Individualizing employee relations. The myth of the personal contract
| Date | 01 October 1996 |
| Published date | 01 October 1996 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489610130922 |
| Pages | 37-50 |
| Author | Roger Welch,Patricia Leighton |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Individualizing
employee
relations
37
Individualizing employee
relations
The myth of the personal contract
Roger Welch and Patricia Leighton
Employment Relations Research and Development Centre,
Anglia Polytechnic University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to examine the extent, natu re and consequences of
the individualization of employee relations in the 1990s. Central to this process
has been the concept of human research management (HRM) which emphasises
the enhancement of employee efficiency and productivity through the
empowerment of the individual employee. The article will draw on empirical
research conducted in 1991/92, 1994/95 and 1995/96 by the Employment
Relations Research and Development Centre at Anglia Polytechnic University.
This research consisted of two surveys of employing organizations in East
Anglia (Essex, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk) and one survey which
included employers in the City of London and Northamptonshire. Each survey
distributed around 2,000 questionnaires.
The 1991/92 research[1] was based on a response by 735 employer
organizations and focused on the relationship between collective and individual
forms of employee involvement. The 1994/95 research was based on a response
of 505 employer organizations and focused on the use of personal contracts as
against collective bargaining to determine terms and conditions of
employment[2]. The 1995/96 research used a questionnaire responded to by 550
employers and dealt with employment contract practices[3].
The questionnaire surveys were supplemented by telephone interviews with
selected respondents. The 1994 survey was developed by an ongoing series of
more in-depth interviews with employers and employees’ representatives, and
an analysis of documentation provided by respondent employers. The 1995
survey was followed up with over 20 detailed case studies.
The major objective behind the 1991 research was to ascertain whether
individual forms of employee involvement, some of which can be associated
with HRM, such as share options, performance-related pay, quality circles and
employee appraisal were perceived by employers as alternatives to recognition
arrangements with trade unions and thus to collective forms of employee
representation.
However, the central objective behind the 1994 and 1995 surveys has been to
ascertain the incidence of the use of and the nature of personal contracts, as the
employment contract is the main legal mechanism for establishing relations
between the employer and individual employees. At one level any individual Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 5,
1996, pp. 37-50. © MCB
University Press, 0048-3486
To continue reading
Request your trial