British employer resistance to trade union recognition

Abstract

Following the introduction of a statutory mechanism by which trade unions can gain recognition from employers, this article examines employers' attempts in Britain to resist campaigns for union recognition and to undermine newly granted recognition agreements. Using an array of primary and secondary sources, the extent and nature of these employer activities are documented. The article develops a revised schema, following Roy (1980), to help understand and interpret these anti‐union activities. While of significance in deterring and undermining new recognition agreements, these activities are found to represent a minority current in the overall response of employers to campaigns for union recognition.

The management of voice in non‐union organisations: managers’ perspectives

“…These non union collective-types mechanisms could be used to undermine union-centred systems of worker representation, as noted in other studies (Dundon, 2002;Gall, 2004 With the exception of Airflight and ConsultancyCo, non-union consultative forums of one sort or another were present in the remaining case studies.…”

Hiring Discrimination Against Pro-union Applicants: The Role of Union Density and Firm Size

“…Former studies on labour-management disputes show how employers prevent unions from forming, weaken existing unions and apply pressure on unions during negotiations (see, for instance, Gall (2004) and Heery and Simms (2010) for the United Kingdom; Cooke (1985aCooke ( , 1985b and Lawler 1 There are, however, some exceptions to this finding. See, for instance, the recent evidence on the effect of trade union activities on productivity in Japan provided by Morikawa (2010). and West (1985) for the United States).…”

De-collectivism and managerial ideology: towards an understanding of trade union opposition

“…The characteristics of these opposing union resistance strategies are summarized in Table 1 below. Similarly, Nissen (1998) Table 1 which allude to greater variation in managerial action, they are unlikely to be an accurate representation of union avoidance dynamics in the workplace, whereby mutually suppression and substitution can co-exist within the same organisation (Dundon, 2002;Gall, 2004).…”