Monday, May 04, 2009

“Dealing with trade unions when the gloves are off: trade secrets”

Is this what HR really think of us? Top trade union web portal unionreps had a very interesting post this week about a link to an article (here) first published in “Personnel Today” last year. This is the trade paper of the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development (CIPD).

The article was written by an Andy Cook who is ironically a former trade union official turned HR/employment law advisor. Some of the things he discusses aren’t that controversial and are fairly obvious such as the difficulty that unions have being attractive to “Thatcher’s Children” or employers actually communicating with their workforce. But is clear that he advocates using the law to block and frustrate any industrial action.

He advises “Retain a lawyer experienced in employee relations and industrial action law. Most employment lawyers have no relevant experience, even in the big firms”...Allow the union to use "check-off" (ie. members pay their subs through payroll), which gives you information on its membership- invaluable when challenging industrial action. ...Challenge robustly any industrial action - even if you don't go to court, a challenge may help to stop future action if the mistakes are repeated. ..Don’t be afraid to take technical points when challenging industrial action a misplaced word, or a missing number may be enough to get an injunction.

Some trade unionists nostalgically reminisce about a so-called "golden time" when HR (then called “Personnel”) were truly independent and saw their role as to advise management and unions without “fear or favour” to help bring about agreement. Now, while I am not personally convinced that this time ever really existed. I am surprised that there is such an article in the leading HR publication. Why is there no real mention of any alternative conflict resolution except the “courts”! What about arbitration, what about ACAS? Why does it perpetuate the myth that unions in pay negotiations will be fighting a “wider political agenda”? Why is there no recognition that it is actually perfectly legitimate for unions to try and prevent the pay of their members being cut? Unions are also perfectly aware that excessive pay awards can result in job losses and are prepared if necessary to make compromises in order to save jobs and good HR professionals know all this.

The only positive thing that I take away from this is that the author does accept that if the unions are organised and have the support of their members then they are in a strong bargaining position and the only way that employers can oppose them is by a “misplaced word or a missing number”. Also this article is more evidence that we need further reform of the trade union legislation to rebalance the relationship between employers and unions. It is clear that the balance is too far in favour of the employers. As is also entirely self-evident from this article the law is being “misused” in industrial disputes. This may be perfectly legal and I may be naive but I always thought that British law should be about Justice and Fairness for All not just the employers?

This is not just important for the unions but also for UK Plc.

We will never get a culture in place of constructive and positive industrial relations if employers believe that they can always just use the law instead to hammer the workforce into submission. I actually think that the overwhelming majority of HR would agree.

No comments: