Corrigendum

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12304
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020

Corrigendum

In the below article, the following text were incorrect

1. In Introduction section “Within country differences are explained at the fir‐

level, by the capacity of shop stewards to engage with the strategic interests

of management (Locke, 1992)”should read as “Within country differences

are explained at the firm‐level, by the capacity of shop stewards to engage with

the strategic interests of management (Locke, 1992)”

2. “The social partners in the two Danish firms the social partners have negoti-

ated on these and also on a further two for which there is no formal provision.”

should read as “In the two Danish firms, the social partners have negotiated on

these and also on a further two for which there is no formal provision.”

3. “Our empirical contribution concerns two intertwined findings. In both Danish

companies, the social partners have gone beyond their formal competency

under demarcation to negotiate on issues on which the sector‐level framework

is silent. Their capacity to do so arises from the power (and legitimacy) that

local actors acquire from depth of bargaining at company level. It follows that

powerful bottom‐up dynamics may produce subsequent adjustments to articu-

lation arrangements, progressively adapting CB institutions to the needs and

the reality of actors on the ground (Marginson and Sisson, 2006; Thelen,

2014). The three‐dimensional operation of unions’organisational resources

(Lévesque and Murray, 2002) sheds light on the different flexibility and

security outcomes at firm level, over and above those that can be attributed

to institutions. While institutions and union power are shown to be comple-

mentary, institutions alone do not fully explain the agenda and outcomes of

company‐level negotiations. Despite pronounced cross country differences—

in both Danish firms, the level of interdependency between local actors is

higher than in the Italian firms, as well as their capacity to regulate issues of

flexibility and security via CB—noticeable variation emerges also within the

countries. This variation corresponds to differences in one or more union

organisational resources: internal democracy, external links and/or

proactivity”should be set as one paragraph.

REFERENCE

Paolucci, V. and P. Marginson (2020), ‘Collective bargaining towards mutual flexibility and se-

curity goals in large internationalised companies —why do institutions (still) matter?’

Industrial Relations Journal,51, 329–350.

Industrial Relations Journal 51:5, 474

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd