Collectivism and the Management of Industrial Relations In Greenfield Sites

Abstract

Patrick Gunnigle examines management approaches to industrial relations in newly established (‘greenfield’) companies in the Republic of Ireland. He focuses particularly on recent empirical findings on trade union density and recognition and on the role of employer organisations. the evidence presented points to newly emergent patterns of industrial relations management which diverge from the pluralist model. However, in only a minority of cases could these be classified as ‘soft’ human resource management. Indeed a number of organisations studied adopted industrial relations styles which more closely approximated to ‘hard’ HRM. It would appear that the emerging pattern is one of higher individualism and constrained collectivism. the findings also point to the emergence of a vibrant non‐union sector among greenfield companies. It is argued that this trend is likely to be accentuated by the increasing number of companies successfully pursuing the non‐union route. Equally, the current national industrial policy focus on high technology industries and internationally traded services is also likely to reinforce growth in the non‐union sector. A number of factors which may help to arrest this trend are identified, particularly the corporatist structures characteristic of Irish industrial relations and the traditional acceptance of trade unions as legitimate bargaining partners.

Between Boston and Berlin: American MNCs and the shifting contours of industrial relations in Ireland

“…This is illustrative of broader trends in the US MNC sector more generally. In this regard our cases confirm the growing incidence of the establishment of US subsidiaries in Ireland on a non-union basis (see also, Gunnigle, 1995;Roche, 2001) Act. Nonetheless the union movement have continued to press their agenda with regard to statutory recognition legislation and are likely to continue to do so in the context of declining union recognition.…”

“…Although trade unions initially struggled to gain acceptance in Ireland they had gained a foothold in many key industries by the early 1900s. Hence for over a century IR in Ireland has been characterised by a strong collectivist orientation reflected in reasonably high levels of union density and a reliance on adversarial collective bargaining (Gunnigle and Morley, 1993;Gunnigle, 1995;Roche, 2001). While a detailed discussion of the IR system is beyond the scope of this paper, we draw on von Prondznski (1998) whose review of the main tenets of the Irish IR system concluded that these could be characterised thus:…”

“…voluntaristic: it relies on the voluntary commitment of the participants to implement agreements achieved through the bargaining process (Teague, 2005;Wallace, 2003); antagonistic: it is underpinned by an acknowledgement of pluralist conflicts of interest inherent in the system reflected in a the prevalence of collective bargaining, a core tenet of pluralism, as a means of regulating the employment relationship (Gunnigle 1995;Roche, 2001); centralised: for most of the period since 1970 collective bargaining has tended to be dealt in a centralised fashion, reflected in national level agreements on pay and other aspects of economic and social policy (Roche, 2001;Wallace, 2003); non-participative: given that there has been little evidence of formalised workplace participation schemes, leading Roche (1995) to describe the Irish partnership model as truncated reflecting the lack of diffusion of same to the enterprise level; non-flexible reflecting the traditionally high levels of restrictive practices such as highly specified job descriptions and rigid demarcation lines; institutionalised: reflecting the reliance on third-party institutions in assisting the resolution of IR disputes (Teague, 2005). To these we add collectivist, springing from the legitimacy and influence of trade unions in Irish society, the relative importance of collective bargaining, high levels of trade union density and recognition and the historical absence of a strong anti-union agenda (Roche and Ashmore, 2002).…”

Subtle but deadly? union avoidance through “double breasting” among multinational companies

“…In Ireland, several studies have highlighted the marked increase in trade union avoidance, particularly among American MNCs establishing at greenfield facilities (cf. Gunnigle, 1995, Gunnigle et al, 1997Geary & Roche, 2001;Lavelle, 2008).…”

Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy?

“…This has involved granting legitimacy to "greenfield" sites, which permit firms to decide their preferred form of industrial relations (Gunnigle et al, 2001). Significantly for our study, research has indicated that it is particularly US MNEs that have used this latitude to implement US-style personnel policies (Gunnigle et al, 1997). …”