Conceptualising the dynamics of employee information and consultation: evidence from the Republic of Ireland

• Date: 01 September 2006
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2338.2006.00417.x
• Author: Tony Dundon,Paul Ryan,Maureen Maloney,Deirdre Curran
• Published date: 01 September 2006

© 2006 The Author(s)

Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Rd, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and Main St., Malden,

MA 02148, USA.

Industrial Relations Journal

37:5, 492– 512

ISSN 0019-8692

Blackwell

Publishing

LtdOxford

,

UKIRJIndustrial

Relations

Journal0019

-

8692Blackwell

Publishing

Ltd

,

20062006375492512Original

Article

C

oncep

t

ua

li

s

i

ng

th

e

d

ynam

i

cs o

f

i

n

f

orma

ti

on an

d

consu

lt

a

ti

on

T

ony

D

un

d

on e

t

a

l

.

❒

Tony Dundon and Paul Ryan are project leaders in the Centre for Innovation and Structural Change

(CISC), Department of Management, National University of Ireland, Galway. Deirdre Curran and Mau-

reen Maloney are at the Department of Management, National University of Ireland, Galway. Correspon-

dence should be addressed to Tony Dundon, Department of Management, National University of Ireland,

Galway; email: tony.dundon@nuigalway.ie

Conceptualising the dynamics of employee

information and consultation: evidence from

the Republic of Ireland

Tony Dundon, Deirdre Curran, Paul Ryan and

Maureen Maloney

ABSTRACT

The debate concerning the emerging regulatory environment for employee voice con-

tinues apace, in particular the requirements to inform and consult employees as a

result of the European Employee Information and Consultation Directive. This article

examines the processes used to inform and consult employees across 15 case studies

in the Republic of Ireland. It evaluates different voice arrangements using a conceptual

framework that seeks to capture the dynamics of different employee voice schemes

across union and non-union companies. The findings suggest that participation is

more robust when the channels for information and consultation accommodate both

conflictual and cooperative processes. It is shown that robust forms of participation

are more likely through processes that facilitate independent representation. The

evidence also shows that some employers may devise their own counterbalancing

forms of (pseudo) consultation, in an attempt to minimise the impact of regulatory

rights for employee voice.

INTRODUCTION

Employee voice has remained an enduring theme in industrial relations theory and

practice. Different phases have witnessed competing voice mechanisms. At times

individualistic involvement schemes, primarily designed to enhance business perfor-

mance, have replaced earlier initiatives designed to promote industrial democracy and

collective bargaining (Marchington

et al

., 1992; Murphy and Roche, 1997). Since the

mid-1980s, collective (indirect) and individual (direct) mechanisms have sat alongside

each other with both complementary and conflictual outcomes, largely as a result of

public policy directed from a European level (Gunnigle

et al

., 2002b; Marchington

et al

., 1992).

Consequently, there is considerable diversity to the mix of variables that determine

employee voice strategies. Government regulation, managerial attitudes, employee

Conceptualising the dynamics of information and consultation 493

© 2006 The Author(s)

Journal compilation © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006

expectations, union demands and business pressures all constitute important influ-

ences in the determination of employee voice options. For example, organisations may

choose to inform and/or consult with their employees for different reasons, ranging

from a corporate belief that certain human resource (HR) practices will lead to better

performance, because of union recognition and influence, or as an attempt to get

employees to accept change during times of economic turbulence (Ramsey, 1997).

Management tend to welcome employee participation if it contributes to the goals of

efficiency, profitability and competitiveness (Marchington

et al

., 2001). Looked at from

the trade union point of view, the rationale is that people have the ‘right’ to a voice

in decisions that affect their working lives, and that effective employee voice addresses

the imbalance of power inherent in the employment relationship (Towers, 1997).

Arguably, regulation in the form of the European Information and Consultation

Directive (2002) may provide new opportunities for employees to exercise a construc-

tive influence over the future direction of the organisation for which they work,

contributing in some measure to a range of issues that are normally ring-fenced by

managerial prerogative (Gollan, 2002; Sisson, 2002). However, it cannot be assumed

that regulation-driven systems of employee information and consultation will result

in a realignment of decision-making power. For example, union certification legisla-

tion in the US (Logan, 2001), UK (Gall, 2004; Wood and Godard, 1999) and Ireland

(D’Art and Turner, 2005) has led some employers to thwart union recognition. As

D’Art and Turner (2005: 135) argue in the Irish context, the legitimacy accorded to

non-unionism encourages employers to resist unionisation while remaining ‘free rider’

recipients of national partnership agreements. Potentially, information and consulta-

tion regulations could result in employer-dominated partnerships in unionised firms,

and a reliance on direct communication mechanisms that are ‘soft on power’ in non-

union firms.

Like partnership, there is no consensus definition of employee voice, and numerous

terms are used to describe the range of mechanisms by which employees may or may

not ‘have a say’ in matters that affect them at work (Dundon

et al

., 2004). Terms such

as industrial democracy, partnership, empowerment and involvement are peppered

throughout the literature on employee voice, often with ambiguous and contradictory

meanings, depending on particular organisational contexts and theoretical perspec-

tives (Ackers and Payne, 1998; Marchington, 2004). At a general level,

employee voice

is a term that refers to the processes by which employees are able to contribute to or

influence managerial decisions, either directly or indirectly through their representa-

tives (Boxall and Purcell, 2003).

Information

is a central component of employee voice,

although often restricted to management communicating information to employees

(or their representatives). In contrast,

consultation

tends to be understood as more

extensive and predicated on the notion of exchanging views and engaging in dialogue

between management and employees (or their representatives). However, consultation

is very different from

collective bargaining

, and the mix of various schemes that fall

under the rubric ‘employee voice’ can provoke very different and contradictory inter-

pretations (Dundon

et al

., 2004). For example, it is unclear from survey data in what

sense a particular organisation is using partnership, or relying more on direct than

indirect voice arrangements (Marchington, 2004). Differences can be further compli-

cated, depending on the presence or absence of a trade union. Some non-union

companies prefer the terms ‘empowerment’ or ‘communications’, even when they

utilise representative forums for consultation, such as non-union works councils (Dun-

don and Rollinson, 2004; Gollan, 2002). Furthermore, the extrapolation of trends and