Union Representatives in Labour–Management Partnerships: Roles and Identities in Flux
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
| Author | Denis Harrisson,Mario Roy,Victor Haines III |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00758.x |
Union Representatives in
Labour–Management Partnerships:
Roles and Identities in Fluxbjir_758411..435
Denis Harrisson, Mario Roy and Victor Haines III
Abstract
This study examines the challenges met by union representatives (URs) who
have to reconstruct their traditional role in the context of labour–management
partnerships. They are innovators involved in the transition to renewed labour
relations. Identity issues and role conflicts are examined through an in-depth
analysis of the process involved in assimilating this new role in unionized
organizations. The results suggest that URs subordinate the partner role to the
interest representation role. Interviews suggest that this enhanced union legiti-
macy. Some blurring of traditional social categories such as those of employee
or employer is possible to the extent that the relations between the actors are
founded on interpersonal relations.
1. Introduction
North American labour–management partnerships set in motion an innova-
tion process through which the roles and identities of those involved are
challenged and reconstructed. For union representatives (URs), the critical
issue is not so much about getting involved or not in such partnerships, but
rather how far to travel down the path of co-operation (Fichter and Greer
2004). It would seem that they must find a way to position themselves as best
they can so as to play a proactive role in this initiative. Some adapt and
establish new networks and develop new democratic practices as they recon-
sider the social basis of their organization (Frege and Kelly 2004). But in the
process they also find themselves challenged as they try to balance their
traditional role of ‘defender’ with that of ‘partner’.
Our study examines the reconstruction of the role played by URs in the
context of labour–management partnerships in Quebec. Our objectives are
Denis Harrisson is at the University of Quebec in Montreal. Mario Roy is at the University of
Sherbrooke. Victor Haines III is at the University of Montreal.
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00758.x
49:3 September 2011 0007–1080 pp. 411–435
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
(a) to define the contours of the new role attributed to URs who are involved
in labour–management partnerships, (b) to examine the dynamics of role
structuring, and (c) to identify and define their new emerging identity. Section
2 of this article examines the literature on labour–management partnerships
and explains how this social innovation represents a new relational basis.
Section 3 examines role and identity issues through a multi-method data
collection procedure involving several organizations and an in-depth analysis
of the process involved within two unionized manufacturing companies.
In case after case we found that the two central dimensions of this new role
are prioritized in agreement with the expectations of union members. This
may be why the URs in our study experienced very little role conflict as they
gave precedence to defending the socioeconomic interests of their constitu-
ents over their involvement as a ‘partner’. This study also sheds some light on
the process of identity construction in the context of labour–management
partnerships (Clegg et al. 2007; Cornelissen et al.2007; Hogg and Terry 2001;
Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003) — a consequence of the blurring of the
distinctiveness between tradition and innovation. One important conclusion
is that the context of the partnership needs to be taken into account to
understand this process. Indeed, the labour–management partnerships we
investigated resulted from voluntary action at the organizational level
without the institutional endowments provided either by legislation or a
legitimized labour–management partnership framework within the national
industrial relations system. With this in mind, three research hypotheses
guided our investigation. First, that union officials who get involved in such
labour–management partnerships see their role undergo important change.
The identity of URs is built up from both their role as a defender of the
interests of their constituents and from the new relations established with
the managers. Second, consistent with studies conducted by Rubinstein
(2001a,b) and Rubinstein and Kochan (2001), that the participation of URs
in managerial decision making increases accountability and requires that
they balance their role as a partner with the responsibility of defending their
members’ socioeconomic interests. Third, that this identity is fraught with
ambiguity in the process of identity making as the role of URs is enacted with
both the acknowledgement of the firm’s interests as well as those of union
members. There is a blurred identity as innovation challenges the traditional
role and identity of URs. In the next section, the literature on identity and
roles is reviewed in the context of labour–management partnerships.
2. Labour–Management Partnerships, Role and Identity
Partnerships refer to agreements between competing actors who deliberately
choose to co-operate instead of maintaining adversarial relations. The scope
of labour–management partnership arrangements can be quite broad (Frege
and Kelly 2004; Geary and Roche 2003), and power relations can be situated
anywhere along a continuum ranging from domination to trust (Ospina and
Yaroni 2003; Tomlinson 2005).
412 British Journal of Industrial Relations
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009.
To continue reading
Request your trial