I. Flexibility: Concept, types and model
F. Methodologies adopted
While it is possible through national statistics to conduct an analysis on the main trends in atypical working arrangements, comparable statistical data on collective agreements does not exist. Information then only becomes available in an ad hoc way. In the next Part, the extent to which firms are in fact adopting a flexible firm approach is examined. The question is: even if they are doing so, is this part of some integrated strategic initiative or merely an expedient adaptation to prevailing circumstances? Statistics in Part I are based on two main sources. The annual labour force survey conducted by the Central Statistics Office of Ireland (CSO) provides a representative sample of the extent of certain atypical work up to 1996 together with trends over time. The survey is considered highly reliable and representative and looks at part-time and temporary work. The Labour Force survey data is based on interviews with individual members of the population and, as such, does not provide data on enterprise developments. Neither does it explore certain areas of interest in the flexibility debate. Fortunately, it is possible to use a second source, the Cranfield-University of Limerick Study (CUL), which forms part of the Price Waterhouse Cranfield Project on International Strategic Human Resource Management in Europe. This project was first established in 1990 and is conducted by a network of European universities. Ireland participated in the project initially in 1992 and again in 1995. The sample frame for the study is the Business and Finance Top 2000 Trading and Non-Trading Bodies in the Republic of Ireland. A number of measures have been utilized in order to test the representativeness of the sample and it was found that while there is a slight bias toward large organizations, compared with the population, these differences are small and the sample can be considered reasonably representative of the overall population (Gunnigle et al., 1997, p. 23).
For the material in Parts II to V it was necessary to conduct original research. Relevant published material was supplied by both trade unions and employer bodies in Ireland. In-depth interviews were held with Turlough O'Sullivan, Director of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), Kevin Duffy, Assistant General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and Jim Fitzgerald, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, with responsibility for remuneration in the public sector. Interviews were also conducted with a craft union representative, Dan Millar, Assistant General Secretary, Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), Brian Higgins of MANDATE, the largest retail/distributive trade union, and Martin Naughton, from the largest general union, the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU).
In the short time period for the study, it was possible to undertake several case-studies. These were compiled from a variety of sources, interviews with some of the interviewees, material supplied by management and unions, collective agreements, Labour Court reports and a newspaper account. These are intended to give a flavour for the industrial relations reality of flexibility. They must, however, be treated with care, as the methods of data gathering used do not conform with the requirements of systematic case-study research, which require more time and resources. These caveats aside, it is felt that the approach adopted allows for the contrast between the views of the major actors in Irish industrial relations and allows for differentiation within those views. This latter point is especially important on the trade union side, where the main employer body pointed out in their interview that there could be considerable difference in the views of trade unions at the level of the ICTU and practice among trade unionists in the workplace. The opinions researched here are those exclusively of union officials, as it was not feasible to seek the views of workplace representatives or ordinary employees.