Management Perceptions of the Institution of Collective Bargaining
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055368 |
| Pages | 52-55 |
| Author | P.B. Beaumont |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Management Perceptions of the
Institution of Collective Bargaining
P.
B.
Beaumont
Lecturer in
Applied
Economics,
Department
of
Social
and
Economic
Research,
University
of Glasgow
Abstract
This study examines the views of a group of managers
about the value of the collective bargaining process as a
means of dealing with a variety of job-related issues. The
views reported indicate that collective bargaining is con-
sidered most effective in dealing with the traditional wages,
hours,
fringe benefit, grievances subjects of bargaining,
which are in turn considered the job-related issues of major
concern to workers. The success of collective bargaining in
dealing with these traditional matters did not seem to be
related to the existence of clear cut differences between
union and management goals on these matters. There was
also found to be little management support for extending
the subject matter of collective bargaining, except in the
area of job security.
Introduction
The subject matter covered by formal collective agreements
in Britain has long been seen as rather narrow in nature.[
1
]
Collective bargaining in the public sector[2] constitutes
somewhat of an exception to this, and of course one must
take account of the importance of 'custom and practice' in
British industrial relations, but in general most commen-
tators would by and large subscribe to Flanders's[3] view
that,
one of the most striking contemporary features of
British collective bargaining, compared say with col-
lective bargaining in the United States, is the poverty
of its subject matter, the limited range of substantive
issues regulated by written and formally signed agree-
ments. The principal subjects remain wages and work-
ing hours ... Holidays with pay in the 'thirties and
provisions for a guaranteed week in the 'forties have
been the only new subjects introduced into the main-
stream of collective bargaining since the first world
war.
This position is likely to change substantially in the near
future with the institution of collective bargaining being
subject to a whole variety of pressures and demands pushing
it in the direction of having to cope with a much broader
range of subject matter. For example a major challenge to
collective bargaining has come from the arguments surround-
ing the establishment and report of the Bullock Committee
on board level worker representation. These arguments con-
stitute the first really serious challenge to the long accepted
proposition in British industrial relations that collective
bargaining is both a necessary and sufficient condition for
industrial democracy.[4] And in order to survive this chal-
lenge it seems that collective bargaining will have to demon-
strate its capacity to deal successfully with a range of sub-
jects not previously covered by formal negotiations.
A second source of pressure on the institution of collective
bargaining comes from the Labour Government's prog-
ramme of industrial relations legislation that contains a
number of new subject areas for negotiation.[5] There is,
for example, to be 'consultation' — which will inevitably
shade over into bargaining
—
on the procedures for handling
redundancies and also on a wide range of health and safety
at work matters. In addition the recognition provisions of
the Employment Protection Act which permit application
to be made for 'further recognition' in cases where an
employer refuses to bargain on certain topics, although
recognising the union in general terms, will ultimately be
important in deciding which matters will be obligatory
subjects for bargaining.[6] A further set of pressures on
the institution of collective bargaining is that workers' job
interests are alleged to have shifted away from their tradi-
tional preoccupation with wages and hours' matters to
being more concerned with certain qualitative aspects of
their working environment. This shift in worker values or
priorities is said to involve a demand for more interesting,
meaningful and participative work arrangements, and the
various job redesign, rotation and enlargement experiments
introduced in a number of companies in recent years[7]
suggest that at least some managers believe changes of this
sort are occurring in workers' preference functions.
Whether the institution of collective bargaining can come to
terms with these new pressures and demands is a question
that is likely to seriously interest and concern industrial
relations scholars and practitioners in Britain in the years
ahead. Accordingly we sought to provide some preliminary
insights into this area by means of a questionnaire designed
to elicit the views of managers about the operation of col-
lective bargaining for manual workers in relation to a size-
able range of job-related matters.[8] The questionnaire
specifically sought answers to the following questions:
1 What matters do managers feel workers are most con-
cerned about in relation to their jobs?
2 Are the goals of unions and management in relation to
these matters of job concern fundamentally similar or
different?
3 How effective is the institution of collective bargaining
in dealing with these various job-related matters?
4 And finally is joint labour—management consultation
preferred to collective bargaining in dealing with these
job-related matters?
The questionnaire was administered to a group of 51
middle managers attending various courses at Glasgow
University during 1977. The vast majority of the respon-
dents,
who all came from different companies in central
Scotland, were currently involved in, or had a background
of experience in, personnel and industrial relations manage-
ment. The majority of the group were aged 25—44, were
not members of a union, and were employed by companies
To continue reading
Request your trial