Research Paper 4 - Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey Mark Stuart and Andrew Robinson Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change University of Leeds Research paper 4 June 2007

This research paper was commissioned by unionlearn to inform the TUC’s policy development on union involvement in the delivery of learning at the workplace. As such, it is not a statement of TUC policy.

The paper is being disseminated through the TUC’s unionlearn High Road project. The project is part of a community programme called Equal – a European Social Fund initiative that tests and promotes new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequality in the labour market. The GB Equal Support Unit is managed by ECOTEC. Unionlearn is the TUC organisation that supports union-led strategies on learning and skills. It helps unions to open up learning and skills opportunities for their members and also to develop trade union education for their representatives and officers.

About the authors Professor Mark Stuart is Professor of Human Resource Management and Employment Relations and Dr Andrew Robinson is Senior Lecturer Accounting and Finance at the Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, Leeds University Business School.

The contact for correspondence is Professor Mark Stuart, Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, tel: 0113 3432645, email: ms@lubs.leeds.ac.uk

Contents Foreword

2

Abstract

3

Executive summary

4

1. Introduction

5

2. Broad findings from the Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004

6

3. Multivariate analysis of trade unions and training

10

4. Conclusion

19

References

20

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

Foreword This valuable analysis by Leeds University Business School provides empirical evidence of a consistent association between unionised workplaces and higher levels of training in terms of both coverage and duration. Where unions are recognised and negotiate over training, employees are almost 24 per cent more likely to have received some training.

A problem for unions however, is that negotiation over training is a minority activity, with employers exercising management prerogative, even though there has been some improvement in training coverage.

This study finds that there has been a threefold increase in the negotiation of training between 1998 and 2004, albeit from a low base. Another encouraging finding is that the existence of union learning representatives (ULRs) in a workplace often goes side-by-side with higher levels of training.

The benefits of negotiating training are set out in case studies of learning agreements at the workplace in another research report by Leeds University, commissioned by unionlearn . We want to spread this good practice. That is why the TUC is continuing to press for training to be included as a negotiation issue under the union recognition procedure.

This research report is a technical one and will mainly be of interest to academics in the field, but hopefully the headline findings will also be of use to unions when campaigning for the right to negotiate over training.

Liz Smith Director, unionlearn

Wallis, E. and Stuart, M., A Collective Learning Culture: A qualitative study of workplace learning agreements, Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, Leeds University Business School. Unionlearn research paper 3 (June 2007)

1

Abstract This report explores the potential effect of trade unions on training provision in the British workplace.

It does this through an analysis of linked employeremployee data from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS). By disaggregating in terms of different levels of representation, the report shows that union recognition has a consistently positive effect not only on the extent to which employees are provided with training, but also on the amount of training they receive. We show that workplaces are more likely to offer higher levels of employee training (defined as 10 or more days of training per year) when they recognise trade unions, have some form of representative structure and where unions directly negotiate with management over training.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

Executive summary Drawing from the most recent Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004), this report presents a statistical analysis of the relationship between trade union activity and training in the British workplace.

The report finds a consistent association between unionised environments and higher reported levels of training provision.

Broad findings ❙ Training coverage and training incidence both increased between 1998 and 2004. ❙ Reported levels of negotiation increased threefold between 1998 and 2004. Management respondents to the WERS 2004 survey reported that they negotiated with union representatives about the training of employees in 9.2 per cent of cases, compared to 3.3 per cent of cases in 1998. ❙ Union learning representatives (ULRs) were present in 12.1 per cent of establishments where a union representative structure existed. Higher levels of negotiation (13.1 per cent) and consultation (61.4 per cent) over training were reported in ULRrecognised workplaces.

Trade union recognition and training activity ❙ Drawing from the WERS management survey, a ten point scale of employee recognition and representation was constructed and the relationship with different measures of training explored. ❙ Workplaces that had union recognition and structures of trade union representation reported higher levels of training than those that did not. The extent to which some training had taken place for the largest occupational group (LOG) was 14 per cent more likely in workplaces with union recognition and one or more trade union representatives.

❙ This finding was further supported when management responses were combined with those of employees. In union recognised workplaces employees are 8.1 per cent more likely to report receiving training. ❙ ULRs are associated with higher levels of training.

Where there is a ULR present in a recognised workplace, employees are 8 per cent more likely to report having received 2-5 days training. Where a workplace has ULRs, recognition and a representative structure that includes employee representatives, employees are 14.9 per cent more likely to report receiving training, and are 6.7 per cent more likely to report receiving 10 or more days training.

Workplace environment and training activity ❙ Where management report that some bargaining takes place over training but there is no broader recognition agreement, employees are 25.9 per cent more likely to report having received no training. ❙ Multiple unionism, and negotiating arrangements over pay, are generally associated with employees reporting higher levels of training. ❙ The strongest finding exists where there is trade union recognition and direct negotiation with management over training. Where unions are recognised and negotiate over training, employees are 23.9 per cent more likely to report having received some training. There is also an association with higher levels of training, with employees 4.1 per cent more likely to report receiving 10 or more days training.

1. Introduction This short report presents a statistical analysis of the relationship between trade union activity and training in the British workplace. The analysis is based specifically on the dataset of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS) . This survey is the fifth in the WERS series, and represents an authoritative dataset of employment relations in Britain. The dataset includes responses from a management questionnaire (2,295 responses), an employee representatives questionnaire (984) and a questionnaire of employees (22,451) (see Kersley et al. 2006). In what follows we examine the potential role that trade unions can play in shaping both the level of training provided by British employers and the amount of training received by employees. We draw our analysis from the findings of both the management questionnaire (which focuses on the workplace level) and the employee questionnaire (which focuses on the individual level) and combine the two where appropriate.

The potential ‘union effect’ on workplace training provision has been examined in a wide body of previous research. Much of this revealed the positive role that trade unions could play. Specifically, analysis of the previous WERS dataset (conducted in 1998) by Bonheim and Booth (2004) found that levels of training incidence were higher in union recognised workplaces.

The previous WERS survey was conducted during the early days of the first Labour government. Given the more positive climate that has existed for unionled learning since then, most notably in terms of the statutory rights granted to ULRs, it is possible to speculate that any ‘union effect’ would have been sustained.

2

However, an initial analysis of WERS 2004, by Hoque and Bacon (2006:1), suggests that any positive union effect identified in “research based on earlier surveys in the WERS series may have disappeared”. Instead, they found “no relationship between the presence of ULRs and training incidence”.

In this report, we explore the potential union effect on workplace training provision in some depth. Our key concern is to break the analysis down as far as possible to tease out the different dimensions of recognition that may influence training provision and then to explore the specific mechanisms through which unions may leverage training gains.

We find that trade unions still have an important impact on the extent to which training is received by British employees, and the quantity of that training.

Simply put, training incidence is likely to be higher in unionised workplaces.

The report is organised into three sections. We begin by presenting some simple descriptive findings from WERS 2004 on trends in training provision and employee representation between 1998 and 2004.

Secondly, we present a detailed statistical analysis of the relationship between union recognition and training indicators, and of the impact of specific bargaining and employment relations mechanisms.

Thirdly, we draw key conclusions and summarise the constituent elements of a ‘high training workplace’.

Throughout the report we attempt to present our findings in the most accessible, non-technical way.

Readers wishing to find out more about the analytical procedures used in our analysis can contact us directly (see inside front cover for details).

The author acknowledges the Department of Trade and Industry, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the Policy Studies Institute as the originators of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey data, and the Data Archive at the University of Essex as the distributor of the data. The National Centre for Social Research was commissioned to conduct the survey fieldwork on behalf of the sponsors. None of these organisations bears any responsibility for the author’s analysis and interpretations of the data.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

2. Broad findings from WERS 2004 We begin the analysis with findings from the management questionnaire. This focuses on workplace level responses. At an aggregate level, the findings from WERS 2004 show a discernable increase in both the coverage and incidence of training since 1998. The survey was only concerned with specific incidents of ‘off-the-job’ training. To find out training coverage, respondents to the management questionnaire were asked to indicate the proportion of the largest occupational group of experienced employees (LOG) that had been “given time off from normal daily work duties to undertake training over the last 12 months”. In simple terms the question

provided an indicator of whether the organisation had provided any training or not. Management respondents were also asked to indicate the average number of days undertaken by the LOG over the preceding 12 months. The answers were tied to a sixpoint scale, from no days training to 10 days or more.

Table 1 shows the findings on training coverage and duration reported in WERS 1998 and 2004. For 2004, management respondents reported that in 31.3 per cent of cases all the LOG had undertaken some form of ‘off-job training’ during the 12 months prior to the survey. This figure is almost double that reported in the 1998 WERS (16.5 per cent). Similarly, cases of no

Table 1: Training incidence, coverage and type – Management questionnairea WERS 1998

WERS 2004

16.5% 7.2% 6.9% 8.5% 13.0% 21.1% 26.8%

31.3% 7.2% 8.2% 8.2% 12.2% 17.4% 15.6%

28.4% 6.1% 18.0% 28.2% 11.3% 8.1%

17.7% 4.3% 20.9% 30.2% 14.1% 12.8%

Coverage b What proportion of experienced LOG have been given time off from normal daily work duties to undertake training over the last 12 months?

100% 80-99% 60-79% 40-59% 20-39% 1-19% None Incidence b On average how many days of training did experienced LOG undertake over the last 12 months?

No time Less than 1 day 1 to less than 2 days 2 to less than 5 days 5 to less than 10 days 10 days or more

A change in the wording of the training questions in WERS04 means that we should treat such comparisons with caution. That said, the general upward trend in training provision is supported by evidence from the Panel Survey, where the question wording has remained constant (see Kersley et al, 2006: p83-84.). b Based on the respective sub-sample of workplaces from WERS98 and WERS2004 with more than 10 employees. a

training for the LOG had declined from 26.8 per cent (1998) to 15.6 per cent (2004).

The findings on the number of days training received indicate that, in general, there was little change between 1998 and 2004. In the majority of cases, training events lasted less than five days. There was, however, a discernable increase in the extent of higher levels of training and a fall in the number receiving no training. In 2004, 12.8 per cent of respondents reported training provision of more than 10 days for the LOG, compared to 8.1 per cent in 1998, while 17.7 per cent of workplaces reported no training for their LOG, down from 28.4 per cent in 1998.

Turning to the relationship between training, employee representation and voice, it is clear that trade union involvement in training decisions is limited to a minority of workplaces. Respondents were asked to report whether they negotiated, consulted, informed or didn’t inform union or non-union representatives about training. As Table 2 shows, there are some important trends. First, in union-recognised workplaces negotiation over training nearly trebled between 1998 and 2004, an increase from 3.3 per cent to 9.2 per cent. At the same time, the degree of consultation over training dropped from 36.9 per cent to 30.5 per cent.

The extent to which management respondents either informed or didn’t inform union representatives at all over training decisions remained at broadly similar levels in 1998 and 2004.

not inform unions at all with regard to training decisions in just 7.6 per cent of cases. Care must be taken in interpreting these findings: the ULR role is so recent an innovation that it is too early to argue with authority that their presence per se accounts for higher levels of union involvement in training.

Self evidently, ULRs are more likely to be present in establishments with well developed structures of union organisation and, we would argue, a legacy of union involvement with regard to training. The key question is what value ULRs can add over and beyond pre-existing arrangements.

Table 2 also gives some insights into the degree of management engagement with non-union representatives over training matters. Negotiation over training in such environments is very uncommon and actually fell between 1998 and 2004. However, so too did the extent to which no information was provided.

The most marked trend in workplaces with non-union representatives is the large increase in consultation and information sharing over training.

While it is clear that levels of union involvement over training provision are relatively low as a proportion of all British establishments, this tells us nothing about the actual impact, or effect, that trade union involvement can have on the experiences of training for those in work.

WERS 2004 provides the first national data on the extent to which union learning representatives (ULRs) are taking root in the British workplace (see Wallis et al, 2005, for a wider study on ULRs). As Table 2 shows, ULRs were reported in just over 12 per cent of union recognised workplaces. Where ULRs are present, the extent of employee representation with regard to training appears to be far higher.

Negotiation over training was reported in 13.1 per cent of cases, and consultation in 61.4 per cent of cases.

ULR active workplaces are the most likely overall to be classified as employee-involved workplaces.

In such establishments, management chose to

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

Table 2: Training, representation and voice – Management questionnaire WERS 1998 Union learning representatives Among all of the union representatives at this establishment, are there any who have specific responsibility for promoting learning at this workplace? a

WERS 2004

-

12.1%

3.3% 36.9% 23.9% 35.8%

9.2% 30.5% 24.3% 36.0%

Negotiates Consults Informs Not inform

-

13.1% 61.4% 17.9% 7.6%

Negotiates Consults Informs Not inform

3.2% 38.0% 21.6% 37.3%

1.7% 50.9% 32.9% 14.5%

Voice How does management deal with union representatives about the training of employees? a,c Negotiates Consults Informs Not inform In workplaces with a union learning representative, how does management deal with union representatives about the training of employees? a

How does management deal with non-union representatives about the training of employees? b

based on the respective sub-sample of workplaces with 10 or more employees from WERS98 and WERS2004 who report having one or more recognised unions. b based on the respective sub-sample of workplaces from WERS98 and WERS2004 who report having non-union representation in workplaces with more than 10 employees. c WERS98 uses a more restrictive measure of union recognition confining itself to unions with at least some members at the workplace. WERS04 adopts a slightly broader measure including recognised workplaces that have no union members (see Kersley et al. 2006: p120). For this comparison, the different measures do not materially affect the outcome. a

Table 3 presents an initial cross-tabulation between union recognition and training incidence for the LOG in workplaces during the 12 months prior to WERS 2004. The findings show a clear and statistically significant difference between the levels of training incidence in recognised and non-recognised workplaces. These effects are most marked among higher training workplaces (those providing 10 days or more training) and, at the other extreme, no training at all. Thus, where a trade union is not recognised, 22.87 per cent of management respondents reported that no time had been spent on training, compared to just 5.86 per cent with their union recognised counterparts.

If we look at training patterns in recognised workplaces only, the presence of ULRs is associated with higher levels of training, although this does not prove to be statistically significant. A training incidence of

10 days or more was reported by nearly 22 per cent of management respondents in ULR recognised workplaces, compared to just over 11 per cent where unions are recognised but ULRs are not present. At the other end of the training scale, it is noticeable that union recognised workplaces, whether they involve a ULR or not, are unlikely to provide workers with low levels of training provision.

These findings are suggestive of a ‘trade union effect’ on training incidence. In what follows, we argue that it is important to disaggregate what we understand by representation to discern at what level – if any – trade unions may affect training outcomes. Our argument is that it is consistently the case that establishments with recognised unions are likely to report higher levels of training provision than a benchmark workplace with no employee representation over training.

Table 3: Unions and training incidence – Management questionnaire If training provided, on average how many days of training did experienced LOG undertake over the last 12 months?

Do you have a recognised union with members at this workplace?a (F = 10.06** n=1902)

Is there a trade union learning representative at this workplace?b (F = 1.32 n = 699)

No time

Less than 1 day

1 to less than 2 days

2 to less than 5 days

5 to less than 10 days

10 days or more

Total

Yes

5.86%

3.78%

18.18%

37.56%

18.38%

16.23%

29.35%

No

22.87%

4.32%

22.04%

27.36%

12.13%

11.28%

70.65%

Yes

3.44%

1.31%

18.28%

30.32%

24.97%

21.68%

12.25%

No

3.45%

4.56%

20.71%

42.03%

17.89%

11.36%

87.75%

based on the sub-sample of workplaces with 10 or more employees. based on the sub-sample of workplaces with 10 or more employees who report having one or more recognised union. ** statistically significant at the 95 per cent level. Figures indicate that 29.35% of the respective sample of workplaces have at least one recognised union, and of this figure 16.23% of these workplaces give 10 days or more training to their LOG, 18.38% of workplaces give 5-10 days of training etc. a

b

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

3. Multivariate analysis of trade unions and training 3.1 Terminology The following analysis presents a more systematic statistical analysis of the data. The scale of the WERS dataset allows analysis to be cut in many ways. It is important to recognise up front that this can allow seemingly similar analyses to reveal very different results. It is therefore important that the measures chosen are underpinned by a grounded knowledge of the issues under investigation. For our analysis, it is necessary to define what we actually understand by a union environment and the various forms of representation that may exist.

Firstly, we must delineate as wide a range of measures of employee representation as the survey allows.

We believe this reveals results that more aggregated measures cannot. To do this, we first split workplaces into those that were union recognised and those that were not. Then we looked at the form of representation within these workplaces. Our measures allow us to consider the role not just of union representatives, but also non-union representatives. We can further distinguish between a ‘traditional’ union representative and a union learning representative.

This gives the following ten categories.

Non-recognised workplaces 1. norec_noreps – Workplace with no union recognition and no employee representatives (this covers approximately 42 per cent of employees. It is the group that all other measures in our analysis are benchmarked against. It is referred to as the ‘omitted group’ and is not reported in our tables).

2. norec_nureps – Workplace with no union recognition, but where there is one or more nonunion representatives.

3. norec_tureps – Workplace with no union recognition, but where there is one or more trade union representative.

4. n orec_bothreps – Workplace with no union recognition, but where there are both union and non-union representatives.

10

Recognised workplaces 5. rec_noreps – Workplace with union recognition, but no employee representatives.

6. rec_nureps – Workplace with union recognition and one or more non-union representatives.

7. rec_turep – Workplace with union recognition and one or more trade union representatives.

8. rec_bothreps – Workplace with union recognition and both a union and non-union representative.

9. rec_ulr – Workplace with union recognition and a union learning representative among its union representatives.

10. r ec_ulrboth – Workplace with union recognition, and non-union representatives, and a ULR amongst its union representatives.

Second, in terms of training, we again use measures related to coverage and incidence, but we report findings from both the management and employee datasets. Where different composite measures of coverage and incidence are extrapolated we explain how this is done.

3.2 Trade union recognition and training activity We begin our investigation using the management questionnaire by looking at the simple relationship between workplace recognition and training provision. Management respondents were asked, as we explain above, to specify what proportion of the largest occupational group (LOG) received training.

We simplified this by asking whether the LOG had received training or not as a yes/no question. This means that there are two groups – those who have received some training (‘all who receive training’) and those who have received none. We calculate the significance of this for trade union recognition, and then disaggregate by our multiple measures of union recognition.

As Table 4 shows, at their most basic our results indicate that union-recognised workplaces are 7 per cent more likely to undertake some form of training than non-recognised workplaces. Further, disaggregating this effect according to our different measures of employee representation reveals that this effect is particularly associated with the presence of union representatives. In this instance, the likelihood of training at workplaces with union recognition and a union representative is 14 per cent higher than at our benchmarked workplace exhibiting no recognition and no representation.

In other words, workplaces that have union recognition and a structure of trade union representatives have higher levels of training than those that do not.

The findings can be probed still further by refining the training measure so that it focuses on what can be termed ‘high training workplaces’. This focuses our attention on workplaces where the majority of the largest occupational group (more than 60 per cent ) receive training and on the actual amount (incidence)

of this training. Table 4 shows that general trade union recognition is associated with a 4.5 per cent increase in the likelihood of receiving 2 to 5 days training, a 2.5 per cent increase in the probability of receiving 5 to 10 days training, and an increased probability of 1.8 per cent of receiving 10 or more days training.

Similar patterns are evident when we look at the different forms of employee representation. Nonrecognised forms of representation are not associated with any higher probability of receiving training even at the lower levels of training. Conversely, the positive ‘effects’ are concentrated solely among recognised forms of employee representation, notably where union representatives but not non-union representatives are present. It is also noteworthy that the presence of ULRs is associated with an increased likelihood of receiving 2-5 days training by 8.7 per cent and 1 to 2 days training by 1.3 per cent.

In other words, workplaces that recognise unions are more likely to report higher levels of training incidence.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

11

Table 4: Employee representation and training of the largest occupational group (Management questionnaire) All who receive traininga

Majority receive trainingb No Training for Majority

tu-recognition

7.0%c

Less than 1-2 days 1 day

-10.1%

0.1%

2-5 days

5-10 days

More than 10 days

1.2%

4.5%

2.5%

1.8%

1.2% 1.1% 1.3%

5.1%

3.0%

norec_nureps norec_tureps norec_bothreps rec_noreps rec_nureps rec_turep rec_repboth rec_ulr rec_ulrboth

0.1% 14.0%

-11.8% -22.0%

0.1% 0.1%

8.7%

Estimated using a probit specification.

Estimated using an ordered probit specification. c Statistically significant at the 10% level a

b

Methodological note: ❙ All models are based on a weighted sample of 1,963 workplaces with 5 or more employees taken from the Management Questionnaire of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey . ❙ All models control for a range of factors in addition to the union measure which might independently be expected to influence the level of workplace training. These include the skills composition of the workforce; the age profile of the workforce; the proportion of the workforce who are female; the proportion of the workforce who work on a part-time basis, the presence of an equal opportunities policy covering equality of treatment or discrimination; the extent of which individuals in the largest occupational group (LOG) have variety in their work; the extent of which individuals in the LOG have discretion over how they do their work; the proportion of the LOG who are trained to do jobs other than their own; the proportion of the LOG who work in formally designated teams; workplace size, organisational size and sectoral controls.

12

❙ In general, the estimated parameters from nonlinear models such as probit and ordered probit do not provide directly useful information for understanding the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable. In order to address this problem we report what are called ‘marginal effects’ in table 4.

Marginal effects measure the change in the dependent variable as one independent variable changes (holding all the other variables constant). For example in our analysis, as the variable measuring trade union recognition changes from 0 (denoting workplaces which are not recognised) to 1 (denoting recognised workplaces), the probability of receiving any training increases by 7.0%. In other words workers in recognised workplaces are 7.0% more likely to receive training than those in workplaces which are not recognised. ❙ Only those marginal effects which are statistically significant at the 95% level of significance are reported in Table 4 unless otherwise stated.

So far we have only analysed the responses of respondents to the WERS 2004 Management Questionnaire. For the next stage of our analysis we combined the management dataset, which captures the union base data (i.e. levels of union recognition), with the dataset of employee responses. The employee dataset allows us to explore individual responses in relation to training incidence. This is a common procedure in previous

analyses of the WERS datasets. As with the management questionnaire, we measure training in two ways: firstly and most straightforwardly, we ask whether an employee has received any training at all (respondents were asked to indicate “yes/no” whether they had received training), secondly we look at the actual amount of training they received, using the same six point incidence scale as in the management questionnaire.

Table 5: Employee representation and individual employee training incidence (Management and employee questionnaire) All who receive traininga

tu-recognition

Training incidenceb No Training

Less than 1 day

1-2 days

2-5 days

5-10 days

More than 10 days

8.1%

-6.4%

-0.3%

0.4%

2.5%

1.9%

1.9%

8.6%

-6.5%

0.3%

2.5%

2.0%

2.1%

14.9%

-15.3%

5.2%

5.2%

6.7%

nrec_nureps nrec_tureps nrec_bothreps rec_noreps rec_nureps rec_turep rec_repboth rec_ulr rec_ulrboth a b

-1.5%

Estimated using a probit specification.

Estimated using an ordered probit specification.

Methodological notes ❙ All models are based on a weighted sample of 18,544 individuals taken from the Survey of Employees Questionnaire of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey . ❙ All models control for a range of factors in addition to the union measures which might independently be expected to influence the level of training received by individuals.

These include age; gender; occupation; tenure; academic qualifications; vocational qualifications; ethnicity;

temporary contract, fixed term contract; workplace size, organisational size, the proportion of the workforce who are female; the proportion of the workforce who work on a part-time basis and sectoral controls. ❙ The figures reported in table 5 are marginal effects (see footnote to table 4 for explanation of marginal effects).

Only those marginal effects which are statistically significant at the 95% level of significance are reported.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

13

The findings presented in Table 5 largely support and build upon the findings outlined previously. They reveal that when we take a simple aggregate measure, employees based at union recognised workplaces are 8.1 per cent more likely to receive some form of training than those at workplaces with no levels of representation at all. In other words, in union recognised workplaces employees are more likely to report receiving training.

When we disaggregate by levels of employee representation, we uncover two significant relationships. We find a positive and significant relationship between the receipt of training provision, firstly, in workplaces with recognised unions but no employee representatives and, secondly, in workplaces with recognised unions and both a ULR and non-union representation. Most significantly, the latter is associated with an increased probability of receiving training by nearly 15 per cent, while the former is linked to a more conservative 8.6 per cent increase in the probability of receiving some training.

The robustness of these findings is confirmed when we investigate the duration of training that workers receive. The distinction between recognised and non-recognised workplaces reveals an increased probability of receiving higher levels of training (2.5 per cent, 1.9 per cent and 1.9 per cent for the highest level of training) in union recognised workplaces, alongside a lower likelihood (6.4 per cent) of receiving no training at all.

The potential of ULRs (in a broader representative setting) to increase the coverage of training is further highlighted. The presence of a ULR in the workplace is associated with an increased likelihood of 5.2 per cent of receiving 2 to 5 days training, an increased probability (5.2 per cent) of receiving 5 to 10 days training, and a 6.7 per cent increase in the odds of receiving the highest amounts of training (more than 10 days).

14

3.3 Workplace environment and training activity The findings presented so far reveal that, to varying degrees, a relationship exists between a trade union presence and training provision in the workplace.

These findings are highly suggestive of the benefits of unionisation although they tell us little about the mechanisms by which unions may leverage more positive outcomes in the workplace.

To offer some initial insights we explored the relationship between collective bargaining processes and employer provided training (see Table 6).

The first three measures capture whether in a recognised setting an individual employee’s occupational group has its pay determined by collective bargaining. Previous research has found that the existence of collective bargaining machinery over pay has an indirect effect on levels of workplace training provision.

Levels of bargaining are considered in terms of whether there is multi-employer, single employer or workplace bargaining. The fourth variable measures those employee respondents working at establishments without a recognised union but where management nonetheless reported that pay for their occupational group was determined by some form of collective bargaining. The final category depicts individuals whose pay is determined by some method other than collective bargaining. This is the omitted reference group.

None of the three measures of collective bargaining in recognised workplaces are found to have a statistically significant positive effect on the extent of training received by employees. In unrecognised workplaces, however, the extent to which employees can leverage gains, without broader recognition, would seem to be limited. A statistically significant negative association is uncovered, indicating that in establishments where ‘bargaining’ takes place without a recognised union, employees are likely to receive lower levels of training.

In such workplaces, employees are 27.4 per cent less likely to report receiving training.

The findings in Table 6 only give an indication of the hierarchy of bargaining; they do not reveal much about the actual form of bargaining, or the degree of ‘formality’ associated with union recognition. This is explored in more detail in Table 7.

The first two measures explore a situation where there is just one union recognised in the workplace, and considers the effect of a formal agreement. A formal recognition agreement has no significant association with whether employees receive training. However, where union recognition is not covered by a formal agreement as such, but where it has instead evolved informally, levels of training provision are some 9.4 per cent higher. This finding may seem confusing, since the existence of a formal agreement can play

an important role in codifying employee rights and expectations with regard to access to training. This issue has been debated fairly extensively in recent academic literature around the signature of new style partnership agreements. In many respects too much emphasis has been placed on the significance of ‘formal’ agreements, given the ‘voluntarist’ nature of the British employment relations system. Far more important, as the work of Oxenbridge and Brown (2005) shows, is the legacy of employment relations developed within particular settings, the traditions of bargaining that evolve and the degree of management support for trade unions. The key point is often established and robust union recognition.

Table 6: Collective bargaining institutions and individual employee training incidence (Management/employee questionnaire) Any training receiveda

Training incidenceb No Training

Less than 1 day

1-2 days

2-5 days

5-10 days

More than 10 days

-10.5%

-5.6%

-4.3%

Multi-employer collective bargaining Single employer Workplace No recognition agreement, but some collective bargaining a b

0.2% -27.4%

25.9%

Estimated using a probit specification.

Estimated using an ordered probit specification.

Methodological notes ❙ All models are based on a weighted sample of 18,958 individuals taken from the Survey of Employees Questionnaire of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey .

❙ Control variables as listed in table 5. ❙ The figures reported in table 6 are marginal effects (see footnote to table 4 for explanation of marginal effects).

Only those marginal effects which are statistically significant at the 95% level of significance are reported.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

15

Table 7: Formality, multiple unionism and individual employee training incidence (Management/employee questionnaire) Any training received a

Training incidence b No Training

One recognised union with a ‘formal’ agreement

a b

Less than 1 day

1-2 days

2-5 days

5-10 days

More than 10 days

2.8%

0.2%

One recognised union not covered by a ‘formal’ agreement, but where ‘recognition’ has evolved informally

9.4%

-8.3%

0.3%

3.1%

2.5%

Joint negotiation of multiple unions

7.5%

-5.2%

0.3%

2.0%

1.5%

Separate negotiation of multiple unions

8.4%

Separate group negotiation, where at least two recognised unions negotiate over pay

9.9%

0.3%

Estimated using a probit specification.

Estimated using an ordered probit specification.

Methodological notes ❙ All models are based on a weighted sample of 18,291 individuals taken from the Survey of Employees ❙ Questionnaire of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey.

16

❙ Control variables as listed in table 5. ❙ The figures reported in table 7 are marginal effects (see footnote to table 4 for explanation of marginal effects).

Only those marginal effects which are statistically significant at the 95% level of significance are reported.

Table 7 also explores the relationship between multi-unionism, pay negotiation and training provision. The findings show that where multiple unions exist at a workplace, employees are more likely to report receiving training, irrespective of the form that negotiations take.

When it comes to looking at the level of training incidence two arrangements stand out as being statistically significant: informal ‘recognition’ in a single-union setting and joint negotiation over pay in a multi-union setting. Thus where a single union is present and has an informal agreement, employees are 2.8 per cent more likely to report receiving 10 days or more training and where multiple unions jointly negotiate over pay, employees are 1.5 per cent more likely to report receiving between 5 and 10 days training and 5.2 per cent less likely to report receiving no days training.

These findings give us some insights into the nature of bargaining arrangements and their potential effects on training provision. There are more likely to be negotiations over pay than over any other issue in the British workplace. It is reasonable to assume that pay arrangements and salary scales could influence an organisation’s training policy and practices: to the extent that they may correlate with workforce expertise, skills and qualifications. Any relationship, however, would be indirect (Bonheim and Booth, 2004).

It is also the case that in many cases unions have sought to position the training and learning agenda as a separate bargaining issue from pay. One rationale for this is that the distributional nature of remuneration is more conflictual, while training matters can be advanced as more integrative and consensual. To this end, unions may be more effective in advancing training matters through distinct channels of negotiation and partnership with employees (see Munro and Rainbird, 2004).

It is also the case that the ability of union, ULRs and other forms of employee representation to influence the training agenda is likely to be most effective where managers are willing to directly negotiate over training. To demonstrate this we can look at how the effectiveness of union based arrangements is influenced by the willingness of management to negotiate, consult or inform over training (the omitted reference category in this instance is for management which does not involve unions at all in training matters). The results of this analysis are reported in Table 8.

Only where management are willing to negotiate over training do we find any statistically significant findings: management’s willingness to consult or merely inform union representatives over training has no discernible impact on the likelihood of receiving training.

The co-existence of union recognition alongside negotiations with management over training is associated with an increased probability of receiving training by nearly 24 per cent, the largest increase we have found in this analysis. Further evidence of the strength of this effect is revealed when looking at the amount of training received by workers; the mix of union recognition and voice is associated with an increased probability of employees receiving 2 to 5 days training by 7.6 per cent, 5 to 10 days training by 4.6 per cent and more than 10 days training by 4.1 per cent.

Finally, it is worth noting that the degree of management support for trade unions is an important variable in determining training outcomes. Where management viewed trade unions in a favourable light reported levels of training were higher. Further, where management actively encouraged employees to be members of a trade union, employees reported receiving far higher levels of training.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

17

Table 8: Employee representation and negotiation over training by individual employee training incidence (Management/employee questionnaire) All who receive traininga

Training incidenceb No Training

a b

Less than 1 day

1-2 days

2-5 days

5-10 days

More than 10 days

7.6%

4.6%

4.1%

TU-recognition and management negotiate over training

23.9%

-19.1%

TU-recognition and management consult over training

None

-

-

-

-

-

-

TU-recognition and management inform over training

None

-

-

-

-

-

-

Estimated using a probit specification.

Estimated using an ordered probit specification.

Methodological notes â?™ All models are based on a weighted sample of 18,795 individuals taken from the Survey of Employees Questionnaire of the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey.

18

â?™ Control variables as listed in Table 5. â?™ The figures reported in Table 8 are marginal effects (see footnote to Table 4 for explanation of marginal effects).

Only those marginal effects which are statistically significant at the 95% level of significance are reported.

4. Conclusion This brief report has explored, drawing on the latest authoritative WERS dataset, the relationship between trade union representation and training activity in the British workplace. The analysis reveals positive findings for the trade union movement. In simple terms, union recognition makes a difference in terms of the extent to which employees’ receive training, or not, and the amount of training that is received.

Clearly, more depth can be added to our analysis. We have not for the purposes of this report disaggregated our findings by gender or occupational class. Nor have we distinguished between public and private sector workplaces, although further tests suggest discernable recognition effects in both sectors. These are all areas for further investigation.

If we extrapolate from our findings the key indicators of activity at what we have labelled ‘high training workplaces’ – where employees receive 10 or more days training a year – three are of obvious interest to the union movement. First, high training workplaces are union recognised workplaces. Second, they tend to have some sort of representational structure, be that a traditional union representative or, perhaps of more interest given recent union innovation, a trade union learning representative. Third, in addition to recognition, management directly negotiate over training matters.

It is also important to recognise that the crosssectional nature of the dataset (it is taken from a single year) does not allow us to make any claims of causality: rather, we reveal strong associations between unionisation and training outcomes.

Nonetheless, the findings presented here suggest grounds for optimism for increased trade union interest and involvement in the spheres of training and learning. But more than that, the findings show the potential benefits that British workers can accrue from direct negotiation between unions and management over training.

Training, union recognition and collective bargaining

19

References Bonheim, R. and Booth, A.L. (2004) ‘Trade union presence and employer-provided training in Great Britain’, Industrial Relations, 43(3): 520-545 Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2006) ‘Trade union recognition, union learning representatives and training incidence in Britain’, paper presented at British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) 56th Annual Conference.

University of Galway. 28th-30th June Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S. (2006) Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Series. Abingdon: Routledge Munro, A. and Rainbird, H. (2004) ‘Opening doors as well as banging on tables: UNISON/employer partnerships on learning in the UK public sector’, Industrial Relations Journal. 35(5): 419-433 Oxenbridge, S. and Brown, W. (2005) ‘Developing Partnership Relationships: case of leveraging power’ in M. Stuart and M. Martinez Lucio (eds.)

Partnership and Modernisation in Employment Relations London: Routledge Wallis, E., Stuart, M. and Greenwood, I. (2005) ‘“Learners of the workplace unite!” An empirical examination of the trade union learning representative initiative”’, Work, Employment and Society, 19(2): 283-304

20

Published by unionlearn Congress House London WC1B 3LS Tel 020 7079 6920 Fax 020 7079 6921 www.unionlearn.org.uk June 2007 Designed by Rumba Printed on recycled paper containing 70% post-consumer waste by Wyndeham Gait Cover photo: Mark Thompson