Despite two decades of decline, trade unions continue to have significant influence over workplace industrial relations. Although on average perceptions of the industrial relations climate are poorer among employees in unionised workplaces than they are among employees in non-unionised workplaces, this average effect is misleading. Unions’ effects on industrial relations depend upon their strength in the workplace, their effectiveness as perceived by employees, and management attitudes to unions. The industrial relations climate in unionised workplaces is perceived to be as good as in non-unionised workplaces where there is a balance of power between union and management, where employees view the union as effective, and where management is supportive of union membership. Conversely, when unions are viewed as having too little power, where they are organisationally strong, and where management discourages union membership, the industrial relations climate is perceived as particularly poor.

The analysis was conducted by Alex Bryson, Senior Research Fellow at the Policy Studies Institute, based on the latest British Social Attitudes survey conducted annually by the National Centre for Social Research. His research includes the following key findings:

Union strength: Organisationally strong unions have a negative effect on the climate of industrial relations. But this new research shows that the poorest industrial relations climate is associated with weak unions. Where employees think their union does not have enough power in the workplace, perceptions of the industrial relations climate are poorer than in non-unionised workplaces. In contrast, there is no difference in the industrial relations climate between those who think their union has the right amount of power and those who work in a wholly non-unionised environment. This finding will be of particular significance if, as some have forecast, the statutory recognition procedure contained in the Employment Relations Act 1999 increases the number of weak recognised unions. It is clearly important that this does not happen if industrial relations are to improve following the passage of the legislation.

Union effectiveness: Where unions were perceived as doing their job well, where they were viewed as responsive to members’ problems and complaints, and where they helped in the smooth running of the workplace, perceptions of the industrial relations climate were better than in cases where unions were not perceived as effective.

Managerial attitudes: There was a strong link between what employees perceive to be management’s attitudes towards union membership and employees’ perceptions of the industrial relations climate. Within unionised workplaces with worker representatives a good industrial relations climate was best achieved through management encouragement of trade union membership. Industrial relations were poorest where the management was perceived to be discouraging trade union membership. But only around one in ten were encouraging union membership and the majority of managers in these strongly unionised workplaces were accepting union membership in a passive way, rather than embracing it. Among non-unionised workplaces with no worker representation the encouragement of union membership was extremely rare. Within non-union workplaces employees were most likely to view industrial relations positively where union membership was not considered an issue. The industrial relations climate was poorest in the small but significant number of cases where union membership was being discouraged. These workplaces were 2.5 times less likely to have ‘very good’ management-employee relations than non-union workplaces where union membership was not regarded as an issue.

Actively discouraging union membership, then, is bad for industrial relations. Where the worker ‘voice’ is absent, management appears able to create a positive climate by conveying the impression that union membership is not an issue, perhaps through the adoption of alternative policies for consultation and communication. Where unions are ‘strong’, management has most to gain by being supportive of union membership, and where this happens the industrial relations climate is viewed as favourably as it is in most non-unionised workplaces. Yet only a minority is adopting this attitude, and the number has fallen since 1989, when the survey last asked this question.

Alex Bryson concludes: ‘In the light of these findings, it would not be wise to make the case for statutory rights for union recognition purely on the basis that this would be conducive to better industrial relations. But, equally it would be wrong to assume that the new legislation will necessarily result in the deterioration of industrial relations. Much depends upon the way the new legislation is implemented. If it merely installs ‘weak’ unions with recognition on paper but not in reality, it will do nothing for management-worker relations, and could even be damaging. But if it results in unions being given the chance to operate effectively in places where currently the absence of recognition may be symptomatic of a poor industrial relations climate, then it may well do some good. The new legislation is a challenge to employers and unions alike: unions must ensure that they are effective in the eyes of employees, and capable of delivering for their members while, at the same time, maintaining a constructive working relationship with employers. In turn, employers must start to view the new legislation as an opportunity for cooperation and collaboration, rather than a threat.’

Michelle McNally Policy Studies Institute 0171 468 2201 mcnallm@psi.org.uk