Voice and Participation in the Modern Workplace Challenges and Prospects

7/27/2019 Voice and Participation in the Modern Workplace Challenges and Prospects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/voice-and-participation-in-the-modern-workplace-challenges-and-prospects 1/17

Acas Future of Workplace Relations

discussion paper series





Discussion paper 1





This paper is one of aseries commissionedby Acas to address thefuture of workplacerelations. It follows a

publication in January2011 “The Future ofWorkplace Relations: An Acas View “ whichaddressed the widerterrain of employmentrelations including thedrivers for changeand the key futurechallenges. All papers inthe series can be found

at www.acas.org.uk/future

This Acas PolicyDiscussion paper waswritten by John Purcelland Mark Hall, Univerityof Warwick. The viewsexpressed are those ofthe authors and not the

Acas Council.

Series editors SarahPodro and Gill Dix. Wewelcome your commentsand opinions. Theseshould be sent [email protected]

Voice and Participation in the

Modern Workplace: challenges andprospects

John Purcell, Associate Fellow, and MarkHall, Professorial Fellow, Industrial RelationsResearch Unit (IRRU), Warwick BusinessSchool, University of Warwick

Trade unions remain a strong force in British employmentrelations, particularly in the public sector and withinlarge companies in key industries in the private sector.However, they can no longer claim to be the singlechannel of communication and representation forworking people. A majority of the working populationhave no access to union representation at work, so whatalternatives are open to them? And why is employeevoice important in the workplace?

John Purcell and Mark Hall have written extensively onthe issue of voice in the workplace. In this speciallycommissioned paper, they address the multi-facetednature of the representation gap, and examine possiblealternatives that are emerging to fill it.

The paper explores direct involvement andcommunications methods of employee voice; employeeengagement and employee surveys; the role ofconsultative committees; trade union, non-union andhybrid forms of consultation; and making consultationeffective in non-union companies. Purcell and Hallconsider how effective these approaches are and howthey might be improved in the future.

March 2012



2

The need for new approaches

The dominant model of trade unions,with high levels of membership,regulating employment contracts withemployers through collective bargaining,much in evidence in the mid-20th century,has substantially faded in much of theprivate sector, and coverage in the publicsector is falling. In 2010 just 17 percent of private sector employees hadtheir terms and conditions fixed throughcollective bargaining, a drop of seven

percentage points in 10 years. The fallin coverage, at nine percentage points,was even higher in the public sector,but even so, two thirds of employees inthat sector remain covered by collectivebargaining (Achur 2011). Less than aquarter of people in employment noware trade union members, with thedensity of membership in the privatesector down to 14 per cent, a decline of

seven percentage points since 1995. Themembership density in the public sectorremains just above half (56 per cent) buthere, too, there has been a five per centdecline in 15 years.

With still over six million members,trade unions remain a strong force inBritish employment relations and arevibrant and active in the public sectorand within many large companies in

the private sector in key industries likevehicle manufacturing, aerospace andbanks. It is most likely that this willremain the position in the foreseeablefuture. But unions can no longer claim tobe the single channel of communicationand representation for working people.What this means is that public policy inemployment matters is now very unlikelyto be built solely around trade unionrepresentation, as it had been in muchof the 20th century. Most of the three

quarters of the working population inemployment who are not union members

have no access to union representationat work. What alternatives are open tothem? There is little evidence that unionrecognition legislation and new forms oforganising have made much of an impact(Wright 2011). There is a large, andgrowing, representation gap which tradeunions find it increasingly hard to fill.

The representation gap is not just abouttrade unions being able to represent

employees in collective bargaining. Inmany workplaces their role is wider,covering individual representation ingrievance and disciplinary matters anddealing with work organisation andtraining issues, seen in the work of unionlearning representatives. Whether viaconsultative committees or partnershipagreements, unions often discussmanagement plans and proposals. In

circumstances of collective redundancyand business transfers they have astatutory role to play, where recognised,in working with employers to search forways of alleviating the consequencesof such changes. None of this appliesin the large parts of the private sector,and some of the public sector, whereunions are not recognised, yet the needfor what is increasingly called ‘employeevoice’ remains. The representation gap

is multi-faceted. In this discussion paperwe examine possible alternatives thatare emerging to fill the gap, ask howeffective they are and consider ways toimprove them.

This representation gap is important.Freeman et al found clear evidence,in their comparative research, thatemployees want some form of ‘voice’at work which will help them deal withproblems (Freeman, Boxall and Haynes,



4

tempered by the realisation that thecombined effects of economic adversity

and the growing break-up of companiesthrough outsourcing and contracturalfragmentation (Marchington et al, 2005,Bach, 2011) limit the possibilities foremployees to influence top managementdecisions. We need to examine eachof these developments in employeevoice and consider their strengths andweaknesses.

Direct involvement andcommunication methods ofemployee voice

There has been a remarkable growthin the use of direct communication inthe last 25 years (Forth and Millward2002). The 2004 Workplace EmploymentRelations Survey (WERS) study foundthat 91 per cent of workplaces, with ten

or more employees, used one or moretypes of face-to-face communicationmethods, compared with 85 per centseven years earlier. Just under twofifths (38 per cent) held a meeting ofall employees addressed by a seniormanager ‘at least on a monthly basiswith ten per cent of the time madeavailable for employee views andquestions’ (Kersley et al 2006). Half ofemployers held monthly team briefing

sessions, usually led by front linemanagers, with, again, at least ten percent of the time devoted to employeeviews and questions. The sort of itemsdiscussed in these meetings usuallyrelated to matters of immediate concernsuch as work organisation, productionissues and employment matters withsome time devoted to future plans and,less frequently, financial performance.

It is not surprising that there has beensuch a growth in direct methods of

communication and involvement. Thereis clear evidence that managers preferto use direct methods and have becomemore reliant on them (Kersley et al ,2006). In the 2009 European CompanySurvey the management respondent wasasked if they agreed with the statement ‘we would prefer to consult directly withour employees’. Overall, across the EUsome 60 per cent agreed, and, of these,one fifth strongly agreed. In the UK

the preference for direct methods wasstronger with around three quarters (72per cent) preferring direct communicationmethods, and a quarter saying they ‘strongly agreed’ (EuroFound 2010).Edwards et al (2007: 85) found thatmanagers in US and UK multi-nationals ‘display a strong tendency to emphasisedirect channels (of communication)especially those in the non-manufacturing

and service sectors’.

Given that consultative committeesand union joint negotiating committeesmeet less frequently than team briefingsessions and workforce meetings (Kersleyet al,2006) employees may be morelikely to receive timely informationdirect from their managers, ratherthan their representatives. However,the scope for meaningful dialogue, a

defining characteristic of participation,in workforce meetings and briefingsessions is limited since they rarely lastfor longer than 15-30 minutes with onlya short time for questions, and littleopportunity for debate. While they canbe an effective method of downwardcommunication there are structural limitsto how far they provide an avenue forupward communication or any capacityto exert influence on higher levelmanagement decisions, especially those



5

taken away from the workplace in headoffices. This is also an area where there

is often a big difference between whatis intended by senior management andwhat is often delivered by line managers:this is the well known gap betweenespoused and enacted policies (Purcelland Hutchinson 2007).

The advent of social media may changethe way employers communicate withstaff and open up new opportunitiesfor employees to link with each other

and express their views to seniormanagement. As Smith and Harwood(2011) recognise, the full potential forusing social media to improve employeevoice practices has yet to be realised.They suggest that ‘social media toolsallow rapid sharing of data acrossorganisational hierarchies and thisopening up of organisational data flowis perhaps one of the most fundamental

impacts upon organisations’. In particular,they suggest two areas likely to beinfluenced by social media: the potentialfor managers to share information andconsult employees, and for employeesto gain a stronger collective voice.The latter may stem from employeesbeing able to respond rapidly to itemsdiscussed in consultative committeesand representatives may equally be ableto gain closer relationships with their

constituents. Although not identified bySmith and Harwood, it is also possiblethat consultative committees couldbecome eclipsed by social network formsof direct communication.

Employee engagement andemployee surveys

Employee engagement is not, initself, a form of employee voice but adesirable outcome of good leadership

and employment practices, includingthe extensive use of voice systems.

Essentially, employee engagement canbe said to exist where a sizable majorityof employees are committed to theirwork, their colleagues, managementand, overall to the organisation, andthis is reflected in positive behaviour,sometimes called ‘organisationalcitizenship behaviour’ (Organ 1988).MacLeod and Clarke (2009) suggest thatone of the four drivers of engagementis employee voice, the others being

leadership, engaging managers andintegrity. On employee voice they saythis means:

An effective and empoweredemployee voice – employees’ viewsare sought out; they are listenedto and see that their opinions countand make a difference. Theyspeak out and challenge where

appropriate. A strong listening andresponsiveness permeates theorganisation, enabled by effectivecommunication.

The authors quote with approval the joint statement in 2001 by the TUC andCBI that ‘optimal results are achievedwhere there is a mix of direct employeeinvolvement and indirect participationthrough a trade union or works council’.

Increasingly employers use attitudesurveys on a regular basis to assessthe level of employee engagement,identify barriers and the factors leadingto its formation. While the survey canbe seen as a weak form of employeevoice, it is too often used in isolationrather than as a check on progress anda diagnostic tool. Some managers areslow in reporting back the results of thesurvey, especially where they are critical



7

in 25 organisations1. Two main typesof consultative committees were

evident. The ‘active consulters’ wereorganisations where management took apro-active approach to consultation andput proposed business decisions, likerestructuring, on the agenda. Often thisneeded special meetings to be called andfor information to be given in confidenceprior to a public announcement. Forthere to be a meaningful discussionthe employee representatives had tobe organised as a coherent body. This

was recognised by management whichoften took steps to encourage trainingand allow representatives to meet bythemselves to work through how torespond to the proposals.

In contrast, in other companiesmanagement saw the role ofthe consultative committee tobe a communication body. The

‘communicators’ rarely placed businessdecisions on the agenda, and wherethis did happen, it was usually afterthe event. Most of the topics discussedwere raised by employee representativesbut these tended to be housekeepingmatters, sometimes lapsing into ‘teaand toilets’ issues. It was rare for thereto be an effective body of employeerepresentatives since all they had todo was to attend the meetings a few

times a year. While both the ‘activeconsulters’ and the ‘communicators’ useddirect communication and involvementmethods with the workforce, in thelatter’s case this tended to ‘crowd-out’the consultative committee since it hadlittle opportunity to contribute anythingdistinctive.

Management is always the dominantpartner in consultation since it is theywho are setting the key parametersto the agenda. The ‘communicators’

saw consultation as a means ofcommunication between senior managers

and employees. The emphasis was onthe creation of harmonious relationships,integration and building engagement.The active consulters had much thesame aims but saw these being achievedthrough employee representativesbecoming involved in the managementof change and the achievementof consensus, especially over theimplementation of decisions.

In 2008 the Information and Consultationof Employees Regulations (ICE for short)came fully into force for undertakingswith 50 or more employees. Theintriguing question was whether thiswould give a substantial boost to theformation of consultative committees.The EU sees the provision of informationand the practice of consultation as a ‘fundamental right’ in the same way as

there is a fundamental right not to sufferfrom discrimination in employment. Theway the regulations are drawn up in theUK gives considerable freedom to choosethe form and frequency of consultation.The need to take steps to set up aconsultative body is only ‘triggered’ whenten per cent or more of the employeesask for one. What evidence we havesuggests that very few employees haveorganised themselves to exercise this

right (Hall et al:2012). The Secretary ofState, Vince Cable, admitted as muchwhen he told the House of Commonsthat ‘this potentially powerful mechanismfor employees has been underutilisedto date’ 2.

There is nothing to stop an employerfrom setting up a consultative committeewithout an employee request. There istechnical advantage in doing so, from theemployer’s perspective, as the committee



8

can be established as a so-called ‘pre-existing agreement’ (PEA), provided a

majority of employees in a ballot havebacked it or all employee representativeshave endorsed it. The advantage of aPEA from an employer’s perspectiveis that the procedures and topics ofconsultation are not pre-determined andcan be designed to suit the organisation.Unlike where a committee resultsfrom an employee request under theregulations, a PEA does not provideemployee representatives with the right

to complain to the Central ArbitrationCommittee (CAC), nor any right to timeoff or training. Some companies haveresponded to the regulations by settingup a consultative committee but manyhave not, and the ‘do nothing’ optionis clearly available in the absence of arequest from employees.

We will not have definitive evidence on

the take up of ICE based consultativecommittees until the results of the2011 WERS survey are published, butsome earlier surveys have shown agrowth (see Hall et al forthcoming),for example in large, multinationalcompanies (Marginson et al 2010). Wewould expect the growth to be mainlyin the private sector. We knew beforethe ICE Regulations that around halfof workplace employee representatives

were non-union with over 80 per centof them found in the private sector (DTI2007). What this means is that that thepotential for forms of collective employeevoice is greater than the bald figureson trade union membership and thecoverage of collective bargaining suggest.

Trade unions and non-union andhybrid forms of consultation

The obvious questions are whether thereis a degree of equivalence between non-union consultative committees and unionworkplace collective bargaining, andwhat impact the growth of non-unionemployee representation will have onemployee voice? Looking at non-unionconsultative committees, on the positiveside there is evidence that managersoften discuss a wider range of issues

with their committee and take their viewsseriously. A careful analysis of surveydata led Bryson (2004) to conclude that ‘it is the combination of direct voice withnon-union representative voice that isparticularly beneficial and it is the voiceregime which performs better than “novoice”’. This confirms the importance of dual

voice arrangements. The positive view ofnon-union staff councils is not, however,widely shared. Much will depend on whatmanagers seek to achieve in settingup a consultative body. In many cases ‘managers ... devise their own optionsfor employee involvement that are softon power sharing without offering anyform of effective consultation in return’(Dundon et al 2006). This is typical ofthe ‘communicators’. It is important to

recognise that non-union representatives,for the most part, have a more restrictedrole than their union counterpartssince their only function is to attendconsultative committees.

The comparison with collective bargainingover terms and conditions of employmentis, in any case, not a valid one sinceconsultation is a very different process.It does not, for one thing, rely ongaining agreement since the purposeis to discuss management plans andallow employees to raise matters of



9

concern. Where unions engage in bothcollective bargaining and consultation the

processes are often complementary. Theresultant pattern of relationship is usuallyreferred to as a ‘partnership’. Partnershipagreements received much attentiona decade ago with mixed results (seeOxenbridge and Brown 2004).

More recently it is clear that suchagreements continue to be made,especially in the NHS, although thebenefits would appear to flow more to

management than employees (Samueland Bacon 2010, Evans, Harvey andTurnbull 2012). A particularly goodexample, on a very large scale, comesfrom Scotland where there is a country-wide ‘Labour-Management Partnership’(Bacon and Samuel 2011). Partnershipsrequire strong trade unions, withhigh levels of membership, workingwith managers who support union

involvement in strategic and workforcegovernance issues. As such they areunlikely to become the organising modelfor the future.

What is clear is that trade unions coulddo more to promote consultation byorganising to trigger the regulation’sprocedures through a formal requestfrom ten per cent of employees, asthey did in one of the early cases that

came to the CAC (Amicus and MacmillanPublishers). In 1996 Hyman was ofthe view that ‘a statutory system ofemployee representation is ... the leastworst option for British unions’. Morerecently Heery (2010) has suggested that ‘worker representation can and shouldassume a hybrid form’. The emergingcoalition of statutory consultativecommittees and trade unions ‘is likelyto be central to the necessary task ofrevitalising unions’.

In the hybrid councils studied by Hallet al (2010), trade unions maintained

their collective bargaining role but tookpart with non-union representatives inthe consultative committee. There wasno evidence of employers using theconsultative committees as a meansof bypassing or minimising the roleof recognised unions. Unions oftensaw advantages in meeting seniormanagement on a regular basis andbeing engaged in discussions on a widerrange of issues. Unions can play an

important role in working with non-unionrepresentatives in hybrid staff councils.The evidence from continental Europe isthat union involvement in works councils,either directly or indirectly, helps improvethe councils’ effectiveness (Hall andPurcell 2011). There is likely to be afurther growth in hybrid consultativecommittees, especially if unions put asidetheir ambivalence about consultation and

work with non-union representatives.

Making consultation effective in non-union companies

The dilemma often faced by non-unionemployee representatives embarkingon consultation for the first time, andmeeting with senior managers, is howto create an effective representativebody. If management wants to consult

seriously, it must have an authoritativebody to talk with, one that can carry theworkforce with them and know how andwhat to communicate. An added problemis that, if consultation is on proposedor contemplated business strategies theinformation will usually have to be givenin confidence. This requires the membersof the consultative committee to be ‘representatives’ rather than ‘delegates’.A delegate always reports back andtakes advice from constituents. A



10

representative has to be able to actmore independently based on a confident

understanding of what is best for thoseaffected in the circumstances, and has tobe able to keep confidential informationunder wraps until an agreed time later.All this points to the acute difficulty non-union employee representatives have inlearning to develop a collective voice withlittle, or no, access to external adviceand resources. Management support isespecially necessary during the formativeperiod while representatives find their

feet and develop self confidence inthe role.

This difficulty can be especiallypronounced where the consultationis focussed on a single issue, likelarge scale redundancies or businesstransfers. There is a legal requirementfor consultation with employeerepresentatives to take place on these

issues when proposals are still in theformative stage. This is where tradeunion experience and training is akey advantage. There are some goodexamples of specially created non-unionconsultative bodies dealing effectivelywith these topic specific, and short-lived,consultations, but not many (for anexample see Podro and Suff, 2008). Collective consultation in union and non-

union organisations has the capacityto provide a meaningful forum whereemployees have access to seniormanagers and are able to express theiropinion on major decisions which haveimplications for the workforce. Whereit is combined with direct forms ofinvolvement, giving employees somevoice avenues on the shop or office floor,the outcome effects are often positive,both for employees’ well-being andorganisational effectiveness. There is

usually a period of learning, for both themanagers and employee representatives

involved, for the processes ofconsultation to be established andpracticed. Empirical evidence suggestssix necessary requirements for activeconsultation to be developed (Hall andPurcell 2012).

Management must be prepared1.to share information on plans andoptions for major changes in timefor employee representatives to

consider what questions to ask andhow to respond. They need to begiven the opportunity to expressan opinion, and potentially to exertsome influence, and managementmust take representatives’ viewsand ideas seriously.

A wide range of issues should2.be discussed including financialperformance, strategic plans andHR policies, with an opportunity foremployees to raise issues. In someconsultative committees socialmatters also form a regular partof the agenda. There also needsto be procedures in place wherecertain items can be filtered out,for example individual grievancesor items best resolved directlyby line managers. The need is to

avoid the committee being cloggedup with minor ‘tea and toilet’issues.

Senior managers need to be3.regular attendees at consultativecommittee meetings, drawn fromline as well HR positions. It willoften be the case that other seniormanagers will attend for specificagenda items, for example from

finance or specialist technical areassuch as IT or marketing.



11

Employee representatives need4.to be able to develop a collective

voice which adequately reflectsthe views of employees but canprovide leadership in dealingwith big issues. Paid time off,training and facilities are basicnecessities. Pre-meetings, whererepresentatives meet amongthemselves without managersbeing present, are essential since itis here that views and differencescan be discussed and preparation

for meetings of the consultativecommittee be undertaken. In somecases, representatives can ask forexternal advice, paid for by thecompany

The link between the work of5.the consultative committee anddirect forms of communicationand involvement need to beunderstood. In some casesrepresentatives use teambriefing sessions to report backon committee discussions andmanagement use all availablecommunication methods toreinforce the work and utilityof the consultative committee.Employee representatives need adistinctive voice and visibility to beeffective.

Consultation has to be supported6.by a culture of mutual cooperationand trust. It will often be thecase that there will be informalcontact between a senior employeerepresentative and the HRmanager where emerging issuescan be explored and progress onitems checked.

The need for effective regulation

The law plays an important part ingetting institutions established andgood practice embedded especiallyin the area of consultation. As Gollan(2010) has observed ‘regulatory rulesand laws encourage or force certainbehaviours that otherwise would nothave taken place’. The adequacy of theICE Regulations has been questioned(Hall 2010) and it was noted above thatPre Existing Agreements give no rights

of redress to employee representatives.It may be that the current review ofthe EU Directive and its application inmember states will lead to proposals forchanges. A review took place recentlyon the operation of similar regulationsconcerning European Works Councils andamendments became law in 2011. The ‘recast’ EWC Directive contains strongerprovisions to help representatives

create an effective employee ‘side’. EWCrepresentatives have rights to obtain thefinancial and material resources neededto carry out their duties, call specialmeetings, hold pre-meetings, seekexternal advice and now to undertaketraining.

If similar provisions were builtinto the ICE Regulations, and ifrecognised trade unions had rights to

representation, as they currently do instatutory consultation over collectiveredundancies and business transfers,it may encourage unions to be muchmore active in promoting consultation,often in association with non-unionrepresentatives. Non-union consultativebodies, if established under theregulations, would have a better chanceof becoming an effective employee voicethan they currently have. At present,with the exception of the relativelyfew that were established under the



12

procedures of the regulations, they aredependent on employer goodwill.

The recent award of £67.8 millioncompensation to many ex-Woolworths’employees for a failure by theadministrators to consult the unionproperly over the redundancies3 bringsinto sharp focus the weakness of the ICERegulations where the maximum fine is£75,000 and this is paid to the Treasuryand not to the employees affected.

Conclusions

Large parts of the private sector, and amuch smaller part of the public sector,seem now to be beyond the reach oftrade unions through the traditionalroute of collective bargaining. Alternativemeans for employees to have a voicein company affairs have, to a limited

degree, emerged. These includedirect means of communication andinvolvement through workforce meetingsand team briefings, and now via socialmedia. A growing number of employersuse attitude surveys to capture employeeviews, often linked to a desire to buildemployee engagement.

These are all valuable and not justrestricted to non-union businesses.

Research shows that they are usuallyvalued by most employees and helpforge a positive relationship between theindividual worker and the line manager,even when doubts remain about thecommitment of senior managers toparticipation and voice. But these voicemethods provide only very limited meansfor employees to discuss planned policiesand changes with senior managers. Itdepends on management goodwill, andgiven the low level of trust in senior

managers, as revealed in the 2011 CIPDsurvey, these structural weaknesses are

compounded. In any case, front linemanagers, who conduct team briefings,are often as much in the dark, when itcomes to strategic decisions, as the teammembers they are meant to be briefing.

To a degree, it can be suggested thatthe growth in non-union consultativecommittees, encouraged by the ICERegulations, has filled some of thegap left by the decline in collective

bargaining. The two processes are notequivalent but, at least, consultationgives access to senior managers andcan allow for dialogue over managementstrategic plans which affect employment.

This type of consultation can be a moreadvanced form of collective voice thancollective bargaining if that only takesplace once a year to agree revisions,

if any, to terms and conditions ofemployment. This is why some unionofficers agree to take part in hybrid staffcouncils since they get better access,and a wider range of items to discuss,than achieved via collective bargaining.This is the logic, too, behind unionpartnership agreements. When combinedwith direct methods of communicationand involvement, as favoured jointlyby the CBI and TUC, the outcomes for

both employees and their firms, canexceed any other forms of voice andparticipation.

There are particular inhibitions to awidespread adoption of consultativecommittees. First, and most important, isreluctance by some managers to engagein meaningful consultation, preferringdirect methods of communication. Somefear incursions into their prerogatives,or having to explain their decisions. This



13

reluctance is sometimes justified forfear that vital decisions will be delayed

or confidential information leaked, butthese are rarely persuasive excuses.Active consultation requires pro-activeemployers, willing to engage in dialogueon proposed measures. Second, trade unions have, with afew exceptions, been reluctant toembrace the opportunities of the ICERegulations to push for the adoptionof consultative committees, preferring

to focus on collective bargaining andthe maintenance of the single channelof communication. While this may bea valid response in those decliningnumber of companies where they arestill recognised, it does nothing tospread union influence or search for newmethods of representation among non-members.

The third limitation is the confused stateof legal regulation. There is no commonbase line for representatives to havetime off with pay to carry out theirduties, receive training or have accessto facilities. The ICE Regulations givesubstantial latitude to employers, eitherto do nothing, or to design a consultativearrangement in whatever way theywant. There is little in the regulationsto provide advice and assistance to

representatives to create an effective,collective, employee voice. The ‘recast’EWC regulations provide a usefulbenchmark to what could be applied inICE, as do the collective redundancy andtransfer of undertakings provisions.

It may be, in a prolonged period ofausterity, that a growing number ofemployers will recognise the value ofconsulting with employee representativesalongside extensive use of direct methods

of communication and involvement,including social media. This is because

there will be more tough decisions totake that affect the workforce. Employerswill recognise how important it is foremployees to understand the basis andlogic of these decisions and work jointlyin exploring ways to alleviate some of theconsequences. Some will appreciate, too,that this is one of the best ways to seekto gain employee engagement in difficulttimes.

It is possible that the current EU reviewof the ICE Directive, and the way ithas been applied in member states,will lead to proposals for change.Governments have often backed movesto encourage consultation since thepurpose is to enhance cooperation andcontribute to the effective managementof change. They may do so again at atime when largely cost-free innovations

are at a premium. This, in turn, maypersuade trade unions to help establishconsultative bodies in organisationswhere they are not recognised.

It is always possible that none of thiswill come to pass and innovations inemployment relations remain stalled, therepresentation gap grows ever biggerand employees become increasinglydisillusioned with senior management.

This would be to miss an opportunity tomake a modest contribution to reframingthe practice of employment relations toachieve cooperation and consent at timewhen they are most required.



14

Notes

1. The research was funded by BIS, Acasand the CIPD.

2. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120123/debtext/120123-0001.htm#120123000594

3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16662636

References

Achur, J. (2011) Trade Union Membership2010. A national statistics publication.

London: Department of Business,Innovation and Skills.

Bach, S. (2011) A new era of publicservice employment relations? Thechallenges ahead. Acas Future ofWorkplace Relations discussion paperseries, London: Acas.

Bacon, N. and Samuel, P. (2011)Evaluating Labour-Management

Partnership: first-findings. NottinghamUniversity Business School. Unpublished.

Bryson, A. (2004) ‘Managerialresponsiveness to union and non-unionworker voice in Britain’, IndustrialRelations 43(1): 213-241.

Bryson, A., Charlwood, A. and Forth,J. (2006) ‘Worker voice, managerialresponse and labour productivity:an empirical investigation’ IndustrialRelations Journal 37(5):438:55.

Bryson, A. and Freeman, R. (2007) ‘Whatvoice do British workers want?’ in R.

Freeman, P. Boxall and P. Haynes (eds)What Workers’ Say: Employee Voice inthe Anglo-American Workplace. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.

Budd, J. and Zagelmeyer, S. (2010) ‘Public policy and employee participation’in A. Wilkinson, P. Golan, M. Marchingtonand D. Lewin (eds) The Oxford Handbookof Participation in Organisations Oxford:Oxford University Press pp 476-503.

CIPD (2011) Employee Outlook Part ofthe CIPD Outlook Series. London: CIPD.

Cox., Higgins, T. and Speckesser, S.(2011) Management Practices andSustainable Organisational Performance: An Analysis of the European CompanySurvey 2009. Dublin: EuropeanFoundation for the Improvement of Living

and Working Conditions.

DTI (2007) ‘Workplace representatives: areview of their facilities and facility time’Consultative Document, January. London:Department of Trade and Industry.

Dundon, T., Lurran, D., Ryan, P. andMaloney, M (2006) ‘Conceptualising thedynamics of employee information and

consultation: evidence from the Republicof Ireland’ Industrial Relations Journal37(5):492-512.

Edwards, P., Edwards, T., Ferner, A.,Marginson, P. and Tregaskis, O. (2007)Employment Practices of MNCs inOrganisational Context: A Large-scaleSurvey. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/projects/mncemploymentEuroFound (2010) European Company

Survey 2009 Dublin: EuropeanFoundation for the Improvement of Livingand Working Conditions.



15

Evans, C., Harvey, G. and Turnbull, P.(2012) ‘When partnerships don’t match

up: an evaluation of labour-managementpartnerships in the automotivecomponents and civil aviation industries’.Human Resource Management Journal22(1):60-75.

Freeman, R., Boxall, P. and Haynes, P.(2007) What Workers’ Say: EmployeeVoice in the Anglo-American Workplace.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Forth, J. and Millward, N. (2002) TheGrowth of Direct Communication,London: Chartered Institute of Personneland Development.

Gollan, P. (2010) ‘Employer strategiestoward non-union collective voice’ in A.Wilkinson, P. Golan, M. Marchington andD. Lewin (eds) The Oxford Handbook ofParticipation in Organisations Oxford:

Oxford University Press pp 212-36.

Hall, M. (2010) ‘EU Regulation and theUK employee consultation framework’.Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(4S):55-69.

Hall, M., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Terry,M. and Parker, J. (2010) Information andConsultation under the ICE Regulations:

evidence from longitudinal case studies.Employment Relations Research SeriesNo 117 London: Department of Business,Innovation and Skills. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/i/10-1380-information-consultation-ice-regulations

Hall, M., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J.,Terry, M. and Parker, J. (forthcoming)

‘Promoting effective consultation?Assessing the impact of the ICERegulations’ British Journal of IndustrialRelations.

Hall, M. and Purcell, J. (2011)Information and Consultation Practice

Across Europe Five Years After theEU Directive. Comparative analyti-cal report. Dublin: EuroFound. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1009029s/index.htm

Hall, M. and Purcell, J. (2012)Consultation at Work: Regulation andPractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Heery, E. (2010) ‘Worker representationin a multiform system: a frameworkfor evaluation’. Journal of IndustrialRelations, 52(5), 543-559.

Hyman, R. (1996) ‘Is there a case forstatutory works councils in Britain’ in A.McColgan (ed) The Future of Labour Law.London: Cassell, pp 64-84.

Kersley, B., Carmen, A., Forth, J., Bryson,A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge,

S. (2006) Inside the Workplace: Findingsfrom the 2004 Workplace EmploymentRelations Survey. London: Routledge.

MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009)Engaging for Success: EnhancingPerformance through EmployeeEngagement. A report to Government.London: Department for Business,Innovation and Skills.

Marchington, M., Grimshaw, D., Rubery,J. and Willmot, H. (2005) FragmentingWork: Blurring Organisational Boundariesand Disordering Hierarchies. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Marginson, P., Edwards, P., Edwards,T., Ferner, A. and Tregaskis, 0(2010). ‘Employee representation and

consultative voice in multinationalcompanies operating in Britain’. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48 (1):151-80.



16

Organ, D. (1988) OrganisationalCitizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier

Syndrome. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Oxenbridge, S. and Brown, W.(2004) ‘A poisoned chalice? Tradeunion representatives in partnershipand co-operative employer-unionrelationships’ in G. Healy, E. Heery, P.Taylor, and W. Brown (eds) The Futureof Worker Representation. Basingstoke,

Palgrave Macmillan.pp 186-206.

Podro, S. and Suff, R (2008) EmployeeRepresentatives: Challenges and Changesin the Workplace. Acas Policy DiscussionPapers. London:Acas

Purcell, J. and Geogiadis, K. (2007) ‘Why should employers bother withworker voice?’ in R. Freeman, P. Boxalland P. Haynes (eds) What Workers Say:Employee Voice in the Anglo-AmericanWorkplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR press pp181-197.

Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007) ‘Front-line managers as agents in theHRM-performance causal chain: theory,analysis and evidence’. Human ResourceManagement Journal 17:1, 3–20.

Samuel, P. and Bacon, N. (2010) ‘Thecontents of partnership agreements inBritain 1990-2007’ Work, Employmentand Society 24(3) 430-448.Sisson, K. (2000) Direct Participation andthe Modernisation of Work Organisation.Dublin: European Foundation for theImprovement of Living and WorkingConditions.

Smith, S. and Harwood, P. (2011) SocialMedia and its Impact on Employers and

Trade Unions. Employment RelationsComment, London: Acas.

Wright, C. (2011) What Role for TradeUnions in Future Workplace Relations?Acas Future of Workplace RelationsDiscussion Paper, September. London:Acas.



17

Did you know?

Acas has a range of services and products aimed at helping employersand managers in organisations – many of which are free. These includeleaflets and booklets offering advice. Go to www.acas.org.uk for moreinformation. You will also find on our website e-learning packages that canbe dipped into wherever and whenever you have a few minutes to spare.

We also deliver training on good practice in employment relations aswell as updates on new employment legislation especially designed for

small businesses. These are held locally all around the country and canbe booked and paid for online. For more details go to www.acas.org.uk/training.

If you would like to be added to the email list for Acas research and policy papers and

articles please email your name, job title and organisation (where relevant) and email

address to [email protected]. You can also sign up online at

www.acas.org.uk/policypublications

Alternatively, complete the form below and send it to Acas Strategy unit, 22nd Floor, Euston

Tower, 286 Euston Road, London NW1 3JJ.

Name.......................................................................................................................

Job title ....................................................................................................................

Organisation .............................................................................................................

email address: ..........................................................................................................

If you would like to receive Acas’ customer newsletter you can sign up at www.acas.org.uk/subscribe

Voice and Participation in the Modern Workplace Challenges and Prospects

Documents

Transcript of Voice and Participation in the Modern Workplace Challenges and Prospects