Accompaniment, Workplace Representation and Disciplinary Outcomes in British Workplaces — Just a Formality?

Antcliff, Valerie; Saundry, Richard

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2008.00709.x

Cited by 39 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He interprets these findings, inter alia, as evidence of a union voice mechanism. In the UK, Knight and Latreille (2000) and Antcliff and Saundry (2009) observe that union density in a workplace reduces the fraction of employees dismissed, while Booth and Francesconi (2000) find union coverage to lower the dismissal probability of females only. Moreover, Lucifora (1998) reports a negative effect of union density on separations in Italy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade union membership and dismissals

Goerke

Pannenberg

2011

Labour Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. This series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German SocioEconomic Panel Study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (e.g. CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary household panel study covering a wide range of social and behavioral sciences: economics, sociology, psychology, survey methodology, econometrics and applied statistics, educational science, political science, public health, behavioral genetics, demography, geography, and sport science. Terms of use: Documents inThe decision to publish a submission in SOEPpapers is made by a board of editors chosen by the DIW Berlin to represent the wide range of disciplines covered by SOEP. There is no external referee process and papers are either accepted or rejected without revision. Papers appear in this series as works in progress and may also appear elsewhere. They often represent preliminary studies and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be requested from the author directly. AbstractIn Germany, there is no trade union membership wage premium, while the membership fee amounts to 1% of the gross wage. Therefore, prima facie, there are strong incentives to freeride on the benefits of trade unionism. We establish empirical evidence for a private gain from trade union membership which has hitherto not been documented: in West Germany, union members are less likely to lose their jobs than non-members. In particular, using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel we can show that roughly 50% of the observed raw differential in individual dismissal rates can be explained by the estimated average partial effect of union membership.JEL Classification: C 23, H 41, J 51, J 63

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade union membership and dismissals

Goerke

Pannenberg

2011

Labour Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The broader principles of the New Zealand system are similar to those in other jurisdictions such as Australia and the UK (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009;Corby, 2000;Dickens and Hall, 2005;Gibbons 2007). These jurisdictions share a recent history of experimentation with legislation and policy that attempts to promote early resolution, encouraging employers and employees to resolve disputes within the workplace.…”

Section: The Context Of Grievances and Dispute Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…This has explored variables such as grievant, workforce and workplace characteristics (Knight and Latreille, 2000a;Lewin, 1999), stage of settlement (Knight and Latreille, 2000b), representation (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009;McAndrew, 1999), and enterprise size (Saridakis et al, 2008;Woodhams, 2007), yet many areas remain ill-defined (Lewin, 2005). Another long-standing line of research has evolved from Hirschman's (1970) loyalty-voice-exit model (Lewin and Petersen, 1999;Luchak, 2003;Olson-Buchanan and Boswell, 2002).…”

Section: The Context Of Grievances and Dispute Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shulruf et al, 2009). Organisations and governments have sought to improve the effectiveness of grievance procedures and contain the growth of formal claims (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). The measures include promoting ADR methods (Budd and Colvin, 2008;Lipsky et al, 2003), and seeking to introduce low-level, early resolution mechanisms.…”

Section: The Context Of Grievances and Dispute Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What influences the progression of employment rights disputes?

Walker¹,

Hamilton²

2015

Industrial Relations Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study of employment rights disputes in New Zealand accessed all parties to 14 disputes. Despite a legislative requirement to preserve relationships, only three survived. Dispute type, interaction mode and the parties' relative influence affected outcomes. These findings have implications for managers and policy makers regarding alternative dispute resolution systems. IntroductionWhy are some employment rights disputes resolved at a low level while others progress to inevitable termination? This study provides new insights into the progression and resolution of such disputes. As alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems spread through the USA, UK and beyond, there is a dearth of research on how these operate in practice (Ridley-Duff and Bennett, 2011). What little is known comes largely from disputes in unionised and public sector organisations, a line of research dominated by quantitative inquiry that has overlooked the employee perspective (Bennett, 2013). This qualitative study affords detailed insights into the employee experience of disputes.The authors accessed all the parties involved in 14 individual-level employment disputes as they progressed into external mediation in New Zealand, having exhausted all within-organisation efforts to resolve them. The employment relationships were continuing at this point. Although the statutory intent of the Employment Relations Act 2000 is to establish procedures and institutions that support successful employment relationships (s143), only three relationships survived, typical of cases that reach mediation (McAndrew 2010;McAndrew, Moreton and Geare, 2004).Our purpose is to explore the progression of employment rights disputes and not to evaluate the mediation process as such, although we do use data from the mediation 2 events. The interplay of three previously under-emphasised factors: dispute type; interaction mode; and the ability of the employee and their representatives to influence the events, affected how disputes were resolved. These factors should feature in more grounded and dynamic models of grievance disputes.The next section reviews the field to provide the context for our study. We then describe our methodology and the unique data to which we were allowed access. Analysis follows where we derive the key factors of dispute type, interaction mode, and employee influence. The analysis section culminates in a more detailed discussion of one case which gives insight into the relative importance of these factors. We then discuss these findings before concluding the paper with implications for managers and policy makers. The Context of Grievances and Dispute ResolutionIndividual-level disputes 1 between employee and employer are an enduring aspect of human resource management (HRM). While many are resolved informally, an increasing number progress into external resolution procedures such as mediation. While these procedures seek to resolve grievances and preserve employment relationships, many end with termination. Effective resolution processes...

show abstract

“…The tendency to experience the appraisal process as "low quality" appears to increase with age (Brown et al, 2010: 389). On the other hand, older workers -at least under the previous regulations -suffered fewer formal sanctions as a result of disciplinary action (Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). Although an age analysis of PM is yet to be developed, to date it seems that while employers have seen less need to resort to formal procedures in the final phase of working life, such measures may be seen as a prelude to retirement or dismissal.…”

Section: Equality Versus Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (performance) management of retirement and the limits of individual choice

Beck

Williams

2015

Work, Employment and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The removal of the default retirement age in the UK has been broadly welcomed as the disposal of an age-discriminatory measure. It is argued here that a focus on formal equality has been at the expense of a more critical analysis of the employment relations consequences. The central role given to performance measurement allows employers considerable discretion over when employees retire and the scope for bargained outcomes in the new regime is limited. This may be to the detriment of older workers and will have implications for the workforce as a whole. Equality, in other words, may come at the expense of a broader conception of fairness.

show abstract

Accompaniment, Workplace Representation and Disciplinary Outcomes in British Workplaces — Just a Formality?

Cited by 39 publications

References 18 publications

Trade union membership and dismissals

Trade union membership and dismissals

What influences the progression of employment rights disputes?

The (performance) management of retirement and the limits of individual choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About