union organizing campaign in ROI by re-constituting a previously defunct NER staff
forum (BritCo Vocal). At the same time, BritCo Vocal was used to promote a new
approach to employee representation because of the I&C Directive. As a result, NER
representatives were elected, the HR Director would outline company developments to
Vocal representatives, followed by an economic update by the Chief Executive and meeting
agendas publicly promoted employee concerns. In terms of the first observable face
of power, NER representatives achieved some negotiated gains from management
through the newly constituted Vocal forum, specifically concerning parity of redundancy
terms. Reflecting the second dimension of power, the revamped arrangement did more
than ‘comply’ with external I&C regulations: it also staved off a union recognition drive
and embedded managerial preferences for non-union I&C in ROI. In effect, BritCo management
consciously sought occupation of regulatory space for voice by excluding
unions and maximizing non-union channels.
However, the recast Vocal forum was only partially successful. Many employee
respondents felt the non-union forum degenerated into an ineffective ‘talking-shop’,
more appropriate to ‘tea and toilet’ issues than substantive ‘option-based’ consultation
with a view to reaching agreement. Significantly, once the union recognition drive subsided
in ROI, the range of issues on which employees could engage with management
waned and the desire among employees for union voice had not diminished:
Some employees see it (non-union forum) as management paying lip service. Because we have
no union, we have no power … There is a whole culture among employees that we should be
unionized. (Employee Representative, ROI)
At the same time, exercise of the first and third faces of power took place within an
ideology where management used direct communication and labelled unions as ‘external
influences’, as a means of mobilizing bias away from employee desire for union representation
towards the in-house non-union representation forum.
Retail Co: occupying regulatory space through culture and attitudinal manipulation. RetailCo
prides itself on being a ‘good’ non-union employer that supports its workforce through
psychological engagement. The company does not recognize unions anywhere in Ireland
or the UK and operates the same non-union I&C structures in both jurisdictions.
The company offers an attractive employment package including above-market pay
rates and extensive training and employee engagement. The I&C centre piece is
known as ‘Bottom–Up’, an NER committee covering store, regional and divisional
levels. To some extent RetailCo management would view power as a positive-sum
concept expressed through empowerment and inclusion, rather than domination or
‘power over’ employees. The overarching approach signifies a paternalistic-type culture
by supporting individual employee engagement rather than collective union bargaining.
For example:
From its inception it has never been really explicit … we don’t deal with trade unions … We
engage with employees and we operate a culture where we hope employees would not feel the
need for joining unions. (Manager)