local union organisers are involved and there is a regular cycle of tasks set, debriefings are held and issues are discussed.

Lastly, it was noted that there are limits to a Learning Rep’s ability to stimulate enthusiasm

for learning. In all of the case study workplaces, not all workers were interested in

participating in skill development activities. Enthusiasm was greatest where there were

tangible incentives for doing so, such as the opportunity to apply for a higher-level position

or the chance of a pay increase. The immediate relevance of industry qualifications to the

skills required to perform the job was also an important factor.

The quality of training delivery and learning resources also makes a difference to the

enthusiasm with which workers engage with training opportunities. It was a lot easier for

Learning Reps to encourage people to participate in training where tutors who delivered

training met the needs of individual learners, and had well-designed and written resources

and assessment workbooks (with LLN embedded). Not surprisingly, learning was most

effective where training was contextualised (e.g. training manuals used examples from

machines people worked on or experiences they had at work).

In large part, barriers to effective Learning Rep activity arose from an absence of the positive

support factors noted above. These commonly involved a lack of management support, or a

workplace culture that is not supportive of learning (and it must be noted that this culture can

arise as much from peers and colleagues as it does from management). Lack of resourcing

– including limited budget for training, not being able to take time off to participate in training

activities, and having relief cover – could also limit participation. These factors had been

seen to have greater impact as a result of a downturn in economic conditions.

Two other factors were seen as limiting the effectiveness of Learning Reps. The first relates

to shiftwork and ensuring that nightshift workers are able to meet with Learning Reps, and

can participate in learning activities to the same extent as dayshift workers.

Second, there are challenges associated with embedding the system over time. Two

particular issues were identified. In some workplaces there may be a tendency for

programmes to lose their momentum and impact once initial training needs have been met,

and the scope for further gains becomes more limited. Alternatively, the value of the role

may lead to a new recognition of the importance of learning/training to a degree that

workplaces invest resource in a dedicated position that effectively supersedes the role of the

Learning Reps. There may be a need for an annual review of Learning Reps at each

35 PAGE

workplace, to ensure that they remain relevant and for workplace committees to have a

“work programme” of meaningful activity, and have an opportunity to gain higher-level skills.

Discussion As noted earlier in this report, the overall aim of the evaluation was to assess effectiveness

of the Learning Reps programme. The key question was to identify the value of the

programme for Learning Reps, learners, employers and unions. Our overall conclusion is

that the programme delivers a high degree of value in situations where workplace managers

and workers are actively supportive of its aims. The primary purpose of Learning Reps is to

raise awareness among workers and employers of opportunities to access and participate in

LLN and industry training. Evidence from the case study workplaces suggests that Learning

Reps have been extremely effective at achieving this aim.

The research also aimed to consider the question of relative effectiveness in comparison

with other interventions. These largely relate to management-directed learning activities. It

is not altogether easy to assess this question, given that Learning Reps in some of the case

study workplaces had supervisory responsibilities, or already had existing verifier or

assessor roles related to industry training. However, we note that Learning Reps had

created a heightened awareness of learning opportunities and an improved understanding of

how to access them. This was particularly true for people who had been outside the formal

learning system for some time, and an improved understanding of how they could access

them. The researchers note that those learners reported feeling more comfortable talking to

someone closer to them in the organisational hierarchy, even if that person is nominally their

team leader or supervisor. There were also advantages for managers where Learning Reps

work directly with learners, as peers were more likely to be able to identify learning

difficulties and could use frequent and informal opportunities to encourage and support

workers to overcome these.

As noted earlier, there are a range of individual, workplace and other factors that impact on

the effectiveness of the programme. The most important of these is related to active

management support and resourcing, particularly in terms of time off work to perform the

role and easy access to opportunities for contact with other workers. However, other factors

we saw as critical included:

• Having a clear understanding of the role of the Learning Rep

• Having a workplace committee that has a clear programme of work, a work plan with

objectives, and that reviews its achievements on a regular basis

• Learning Reps with the right personal qualities to perform the role

• Access to high quality training.

The tangible benefits of the Learning Reps programme accrue mainly to workers themselves

but also to their workplaces. For individuals, the opportunity to participate in training after

years of regarding themselves as unsuccessful learners, had resulted in improved self-

36 PAGE

esteem and confidence that paid dividends in their work and personal lives. In some cases

it also offered them an opportunity to increase their wages and to take on higher-level duties.

While the benefits experienced by the Learning Reps were frequently less tangible, the

opportunity to assist their peers and colleagues rated highly with them. Of lesser weight, but

still of value, was the opportunity to participate in further learning themselves.

For employers and managers, the business benefits included greater attention to paperwork,

more accurate records, increased flexibility and efficiencies, and fewer faults. Improved

workplace relationships through better communication were also valued. Nevertheless, it

should also be noted that employers valued the scheme, not just for the business benefits it

delivered. They were equally as motivated by seeing the development of human potential

among their workforce as they were by business improvements.

Lastly, union officials noted that the Learning Reps programme provided opportunities to

deliver improved conditions for members (particularly where qualifications offered the

chance of a pay increase). It also offered a route into more constructive discussions with

employers about the value of skill development for improving workplace productivity. In one

workplace where Learning Reps had been in place for some time, this had also developed

into wider discussions around partnership and changes to work organisation.

While the Learning Reps programme may have increased awareness of the importance of

skill development and provision of information about additional opportunities for doing this,

the question remains, does increased awareness translate into increased commitment to

investment in skill development at workplaces?

The answer, we suggest, is somewhat equivocal. There is no doubt that Learning Reps

have contributed to an increase in the number of people participating in training and the

speed of completion. However, there is less evidence to show whether Learning Reps have

been able to influence workplace investment in training in such a way that workers have the

opportunity to move into training at higher levels on the qualifications framework, or for

employers to use training strategically to increase the overall skill level of the workforce.

Towards sustainabil ity While the research has provided some evidence of programme effectiveness, it has also

identified some areas where potential improvements might be made. These are set out

below.

Clarification of role

The most central of these is related to the role of Learning Reps, which is not always clear.

Several people commented that even after training, they found it difficult to explain what it

was that they were supposed to be doing, but that their biggest motivation was a desire to

help their fellow workers. In practice, Learning Reps are doing less in the way of advocating

workers’ interests with managers than they are providing support for delivery of

organisational training strategies. These include activities such as putting people in touch

with LLN and other training providers, making sure that people participate in or complete

required training, and providing direct training support. It is clear that these tasks are

37 PAGE

valued, but there would be some virtue in having an explicit role description for Learning

Reps that is customised for each workplace. It should also identify the explicit tasks

Learning Reps will perform in the context of the workplace training and development

priorities.

A related issue is the extent to which the Learning Rep role varies from workplace to

workplace. The training describes the role of Learning Reps in very general terms, but it

needs to made clearer to both Learning Reps and to managers at workplaces where they

are operating. Entering into discussions and agreeing on how that role will work within their

particular organisation or workplace can achieve this. The CTU may also like to consider

facilitating a process for workplaces to decide what their own models might look like,

possibly working from a menu of potential activities that Learning Reps and Committees can

carry out.

In addition, it may be beneficial for Learning Reps training to include a component for

Learning Reps to set annual goals and objectives, and to review progress on these on a

regular basis. The CTU could potentially develop a process to help Learning Rep

Committees engage in meaningful activities in an annual planning and review process to

ensure they remain engaged, relevant and effective.

Development and renewal

The case studies revealed a tendency for programmes to have a big impact at the start that

then reduces over time. This may be the result of a variety of factors — initial enthusiasm

wanes, Learning Rep “champions” move on to other positions and cease being active, new

managers who are unsupportive of the programme may be employed, or there is a reduction

in the number of new learners (particularly in situations where there is low staff turnover).

This provides several challenges for the CTU, particularly where valuable resource goes into

supporting Learning Reps and committees that are struggling. In addition, collective

relationships at the workplace are the responsibility of the relevant union, and local union

organisers appear to vary in the extent to which they are involved in Learning Rep activity.

Currently, CTU support for Learning Rep Committees is open-ended. While the intent is that

CTU support continues until such time as committees are self-sustaining, we think there may

be value in the CTU developing guidelines to determine limits for their ongoing involvement.

These guidelines could be used to encourage Learning Reps and Committees to develop a

greater degree of self-determination, with union involvement being taken over by local union

organisers in the context of their ongoing relationship with that workplace.

There is also the challenge of renewing and refreshing ongoing Learning Rep programmes

that have been operating for some time in place specific workplaces. It may be that

Learning Reps positions and Learning Rep Committees have a natural “life cycle” in their

current form. We think there are two potential routes forward for the CTU. The first is to see

Learning Reps as having a limited life span in any single workplace and to resource them for

a period of two years (for example), during which time the Committee would be working

towards a clear set of objectives.

38 PAGE

The second route is to set up a process of ongoing development and renewal of Learning

Reps programmes that would be carried out over a specified period of time at individual

workplaces. This in fact is already being developed by the CTU, with a number of

“refresher” courses being undertaken in workplaces where Learning Reps have been in

place for some time. This ensures that Learning Reps are refreshed in their roles and can

also engage in advanced skill development. It also offers the opportunity to consider

“succession planning” for Learning Reps at workplaces where a programme is in place and

working well.

Training

In relation to clarifying the role of Learning Reps, an option to consider is to divide the

Learning Reps training into two parts: one part would be a basic training while the other

would provide the development of a skills pathway. The basic training component could

consist of a general overview of the programme and its intent. This could also be offered to

a broader range of people, including managers, to ensure their understanding of the

programme. The skills pathway could focus on the development of a pathway for advanced

Learning Rep skills, but could also incorporate the development of a Learning Reps

programme at an industry level (as was initially envisaged).

The CTU has been interested for some time in establishing networking forums that would

link up Learning Reps across workplaces and industries. The UK research has pointed to

the importance of this as a means for development of a tool to develop the programme, and

this research suggests that workplace managers and Learning Reps are interested in this

idea.

Involvement of unions

Our final point relates to the involvement of unions in Learning Reps activities. As noted

above, it is unions, rather than the CTU that organise workers at workplaces. Across the

case study workplaces, we noted that the involvement of local union organisers varied quite

widely, from close and regular involvement to almost none. We suggest that if Learning

Reps programmes are to be sustainable over the long term, this requires not only the

support of managers, but also support from local and national union officials. While CTU

involvement is invaluable in establishing and setting up Learning Reps programmes at

workplaces, there needs to be clearer understandings between the CTU and its affiliates

about their respective roles, and the extent to which unions themselves incorporate Learning

Reps activity into organising plans.

Summary and conclusions The Learning Reps programme has been in place for six years to promote raising

awareness of the importance of skill development, and to encourage participation in LLN

skill development programmes and industry training. It has been relatively successful at

achieving these goals, in the face of limited resourcing for the programme, and a drop-off in

employer investment in training as a result of recession since 2009. However, it has not

really been able to achieve the original vision for the programme – to develop networks of

Learning Reps that have an impact on the structure and nature of training at an industry

39 PAGE

level. That is not particularly surprising given that this vision was established in the context

of the Unified Skills Strategy, which included a range of other actions at industry level to be

taken by both government and employer groups.

There are many reasons for this. Initial expectations of what could be achieved with limited

resources were perhaps unrealistic, and based on an optimistic view of the world. This view

believed that Learning Reps would be trained and immediately become effective in their role;

that employers would develop an appreciation for the role and devote sufficient resources to

it; and that workplace programmes would go from strength to strength under their own

steam. In reality, the CTU has spent considerable time and resources with workplaces that

expressed some interest in the programme. In most of these workplaces however, the

actual outcome is uncertain and considerable resources have gone into persuading

managers at different levels to participate in the programme.

In addition, workplaces need ongoing renewal and continued development. Learning Reps

leave and new ones need to be trained. Managers can be resistant to the programme or

see it as unnecessary. Learning Rep Committees can struggle to find their feet and develop

an ongoing programme of work. If the programme is going to continue to have impact, it

needs to recognise ongoing costs as well as set-up costs.

The CTU faces some major challenges moving forward. It needs ongoing and sustainable funding that allows existing activity to continue and for ongoing development of the programe, particularly at industry level. This situation has been made even more difficult over recent years as a result of reduced funding from central government which has required the CTU to engage in a management of change process internally and uncertainties associated with the establishment of one-year funding agreements. This has also contributed to losses in staff with institutional skills and knowledge and existing relationships. Increased security of funding is essential if the CTU is to attempt to build the programme further, and there is potential for additional gains to be made with further investment. Without this, the CTU may need to make some hard choices about trade-offs between sustaining existing workplace programmes and expanding the reach of the programme.

40 PAGE

Appendix One: UK Experiences with Learning Reps

Introduction

This scan examines literature on the UK experience of Union Learning Representative (ULR) programmes with a specific emphasis on the extent to which they have raised awareness and improved learning outcomes, as well as whether any lessons can be learned. This review also considers a small amount of literature available on the NZ Learning Reps experience.

Overview of UK and NZ Learning Representative Schemes

In 1998 the UK Government established the Union Learning Fund (ULF) which explicitly recognised the role of trade unions in ‘creating a learning society’ by playing a key role in promoting learning opportunities for union members (Clough, 2005). This initiative was followed by the promotion of ULRs in workplaces. Initially, ULRs had some difficulty accessing training and conducting their roles with a lack of support from managers (York Consulting, 2000 referred to in Clough, 2005). It was not until amendments in the Employment Act in 2002 that a statutory framework explicitly provided for paid time off for employees to train as ULRs. These amendments also set out ULRs core functions to include:

• Analysing learning or training needs

• Providing information and advice about learning or training matters

• Arranging learning or training

• Promoting the value of learning or training

• Consulting with the employer about ULR activities.12

These provisions are supported by a code of practice developed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) on how to best manage ULR processes in workplaces and the benefits of doing so (Clough, 2010). Clough argues that this framework has ‘generated a critical mass of ULRs’ (Clough, 2010, p.12).

In 2006, the TUC established Unionlearn to provide support for unions and administer the ULF (Stuart et al, 2010). Prior to its establishment, the TUC undertook the role of providing direct support to ULRs in workplaces. This has now shifted to Unionlearn providing support for individual unions to undertake this work (Stuart et al, 2010).

The establishment of Learning Reps in NZ is a more recent development with a two-year pilot launched in 2005 (Farr, 2008). Unlike the UK, the Learning Reps programme was not supported by legislative framework, but by a tripartite structure established to encourage workplace learning. The NZ Learning Rep scheme was established with funding from the Tertiary Education Commission.

12  Employment Act 2002.  

41 PAGE

There are some other key differences between the contexts of NZ and the UK noted by Lee and Cassell (2009) including:

• Differences in the size of workplaces with the UK having a much larger number of large organisations than NZ

• A considerable difference in the level of funding provided by respective governments, with the UK Government providing a much higher level of funding for ULRs than that provided by the NZ Government for Learning Reps

• Differences in the responsibilities of ULRs in the UK and Learning Reps in NZ. In the UK ULRs were arranging courses for personal development, leisure and increasing transferrable skills, whereas NZ Learning Reps were helping employees with basic skills to build their qualifications in a particular sector.

Case study research conducted by Lee and Cassell (2009) found that there were also differences in the way representatives worked with organisations, observing that in the UK, ULRs were working alongside employers, whereas NZ Learning Reps worked in partnership with employers.

Profile of UK Union Learning Representatives

There is a range of evidence that the ULR initiative has generated a new wave of activists in the UK union movement (Moore and Wood, 2004; Wood and Moore, 2005; TUC, 2006; Saundry et al, 2010; Findlay and Warhurst, 2010). Further, the number of ULRs who have not held a previous union position has been growing over time (TUC, 2006; Saundry et al, 2010). Research by the Moore and Wood (2004, referred to in Clough 2005) found that ULRs who had not held a union position before were markedly different to other union activists. They were less likely to join a union due to a belief in trade unionism or to improve pay and conditions (Moore and Wood, 2004 referred to in Clough 2005). This group were more likely to be women and younger compared to other union activists (TUC, 2006; Saundry et al, 2010). Findlay and Warhurst (2010) made similar findings in relation to the profile of ULRs in Scotland.

A majority of ULRs in the UK are in the public sector, with rapid growth since 2000 from 28% and levelling at around 70% since 2007 (TUC 2006; Saundry et al, 2010). Further, over time there has also been a growth in ULRs in large organisations - up from 52.6% in 2003 and peaking at 76% in 2005, and a drop in ULRs in small and medium organisations - from 29% in 2003 to a low of 7% in 2005 (TUC, 2006). More recent data shows a shift in this trend with the number in larger organisations dropping to 66% and the number in small and medium organisations rising to 12.9% (Saundry et al, 2010).

Less has been published about the profile of NZ Learning Reps. According to Farr (2008), at the end of 2007 66% of Learning Reps were male and 34% were female, with an average age of 44 and 47 respectively. This was reflective of the profile of the small number of industries in which the Learning Reps programme was initially rolled out to (Farr, 2008).

42 PAGE

Barriers and challenges

Cassell and Lee (2009) found that the right of ULRs to exist in workplaces is sometimes contested by employers, despite the presence of legislation in the UK providing for this right. Among ULRs in workplaces, a range of studies show generally consistent themes relating to barriers, particularly a lack of time and work pressure impacting on their ability to carry out their roles. Research by the TUC (2006) found that the key barriers for ULRs included a lack of facilities, lack of time off for ULR duties, long working hours, the cost of training and lack of employer support. Later research found that among active ULRs, a number said they were restricted by work pressures and more than 30% said they did not get enough time off to arrange learning or training (Saundry et al, 2010). Similarly Cassell and Lee (2009) found that the most frequently cited problem was time off for ULRs to carry out their roles.

TUC research (2006) found that UK ULRs almost exclusively operated in workplaces where there is union recognition and collective bargaining. Wood and Moore (2005) suggest that the presence of ULRs almost exclusively in workplaces where unions are recognised, points to the difficulty of establishing union learning where there is no existing relationship between employers and unions.

In a NZ context, Farr (2008) noted a key barrier as employee resistance to learning opportunities suggested by Learning Reps and management. Other more generalised barriers noted include a common practice of single task competencies forming a qualification - which do not necessarily support career pathways in qualification design (Farr, 2008). Farr (2008) also noted that an unspoken workplace culture reflects a pervasive view that ‘vocational education is not for the working class’ similar to TUC research that found that those with the least prior education receive the least attention.

Both the UK and NZ union learning funds rely on Government funding. Findlay and Warhurst (2010) note in a UK context that this raises questions relating to the sustainability of union learning funds and the need for union learning funds to be self sustaining. Research by Wood and Moore (2005) found that employers and unions thought that the presence of the ULF was essential to the survival of union learning. A survey of employers by Stuart (et al, 2010) found that 43% of employers said that they would continue union learning activities even without external funding.

Lee and Cassell (2009) considered the broader sustainability of UK and NZ programmes adopting a criteria based on the extent to which they have been embedded in a broader context. They concluded there were some reasons for optimism given:

• Qualifications in both countries have been accredited to the broader qualifications framework

• The presence of legal recognition by statute in the UK and in collective agreements in NZ

• Recognition in skills strategies in both countries (Lee & Cassell, 2009).

43 PAGE

Impact of Union Learning Representatives in the UK

Broad impacts

Using linked employer-employee data from the UK’s 2004 Workplace Employment Relations (WER) Survey, Hoque and Bacon (2008) assessed the relationship between trade union recognition, density and ULRs. They concluded that the relationship between union recognition and training is weak, nor is there an obvious relationship between density and training or the existence of ULRs in the workplace and training. They found that training levels were no higher in workplaces with ULRs compared to those without. However, they later suggest that this does not amount to a failure, noting that since 2004 ULRs have had a greater impact and that the WER did not measure areas where ULRs may in fact be having an impact (Bacon & Hoque; 2009).

Findlay and Warhurst (2010) found in an evaluation of the Scottish Union Learning Fund (SULF) that union learning can contribute to union revitalisation. They found that participation in SULF projects was a relationship-building tool - assisting with recruitment and activism, building constructive partnerships with some employers and encouraging new relational structures in workplace industrial relations. A survey by Stuart (et al, 2010) found that two-thirds of Union Project Officers said that learning had been linked to the organising agenda and 50% reported that learning and skills had become part of the union’s negotiating agenda.

Wallis and Stuart (2007) examined the significance of learning agreements, drawing on six case studies of UK organisations. They found that the main drivers for concluding workplace agreements included skills gaps/shortages, a desire to develop a more strategic approach to HRM, the regulatory framework and government policy. They found that adopting a partnership based approach is more important than the conclusion of a formal learning agreement, when it comes to advancing the learning agenda in the workplace. They also found that the best outcomes for employee participation in learning occur where there is a relatively even balance of bargaining power between employees and employers (Wallis and Stuart, 2007).

Cassell and Lee (2009) considered the extent to which the UK’s ULR initiatives are enabling partnerships to develop. They concluded that the ULR scheme appeared to provide more opportunities to advance learning partnerships, and importantly, were not crisis driven. However, in many cases these were not an equal partnership between unions and employers (p 226). They found more equal partnerships emerge where there is government influence – such as instances where the government is the employer, which provides an added imperative to engage.

Wood and Moore (2005) found that in the UK there was no systematic inclusion of union learning into collective bargaining and only a few examples of where this connection has been made. Although as noted earlier, Stuart (et al, 2010) found that 50% of Union Project Officers reported that learning and skills had become part of the union’s negotiating agenda. This is likely to be different to NZ where there is no fallback on statutory entitlements and therefore, a greater imperative for unions to seek legal recognition in collective employment agreements.

44 PAGE

Success factors

A 2009 survey of ULRs and their managers found that the level of learning activity was influenced by a number of factors. For example:

• Employees in the public sector were more likely to get paid time off for learning activities than the private sector

• The level of learning activity was much higher in large organisations than small and medium size organisations

• The level of learning activity was more likely to be higher in organisations where a formal learning agreement was in place compared to organisations without one

• Where ULRs felt valued by their managers, their level of activity was more likely to have increased

• ULRs that reported that their activities had increased their colleagues’ access to training were also more likely to report they were valued and supported by the employer (Saundry et al, 2010).

Bacon and Hoque (2009) found, using 2007 Unionlearn survey data, that ULRs were more likely to report they positively influenced training levels where: “they are valued by managers; they spend more than five hours per week on ULR activity; employers consult or negotiate with union representatives when deciding training matters; ULRs are responsible for no more than 200 employees; they are in workplaces with a learning centre and they have been involved in a ULF project” (p. 4). However, these features were not present in a majority of organisations (Bacon & Hoque, 2009).

Using data from the 2004 WERS Survey, Stuart and Robinson (2007) identified an association between the presence of a ULR and higher levels of training. Where a ULR is present, employees are 8.1% more likely to have received training. This rises to 14.9% where there is a ULR present, recognition and an employee representative structure present. They also found that where there is union recognition and union negotiation with management about training, employees are 23.9% more likely to report having received some training.

Impacts in workplaces

The impacts of ULR activity reported by ULRs in a 2009 survey shows that almost all ULRs said that their activity had raised awareness among colleagues (Saundry et al, 2010). A significant number also reported impacts such increasing the number of colleagues accessing training and helping colleagues who had little/no experience of training (Saundry et al, 2010). Other reported impacts (to a slightly lesser extent) included increased interest in union membership, improved management and union relations and improved dialogue with management on training. The same survey found that almost three-quarters of ULRs had helped recruit new union members during the previous year (Saundry et al, 2010).

The survey also found that a majority of managers were positive about the contribution of ULRs and 60% of managers said that ULRs had helped raise basic skills in organisations (Saundry et al, 2010). It also showed that the elements of ULR activity valued the most by managers were awareness raising and supporting enthusiasm for learning as well a number

45 PAGE

citing ULRs being able to reach groups that were traditionally resistant to learning (Saundry et al, 2010).

Stuart et al (2010) found that ULF activities have had a positive impact on union and employer relations and improvements in company policies and support for learning. Three in ten employers surveyed as part of this research said that union learning had improved a number of employee indicators (e.g. addressing skills gaps), performance measures (e.g. service/quality indicators), and industrial relations concerns (e.g. improved trust between employers and unions) (Stuart et al, 2010).

Bacon and Hoque (2009) found that while manager’s views of the impact of ULRs were less positive than the views of ULRs themselves, one-half of managers still agreed that ULRs had some impact on training in their workplaces.

A recent evaluation has found that significant progression is taking place among learners with an average of 2.5 learning opportunities being taken up and 76% of those with initial qualifications of level two or below, now learning at a higher level (Stuart et al, 2010).

Implications

There are key differences in the context in which UK ULRs operate and for that reason, the UK experience is not directly translatable to the NZ context. Nevertheless some themes emerge from the research that are useful to consider in the NZ context.

A range of research consistently points to increased learning activities resulting from the presence of ULRs in UK workplaces. The UK experiences suggest that the benefits of ULR activities are multiplied where structures and engagement processes surround them.

However, there is little research on the extent to which these activities have translated into direct outcomes for employees.

The UK’s experience signals that a critical mass of ULR activity can generate outcomes not only for employees and employers, but potentially some union revitalisation outcomes with a new type of union activist emerging, and increasing interest in union membership.

46 PAGE

Appendix Two: CTU Model Learning Agreement

This agreement is designed for significant enterprises, but can be edited for application to smaller enterprises or where a simpler form is more appropriate.

The parties to this agreement are (insert name of union) and (insert name of organisation).

The parties are committed to working together to promote and support ongoing vocational learning and ensure equal access to learning opportunities.

Both parties will encourage staff to take up learning activities.

The union will be responsible for recruiting learning representatives and will inform management of their names and workplaces/departments.

The number of learning representatives will be (insert number).

The functions of the learning representatives cover:

• Advocate and promote learning and personal development in general and industry-specific training in particular

• Advocate on behalf of employees regarding their learning and training needs and interests

• Work with others to investigate learning and training needs

• Provide information and advice about learning and training to employees

• Work with co-workers to identify and access appropriate support for literacy, language, and numeracy issues in the workplace

• Signpost all various existing training and learning arrangements and pathways

• Consult the employer about carrying out such activities

• Work in co-operation with employers, Industry Training Organisations, and Modern Apprenticeship Coordinators in the promotion of training and facilitating first contact between them and a potential new learner

• Maintain a link with the appropriate industry training organisation as part of the stakeholder group

• Be an advocate for the National Qualifications Framework

• Consult with the employer about carrying on any such duties

• Prepare to carry out any of the above duties

• Undergo relevant training

• Reasonable paid time off will be granted to learning representatives to enable them to carry out their duties effectively (state an agreed minimum amount of time)

• Paid time off will be granted to learning representatives in order to undertake training. Initial training will take place as soon as possible after appointment

• Employees will also be entitled to time off (whether or not it will be paid) to participate in promotional events and to access their learning representative

47 PAGE

• A procedure will be established to resolve any disputes about the application of the learning representatives duties

• Suitable facilities will be provided e.g. office space, filing cabinets, stationery, telephone, access to electronic equipment including e-mail, notice boards etc

• A joint training/learning committee will be established no later than (insert timescales for establishing the committee) from this agreement

• The training/learning committee will comprise of equal numbers of union and employer representatives

• The training/learning committee will be entitled to co-opt/invite person(s) to meetings when necessary.

The responsibilities of the committee will be agreed at the inaugural meeting and could include drawing up a training/learning plan, which could cover:

• Equal access to training and learning for all employees

• Learning needs analysis

• Paid time off for training

• Financial contributions to employee development schemes

• Access to training providers and on-line learning facilities.

Dated this …………………………………day of …………………….20…

48 PAGE

Bibliography

Bacon, N & Hoque K. (2009) The impact of the union learning representative: a survey of ULRs and their employers. Unionlearn: London.

Benseman, J. & Sutton, A. (2007) A Synthesis of foundation learning evaluation and research in New Zealand since 2003. A report prepared for the Department of Labour. July 2007

Cassell, C & Lee, B. (2009) “Trade unions learning representatives: progressing partnership?” Journal of Work, Employment and Society. 23:2, 213 – 230.

Clough, B. (2005) The Union Learning Representative: Challenges and Opportunities n.p.p

Clough, B. (2010) “Union Learning Representatives: State Agents or Social Partners?” Labour and Industry, 21(2):24-41.

Curson, R. (2004) Completion Issues in Industry Training and Effective Learning in the Workplace. Wellington: Industry Training Federation.

Clough, B. (2010) The Origins, Role and Impact of Union Learning Representatives in the UK and Other Countries. Unionlearn: London.

Department of Labour (2010a) Workers with low literacy or numeracy skills: characteristics, jobs and education and training patterns. Wellington: Department of Labour.

Department of Labour (2010b) Upskilling Partnership Programme: Evaluation Report. Wellington: Department of Labour.

Farr, D. (2008) “The New Zealand Learning Representatives Project: An Assessment of the Pilot Years”. Journal of In-service Education, 34:4, 513 – 526.

Findlay, P & Warhurst C., (2010) “Union Learning Funds and Trade Union Revitalisation: A New Tool in the Toolkit?” British Journal of Employment Relations, 2010:1467.

Harris, P., Piercy, G. & Law, M. (2009) Peer Education Investigating the pedagogy of on- job learning: Literature Review prepared for the Industry Training Federation. Wellington: ITF.

Holland, C. (2009) Workplace Mentoring: A Literature Review (unpublished)

Hoque, K & Bacon, N. (2008) “Trade Unions, Union Learning Representatives and Employer-Provided Training in Britain”. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46:4 702 – 731.

Kell, C., Guy, S., Hastwell, K. & Harvey, S. (2009) In-house Literacy, Language and Numeracy (LLN) Initiatives in New Zealand Workplaces Wellington: Department of Labour.

Leach, L., Zepke, N., Haworth, P., Issacs, P., and Nepia, W. (2009) Organisational factors that affect delivery of adult literacy, language and numeracy provision: A review of international literature. Palmerston North: Massey University College of Education.

Lee, B & Cassell, C., (2009a) Learning representative initiatives in the UK and New Zealand: a comparative study. Research paper 10, November. Unionlearn: London.

49 PAGE

Lee, B. & Cassell, C. (2009b) “Learning organisations, employee development and learning representative schemes in the UK and New Zealand” Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(1):5-22.

Mahoney, P (2009) Industry Training – Exploring the Data. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (2005) Lighting the Way. Wellington: Department of Labour.

Moore, S & Wood, H., (2004) The Union Learning Experience: National Survey’s of Union Officers and ULRs. Working Lives Research Institute. London: Metropolitan University.

Misko, J. (2008) Combining formal, non-formal and informal learning for workforce skill development. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Cited in Harris, P., Piercy, G. and Law, M., (2009). Peer Education: Investigating the pedagogy of on-job learning. Hamilton: University of Waikato.

Saundry, R., Hollinrake, A. & Antcliff, V. (2010) Learning Works: report of the 2009 survey of union learning representatives and their managers. Unionlearn: London.

Shaw, N., Armistead, C., Rodger, J. & Hopwood, V. (2002) Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund, Year 4, Research Report 378, Norwich, UK: Department for Education and Skills.

Stuart, M & Robinson, A. (2007) Trade Union Recognition and Collective Bargaining: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Unionlearn: London.

Stuart, M., Cook, H., Cutter, J. & Winterton, J. (2010) Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and Unionlearn. Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change, Leeds Business School.

Stuart, M., Cook, H., Cutter, J., & Winterton, J., (2010) Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and Unionlearn – Preliminary Findings. Unionlearn: London

Tertiary Education Commission (2008) Investment Guidance 2008-2010.

Tett, L. & MacLachlan, K. (2007) “Adult literacy and numeracy, social capital, learner identities and self confidence”. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 150-167.

TUC, (2005) Making a Real Difference – Union Learning Reps: a survey. Unionlearn: London.

Vaughan, K. (2008) Workplace Learning: A literature review. Report prepared for Competenz.

Wallis, E & Stuart, M., (2007) A collective learning culture: A qualitative study of workplace learning agreements. Unionlearn: London.

Wood, H. & Moore, S. (2005) An Evaluation of the UK Union Learning Fund – its Impact on Unions and Employers, VP/2003/012, London: Working Lives Research Institute.

York Consulting. (2000) Union Learning Rep Survey. TUC: London.