Donovan, The Commission on Industrial Relations and Post‐Liberal Rationalisation
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1986.tb00686.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1986 |
| Author | Gill Palmer |
| Date | 01 July 1986 |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
24:2
July
1986
0007-1080
$3.00
Donovan,
The
Commission on
Industrial Relations and Post-Liberal
Rationalisation
Gill
Palmer
*
The Report
of
the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’
Associations (The Donovan Report) stands out as a major landmark in any
historical survey of recent British industrial relations. However, the work
of
the Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR), which was established to
implement Donovan’s proposals, has still not received the analytical
attention it deserves.’ The CIR’s work has more than historical interest.
Donovan’s Report in
1968
marked the start
of
a series
of
attempts to alter
the nature of British collective bargaining; attempts which different
governments have continued through varied policies to the present day.
A
study
of
Donovan through the experience
of
the CIR can therefore be used
to explore the academic and political debates that still underly the political
controversy surrounding public policy for British industrial relations.
This article discusses the nature
of
Donovan’s procedural reform, and the
conflicting theories about the purpose
of
Donovan’s proposals. It uses a
detailed study
of
the CIR’s company references
to
throw some light on the
impact of Donovan’s prescriptions and in particular on the company-level
support that they received. This evidence is used to comment on the
academic ‘pluralism’ and ‘corporatist’ debates, and on the political advocacy
of
free collective bargaining as opposed to various forms of state regulation,
that mirror those debates at the political level.
WHAT WAS DONOVAN’S PROCEDURAL REFORM?
The details
of
Donovan’s proposals are very familiar to students
of
British
industrial relations. Donovan vigorously rejected arguments to change the
law,
either
to
impose legal constraints on union representation and
bargaining,
or
to impose legal constraints
on
management through statutory
industrial democracy. Instead, Donovan advocated changes in the institu-
tional arrangements
for
handling collective bargaining at company and plant
*
Principal Lecturer, Queensland Institute
of
Technology
268
levels.
It
argued that Boards of Directors should be made publicly responsible
for their companies’ employment relations; collective bargaining should be
extended to new groups of workers and some new subject areas, and domestic
collective bargainingshould be formalised. Factory
or
plant Joint Negotiating
Committees should
be
established, capable of reaching comprehensive
written agreements. The negotiating role of shop stewards and professional
management staff should be clarified. Shop stewards should begiven facilities
(time off, phone access, information) to aid their negotiating performance,
and personnel departments should be competently staffed and adequately
equipped, with the status
of
easy access to Company Boards. (The Donovan
Report, 1968, chapter
XVI).
The Donovan Commission’s unanimous Report was widely acclaimed for
its thorough and informed approach
to
complex issues. Its conclusions have
long been quoted
as
authoritative (see
Democracy
in
Trade
Unions
published February 1983, Cmnd 8778). However, despite the many words
written on Donovan, most commentators have accepted Donovan’s recom-
mendations
as
unproblematic? From those few who have sought to discuss
Donovan’s purpose, it is clear that the rationale behind Donovan’s
recommendations is open to dispute.
The analysis
of
Donovan’s reforms can be helped by disentangling
semantic confusions over the meaning of ‘procedures’. Donovan’s voluntary
procedural reform had two basic elements, the extension
of
collective
bargaining and the formalisation of domestic collective bargaining arrange-
ments. These elements are distinct, but have been conflated by a dual use
of
the term ‘procedure’ within industrial relations. The traditional,
practitioner definition limits the term
to
the constitutional provisions for the
negotiation and settlement
of
union-management grievances and disputes.
However, some writers
-
notably Dunlop (1958) and Flanders (1965)
-
have used the term more widely and in association with the sociological
concept of
mores,
to refer to the non-substantive arrangements (however
formalised and from whatever source) which provide the necessary predict-
ability in social interaction at work.
Both usages can be found in the Donovan Report. Donovan’s recommen-
dation to formalise local collective bargaining arrangements represented
procedural reform under the first definition. Existing informal,
ad
hoc
and
fragmented domestic bargaining arrangements needed to be replaced by
clearly structured formalised institutions and agreements, and this reform
was seen to have
a
particular importance for the engineering, construction
and shipbuilding industries, where ‘disordered’ domestic bargaining was
most evident. The recommendations to extend joint regulation through
collective bargaining can be seen as procedural reform under the second
definition. Joint regulations agreed between unions and employers could, in
general, resolve the social and political problems
of
British industrial
relations. The conflation of these two, rather different, sets of proposals
under the single notion of ‘procedural reform’ probably helped the Donovan
Report gain the support
of
a
surprisingly wide range
of
people. Many who
British
Journal
of
Industrial
Relations
To continue reading
Request your trial