Industrial Relations in Hotels and Catering: Neglect and Paradox?
| Date | 01 June 1996 |
| Published date | 01 June 1996 |
| Author | Rosemary Lucas |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1996.tb00652.x |
British
Jouml
of
Industrial
Relations
342
June
1996 0007-1080
pp.
267-286
Industrial Relations in Hotels and
Catering: Neglect and Paradox?
Rosemary
L
ucas
Abstract
Given that hotels and catering comprise an importantpart
of
the service sector
representing the changing face
of
the economy, their neglect
in
industrial
relations discourse about the ‘new’ industrial relations
is
no
longer sustain-
able. Previously unpublished data from the Workplace Industrial Relations
Survey
1990
(WIRS3)
have provided the first opportunity for systematic
analysis and evaluation
of
employment relationship issues
in
the industry and
finds them to be different
from
those observed elsewhere in the economy.
Consequently, hotels and catering can be said to manifest a predominance
of
‘unbridled individualism’ associated with (poor’ industrial relations outcomes
which, paradoxically, exist alongside an above average presence
of
personnel
specialists.
1.
Introduction
Since the mid-l980s, it has been acknowledged that there is a dearth of
serious industrial relations research in the service industries (Sisson 1986,
1991,1993).
This
is surprising, since the service sector accounts for over
70
per cent
of
employment in Great Britain (Employment Department 1995),
embracing a diversity of activities that are both publicly and privately
owned, including public administration, education, banking and finance,
retail distribution and hotels and catering.
The service sector displays markedly different characteristics from much
of manufacturing, including more female, part-time and temporary employ-
ment. In private-sector services, many firms and units are small, unorgan-
ized and geographically dispersed. Abolition of the wages councils has
removed the last bastion of formal industrial relations institutional arrange-
ments from some private-sector services, most notably retail distribution
and hotels and catering.
Prima facie, there is a case for more industrial relations attention to, and
research in, the service sector, but its size and diversity requires a selective
Rosemary
Lucas
is
Senior Lecturer
in
Employment Studies, Department
of
Hotel, Catering
and Tourism Management, the Manchester Metropolitan University.
0
Blackwell Publishers
LtdlLondon
School
of
Economics 1996.
Published
by
Blackwell Publishers
Ltd,
108
Cowley
Road, Oxford,
OX4 lJF,
and
238
Main
Street,
Cambridge.
MA
02141,
USA.
/
268
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
approach to be taken in terms of a focal point for meaningful discussion.
Hotels and catering provide one appropriate focus. In the first place, this
industry sector is sizeable in terms of employment.’ It employs an estimated
1.3 million workers in 264,500 workplaces, the vast majority of which are
very small establishments (Hotel and Catering Training Company (HCTC)
1994: 22,24). Average workplace size is only 4.5 employees (HCTC 1994
44).2
Second, hotels and catering embrace many of the ‘different’ service-
sector characteristics noted above, which may be significant factors that
have been insufficiently acknowledged in debates about ‘what is the “new”
industrial relations?’ Third, separate data about this industry sector have
become available for the first time from the Workplace Industrial Relations
Survey 1990 (WIRS3).
This is not to say that hotels and catering typify the service sector or, more
particularly, private-sector services. Indeed, much of the interest deriving
from this selection relates to the fact that hotels and catering may represent
industrial relations practices that exemplify an extreme of British industrial
relations described by Sisson (1993: 207-8) as ‘Bleak House’ and by Guest
and Hoque (1994:
3),
as ‘ugly’ and ‘bad’ establishments. As will be shown,
the industry can be said to manifest a predominance of ‘unbridled
individualism’ that is associated with ‘poor’ industrial relations outcomes
such as high labour turnover; high rates of dismissals, accidents and
absenteeism; low pay and a relatively high incidence of grievance and
disciplinary cases. Paradoxically, this scenario exists alongside an above-
average presence of personnel ‘specialists’. However, the extent to which
these outcomes represent the deliberate intentions of managerial strategy
remains to be explored more
fully.
In order to contribute to the debate about the nature and form of
contemporary industrial relations in 1990s Britain, this paper discusses key
aspects
of
previously unpublished hotel and catering industry data from the
WIRS3; supported by other relevant literature. Since an underlying thesis
of this paper is that there is insufficient empirical evidence about how a
distinctive range of factors shape the employment relationship in industries
like hotels and catering, areas for further study can be identified which may
enhance our understanding of contemporary industrial relations in Britain.
2.
Taking stock
of
contemporary industrial relations
Most attempts at analysis and prescription in the management of the
employment relationship in Britain have tended to focus on industries with
formal employer and worker organization structures, particularly in manu-
facturing, which are characterized by a degree of homogeneity and are
medium
to
large in size organizationally or by establishment. The dominant
perspective that has underpinned such studies has been the pluralistic frame
of reference based on the notion of collectivism (Fox 1966). For many years,
a collectivist approach was deemed to be appropriate and valid for
8
Blackwell
Publishers
LtdlLondon
School
of
Economics
1996.
To continue reading
Request your trial