Paternalism Under Attack:. Changing Industrial Relations in Universities
| Published date | 01 January 1984 |
| Pages | 23-27 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055026 |
| Date | 01 January 1984 |
| Author | D.H. Simpson |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Paternalism
Under Attack:
Changing Industrial
Relations in
Universities
by D.H. Simpson
Lecturer in Industrial Relations,
University College, Cardiff
Introduction
A few years ago, at an SSRC-sponsored conference on the
management function in industrial relations, a contributor
analysing the industrial relations of six separate
establishments, one of which was a merchant bank, was
asked,
"Do Merchant Banks have industrial relations?" The
same question could be asked of universities, and the
answer given today would be fundamentally different than
if the question had been posed 20 or even ten years ago.
Following the extrapolation of the Robbins principle, univer-
sities in the late 1960s and 1970s went through an un-
paralleled explosion with jobs, promotions and salaries (the
latter subject to moral pressure) all in the ascendancy. The
renunciation of Robbins has reversed these trends and, as
all students of German industrial relations know, growth
equates with good and recession with bad industrial rela-
tions (taking for the moment the superficial media defini-
tions). In the case of universities it has been not so much
the change to bad industrial relations as the emergence of
industrial relations
itself.
The Industrial Relations Make-up of
Universities
Universities are composed roughly of three groups-
academic
staff,
non-academic staff and students. The lat-
ter were militant during the growth period when social
science meant exploring the relevance of sociology to the
then current problems, whereas today it means the accoun-
tancy or management studies ticket to employment. The
non-academic staff have been represented by traditional
TUC-bred and experienced unions (for example, NUPE,
NALGO, EETPU, ASTMS) which in the growth period en-
joyed,
like other groups, the increase in trends mentioned
above,
and, as a result, accepted by non-objection the ir-
relevant industrial relations policies and practices of their
employer. This was to give such unions de facto (though
certainly not
de jure)
recognition on joint consultative com-
mittees to which are elected representatives of all the non-
academic
staff.
That appointed union representatives are
deemed elected to such committees did little to alter the
informal consultative conduct practised by university
managements, who in essence are guided by paternalistic
principles.
At national level, pay negotiations are conducted through
a committee structure acting as a buffer to the Department
of Education and Science (DES) which is the ultimate
paymaster. The various committees comprising relevant
union officers and representatives of the employers, the
Councils of universities, negotiate virtually all terms and
con-
ditions of employment, although locally there has been in-
creasing amounts of bargaining over holidays, training
facilities and pensions. As an example of one group of non-
academic
staff,
the technicians, represented by ASTMS,
organise nationally into the Universities Technicians National
Advisory Committee which forms the union side of Joint
Negotiating Committee, to bargain with representatives of
the Universities Authorities Panel (UAP) and the Commit-
tee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP).
Academic(1) staff and, to give full title academically-related
(library, research, administrative and latterly computer) staff
are organised by the Association of University Teachers
(AUT) which has certain representational rights at national
level with traditionally little or no bargaining undertaken by
the semi-autonomous Local Associations (LA). Pay set-
tlements are arrived at nationally through two Committees
named A and B, although the paymaster, the DES, has in
addition another buffer body, the University Grants Com-
mittee,
to distribute financial resources between universities.
In negotiations, Committee A comprises the representatives
of the AUT and of managements of universities selected by
the UAP, although the CVCP has some influence. As one
AUT national officer remarked: "The management side on
Committee A tend to emerge through some closely guard-
ed procedure, much like the way the Conservative Party used
to choose its leader." This committee reaches an agreed
proposal to be put to Committee
B]
in which part of Com-
mittee A meets with representatives of the DES and often
the
UGC,
though this
stage,
as has happened in some years,
can be done by correspondence (as threats of, and actual,
industrial action are unknown in this employment sector).
From the AUT's point of view the whole procedure is
a
union
ER 6,1 • 1984 23
To continue reading
Request your trial