IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbr/cbrwps/wp199.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Limits of Statutory Trade Union Recognition

Author

Listed:
  • Brown, W
  • Hudson, M
  • Deakin, S
  • Pratten, C

Abstract

The paper assesses the prospects for Britain's new statutory trade union recognition procedure in the light of empirical evidence concerning union derecognition practice in the 1990s. It draws on 15 cases of union derecognition across a broad spread of employment, matched with comparable cases where recognition was retained. It is shown that in practice, the line between recognition and non-recognition was extremely blurred. A move towards more cooperative workplace arrangements, associated with a 'partnership' model of industrial relations, was common to employers in both categories. As part of this process, the traditional distinction between negotiation and consultation was breaking down. Against this background, we argue that it is far from clear that the current legislative strategy, in focusing on statutory recognition, is the best way of promoting partnership at work.

Suggested Citation

  • Brown, W & Hudson, M & Deakin, S & Pratten, C, 2001. "The Limits of Statutory Trade Union Recognition," Working Papers wp199, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
  • Handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp199
    Note: PRO-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp199.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Brown & Simon Deakin & David Nash & Sarah Oxenbridge, 2000. "The Employment Contract: From Collective Procedures to Individual Rights," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 611-629, December.
    2. Disney, Richard & Gosling, Amanda & Machin, Stephen, 1996. "What Has Happened to Union Recognition in Britain?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 63(249), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. S Oxenbridge & S Deakin & W Brown & C Pratten, 2001. "Collective Employee Representation and the Impact of Law: Initial Response to the Employment Relations Act 1999," Working Papers wp206, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    2. Blanden, Jo & Machin, Stephen & Van Reenen, John, 2005. "New survey evidence on recent changes in UK union recognition," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 768, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Zagelmeyer, Stefan, 2003. "Die Entwicklung kollektiver Verhandlungen in Gro├čbritannien: ein historischer ├ťberblick," Discussion Papers 17, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Labour and Regional Economics.
    4. William Brown & Paul Ryan, 2003. "The Irrelevance of Trade union Recognition? A Comparison of Two Matched Companies," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 6(3), pages 383-408, September.
    5. Suzanne Konzelmann & Frank Wilkinson & Maria Hudson, 2002. "Partnership in Practice," Working Papers wp239, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    trade union recognition; collective bargaining; employment contracts; labour law.;

    JEL classification:

    • J53 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Labor-Management Relations; Industrial Jurisprudence
    • K31 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Labor Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ruth Newman and Georgie Cohen). General contact details of provider: http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.