by Joseph Wallace & Noreen Clifford

II. The types of flexibility introduced

E. Unionization: Changes in the utilization of various flexible arrangements

In examining the impact of union recognition on the use of various forms of flexible working hours contracts, it is useful first of all to examine whether or not a greater proportion of union or non-union organizations have adopted these contracts since 1992. Table 1.23 presents some interesting findings in relation to this question. Weekend work has declined in popularity since 1992. This is particularly so in the case of unionized organizations, with a 13 percentage point decrease in the number of organizations using this form of flexibility. The number of non-union organizations utilizing shift work and overtime has increased, whereas in unionized organizations usage has remained stable with a slight decrease in the use of overtime. Perhaps the most surprising result is the substantial increase in the number of non-union organizations using part-time work in the three years from 1992 to 1995, with an increase from 39 per cent to 73 per cent taking place. Interestingly, there is still a higher percentage of unionized organizations using this form of flexibility.

For those organizations that do utilize flexible working hours, table 1.24 illustrates increases and decreases in their usage, for both unionized and non-union organizations. A greater number of non-union companies report increases in weekend work. Although organizations that do not recognize a trade union are more likely to have increased their use of shift work, there is a pre-existing high level of shift work already existing in unionized companies. Seventy-five per cent of unionized organizations use shift work (see table 1.23) and 48 per cent reported that levels of shift work had remained the same. A greater percentage of non-union organizations report increases in overtime and, as in the case of shift work, there is a high level of stability of this form of flexible working in firms which recognize trade unions (47 per cent of unionized respondents reported no change in their use of overtime, and 47 per cent reported no change in shift work). A greater number of non-union, than union companies, organizations reported a decrease in the utilization of part-time contracts.

Table 1.23. Unionization and changes in the use of

flexible work practices, 1992 and 1995

	Not used 1992	Not used 1995
Weekend work:
Union Non-union	18% 21%	31% 24%
Shift work:
Union Non-union	25% 61%	25% 47%
Overtime:
Union Non-union	3% 14%	6% 10%
Part-time work:
Union Non-union	26% 61%	24% 27%
Flexible working time:
Union Non-union	-- --	44% 44%
Job-sharing
Union Non-union	-- --	55% 64%
Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1992 and 1995.

Table 1.24. Unionization and changes in the use of

flexible work practices

	Increase	No change	Decrease	N
Weekend work:
Union Non-union	23% 37%	41% 33%	5% 7%	232
Shift work:
Union Non-union	24% 27%	48% 27%	3% 0%	234
Overtime:
Union Non-union	20% 42%	47% 31%	28% 17%	244
Part-time work
Union Non-union	41% 40%	30% 20%	5% 13%	234
Flexible working time:
Union Non-union	22% 39%	34% 12%	0% 5%	219
Job-sharing:
Union Non-union	28% 32%	17% 5%	0% 0	227
Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

In examining changes in the percentage of union and non-union organizations utilizing flexible work contracts, the main finding which emerges is the increase since 1992 in the number of non-union organizations using both temporary and, particularly, fixed-term contracts (table 1.25). For those organizations which utilize flexible work contracts, a significantly greater number of non-union organizations reported increases in their use of both fixed-term and temporary contracts (see table 1.26).

Table 1.25. Unionization and changes in the use of

flexible work contracts, 1992 and 1995

		Not used 1992		Not used 1995
Temporary/casual: Union Non-union		9% 15%		11% 4%
Fixed-term: Union Non-union		28% 47%		23% 23%
Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1992 and 1995.

Table 1.26. Unionization and changes in the use of flexible

work contracts, 1995

Where organizations utilized flexible working practices, it was found that there was no significant difference between unionized and non-union organizations in the proportion of part-time or temporary contracts employed. This would support the point that although a relatively large number of non-union organizations are reporting increases in various forms of flexibility, this does not mean that collective bargaining, which is associated with unionized organizations promotes inflexibility. On the contrary, levels of utilization of flexible working methods are very comparable, regardless of union presence. The only significant difference was the greater number of unionized organizations utilising shift work (figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5. Unionization and the proportion of the workforce on shift contracts

Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

Very interesting findings emerge when the impact of trade union recognition on functional flexibility is examined. It has been argued that the existence of trade unions and the conduct of collective bargaining can inhibit flexibility and change; this is often advanced as the rational behind an organization's decision to remain non-union. A greater percentage of jobs for all categories, particularly manual and clerical, have become wider/more flexible in unionized firms in the last three years by comparison with non-union firms (table 1.27). These findings are quite dramatic and probably indicate the extent to which trade unions have embraced the change agenda formulated by the ICTU and SIPTU in the last five years. A greater number of jobs have become more specific in organizations that do not recognize trade unions which runs counter to the flexible firm predictions.

Table 1.27. Unionization and changes in the specification

of jobs in the last three years

There is a clear division between union and non-union organizations in the way in which pay is determined. This division becomes more significant further down the organizational hierarchy (see Figures 1.6 and 1.7). Predictably, unionized organizations are more likely to have pay determined at the national level. In relation to individual level pay increases, a far greater proportion of non-union organizations utilize this mechanism, particularly at the managerial level (table 1.8). Non-union organizations are more likely to utilize individual performance related pay, group bonus schemes and profit sharing (figure 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10). In the case of merit, or PRP, the difference between union and non-union organizations is particularly significant at the clerical level. Although this form of incentive, which has traditionally been associated with managerial employees, is moving down the organizational hierarchy in non-union organizations, this is not occurring to the same extent in unionized organizations, particularly where manual employees are concerned. A greater percentage of unionized organizations use group bonus schemes for manual employees. This may be a result of the opposition of trade unions to individualized pay. As it is a bonus it does not impinge upon the union's role of determining pay, and also it is a group, rather than individual reward, therefore reducing the risk of favouritism. Also, where team working has been introduced, it may be that unions are able to point up the contradictions between having individual performance related pay combined with group based team working. Verification of this possibility would require further research. A higher percentage of non-union organizations for all levels in the hierarchy report the implementation of profit sharing although the difference decreases as one descends from managerial to manual grades. The limited penetration of profit sharing in unionized companies is significant, as a dispute has arisen within the terms of the Partnership 2000 agreement (described in Part II and especially in table 2.2) on the extension of profit-sharing through local negotiations. The Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (IBEC) is opposed to any requirement for them to engage in collective bargaining on extending profit-sharing over and above the flexible 2 per cent local bargaining clause. they will, however, support any employer who chooses to do so voluntarily. On the other hand, the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) considers that there is an obligation on employers to engage in collective bargaining on profit-sharing above the 2%.

Figure 1.6. Unionization and pay determination at the national level

Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

Figure 1.7. Unionization and pay determination at the individual level

Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

Figure 1.8. Unionization And The Use Of Merit/PRP

Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

Figure 1.9. Unionization and the use of group bonus schemes

Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

Figure 1.10. Unionization and the use of profit-sharing

Source: Cranfield-University of Limerick Survey, 1995.

[Top of the page]

International Labour Organization (ILO): Contact us | Site map |

Copyright and Permissions 1996-2008 International Labour Organization (ILO) - Disclaimer