Sunderland University Business School

UGB306

Employment Relations

Module Guide 2012-13

Module Leader: Tel: Email: Module Tutor: Email:

Dr Lesley Mearns 01915153071 Lesley.mearns@sunderland.ac.uk Dr. Keith Wilson kwilson252@hotmail.co.uk

TITLE: CODE: CREDITS: LEVELS : FACULTY BOARD: PRE REQUISITES: CO-REQUISITES: LEARNING HOURS:

ACADEMIC YEAR: . LEARNING OUTCOMES Upon successful completion of this module students will have demonstrated:

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS UGB306 20 3 BUSINESS AND LAW UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT NONE NONE 200 hours in total, the exact nature of which will be specified in the module guide 2012-2013

Knowledge-Based Outcomes K1 Critical appraisal of the dynamic context in which the actors and institutional mechanisms concerned with the employment relationship interact K2 demonstrate a systematic understanding of factors which condition differences in employment relations practices K3 present a coherent and detailed appraisal of trends in employer strategies and practices towards employee relations K4 critically evaluate employment practices and policies from competing perspectives

Skills-Based Outcomes S1 The ability to develop strategies for handling employment relations issues at work S2 The ability to analyse employment relations issues to identify potential causes and resolution CONTENT SYNOPSIS 1. Employment Relations in Context 2. The Parties involved in Employment Relations 3. Employment Relations Processes 4. Employment Relations Outcomes TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODS Directed readings are used to reinforce understanding of key principles along with enhancing knowledge of subject. Workshops, seminars and active research on contemporary issues are aimed at consolidating student understanding and developing analytical skills. Oral presentations, case studies, simulations and questioning are used as supportive mechanisms in the teaching and learning methods. Workshops/Seminars Directed readings Research activity TOTAL 36 hours 80 hours 84 hours 200 hours

ASSESSMENT METHODS There are two components to the overall assessment of the module. Assessment 001 Coursework on issues covered during the early sessions of the module (word count indeterminate). Learning Outcomes K1 and K3 are assessed. Assessment 002 An individual essay/case study/report with a focus on integrating a range of employment relations processes and outcomes (approx 2500 words). All Learning Outcomes are assessed. Sequence Assessment Type 001 CW 002 CW Marking Scheme UCMS UCMS Weighting Pass % Mark * 20 * 80 Addresses Learning Outcomes 1 and 3 all

(If the Pass Mark differs from the university regulations there must be a related programme specific regulation approved.) INDICATIVE READING LIST Blyton, P., Heery, E. and Turnbull, P. (2011) Reassessing the Employment Relationship, Palgrave MacMillan. Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, MacMillan: London Colling, T and Terry, M. (2010) Industrial Relations 3rd edition, Blackwell: Oxford. Dundon, T, and Rollinson, D, (2011) Understanding Employment Relations 2nd edition, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (2010) Employee Relations, 5th Edition, CIPD. Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M. (2003) Employee Relations: Understanding the Employment Relationship, Harlow: Financial Times. Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations: 3rd ed Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations; Theory and Practice, 4th Edition, Pearson Education. Williams, S. and Adam-Smith, D. (2010) Contemporary Employment Relations; a Critical Introduction, Oxford University Press.

PROGRAMME USING THIS MODULE AS A CORE OR OPTION BA Business and Human Resource Management Core BA Business and Management Option Is the programme delivered On Campus or Off campus: Colleges: colleges Work based learning: Professional Accreditation: MODULE LEADER Dr Lesley Mearns LEAD DELIVERER Dr Lesley Mearns JACS Code: N611 On Campus and Off Campus Approved SEGi No No

Session 1. Context of ER 2. Perspectives and Management approaches to Employment Relations 3. Parties to ER - Role of the State and transnational organisations 4. Parties to ER - Trade Unions and membership 5. Employee involvement and participation Direct Voice, non-union representation, engagement 6. Determination of terms and conditions of employment Common Standards 7. The role of pay and reward in Employee Relations 8. Collective bargaining and negotiation 9. Conflict at work 10. Grievance and discipline handling 11. Work organisation and the effect of technology on employment relations 12. Module review and assessment clinic

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS LEVEL III The environment in which employment relations are conditioned has undergone significant change over the past few decades in terms of its structures and power relationships. Economic and legal developments throughout this period have affected the way management and trade unions interact with each other and hence condition the employment relationship. New styles of both management and trade unionism have been emerging as a result of these developments, which have become key areas of research for both practitioners and academics. The subject of employment relations is therefore a vital area to be studied and forms a key part of any Business Studies degree. The aim of the module is to provide students with a sound knowledge of employment relations set within their historical and dynamic context. This will involve the analysis of both internal and external actors and influences on the industrial relation system; and explain the impact on, and from, actors in several key areas of economic life. These include the changing context within which the employment relations environment is set, patterns and forms of industrial conflict, collective bargaining systems, new technology, employee participation, new styles of management and unions; and the role of the state. You are encouraged to read regularly the general text books below, supported by other books on more specific topics - in the library and elsewhere. Blyton, P., Heery, E. and Turnbull, P. (2011) Reassessing the Employment Relationship, Palgrave MacMillan. Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, MacMillan: London Colling, T and Terry, M. (2010) Industrial Relations 3rd edition, Blackwell: Oxford. Dundon, T, and Rollinson, D, (2011) Understanding Employment Relations 2nd edition, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.

Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (2010) Employee Relations, 5th Edition, CIPD. Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M. (2003) Employee Relations: Understanding the Employment Relationship, Harlow: Financial Times. Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations: 3rd ed Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations; Theory and Practice, 4th Edition, Pearson Education. Williams, S. and Adam-Smith, D. (2010) Contemporary Employment Relations; a Critical Introduction, Oxford University Press. Students are encouraged and directed to review articles in appropriate academic journals relating to contemporary employment relations issues. The most appropriate journals for use on the module are British Journal of Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations Journal, Work, Employment and Society, Employee Relations, Human Resource Management Journal and Capital and Class. Other useful shorter articles can be found in periodicals such as Labour Research Reports, Industrial Relations Services, TUC Reports, People Management, Incomes Data Services amongst others. Students are also encouraged to utilise appropriate electronic sources such as the DTI, TUC, eironline and Employer websites in conducting searches on topics covered.

Assessment Schedule and Weighting The module is assessed two individual assignments. The first assignment (20%) is a test of your understanding of the issues covered in the first half of the module, to provide a key foundation for the second assignment. This will be introduced in session 1 and should be completed online in 3 stages. Formative feedback will be given after each stage. The second, written, assignment (80%) is designed to capture the main themes and issues raised throughout the module. Learning Approach. Workshop exercises have been designed to consolidate your reading and understanding of topics. The exercises include discussions, lectures, case study analysis, and short presentations by groups of students to the class as a whole which are followed by questioning from the floor. All students are expected to participate in the exercises which are a key ingredient of the learning process. Sunspace The Sunspace site for UGB 306 is an important resource for this module. It will contain materials which will form the basis of classroom sessions as well as selected background reading. It is vitally important that you refer regularly to Sunspace. Announcements about reading and classroom activities are likely to be made on Sunspace. Assignments will be put on to turnitin and marked online.

Week 1:

Context of Employment Relations

This session is geared towards considering key issues that highlight the complexity surrounding the employment relation. It will depict the influences on the employment relationship in industrial society and the institutional arrangements in which the relationship was/is conditioned. Structural changes in the British economy mean that organisations have gone through dramatic change over the past few decades. These changes have included changing patterns of ownership, control and the structure of organisations. These have transformed the labour market and produced some dramatic changes to the employment practices of many organisations. Importantly there have been changes to arrangements for determining conditions and terms of employment. How do we understand and explain all the above? Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: comprehend the rationale for approaching employment relations from a historical perspective identify and evaluate the roles of the main parties involved in employment relations, including their priorities and emphases begin to understand and describe collective bargaining arrangements and the consequences for employment relations practices Recommended Reading Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, chapters 1, 3. MacMillan: London Darlington, R. ed. (2009) What's the Point of Industrial Relations? In Defence of Critical Social Science BUIRA Lewis P et al (2004) Employee Relations, Chapter 2, pp 43-46,56-58 Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 1, 2 , McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edn ch. 1, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations : Theory and Practice, Chap 2, pp40-59 Williams, S and Adam-Smith, D (2006) Contemporary Employment Relations: a Critical Introduction chapter 1 OUP: Oxford Introductory Activity In groups of approximately 8, read the files on the Royal Mail strike these can be found on Sunspace. Discuss what is happening here and why. In particular, how might you describe the attitudes displayed by each of the parties? What do the releases tell you about Employment Relations? How might things have been different? At the end of a discussion (30 - 60 minutes), identify what information you might need to collect to help you understand the situation in 2009. The aim of the meeting is to identify a number of questions to investigate. Assessment 1 Questionnaire You will be introduced to part 1 of assignment 1 organisational questionnaire. In order to complete this assignment, you will have to identify an organisation in which you can find out about employment relations. In this session, we will discuss the assignment and how to tackle it effectively.

Week 2:

Perspectives and Management approaches to Employment Relations

Managerial approaches and practices towards the employment relation are conditioned by many factors which in turn can produce greater levels of stability/instability between employer and employee. Indeed, it is such factors which can condition the recognition or non-recognition of trade unions within an organisation. By examining managerial perspectives and management styles it may aid understanding of the choice of employment policies and practices towards the employment relation. Insight can be gained into managerial ideology and the ongoing tension between individual and collective forms of employee relations. Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of industrial relations perspectives begin to evaluate the approaches/styles of employment relations management critically evaluate the ongoing tensions between individual and collective forms of employee relations practices Recommended Reading Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, chapters 9. MacMillan: London Colling, T and Terry, M.(2010) Industrial Relations, Theory and Practice ch 4 Blackwell: Oxford Fox, A. (1985) Man Mismanagement, Chapter 1, pp 26-36 Lewis P et al (2004) Employee Relations, Chapter 2, pp 43-46,56-58 Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 1, 2 , McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edn ch. 1, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations : Theory and Practice, Chap1, 7 Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Williams, S and Adam-Smith, D (2006) Contemporary Employment Relations: a Critical Introduction chapter 5 OUP: Oxford

Activity and Discussion 1. Follow up review of tasks determined in week 1. 2. Using the findings from the group work above, review what you know about management of employment relations. Marks and Spencer article on Sunspace is useful for reflection. You might also make yourselves aware of management style typologies such as Purcell and Gray (1986), or Purcell and Ahlstrand (1998). Try to identify factors which are likely to have been influential in determining their preferred approach to managing people? 3. Based on what you have discovered so far, what can you say about management perspectives on managing people? Identify and explain actions, policies or practices which confirm that the managers adopt a unitary or pluralist perspective.

Week 3:

Parties to ER - Role of the State and transnational organisations

Employment relations in the UK have evolved over many years. It was traditionally characterized by a system of voluntary relationships between the various parties with a minimal level of interference from the State. However, this has been challenged by Howell (2005:3) who argues The British state has in fact been a central actor in the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of industrial relations institutions . The main actors in todays employment relationship are the: State: Supranational (European Union) National Legislator Enforcer Employer Employers: Employer associations/trade associations (CBI) Mainly firm/organization level and workplace level Multinationals (European Works Councils) Employees: Independent Trade Unions Joint Consultative Committees In this weeks session we are going to focus on the State and how it influences and changes the employment relationship in the UK. Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: Identify and evaluate the role of the State within the UK employment relationship. Understand the role and influence of the European Union in shaping the employment relationship. Evaluate the role of legislation within the employment relationship. Understand the role of the State as an enforcer of employment legislation. Recommended Reading Colling, T and Terry, M. (eds) (2010) Industrial Relations Theory and Practice 3 rd edition Wiley Chichester chapter 5 Dundon, T, and Rollinson, D, (2011) Understanding Employment Relations 2nd edition, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Chapter 6 Gennard, J., (2010) UK Industrial Relations State Agencies Employee Relations Vol. 32 No. 1 Gennard, J., and Judge, G., (2010) Managing Employment Relations Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London Section 3 Hyman, R. (2009) The State in industrial relations in The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations, P. Blyton, N. Bacon, J. Fiorito and E. Heery (eds), Sage, London Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London Chapter 4 Smith, P. (2009) New Labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers rights, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 40 (4), pp. 337 355.

Williams, S and Adam-Smith, D (2009) Contemporary Employment Relations: a Critical Introduction Chapter 3 OUP: Oxford Activity and Discussion

e study 6.1: the changing contours of the role of the state

Consider the following extracts from different publications and reports: 1. At midday on 2 March 1989 Gareth Morris walked out of the Government Communications headquarters (GCHQ) for the last time. Mr. Morris had been sacked, ending 40 years of trade union membership at GCHQ. A ban on the membership of independent trade unions had been instituted some five years earlier by Margaret Thatchers Conservative government, who held that trade unions were a barrier to the efficient operation of free markets and that employers should look to non-union firms for examples of how to manage employment relations. The banning of trade unions at GCHQ showed that the government was prepared to practise what it preached. Source: adapted from McLaughlin and Gourlay (1994, pp. 1 2). 2. In the early 1990s Prime Minister John Major returned from Europe, having negotiated an opt-out clause for Britain from the social chapter for workers rights of the Maastricht Treaty. In this, the government opposed State protections for workers on the basis that this would restrict free enterprise. Speaking to journalist Jonathan Dimbleby on the BBCs On the Record programme, major said: The Social Chapter in the Maastricht agreement is a really worrying attempt by Europe to try and rebuild in Britain the [collective employment relations] things that we have dismantled over the last twelve or fifteen years. When proposing the Maastricht agreement t o parliament, minister Douglas Hurd commented that: We do not believe that the interests of British working people are best served by giving organised management and labour a privileged position and asking them to take provisions to make suggestions across the whole area of employment. We believe in a more flexible system. Source: adapted from BBC News, 1993; Hansard, 1991 (HC Deb 19 December 1991 vol 201 cc477-556). 3. Shortly after its election in 1997, the new labour government under Tony Blair signed up to European employment protections and passed the right to statutory trade union recognition. However, the government argued that the European Unions Charter of fundamental human rights should not be made legally binding on member states. originally the charter sought to guarantee the legal right of workers to: organise in trade unions; negotiate with employers; withdraw their labour when deemed by them to be right to do so; and be consulted by employers. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were bitterly against such legal provision. They argued that the protection of workers as workers was a matter of social policy, while the protection of workers as individuals, outside their employment, could be considered a question of human rights. As Britains new prime minister, Blair assured business people that however he might tinker with employment laws and trade union rights, they could be certain that at the end of the exercise Britains trade unions would still be the least free in Europe. This became part of the sales pitch for encouraging inward investment in the United Kingdom. Come to Britain, under new labour, and get yourself a shackled and tamed workforce. Source: adapted from The Guardian, 27 November 2000 (www.guardian.co.uk). 4. In the 1970s Ireland developed an aggressive public policy for attracting foreign investment by encouraging multinational corporations (MNCs) to set up subsidiary plants in the country. Among other reasons, the objective was to help boost

employment through innovation, knowledge and investment, particularly from US MNCs eager to establish a base for European markets. When embarking on the policy, the government stressed that investing firms would need to conform to Irelands pluralist employment relations regime: incoming companies should recognise the industrial relations of this country and the inevitability of union recognition (enterprise Ireland Commission, 1969). however, by the late 1990s State policy appeared to have shifted dramatically when the government minister for enterprise Trade and employment remarked: The Irish Development Agency (IDA) is not there to press one particular way of dealing with industrial relations. I dont see that as part of the IDA agenda. Some companies have an approach which doesnt involve unions. We cant set preconditions. Source: adapted from Gunnigle et al (2001); Collings et al (2008). 5. In America, president Barrack Obama has signalled the need to modernise employment laws and reverse the anti-union measures endorsed by the Bush administration. The employee free Choice act will be adopted to allow workers the right of trade union membership and collective bargaining. While these rights have existed in America since 1935 through the national labor relations act (NLRA), in practice the NLRA has been distorted by decades of hostile amendments, lax enforcement and anti-union tactics by employers. Obamas objective is to reinstate basic liberties for union representation, equality rights, bargaining with employers and access to health care. Obamas government has passed what is known as the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay restoration act (2009), which now guarantees that all workers receive equal pay for equal work, thereby seeking to end discrimination on the grounds of age, religion, race and gender. The president also issued an executive order (no. 13496: Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws), which stipulates a number of regulations concerning public sector contracts, including collective bargaining and union rights for workers under public works contracts. Source: adapted from www.aflcio.org; www.presidency.ucsb.edu. Questions 1. How would you assess the role of the State towards employment relations intervention described in each extract above. 2. Why do you think government policies and practices concerning employment relations matters change over time? 3. Is there any similarity or divergence in the underpinning approach of the different governments (Britain, Ireland and America) described in the above extracts?

10

Week 4:

Parties to ER - Trade Unions and Membership

Traditionally trade unions have played a significant role in regulating the employment relationship in the UK. They have done this through collective bargaining over issues such as pay, working practices and terms and conditions of employment. However, due to changes already outlined earlier in the module the trade union movement within the UK, as with many other developed countries (see table below) is in decline. It is argued that the trade union movement reached its peak during the late 1970s when approximately 58% of the working population were members of a trade union (Wilton 2010:281). However, Metcalf (2005) has argued that trade unions still have an important role to play in the employment relationship, he cites sword of justice arguments: what unions do is they narrow pay distributions, promote equality and family friendly policies, they lower the rate of industrial injuries, provide support for people with problems and perhaps help keep employers honest. Trade union density, 1997 and 2007, selected OECD countries Trade union density Sweden Finland Denmark Norway Belgium Italy Ireland Canada UK Germany Netherlands Australia Japan Hungary US France Source: Barratt, 2009 1997 82.2 79.4 75.6 55.5 55.6 36.2 42.7 31.5 30.7 27.0 25.1 29.6 22.8 30.9 13.6 8.7 2007 70.8 70.3 69.1 53.7 52.9 33.3 31.7 29.4 28.0 19.9 19.8 18.5 18.3 16.9 11.6 7.8

This week we will examine the role of the trade unions in the employment relationship. We will explore their contribution to improved organisational performance as well as examining the future of the movement. Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: Critically evaluate the role of trade unions within the UK employment relationship. Understand the impact that legislation has had on the relationship between management and trade unions. Assess the importance of trade unions to improved organisational performance. Evaluate the future role of the trade union movement within the employment relationship.

11

Recommended Reading Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, chapter 5. MacMillan: London Bryson, A. (2005) Union effects on employee relations in Britain, Human Relations, Vol.58, Vol.11, 1139 Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. (2007) Understanding Employment Relations, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Heery E, et al (2003) Union Revitalization in Britain, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 9, No1, pp79-97 Lewis P et al (2004) Employee Relations, Chapter 2, pp 43-46, 56-58 Metcalf, D. (2005) British Unions: Resurgence or Perdition , The Work Foundation, Provocation Vol 1, No 1, 2005 Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 1, 2 , McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edition chapter. 1, Harlow, FT/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations : Theory and Practice, Chap1, 2, pp40-59 Williams, S and Adam-Smith, D (2006) Contemporary Employment Relations: a Critical Introduction chapter 5 OUP: Oxford Activity and Discussion Wal-Mart and union suppression Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world employing more than 2.1 million associates at more than 8,000 retail units in 15 countries. In the UK, it is the owner of Asda who employ over 170,000 people. Wal-Mart has long been the target of persistent allegations of Aggressive antI-unionism. For example, Wal-Mart fought a two-year legal battle to prevent the worlds largest labour union (the All China Federation of Trade Unions) organising in its 60 stores in China (although, the company ultimately lost the battle) (Watts, 2006). The company clearly states that it does not feel that union presence is needed in the firm, stating on their corporate website that: We are not against unions. They may be right for some companies, but there is simply no need for a third party to come between our associates and their managers. Wal-Mart suggests that the reason for this is that employee welfare is the concern of the employer. In particular, it suggests that direct communication an Open Door policy that allows grievances to be addressed anywhere up the corporate ladder negates the need for third-party intervention in disputes between employees and the employer. However, many claim that Wal-Mart goes far beyond substituting for the presence of unions with alternative forms of direct communication. Many unions have accused Wal-Mart of actively suppressing union presence and of union -busting, a range of practices designed to hinder union activity and dissuade membership among workers. For example, the United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) in Canada, has accused Wal-Mart of harassing union members and closing only unionised stores as a reprisal against union members. In response, Wal-Mart claimed that meeting union demands in these stores would be against its business model and the stores were struggling (Ceascu, 2006). In the UK, Asda has also been accused of union-busting activity. In 2006, an employment tribunal ruled that Asda had breached the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act (1992) by offering staff at its Washington depot a 10 per cent pay rise if they gave up membership of the GMB union. Hencke (2006a) reports that the tribunal blamed Asdas PR agents for producing material that was very hostile to trade unions and highly disparaging of the process of collective bargaining. Despite this ruling, however, GMB shop stewards accused Asda of subsequently employing fresh bullying tactics, including putting CDs in drivers cabs urging them to vote against a strike to gain national negotiating rights, making

12

lorry drivers go for interviews with senior management to persuade them not to strike and writing to their families warning them against strike action. Despite these tactics, GMB members voted in favour of industrial action. However, Asda and the GMB struck a deal which saw the strike called off at the last minute (Hencke, 2006b). EXERCISE Conduct some online research on Wal-Mart/Asda, their employment practices and attitudes and approach to dealing with trade unions and answer the following questions. 1. On the basis of your research, would you categorise Wal-Marts and Asdas approach to resisting trade union organisation as union substitution or suppression? What examples can you give of the strategy they appear to have adopted? 2. Why do Wal-Mart and Asda appear to pursue aggressive policies of union avoidance? 3. Why do you think that Asda employees chose to reject a 10 per cent pay rise, opting instead to maintain union recognition at the depot? 4. Wal-Marts strategy of union avoidance is partly a product of the US institutional and cultural context in which the organisation originated. What are the characteristics of the employee relations system in the UK which might make such an approach less appropriate and less likely to succeed? Activity 2 Aims of Trade Unions:
(based on TGWU Stewards Handbook)

Improved terms of employment Equal opportunities improved working environment security of employment and income industrial democracy full employment and national prosperity improved social security improved public and social services public control and planning of industry fair shares of national income and wealth a voice in government

In small groups you will be allocated three of the stated aims of Trade Unions in Britain, as reflected in the TGWU list (see above). You are asked to discuss what is meant by that aim; what you think the unions have achieved in this area; what means were most likely to have achieved progress in this area; what remains to be achieved; the validity of this aim in todays Britain. Present your findings to the large group orally and debate with others.

13

Week 5:

Employee involvement and participation Direct Voice, non-union representation, engagement

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has argued that employee voic e is the two way communication between employer and employee. It is the process of the employer communicating to the employee as well as receiving and listening to communication from the employee (CIPD 2012). Therefore, it could be argued that the concept of employee voice concentrates on the opportunities that exist for employees to be involved in or participate with the decision making process either through the trade union movement or through non-union representation. Research has shown that during the last few decades many organisations have moved away from representative participation towards initiatives that seek to directly involve employees. Heery (2011), for example, has argued that an employees right to a voice enables them to participate in the governance and regulation of their workplace. He adds that it should be a central feature of the employment relationship in all developed economies. Traditionally, the employees voice has been represented by the trade union movement however, as we have already discussed the last three decades have seen a decline in trade union membership and influence and a more multiform system of worker representation has come to the fore (Heery 2011:342). Recent research has concluded that within the UK there are now approximately the same number of trade union representatives and non-union worker representatives (WERS 2004). This week we will be focusing on the non-union voice and concentrate on three main areas; statutory works councils; employer-sponsored participation and single-issue; and community organisations. Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: Define what is meant by the terms involvement and participation within the workplace. Evaluate the constraints, opportunities and limitations on involvement and participation in the workplace. Understand the various forms of employee voice within non-union organisations. Critically evaluate the role of employment relations specialists and line managers with regard to ensuring the employee voice is heard. Recommended Reading Brewster, C., Wood, G., Croucher, R., and Brookes, M., (2007) Are Works Councils and joint Consultative Committees a Threat to Trade Unions? A Comparative Analysis Economic and Industrial Democracy Vol 28 Bryson, A., and Freeman, R.B., (2007) What voice do British workers want? in R.B Freeman, P. Boxall and P. Haynes (eds) What Workers Say: Employee Voice in the AngloAmerican Workplace Ithaca and London, ILR Press Charlwood, A., Terry, M., (2007) 21st Century Models of Employee Representation: Structures, Processes and Outcomes Industrial Relations Journal Vol 38 no. 4, 32-337 Heery, E., (2009) Worker Voice and Reward Management in G. White and J. Druker (eds) Reward Management: A Critical Text London, Routledge Heery, E., (2011) Assessing Voice: The Debate Over Worker Representation in Blyton, P., Heery, E., and Turnbull, P., (2011) Reassessing the Employment Relationship Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Legge, K., (2007) The Ethics of HRM in dealing with Individual Employees without Collective Representation in A. Pinnington, R. Macklin and T. Campbell (eds) Human Resource Management: Ethics and Employment Oxford, Oxford University Press

14

Marchington, M., (2007) Employee Voice Systems in P. Boxall, J . Purcell and P. Wright (Eds) The Oxford handbook of Human Resource Management Oxford, oxford University Press Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004) Changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3): 298322 Activity and Discussion 1. Evaluate the argument that employee voice is both a challenge to management and an opportunity to contribute to the management of the organisation. Support your views with evidence from research or case studies. 2. In a small group, investigate one of the following and evaluate the effect it would have if introduced for British organisations Comite denterprise (France); Codetermination (Germany); Information and Consultation with Employees regulations. Make a presentation to the whole class. 3. Prepare a short presentation for the MD of Goodfoods. You are Personnel Manager of Goodfoods Ltd. The company has three factories in Britain, each employing 200-300 staff. It is currently expanding by acquisition of at least 3 smaller businesses in Britain. In the EU it has a smaller presence, with three smallish companies of 100-150 employees, in Belgium, Denmark and Poland. In Britain you negotiate pay and conditions for each unit with one recognised union in each case, Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU). At present there is no union recognition agreement at the third plant or in the companies being acquired. One of the new companies has a long-standing joint consultative committee (JCC), which had been inactive for many years, but recently was reactivated by the General Manager. In every unit, there are members of trade unions, though not only members of BFAWU. Unions with members but not recognised include Unite, GMB, USDAW. In some departments there are union members, but no BFAWU members. However, BFAWU is the strongest union in all units bar one. In other EU countries, there are collective agreements affecting the contract of employment, but you are not going to be involved in these matters. General Managers in each country will retain responsibility for these at present. The Managing Director has just come back from a golfing weekend, full of questions. He has heard that since Labour were elected in 1997, they have adopted EU Directives and passed laws which give workers many more rights to have a say in the business and to be represented by unions for collective Bargaining and other things. He is nervous that he will have to involve unions in almost all decisions, strategic and operational. You realise he has heard about the Trade Union Recognition procedure, the European Works Council Directive, the Information and Consultation with Employees Regulations. You thought there had been nothing to worry about from these initiatives, but decided to check that you were right. In groups of 3 or 4, investigate the situation and justify your view that there is no need to do anything. Consider what employees might do that they have not done at this stage and the options open to the organizations.

15

Week 6:

Determination of terms and conditions of employment

One of the most important aspects of employment relations is pay and conditions of employment. This includes rules, rights, and protection of interests. There are a range of options available to organisations as to how they determine pay and conditions. To some extent there are legal controls and minima, but the decisions tend to depend on organisational choice. This session will look at the main approaches to determining and varying - terms and conditions. Despite the many changes in British industry since 1980 the pay and conditions of much of the work force are still determined directly or indirectly by Collective Bargaining. We will focus much of our attention to an awareness of the continuing role, and future, of Collective Bargaining. In the current economy in Britain, the main area where collective bargaining is prevalent is in the public sector and formerly public industries (Rail, power, etc.) Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: outline and analyse the nature and structure of arrangements for determining conditions of employment in private sector and public sector organisations understand the concept collective bargaining and the partie s involved. evaluate the changes and pressures for change in predominate methods for determination of terms and conditions of employment Recommended Readings Blyton P and Turnbull P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations, Chap 7 Kato, T., and Morishima, M., (2002) The Productivity effects of Participatory Employment Practices Industrial Relations Journal Vol. 41 No. 4 Lewis P et al (2004) Employee Relations, Chapter 2, pp 43-46,56-58 McNabb, R., and Whitfield, K., (2007) The Impact of Varying Types of Performance-related Pay and Employee Participation on Earnings International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol 18 No. 6 Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 1, 2 , McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edn ch. 1, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations : Theory and Practice, Chap 2, pp40-59 Williams, S and Adam-Smith, D (2006) Contemporary Employment Relations: a Critical Introduction chapter 1 and 7 OUP: Oxford

16

Activity 1 End of chapter case study questions: chapter seven (Williams and Adam-Smith 2006) The British hairdressing industry employs some 100,000 staff, of whom two-thirds are female and a half work on a part-time basis. The hairdressing sector comprises many small firms; 80% of the workforce is employed in firms with fewer than 10 staff (Druker et al 2005). It is also marked by a high proportion of young workers. These characteristics are typical of lowpaying industries in general. In 1998, the year before the National Minimum Wage (NMW) took effect, the average pay was 3.56 per hour, just below the new statutory floor of wages. Hairdressing, then, is a low paying industry. Consequently many employers report difficulties in filling vacancies from suitably qualified applicants, particularly for junior positions. However once staff qualify as stylists earnings can be relatively high. Moreover, the fairly lengthy entry period on low pay does not seem to deter those who have decided on a career in the sector. Nonetheless, younger workers do feel that their pay should be higher, particularly in relation to what their friends earn in other occupations (Drucker et al 2005). The introduction of the NMW in 1999, and its subsequent up-ratings, had a major effect on wages in the hairdressing sector. Between 1998 and 2003 average pay for female full-time hairdressing staff rose by 44%, compared to 28% for female full time staff in general (Drucker et al 2005). The group of workers most dramatically affected by the introduction of the NMW was younger workers, typically employed as shampooists, trainee stylist, and receptionists (Drucker et al 2005). There is little evidence that hairdressing employers have not complied with the NMW. While there were a varied range of responses to the NMW, two main patterns stood out. First some salons responded to the minimum wage by purposefully adopting innovative approaches to cope with any rise in wage costs. For example, in some cases firms had made an effort to improve training and development provision for their staff, particularly younger employees. The idea was that this would result in higher levels of service quality, and better productivity from the workforce, thus compensating for the NMW. These firms tended to have a formalized approach to managing staff which pre-dated the introduction of the NMW, and generally operated pay rates that were above NMW minima. The second, more common pattern was a reactive approach. Salons responded to increases in wage costs as a result of the NMW either by taking a short-term cost-cutting approach (e.g. reducing training) or, more commonly, by raising their prices by an appropriate amount to compensate. Growing demand for hairdressing services enabled the salons to raise prices without adversely affecting their trade. Questions What does this case study show us about the impact of NMW on both employers and workers? In what other ways might employers have responded to the introduction of the NMW?

17

Activity 2: Determination of terms and conditions of employment 1. Discuss examples of terms of employment, which could be determined by a) statute, b) Custom and Practice, c) Management Decision, d) Individual negotiation. Analyse the benefits and drawbacks of each approach in determining terms. 2. Study the situations below. Organisation A This organisation does not recognise trade unions. The terms and conditions of employment follow legal requirements and tend to copy elements of contracts used elsewhere in the industry. Generally speaking, management decide what changes have to be introduced and when. Reward issues are settled by either management decision, or individual negotiation. The overall contract is not considered to be really poor or out of date. Organisation B This organisation recognises one union on the site. The union membership is 50% of the production staff whose contract is negotiated at the site. The negotiated elements are pay and conditions, but on issues of methods, roles and so on, the union is consulted. For all other staff, management have determined terms and conditions, including pay. Organisation C This is a public sector organisation with manual, administrative, technical and managerial staff. The organisation is large with sites in all regions of the country. Apart from a few of the most senior managers, all staff terms and conditions are negotiated. There is a mixture of consultation and negotiation with trade unions on a wide range of issues, including changes to operational matters. Compare and contrast the likely contracts of employment in each organisation. Compare and contrast the organisations from the point of view of the management of the organisation and of a typical employee in each organisation. Consider the effect on them - effect on their ability to do their job; on their commitment; on job security; on job prospects, etc. You should also consider the likely state of employment relations in each organisation. Would a particular management style be appropriate to each example?

18

Week 7: The Role of Pay and Reward in Employee Relations The employment relationship is in general represented as a relationship whereby a wage is exchanged for employee labour. However, the way in which wage rates are determined is a complex area and in general reflects the customs, institutions, internal and external labour markets, social relations, geographical location, legislative frameworks and strategic organisational choices. Organisations in general will try to maximise their productivity by giving greater rewards to those employees who add most value to their organisation. Dibben, Klerck and Wood (2011) however, argue that if too much emphasis is placed on monitoring and controlling the work of employees and/or the distribution of rewards in a manner that is perceived to be fair or overly punitive it will result in a higher staff turnover rate especially for the most talented and competent employees. Therefore, if the reward system is not designed effectively it may have the opposite effect than the ones that were intended. Pay and reward are therefore, central areas of concern for organisations. This week we will look at the way in which pay is calculated to encourage effective and productive working practices; the role that incentives and rewards play with regard to good management practices and the motivation of employees. Objectives By the end of this session students will be able to: Analyse the way in which pay and reward systems motivate employees and increase organisational performance. Evaluate the processes linked to pay determination. Identify and evaluate a range of reward methods Critically analyse the role of employment relations specialists and line managers in relation to the pay and reward of employees.

Recommended Reading ACAS Advisory Booklet Payment Systems Oxford Blackwell Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, chapter 1 MacMillan: London Colling, T and Terry, M. (eds) (2010) Industrial Relations Theory and Practice 3 rd edition Wiley Chichester chapter 15 Dibben, P., Klerck, G., and Wood, G., (2011) Employment Relations: A Critical and International Approach CIPD, London Dundon, T, and Rollinson, D, (2011) Understanding Employment Relations 2nd edition, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Chapters 11 and 2. Harrison, N. (2008) Great Expectations Human Resources April 2008, pp 49-52 Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M (2003). Employee Relations: Understanding the Employment Relationship. Harlow: Financial Times Chapter 10 Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2008) Human Resource Management at Work 4th edition CIPD; London Chapters 12, 13 Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations. Chapter 5 Williams, S. & Adam-Smith, D. (2006) Contemporary Employment Relations. Chapter 7

19

Activity 1 Executive Pay in the United States A number of banks in the United States have been bailed out by the US government some more than once. In effect, the government has sometimes become a major shareholder. However, at the same time there have been various news reports of chief executives and senior managers receiving huge payments, either in salaries or through bonuses. 1. What is the relationship between the problems experienced by large US banks and the operation of the reward system enjoyed by senior managers? 2. What should be done about this situation, and by whom? 3. Can the financial crisis, in any respect, be considered to have been caused by the failures of employment relations specialists? 4. Is the case of the US unique, or is the situation similar in other countries?

Activity 2 Read the Motivation and Reward case study on Sunspace and address the questions within your group.

Week 8: Collective Bargaining and Negotiation Employment relations contain many situations where the parties will take alternative views on what should be done. Employers who recognise trade unions may need to agree policies and procedures with the unions representing certain groups. Where there are no recognised unions, management and groups or individuals may need to reach agreement with each other about how to proceed with issues such as work allocation, bonus rates. In many cases, decisions will be announced by management and implemented. In others there will need to be agreement before any decision is implemented. Reaching agreement is not always easy, as different interests have to be satisfied. This is where skilled negotiators are needed. In this session we will assess what skills are needed for successful negotiators. In addition, we shall analyse what makes for effective negotiations, including procedures, skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Objectives. By the end of this session students will be able to: Understand the Walton and McKersie typology of negotiations Evaluate a range of skills which may lead to successful negotiations Analyse negotiations to identify important stages and processes in effective

negotiations. Recommended Reading Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton B (1992) Getting to yes, Century Business, London Kennedy, G., Benson,J. and McMillan, J (1991) Managing Negotiations, Century Business, London

20

Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edition chapter 9, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 10 , McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Salamon M (2009) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, Chap 13, Prentice Hall, Harlow Activity 1 Before the session this week gather information relating to the recent union campaigns against proposed changes to Occupational Pensions. In particular, concentrate on the collective bargaining arrangements behind the disputes; the trade unions involved; how employers are represented in the pension discussions; the issues from either side. In small groups prepare a presentation on what has been happening and evaluate the effectiveness of collective bargaining arrangements. You will be allocated one of the pension schemes on which to concentrate Health service; Teachers; Local authorities. Activity 2 In groups read the case study below and discuss: What are Partnership agreements between employers and unions? Where do they appear? What evidence is there to suggest they are effective in bringing about a more harmonious employment relationship? Do you think that it is an effective development for an employer union relationship?

Tesco Stores Background The supermarket retail group Tesco Stores Ltd employees some 260,000 people in around 1900 stores across the UK. Stores range in size from Express outlets with 30 -40 full and part-time employees, to the largest Tesco Extra stores with 7 -800 staff. Tesco recognises the shopworkers union Usdaw, and around half its retail staff are union members. I&C practices Tesco has had a partnership agreement with Usdaw since 1998. Until then the role of the union had largely been confined to collective bargaining on pay, and helping individuals in grievance and disciplinary procedures. The partnership agreement broadened this role to include information, consultation and on-going dialogue on a wide range of issues, and involvement in staff training. It also introduced a role for non-union employee representatives. The agreement was driven by recognition on the part of Tesco and Usdaw that traditional employment relations within the company were polarised and inflexible, and that better two-way communication on a range of business issues was preferable. The agreement established a hierarchy of consultation forums throughout the business at store, regional and national level. The current structure comprises over a thousand individual Store Forums, 45 regionally-based Store Director Forums, and a National Forum. Store Forum members are elected in a ratio of one per 50 staff up to a maximum of 12 representatives. In the case of the smaller Express Stores, i nstead of having its own Forum, one or two representatives would attend an area forum for several Express Stores. There are guaranteed places on the Store Forums for an Usdaw representative, an Usdaw health and safety representative, and one section manager, but all the other places are filled by nomination and, where necessary, election. Members serve for a period of 3 years. Store Forums meet three times a year, meetings being chaired by the store manager, with the personnel manager also attending. Membe rs choose one of their number to sit on a Store Director Forum, which normally has around 20 members, and also meets three times a year shortly after the

21

individual Store Forums. In turn, each of the 45 Store Director Forums chooses one of its members to sit on the National Forum that meets three or four times a year. The National Forum discusses major business issues and is responsible for conducting the annual review of pay and conditions. In all there are more than 1600 representatives across the company. Meetings: There is a standardised agenda for Store Forum meetings which includes an overview of the business and trading at the store, information cascaded down from the national and Store Director Forums, issues raised by staff at the store, and information on such things as accidents and store security. A pre-meeting is held approximately one week in advance to discuss the agenda, and collate issues raised by staff. Where an issue needs more detailed scrutiny a working group of National Forum representatives will be set up. Working groups deal with such things as pay bargaining, attendance, flexible working, night working, the grade structure, and health and safety. Groups would typically meet three to four times a year, with between 4 and 10 representatives chosen from across the business. A separate joint consultative committee with Usdaw looks at specific projects around terms and conditions of employment. Training: All Forum representatives receive core skills training around such things as effective meeting management, change, problem-solving and root cause analysis, with additional training provided as the need arises. In addition, Usdaw provides training on effective representation for its own representatives. National Forum members also receive in-depth training on specific issues like pensions, or Tescos benefits structure, as well as one -on-one coaching. All representatives are encouraged to devise personal development plans to help them up-skill. Involvement of the wider workforce: Ahead of meetings staff are encouraged through posters and an issues card to come up with points they would like their representatives to raise at meetings. Reps are given time to canvass views of their colleagues, some do so by coming along the checkouts. Some forums issue their own newsletters. There is limited Intranet access for shopfloor staff, so paper-based communication remains the main format.

Business benefits Tesco and Usdaw both believe they have a very positive relationship. Although there will inevitably be some issues they disagree on, they have been able to work together on a number of each others initiatives including Usdaws Freedom from Fear campaign targeting customer abuse of staff, and its campaign for better rights for carers. In turn Usdaw has helped Tesco with its initiative to engage more with communities, and has facilitated meetings with Usdaw-sponsored MPs. They are also working together on improving absence levels. Joint Tesco/Usdaw communications have been very helpful when communicating decisions and initiatives to staff. What makes it work? For Tesco, the keys to the success of their Partnership agreement include: - being honest; - the training provided to representatives, especially helping them see both sides of an issue and the impact their suggestions would have; - autonomy for store managers to resolve local issues without referring them up the line; - celebrating success, so that employees can see the achievements; - working parties that address important issues. They are reviewed regularly to make sure they are still relevant and looking at what matters most. For Usdaw, the Partnership Agreement has meant much greater involvement in a far wider range of issues than they previously enjoyed when discussions were confined to the annual pay round. Now there is much more consultation, whilst previously it had been mainly one-way communication from management. It has encouraged staff to come forward with their views on issues, which Usdaw believes has led to better management decisions. Now there are literally hundreds of Tesco staff actively involved in the process, whereas before there was just a small handful of Usdaw representatives. Any fears that allowing non-union representatives to be involved would dilute Usdaws influence have not been realised. In fact Usdaw has increased membership year on year.

22

Ideas for the future The Partnership Agreement is reviewed each year with a view to improving and simplifying it. Overall, both Tesco and Usdaw are very happy with the way it is working, though there are always improvements that could be made, such as securing stronger support from some individual store managers, and helping staff to see that it really can make a difference to decisions that will affect them. Following the success of the Partnership Agreement in stores, the process has been used as a basis to introduce a Consultative Forum process into the Distribution side of the business.
First published March 2007. Department of Trade and Industry. www.dti.gov.uk Crown Copyright. DTI/03/07/NP. URN 07/753

Week 9: Conflict at work Historically Britain is said to be more strike prone compared to other leading industrialised countries. This situation led to the formation of the Donovan Commission in the 1960 s to explore the workings of industrial relations and to recommend policies to eradicate the problems of high levels of industrial conflict. Significant change has happened since this period and from the beginning of the 1980's onwards there has been a sharp decrease in recorded strike activity. This has been described by several commentators as reflecting a fundamental change in industrial relations. However conflict at work is a wider issue than strikes, and ranges from individual to collective issues, and over a wide range of disagreements including workplace bullying. Objectives By the end of this session students will be able: to analyse the factors which condition organised/unorganised, formal/informal, individual/collective forms of conflict evaluate employer strategies for dealing with the above understand the importance of the effective management of workplace bullying. to comprehend and evaluate the changing involvement of ACAS in conflict at work, individual and collective

Recommended Reading Bacon N.and Blyton P (1999) Co-operation and conflict in industrial relations: what are the implications for employees and trade unions? International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 10, Number 4, 1 August, pp. 638-654(17) Blyton, P and Turnbull, P (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations 3rd edition, chapters 9. MacMillan: London Lewis P et al (2004) Employee Relations, Chapter 2, pp 43-46,56-58 Marchington M and Wilkinson A (2005) Human Resource Management at Work 3rd edition CIPD, London Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 11 McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Rose, E (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edn ch. 8, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Salamon, M. (2009) Industrial Relations : Theory and Practice, Chap1, 2, pp40-59 Van Granberg,B. and Teicher,J.(2005) Managing neutrality and impartiality in workplace conflict resolution: the dilemma of the HR manager. Working paper 27/05 Monash University Williams, S and Adam-Smith, D (2006) Contemporary Employment Relations: a Critical Introduction chapter 5 OUP: Oxford

23

Activity 1: Discussion Point To what extent can employers mitigate the factors which lead to organised and/or unorganised forms of conflict? What is the role of the manager?

Activity 2: When a boss turns into a bully People who are intimidated or humiliated at work will find it easier to win compensation from employers as a result of a new appeal court ruling. Please read the following article which was printed in The Guardian newspaper Tuesday 29 March 2005 and consider ways in which the situation could have been more effectively managed. Be prepared to present your findings to the class.

The Guardian (Tuesday 29 March 2005) Bill Majrowski never set out to get his name into the law books. All he wanted was recognition that he had been a victim of workplace bullying and that his employers were liable. But this month his case set a precedent in the court of appeal with far-reaching implications for people who are intimidated or humiliated at work. Now likely to go to Britain's highest court, the House of Lords, Majrowksi v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust should sound a loud warning bell to employers to get their anti-bullying policies firmly in place. Majrowski, 45, claims he was harassed by his line manager for about 18 months, from November 1996, when he was an audit co-ordinator for Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust. He says she was excessively critical of and strict about his time-keeping and his work; isolated him by refusing to talk to him and treated him differently and unfavourably compared with other staff; was rude and abusive to him in front of others; and imposed unrealistic targets for his performance, threatening him with disciplinary action if he failed to achieve them. She was suspended and, after an internal investigation which found he had been subjected to homophobic harassment, she was allowed to resign. Until now, victims of bullying, like others who suffer stress at work, have had significant hurdles to clear in bringing compensation claims against their employers. The main difficulty is proving that their employers knew or should have known that they were at risk. The other problem is that they have to show they suffered a recognised psychiatric illness. What Majrowski's case has done is open a whole new and easier route to compensation for workplace bullying. His lawyers brought the case under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which was originally introduced to deter stalkers. The act does not define harassment, leaving it open to the courts to extend its ambit way beyond the stalkers it was originally designed to target. It has already been used successfully in other circumstances that parliament never contemplated: against animal rights activists and tabloid newspaper campaigns. But could employers be held vicariously liable under the act if one employee bullied another? No, said the judge at central London county court who first considered Majrowski's case and 24

struck it out. But this month the court of appeal, by a two-one majority, said yes. As long as the harassment was closely connected with the bully's ordinary work duties, a "blameless" employer could be held liable. The case, the judges ruled, could go ahead. In the past few years, lawyers have cottoned on to the potential of the Protection from Harassment Act in bringing bullying claims. But Majrowski's is the first to establish in the appeal court that employers can be held liable for harassment by an employee. As well as avoiding the need to prove that the victim developed a psychiatric illness - anxiety and distress are enough, and virtually any bullying victim will suffer from those - and that the employer should have foreseen what happened, the act allows a longer time limit for bringing claims - six years against the usual three for personal injury cases. Majrowski has not suffered any lasting psychological illness, and some of the harassment in his case took place before the act came into force. So his claim under the act is worth only a few thousand pounds, but he was still determined to pursue it. "It took me a very long time to find somebody to represent me. I approached a large number of solicitors, something in the region of 10 to 15, saying I wanted to pursue a claim for damages under the Protection from Harassment Act but, for one reason or another, none would take it on." It was on the website Bullyonline that he discovered that Nick Hanning, a legal executive at the law firm Reynolds Williams, in Poole, had secured a big damages award for another bullying victim. "Nick Hanning looked at my case and said immediately, 'you have a clear case under the Protection from Harassment Act.'" Hanning agreed to take the case on a no-win, no-fee basis. Majrowski was unable to get insurance against losing and having to pay the trust's costs but he decided to go ahead anyway. When he lost in the county court, he had "a moment of despondency". Should he appeal? Brian Langstaff QC and the junior barrister William Latimer-Sayer agreed to a no-win, nofee deal to represent him in the appeal court, but if he lost he could have been hit with a 30,000 bill for the trust's costs. He decided to take the risk: "It's about rights. It's about having the right to go to work and not be harassed in the workplace. I wanted to make sure I had that protection in the law." Now the trust, which says it is concerned about the "wider legal significance for employers generally", hopes to appeal to the House of Lords but, to Majrowski's relief, it has agreed not to claim costs if the appeal court's judgment is overturned. Research on the prevalence of workplace bullying indicates that the impact of the ruling, if it stands, could be huge. A study from Manchester University in 2000 found that one in four workers had experienced bullying in the workplace at some point in the previous five years. Among teachers, the figure was more than one in three. For Hanning, the appeal court decision ensures that "there is both real protection and a proper remedy for all victims of bullying and harassment. It serves as a salutary reminder to employers that they must not merely pay lip service to the anti- harassment policies which are widely adopted but take positive steps to eradicate the culture of bullying which is still prevalent in many organisations."

25

A spokesman for Cloisters, the chambers where the two barristers practice, agrees. "The successful appeal in this case means that victims of bullying and harassment at work now have an alternative potential remedy. This judgment extends the duty of care on employers to protect their employees from ill treatment that could be detrimental to their health, and it could lead to a considerable number of distress and anxiety claims." The effects of bullying can go way beyond distress and anxiety. Sylvia Johnstone, 54, gave up her job as a nurse five years ago when she had a breakdown after two years of bullying by her ward sister. The crunch came when she was reduced to tears at a two-hour meeting - "two hours of humiliation and distress" - at which the ward sister and a manager outlined her alleged deficiencies and told her she had to be moved to another unit. She made an official allegation of bullying against the ward sister but her employers, now East Lancashire hospitals NHS trust, dismissed the complaint. Johnstone quit her job and filed a claim of constructive dismissal at an employment tribunal. In 2003 the tribunal found that she had been bullied and that the trust's investigation was flawed, and awarded her 32,000. But the long-term effects on her health were outside the tribunal's remit. Five years later, severe depression has left her unable to work. She tried working as a dinner lady but found she couldn't cope. Now she is suing the trust for negligence, breach of contract, breach of statutory duty - and, like Majrowski, vicarious liability under the Protection from Harassment Act. Hanning, who acts for her, estimates that her claim for her lost career, including promotion prospects, is worth about 200,000. "I certainly would never have believed I could ever succumb to bullying," she says. "Even five years later I'm still shocked by what happened to me. I really hope my case will raise awareness of bullying and how public money is used to fight cases like mine." The Protection from Harassment Act, says Hanning, will be a useful extra weapon in the antibullying armoury. But he cautions: "We've won a battle but the war on bullying is far from won."

Week 10: Grievance and Discipline Handling The Workplace Employment Relations Surveys (WERS) show that the majority of managers have issued disciplinary warnings and been involved in disciplinary action with staff. It is also likely that managers' involvement in grievances is at least as great as their involvement in Disciplinary matters. Effective managers will recognise the importance of dealing with the concerns of employees as quickly as feasible, while taking into account the needs of the organisation. This is not an ability which comes easily to all managers, and needs to be developed. With the spread of HRM and the reduced role at many workplaces for trade unions, the typical manager is likely to take on the role of the person who deals with individual problems at work. Where previously issues could have been referred to the shop steward or the personnel officer, they may now come directly to the manager. Additionally, there are fewer layers of management, so a manager will have an increased volume of "problems" to deal with. Managers need an appreciation of how they might deal with, and a feel for the origins of, the range of problems which might arise.

26

Objectives The aim of this workshop is to revise the processes and skills involved in dealing with discipline and to practice the skills of counselling employees / handling grievances. At the end of the workshop, students will be able to use disciplinary and grievance procedures. assess the skills and traits needed to handle discipline and grievances. explain the of the links between disciplinary procedures and unfair dismissal analyse the causes of the type of conflict which might lead to grievances or disciplinary action Recommended Reading Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2008) Human Resource Management at Work : People Management and Development 4th edition, part 4 chapter 11, McGraw-Hill, London ACAS (1990) Discipline at Work Advisory Handbook Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edition chapter 10, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Rollinson, D and Dundon, T (2007) Understanding Employment Relations chapter 6, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead Salamon M (2009) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, Chap 15, Prentice Hall, Harlow Lewis, P et al (2003) Employee Relations, chapter 9, Prentice Hall: London Activity/Discussion Answer the following questions before joining this session. Discipline 1. Why do organisations have disciplinary procedures? 2. How important is it to treat conduct and capability disciplinary actions in a different way? 3. In conduct issues, what is meant by rules, and differing levels of misdemeanour? 4. What barriers are there likely to be to successful handling of capability disciplinary actions? 5. What special disciplinary procedures should organisations have and why? 6. What advice would you give to organisations about how to handle investigations? Grievance Handling 1. How do you judge the effectiveness of a procedure, or how well it is operating in practice? 2. Grievances have to have a final stage where the decision is final. Where is the ideal place for this final decision? 3. How should organizations deal with sensitive grievances such as discrimination, dignity? 4. What does the incidence or absence of grievances tell you about an organization? 5. How far do resolutions of grievances create a precedent for the future? 6. What is a "status quo" clause?

27

Activity - Read the case study below (Rose 2008:567): Regrading Problems Your organisation has just reorganised its departments into divisions in order to deal more effectively with the steady growth in its activities. Part of this reorganisation involved the combining of advertising, sales and marketing departments to form the marketing division. You, as Mr White, are manager of marketing operations for the North East. The reorganisation inevitably involved major changes in job descriptions, job evaluations and job redesign. As many of the jobs were different from the old ones, they were advertised internally and staff from the three old departments were invited to apply for these new jobs. All staff were given a guarantee that their existing salaries would be protected should they not get their preferred job and took a job which was a grade or two lower. You have been busy interviewing candidates and the last interviews were held a few days ago. On the whole, you are very satisfied with the appointments that have been made. In reorganisations such as this there are always fewer promotions opportunities than there are candidates to fill them, and there have been some disappointed people who had to take jobs other than their preferred ones. Today, you have received a request from Tom Black to see you and you have a good idea what it concerns. Black was an advertising officer in the old advertising department and had applied unsuccessfully for two senior positions, both in marketing management, in the new structure. They were the only posts he had applied for, and he had subsequently been given the post of technical officer which was one grade lower (grade 6) than his previous post (grade 7), working for the brilliant young man you had previously promoted above Black. Blacks last interview for the marketing management job, at which yo u were present, was the first of the day and did not go well. From the very beginning Black thought he was at a disadvantage because your boss, Mr Puce, who was on the interviewing panel, arrived 15 minutes late into the interview, despite the interview being delayed for 20 minutes owing to traffic problems. Puces interviewing style is abrasive, and was particularly so on this occasion. Black because flustered and gave a poor performance. The discussion after the interview was unflattering to Black who was described by Puce as a poor decision maker and judge of character, with doubtful leadership qualities and who does not know who his friends are. You suspect that Puces attitude towards Black was related to a successful salary regrade claim, from grade 6 to grade 7, which Black had made nearly a year ago. Puce, who was on the grading appeals panel, had advised Black at the time that several vacancies were to be advertised immediately before the reorganisation, so why not wait until then and dont bother with the regarding claim. Black had, evidently, ignored this advice and gone ahead with the claim. You have been placed in an invidious position. You guess Black is disappointed with his drop in status, even though he has retained his salary. Puce obviously did not want Black to get the job, and you had to go along with Puces opinion, especially since you had to make the decision not to appoint him. Obviously you do not want to annoy your boss, and you may have rationalised and now believe that Black has been treated fairly, especially as he has retained his salary. Not everybody could be promoted and you yourself had not been promoted even though you are managing a much larger section than prior to the reorganisation. Black has proved to be a keen, hard-working and loyal employee and you do not want to see him demotivated, especially now that, post reorganisation, everyones co operation is essential. You ponder these issues as you wait for Black to see you.

28

In groups you need to discuss this grievance and how it could be handled to ensure that Black remained motivated. Within your group allocate the role of Black and White. Role-play the meeting between Black and White based on the assumption that the outcome of the meeting is unsuccessful and that Black intends to lodge a formal complaint thereby invoking the grievance procedure. Consider the areas that should be covered in stage 1 of a grievance interview and how the interview should be conducted. Consider and discuss what should be done if the process remains unsolved at the stage 1 stage and proceeds to stage 2. If the grievance remains unresolved how should management deal with stage 3 and any subsequent hearings?

Week 11: Work Organisation and the Effect of Technology on Employment Relations As we have seen over the last few weeks the employment relationship has changed dramatically in response to the context within which it takes place. Workplaces have seen changes in the way they are structured, managed and in particular the way in which they communicate. In their desire to compete and gain a competitive advantage organisations have introduced and developed many different forms of information technology. This week we will be looking at this from the perspective of its impact on the employment relationship. How, for example, do you manage a virtual team? What new skills would a manager need to manage in a network organisation? We will consider the implications of information technology on managements ability to monitor and control employees and the impact that social media such as Facebook and Twitter has had on the employment relationship. Objectives At the end of this session students will be able to: Understand the impact that advancements in information technology have had on the employment relationship. Appreciate the changes that will be necessary in the ability and skills of management in relation to managing in modern working environments, for example, virtual teams. Analyse the changes in methods of communication within modern workplaces. Assess the impact that changes in the workplace have had on monitoring and controlling employees, Understand the impact of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, on the employment relationship.

29

Recommended Reading Acas (2011) The Future of Workplace Relations: An ACAS View Au Y., Marks, A., (2012) "Virtual teams are literally and metaphorically invisible: Forging identity in culturally diverse virtual teams", Employee Relations, Vol. 34 Iss: 3, pp.271 - 287 Baldry, C. Ed. (2002). New Technology, Work and Employment Future of Work, vol.17(3), Oxford: Blackwell. La Brosse, M., (2008) Managing Virtual Teams Employment Relations Vol. 35 No. 2 Lekhi, R., Blaug, R., (2009) Smoke, Mirrors and the Employment Relationship The Good Work Commission, The work Foundation Nolan. P. and Wood. S. (2003). The Future of Work, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 41(2), pp. 165-389, Oxford, Blackwell. Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations 3rd edition chapter 2, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall Taylor, R., (2001) The Future of Employment Relations ESRC Seminar Series Taylor, R., (2002) Britains World of Work Myths and Realities ESRC Seminar Series Taylor, R., (2003) Skills and Innovation in Modern Workplaces ESRC Seminar Series

Activity 1 Read the following article and consider what monitoring and control should be available to British managers in relation to the use of Email, Facebook and Twitter while on the organisations premises. Discuss this in your groups. New technology and respect for privacy at the workplace The use of new information and communication technologies (ICT) at the workplace has spread rapidly in recent years. This raises numerous issues for employers, employees and their representatives, especially in terms of the relationship between workers' privacy and employers' need to control and monitor the use of ICT. The matter is especially topical in Europe at present, with the European Commission due to propose a Directive on workplace data protection in 2004 or 2005. This comparative study focuses on one specific issue raised by the growth of ICT at work - the relationship between internet/e-mail use at work and respect for workers' privacy. It examines: the European and national legal framework on privacy at work, data protection, and workplace internet/mail use; guidelines and codes of conduct in this area; the views and activities of the social partners; and the extent to which collective bargaining deals with such topics. Information and communication technologies (ICT) now play a significant role in enterprises, with growing use of computers in all aspects of operations and increasing communication and dissemination of information through the internet, internal intranets and the use of email. For both employers and workers, there are new dangers linked to the development of ICT. Notably:

for the enterprise, there is the danger that vital data (eg relating to confidential company activities, financial transactions, personnel management and employees' personal data) may be accessed by unauthorised parties, creating a need to install devices for protecting and monitoring access to such data. There is also a fear on the part of employers that ICT facilities will be used by staff for personal reasons during working hours, to the detriment of their work, and that the enterprise may be held legally responsible for information transmitted by workers in such circumstances; and

30

as far as workers and their representatives are concerned, the main danger lies in the new capacity that exists for monitoring and surveillance. New technology may allow employees' work and productivity to be monitored, and also aspects of their personal lives, while their use of the internet and e-mail can be subject to monitoring (not least because of the traces any such use leaves). This raises questions of both privacy and the relationship of control at the workplace. These dangers can be even greater, and the surveillance technology even more advanced, in situations where there is a physical distance between the worker and the employer. In the words of a document from a French public consultative body on the issue, the National Commission on Information Technology and Civil Liberties (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Liberts, CNIL): 'Development is constant: first, the supervisor, a person who is easy to spot and has responsibility for monitoring the workers physical presence at the workplace and the performance of his or her duties; then electronic supervisors, charged with checking physical presence through access badges. Henceforth, there will be the era of the virtual supervisor, able to do anything without the worker always being fully aware of what is going on and, in certain circumstances, and over and above legitimate monitoring of employees safety and productivity, able to draw up the virtual employees professional, intellectual and psychological profile' (La cybersurveillance des salaris dans lentreprise, Hubert Bouchet, CNIL, study and public consultation report, March 2001).

These dangers on either side of the employment relationship have grown sharply over the last few years, given the increased use of ICT at the workplace and at all stages in enterprises' activities. Moreover, new developments such as measures associated with ensuring 'quality' have taken root and have had the effect of setting up systems for tracking the various stages in the provision of goods or services in many companies. This is arguably creating a stronger de facto monitoring of workers' activity through technology. In this context of the spread of ICT at work and its attendant risks, new problems are arising in the relationships between employers and workers. For example, how far can employers' actions aimed at preventing potential dangers be extended without undermining workers fundamental rights? The issue of privacy and the use of new technologies at the workplace is thus becoming increasingly important for employers and trade unions (though to varying extents). For example, at international level, Union Network International (UNI) - the global union federation for white-collar and private sector workers' trade unions - and its affiliates have been campaigning for some years on the issue of the protection of workers 'on-line rights' at work (EU0210205F). At national level, trade unions and employers/employers' organisations in many countries are increasingly issuing or proposing guidance, policies and codes of practice on workplace ICT use (see below under 'Social partner views and initiatives' for more information on these various initiatives). An indication of the significance that these issues are gaining at the workplace is provided by a survey conducted in the UK in 2002 by the solicitors KLegal and Personnel Today magazine. It claimed that UK employers spent more time disciplining staff over internet and e-mail abuse than any other workplace issue. The three most commonly disciplined 'cyber crimes' were excessive personal use of the internet or e-mail, sending pornographic messages and looking at pornographic websites. In a number of cases this has led to dismissal - most commonly in relation to the exchange of pornographic e-mails. International and European institutions are also paying increasing attention to the relationship between ICT and privacy at work, with a number of recommendations and codes drawn up by bodies such as the Council of Europe and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) - for example, in 1996, the ILO issued a code of practice on the protection of workers' personal data, covering general principles of protection of such data and specific provisions

31

regarding their collection, security, storage, use and communication. There have also been relevant recent cases in the European Court of Human Rights. Turning to the EU, in 1995 it adopted a Directive (95/46/EC) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, which is relevant to the privacy issue in that electronic monitoring in the workplace can be treated as a form of collecting or processing personal data. More specifically, the European Commission has recently consulted the social partners on the protection of workers' personal data and now appears to be planning a draft Directive on the issue. At national level, a few countries have started to adopt or propose workplace-specific data protection/privacy legislation, while all countries have general data protection legislation in place (see below under 'National law and guidelines'). The study This comparative study - based on the contributions of the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO) national centres in the EU Member States and Norway - examines one specific issue raised by the growth of ICT at work, the relationship between internet/e-mail use at work and respect for workers' privacy. Other issues of relevance to ICT-related workplace privacy, such as monitoring and surveillance techniques in other areas, or the protection of stored personal data or medical records, are not dealt with specifically here (except as part of general discussion of the legal context). However, we start with a general overview of the concept of privacy at work before looking at:

brief data on the extent of internet and e-mail use; European law - emanating from both the EU and the Council of Europe - on workplace privacy and data protection, in the form of both conventions/charters and specific legislation (and proposed legislation) or recommendations; national law on general protection of privacy, the protection of personal data and the specific protection of privacy in the workplace context, including any provisions relevant to workers' e-mail/internet use - plus case law in this area and guidance from public authorities; the views of the social partners and initiatives they have taken on privacy and internet/e-mail use; and the extent to which these issues are dealt with in collective bargaining or other forms of joint regulation at any level

The concept of privacy at the workplace The Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms- which has been ratified by all the EU Member States and Norway - states in Article 8 ('Right to respect for private and family life'): In 1970, the Council of Europe's committee of experts in human rights stated that the right to respect for private life is mainly based on a recognition of the interest that individuals have in being protected from all intrusions into their private lives and any parts of their lives that they legitimately want to keep to themselves. This interest, the committee went on, concerns personal communications and relationships, in addition to all matters touching the individuals privacy and person, and in particular refers to his or her image, voice and home, and to all goods that relate to his or her personal life. Case law in the European Court of Human Rights has established that the right to respect for private life extends to 'professional or business activities' and that as well as correspondence it applies to telephone conversations (whether business or private) - a principle which suggest that e-mails and internet use may also be covered ('it is anticipated that the concept will continue to be interpreted so as to keep pace with developments in

32

technology which may bring other methods of communication, such as e-mail, within its sphere of protection'- The right to respect for private and family life. A guide to the implementation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ursula Kilkelly, Council of Europe, Human rights handbooks No. 1, 2001). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union signed at the Nice European Council in December 2000 (EU0012288F) essentially repeats (in Article 7) the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Council of Europe Convention, stating that 'Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.'- to take account of developments in technology, the word 'correspondence' in the Convention has been replaced by 'communications'. There are difficulties in adapting the concept of respect for private life to the workplace. The right, as noted above, is taken to cover professional or business activities and to employees' communications - arguably including e-mail and internet use - thus implying that employers may not, in principle, interfere in these areas. However, such interference is acceptable in certain circumstances - notably where this is necessary for the reasons set out in Article 8(2) of the Conventions, ie 'in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'. This situation raises many questions about the extent to which workers may be monitored and the relationship between their rights and employers' prerogative. For example, to what extent may a worker use ICT equipment for private reasons given that 'a general, absolute ban on any use of the internet for other than professional reasons does not appear realistic in an information/communication society' (in the words of France's CNIL, in La cybersurveillance sur les lieux de travail, a report adopted in February 2002). However, a number of principles relating to privacy and employer monitoring at the workplace can be drawn from bodies of national legislation that provide guidelines on the definition of this concept (see 'La preuve en droit du travail: protection de la vie prive et nouvelles technologies. Du contrematre la cybersurveillance', Gilbert Demez, in Questions de droit social, Formation permanente CUP series, No. 56, Edition Formation permanente CUP, 2002):

the principle of relevance (or the principle of aims) - the aims for monitoring by the employer is authorised in respect of electronic online communications data must be relevant to the situation of workers; the principle of proportionality- monitoring must, in all cases, be appropriate, relevant and proportionate with regard to the aims that it is pursuing. This is a matter of finding a balance between the interests of the employer and those of the worker; the principle of transparency (or the principle of precaution) - the concrete expression of this principle is to be found in employee information and consultation procedures that must be complied with by the employer when the monitoring system is installed (see below under 'National law and guidelines'). For example In Belgium, national collective agreement No. 81 (see below) provides that information is to be provided at both individual and collective level, while in Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court and Federal Labour Court have ruled that any 'secret' monitoring (ie without the workers consent), including of tele phone calls, is an intrusion into a worker's private life; and the principle of non-discrimination:- the measures adopted must not lead to discrimination between workers or groups of workers, and must be applicable to all.

Interestingly, some writers in France are now putting forward the broader idea of employees' 'personal life', alongside that of their 'private life'. The definition of 'private life' (based on

33

Article 9 of the French Civil Code and Article 8 of the Council of Europe Convention) focuses mainly on the intimacy of human life - eg the right to a home; the right to respect for, and the inviolability of, correspondence; the right to a sex life and the right to a normal family life. 'Personal life' also embraces other aspects of workers lives, a nd particularly the public places they go to, the associations and parties they belong to, their cultural and sporting activities, their reading matter, and the opinions they express (see 'Les liberts dans l'entreprise', Phillipe Waquet, in Revue de jurisprudence sociale, 2000, and 'NTIC et vie personnelle au travail', Paul-Henri Antonmatti, in Droit social No 1, January 2002). Extent of internet and e-mail use The importance of the issue of internet/e-mail use and its relationship with privacy at the workplace is underlined by the extensive use of this ICT in companies across the EU and Norway. Data from Eurostat indicate that at the end of 2000 (the most recent date for which statistics are available), over half of enterprises had internet access in all countries examined (no information was available for Belgium, France and Ireland) and around twothirds or more in the great majority of countries - see table 1 below. Finland and Sweden are leaders in the field, with 91% and 90% respectively of all enterprises of all sizes connected to the internet. At the other end of the scale, Greece and Luxembourg have the lowest internet connection rates at the workplace, at 51% for the former and 55% for the latter. By and large, the proportion of enterprises with internet access rises with the size of the enterprise. There are even more pronounced effects related to size in some countries, where the proportion of small enterprises connected to the internet is particularly low in comparison with medium-sized and large enterprises: examples of this include Spain (63% of small enterprises, compared with 89% for medium-sized enterprises and 97% of large enterprises), Italy (63%/86%/94%), Greece (49%/70%/84%) and the UK (59%/79%/90%). By contrast, size-related differences are least visible in Finland (90%/96%/97%) and Sweden (88%/96%/99%). Table 1. Enterprises with internet access (%), by size, 2000 Medium-sized Small enterprises Large enterprises (250 Total enterprises (50-249 (10-49 workers) workers and above) workers) 76 87 91 83 51 66 55 79 73 72 67 90 63 73 85 90 77 49 63 52 77 71 71 63 88 59 91 96 96 90 70 86 63 nd 87 86 89 96 79 91 99 97 89 84 94 70 nd 94 94 97 99 90

Country Austria Denmark Finland Germany Greece Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden UK

34

Sectors covered: manufacturing (NACE D); distribution (NACE G); hotels and restaurants (NACE H); transport, storage and communication (NACE I); financial services (NACE J), and business services (NACE K). Source: Eurostat e-commerce databank (no data available for France, Ireland and Belgium) In sectoral terms - see table 2 (no data are available for Belgium, France, Ireland and Spain) - the proportion of enterprises with internet access is usually highest in the business services sector, though in Greece and Portugal, the list is headed by transport, storage and communications. By contrast, the hotels and restaurants sector normally has the lowest connection rate, except in Austria and Denmark, where it is transport, storage and communications that are least well equipped. The unequal distribution of enterprises with internet access is most marked in Greece and Portugal - although coverage in transport, storage and communications reaches 72% in Greece and 90% in Portugal, it is only 37% and 31% respectively in the hotels and restaurants sector.

35

Table 2. Distribution of enterprises with internet access (%) by sector, 2000 Transport, storage Hotels and Business Manufacturing Distribution and Country restaurants services (NACE D) (NACE G) communications (NACE H (NACE K) (NACE I) Austria Denmark Finland Germany Greece Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Sweden UK 74 88 90 / 46 66 53 81 82 67 nd 69 76 91 91 82 55 66 48 77 64 79 nd 59 47 76 83 88 73 37 51 36 70 63 32 92 56 67 77 94 / 72 65 52 72 67 90 84 92 96 nd 64 74 73 85 88 77 nd 75

Source: Eurostat e-commerce databank (no data available for France, Ireland and Belgium) European law As with national law (as we will see below under 'National law and guidelines'), European law - emanating from both the EU and Council of Europe - rarely addresses specifically privacy issues related to the use of new technology at the workplace, with this matter being covered by more general provisions relating to the right to respect for privacy and to the protection of personal data. Conventions and charters As noted above (under 'The concept of privacy at the workplace'), the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees a right to respect for private and family life, which has been interpreted as covering professional or business activities and employees' communications (arguably including email and internet use). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union restates this right (in a slightly updated form) and includes (in Article 8) a right to protection of personal data, stating: As far back as 1981, the Council of Europe adopted a Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ratified by all the EU Member States and Norway) which seeks to ensure respect for people's rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular the right to privacy, with regard to automatic processing of personal data. With the aim of adapting the Convention to the employment context, in 1989, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted a Recommendation (R(89)2) on the protection of personal data used for employment purposes, with specific reference to automatically processed data. Against a backdrop of growing ICT use in employer/employee relations, this Recommendation seeks to reduce the risks that such methods could present for the rights and fundamental freedoms of workers, notably the right

36

to respect for privacy. It therefore makes recommendations on collecting and processing data in the context, for example, of recruiting, and on the introduction of procedures for monitoring workers movements and productivity. Existing EU legislation In terms of EU legislation in this area, the main item is the European Parliament and Council Directive (95/46/EC) 'on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data', whose aim is 'the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, notably the right to privacy, with regard to the processing of personal data' in the EU Member States. It also provides that 'Member States shall neither restrict nor prohibit the free flow of personal data between Member States for reasons connected with the protection' provided by the Directive. The Directive - which had to be implemented by the Member States by October 1998 - seeks, among other goals to, 'give substance to and amplify' the 1981 Council of Europe personal data Convention. As far as protection of personal data is concerned, the Directive deals first with the quality of personal data, stating notably that they must be:

processed fairly and lawfully; collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed; accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; and kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed.

With regard to the criteria for making data processing legitimate, personal data may be processed only if:

the data subject (ie the person concerned) has unambiguously given consent; or processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the 'controller' is subject; or processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.

The processing of special categories of personal data is banned - this refers to those revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership, and those concerning health or sex life - though with various exemptions. Processing of data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security measures may be carried out only under the control of an official authority. There are also exemptions for the processing of data for journalistic reasons, and for the purposes of artistic and literary expression.

37

Under the terms of the Directive, the person concerned must be informed about the processing of the data and of the aim of the processing, and must have access to the data collected. He or she may oppose the processing of these data, for legitimate reasons, or may have them corrected if they are inaccurate. The party responsible for processing personal data must ensure that the processing is confidential and secure and must notify the monitoring authority prior to an entirely or partly digitised processing exercise, or a series of processing exercises with the same, or linked, aims. In 1997, a specific EU Directive (97/66/EC) 'concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy' was adopted for the telecommunications sector, aiming to respond to the introduction of new advanced digital technologies in public telecommunications networks. It was repealed, and replaced (in the light of developments in the markets and technologies for electronic communications services) in July 2002 by Directive (2002/58/EC) 'concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector'. The rationale is that 'new advanced digital technologies are currently being introduced in public communications networks in the Community, which give rise to specific requirements concerning the protection of personal data and privacy of the user.' EU initiative on workers' personal data In August 2001, the European Commission launched a first stage of consultation of the social partners on the protection of workers' personal data, seeking their views on the possible orientation of policy in this area. It noted that the two existing EU Directives on processing of personal data contain very few provisions on the processing of data in the employment context and asked the social partners if they believed that these Directives, as implemented in the Member States, adequately addressed the protection of workers' personal data. In particular, the social partners were asked if it was advisable that the EU should takes an initiative in this field focusing notably on: consent (to the processing of an individual's data) in the employment context; access to and processing of medical data in the employment context; drug testing and genetic testing in the employment context; and monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. The social partners were also asked what form they thought a Community action should take (Directive, communication, recommendation, code of practice, guidelines etc) and what the main features of such a measure might be. The responses indicated to the Commission that there was widespread consensus among the social partners as regards the importance of the question of personal data processing in the employment context, given socio-economic and technological advances over the recent years. However, there were disagreements between employers associations and trade unions over the need for any further EU-level action and the direction that this should take. For example, employers organisations - the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Association of Craft and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) and the Confederation of German Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, BDI) - did not see the point of having Community legislation on the subject, because they think that Directive 95/46/EC is appropriate and capable of ensuring that workers personal data are protected. All employers' organisations emphasised the merits of flexibility and national diversity, as well as the need to avoid overregulation and supplementary burdens on employers. UNICE highlighted the need for information and transparency as regards national regulations and favoured enhancing awareness and exchange of information and best practices. UNICE favoured 'non-binding instruments at the national level through the social partners who are better placed to tackle possible problems'. UEAPME also stated that non-binding measures at European level, such as a code of conduct along the lines of that established by the ILO (see above), could be useful.

38

By contrast, the trade unions - the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff (EUROCADRES) and the European Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff (CEC) - supported the introduction of an EU Directive on the subject. They believed that the existing Directives on personal data protection are useful but not sufficient with regard to the specificity of the employment context. Furthermore, current national legislation implementing the Directives is not seen as totally satisfactory or as covering all aspects. The unions were in favour of a specific Directive, allowing a certain flexibility according to national specificities. Following these responses, in October 2002, the Commission launched a second stage of consultation, this time on the content of an envisaged proposal in this area (EU0211206F) having concluded that it is advisable that a framework of employment-specific rules on data protection should established at EU level - giving the social partners the opportunity to negotiate an agreement on the issue and thus forestall a proposed Directive. The secondstage consultation was more concrete and detailed, suggesting a new framework of principles and rules on data protection at the workplace (see box below). However, following the responses of the social partners to the second round of consultations, it appears that this opportunity has been rejected, and the Commission is planning a draft Directive in 2004 or 2005 (according to its June 2003 mid-term review of the social policy agenda). European Commission's suggested framework for workplace data protection The European Commission's October 2002 second-stage consultation of the social partners suggests a new European framework of principles and rules on data protection at the workplace, on the grounds of:

technological advances such as the increased use of e-mail, electronic files and teleworking, which is blurring the boundary between work and private life, and cheaper genetic testing technology; globalisation, in particular the growing trend of outsourcing the human resource function of large businesses. This may create difficulties if data protection laws differ from one jurisdiction to another; and 'post-11 September insecurity' . In the USA, for example, companies may be expected to monitor workers as part of government efforts to increase security.

The proposed framework would cover data about employees, such as personal health records, as well as data created by or used by employees, such as e-mails or internet use. It would deal with the issues of consent, medical data, drug and genetic testing and monitoring and surveillance. On the latter issue - which is of most direct relevance to this study's concerns - the Commission notes that a review of the regulatory situation in the Member States in this area shows that surveillance and monitoring of workers by their employers is regulated through a number of principles and rules contained in various legal acts, including national constitutions, legislation on employment, data protection and telecommunications, the penal code etc. The interaction of the relevant provisions, so far as their application in the employment context is concerned, is often not clear and the situation is, in some cases, quite controversial. This situation becomes even more critical taking into account that the traditional monitoring means, such as telephone-tapping and video surveillance, are increasingly complemented by technologically more advanced and potentially more intrusive means - ie monitoring through the workers' own work tools such as their computer (e-mail, internet etc). It therefore suggests that the following principles should form part of the proposed European framework:

workers' representatives should be informed and consulted before the introduction,

39

modification or evaluation of any system likely to be used for monitoring/surveillance of workers; a prior check by a national data protection supervisory authority should be considered; continuous monitoring should be permitted only if necessary for health, safety, security or the protection of property; secret monitoring should be permitted only in conformity with the safeguards laid down by national legislation or if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or other serious wrongdoing; personal data collected in order to ensure the security, control or proper operation of processing systems should not be processed to control the behaviour of individual workers except where the latter is linked to the operation of these systems; personal data collected by electronic monitoring should not be the only factors in evaluating workers' performance and taking decisions in their regard; notwithstanding particular cases, such as automated monitoring for purposes of security and proper operation of the system (eg viruses), routine monitoring of each individual worker's e-mail or internet use should be prohibited. Individual monitoring may be carried out where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or serious wrongdoing or misconduct, provided that there are no other less intrusive means to achieve the desired purpose (eg objective monitoring of traffic data rather than of the content of e-mails, or preventive use of technology); there should be a prohibition in principle on employers opening private e-mail and/or other private files, notably those explicitly indicated as such, irrespective of whether use of the work tools for private purposes was allowed or not by the employer. In particular, private e-mails/files should be treated as private correspondence. Secrecy of correspondence should not be able to be waived with a general consent by the worker, in particular upon conclusion of the contract of employment; and communication to occupational health professionals and representatives of workers should receive particular protection.

Finally, it should be noted that one framework agreement concluded by the European intersectoral social partners has some implications, if limited to one particular group of workers, for workplace privacy. The July 2002 agreement on telework (EU0207204F) provides that employers should respect the privacy of teleworkers, and that if any kind of monitoring system is put in place, it needs to be proportionate to the objective and introduced in accordance with EU Directive (90/270/EEC) on visual display units. The agreement - unlike previous such accords - is being implemented by the national social partners themselves, rather than being given the force of law by an EU Directive. Monitoring of teleworkers has also been covered by two sets of European sectoral guidelines on the issue, agreed in the telecommunications sector (February 2001 -EU0102296F) and the commerce sector (April 2001 - EU0105214F). National law and guidelines Table 3 below sets out the main laws in the 16 countries examined with regard to: general protection of privacy (including specific rules on privacy of communications); the protection of personal data; and specific protection of privacy in the workplace context, including the rights of workers' representatives in regulating this area. The general privacy provisions listed do not include direct incorporation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which has occurred in many countries, while the workplace-specific provisions do not include the employment aspects of general data protection legislation.

40

Table 3. Main national laws regulating privacy and data protection, in general and at the workplace Country General privacy Personal data protection Workplace specific Austrian Constitution does not explicitly provide right to privacy. However, Article 8 of the European Convention applies, while Data Protection Act has constitutional status and provides right of secrecy of personal data, particularly regarding respect for private and family life. Belgian Constitution (Article 22) states that 'everyone has the right to have his private and family life respected, except in the cases and under the conditions stipulated by law'. Article 314bis of Penal Code outlaws interception of private communications and telecommunications without the permission of participants. Law of of 21 March 1991 ('Belgacom Law') makes it illegal to look at telecommunications from or to other people. Danish Constitution (Article 72) provides for secrecy of of letters and other papers, and in The Labour Constitution Act, (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz, ArbVG) provides (96) that the installation of any technological facilities at work which are (potentially) The 2000 Data Protection Act likely to monitor employees (Bundesgesetz ber den requires an obligatory works Schutz personenbezogener agreement (ie with the Daten, Datenschutzgesetz) works council), if the implements Directive 95/46/EC. employees 'dignity' is affected (even if the individual employee consents to such monitoring facilities). The works council also has information rights in this area (AT9806193F). National collective agreement No. 38 on recruitment (1983) provides that interference in private life of applicants can be justified only when relevant to employment relationship (a rule generally accepted to apply to whole employment relationship). Law of 8 December 1992 National collective covers the protection of privacy agreement No. 68 (1998) in relation to the processing of bans video monitoring at the personal data - amended by workplace, except in some law of 11 December 1998 to circumstances and with implement Directive 95/46/EC. information and consultation of workers' representatives (BE9807150N). National collective agreement No. 81 (2002) protects private lives of employees with respect to controls on electronic online communications data (see main text) - includes information rights for works councils. The Act on Processing of Personal Data (Lov om behandling af personoplysninger, Act No. 429 of 31 May 2000) implements The 1982 Act on Video Surveillance applies to the workplace, requiring employer to provide employees with general (but

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

41

postal, telegraph, Directive 95/46/EC. and telephone matters. Penal Code's provisions on secrecy of mails ( 263) make it a a criminal offence to open or otherwise acquire access to content of a letter or another closed message addressed to another person.

not specific) information about such surveillance. Penal Code's provisions on secrecy of mails apply to email and some workplace situations.

Finland

The Act on Data Protection in Working Life (477/2001) regulates in detail privacy in working life in terms of ICT (FI0106191F) (see main Finnish Constitution text). Employee (section 8) provides representatives have for security of The Personal Data Act cooperation rights over the private life and (523/1999) of 22 April 1999 purpose, implementation secrecy of implements Directive 95/46/EC. and methods used in communications technical employee (with restrictions). monitoring and the use of electronic mail and data networks (also stipulated in Act on Cooperation within Undertakings). The Civil Code (Article 9) provides a right to privacy. The Criminal Code (Article 226) provides that wilfully impinging upon someone elses privacy is a criminal offence and specifies penalties incurred for interception of correspondence, including electronic communications. Law of 10 July 1991 governs secrecy of communications sent by telecommunications. German Constitution (Articles 1(1) and Law 92-1446 of 31 December 1992 applied general principles of 1978 data protection law to the field of employment. The Labour Code: prohibits restriction of workers' rights Law 78-17 of 6 January 1978 and individual and collective on information technology, files freedoms unless this is and freedoms (Loi relative justified by the nature of the l'informatique, aux fichiers et task to be accomplished, or aux liberts) governs collection proportionate to the desired and storage of personal objective (employers must computerised data. therefore justify potential restrictions) (Article L120-2); and provides that employees must be made aware of any monitoring that may focus on them (Articles L121-7 and 121-8). The Federal Data Privacy Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, The 1997 TDDSG and TKG both have workplace implications in terms of

France

Germany

42

2(1)) provides for a general right of privacy.

BDSG) governs processing and use of personal data - originally adopted in 1990 and amended in 2001 to implement Directive 95/46/EC (most federal states have also adopted laws to implement Directive). The 1997 Teleservices Data Protection Act (Teledienstedatenschutzgesetz, TDDSG) specifically governs data protection in relation to the internet and the 1997 Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz, TKG) contains data protection provisions. Law 2472/1997 governs the protection of individuals with regard to processing of personal data, implementing Directive 95/46/EC. Law 2774/1999 governs protection of personal data in telecommunications sector.

restrictions on monitoring where the employer has permitted private use of email and internet. The Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, BetrVG) gives works councils co-determination rights over: rules of conduct where the employer permits the use of company e-mail systems for private purposes; and introduction and use of technical equipment intended to monitor conduct or performance of employees. Data Protection Authority Directive 115/2001 interprets the norms laid down in laws 2472/97 and 2774/99 on data protection for the purpose of applying them in the area of employment relationships.

Greece

Greek Constitution provides for inviolability of personal and family life (Article 9) and privacy of correspondence and any other form of communication (Article 19). Irish Constitution does not explicitly provide right to privacy, though case law implies its protection.

Ireland

The Data Protection Act 1988 (amended April 2003), implemented Directive 95/46/EC.

None, apart from employment provisions of Data Protection Act.

Italy

Law No. 675 of 31 December 1996 regulates 'data protection for individuals and others with Italian Constitution regard to the processing of (Article 15) affirms personal data', implementing inviolability of Directive 95/46/EC. freedom and Supplemented and partially secrecy of amended by Presidential correspondence and Decree No. 318/99 on of all other forms of 'minimum security measures for communication. personal data handling' and legislative decree No. 467/2001.

Workers' Statute (law No. 300/70) regulates a number of privacy matters, notably (in Article 4) forbidding the use of apparatus (including new technologies) to control workers' activities.

Law of 2 August 2002 governs Luxembourg protection of people in respect Constitution (Article Luxembourg of processing of personal data, 28) protects secrecy implementing Directive of correspondence. 95/46/EC.

Law of 6 May 1974 establishing joint works committees in private sector enterprises (with over 150 employees) codetermination rights on the introduction and application

43

of technical equipment designed to monitor employees behaviour and performance at their work stations. Dutch Constitution states that all citizens are entitled to respect of their personal privacy (10) and guarantees privacy of correspondence, Netherlands telephone and telegraph communication (13). Civil Code (7:611) states that employers should behave in a reasonable way. The Works Councils Act (27.1), gives works council the right of consent (a kind of veto power) when the employer intends to introduce, change or abolish a rule on: the collection and processing of employees' personal data; or facilities aimed at, or suitable for, the observation or control of employees' presence, behaviour or performance.

Personal Data Protection Act (Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens) of 6 July 2000 implements Directive 95/46/EC.

Norway

Act relating to Workers Protection and Working Norwegian Environment Constitution does (Arbeidsmiljloven, AML) not explicitly provide implies that monitoring of right to privacy. The 2000 Act relating to the employees may not be However, courts Processing of Personal Data carried out if such activity have established a (Personopplysningsloven) breaches the provisions of fundamental legal implements Directive 95/46/EC. the Act by subjecting principle of employees to health-related 'protection of hazards (however, the AML personal integrity.' obliges employers to control and monitor working life). The recently introduced Labour Code (PT0305101N) provides that: employers and workers should respect each others' right to personality and to maintain confidentiality of Law 67/98 of 26 October 1998 their private lives, including on Personal Data Protection access to and disclosure of (Lei da protecao de dados matters such as family, pessoais) implements Directive emotional or sexual life, 95/46/EC. health or political and religious convictions; and files and computer applications used by employers to process personal data of job applicants or employees are subject to the law on

Portugal

Portuguese Constitution recognises rights to personal identity (Article 26), privacy of correspondence and other means of private communication (Article 34) and data protection (Article 35).

44

personal data protection. Law on Employment Contracts indirectly regulates control and monitoring of contents of workers e-mails or internet use (eg by prohibiting employers from preventing workers from exercising their rights). Spanish Constitution (Article 8) provides right to personal and family privacy. Penal Code (Article 167) forbids interception of communications. Organic Law 15/1999 of 13 December 1999 on the Protection of Information of a Personal Nature implements Directive 95/46/EC. Royal Decree 994/1999 regulates security measures for automated files containing personal information. Workers' Statute (Article 64) establishes right of works councils to issue a prior report on the introduction or revision of systems of organisation and control of work, and to monitor fulfilment of regulations and agreements in this area.

Spain

Sweden

Sweden's constitutional Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen) provides for privacy of correspondence and confidential communications The 1998 Personal Data Act (Chapter 2 Article 6) (Personregisterlagen, PUL) and protection from implements Directive 95/46/EC. infringement of personal integrity resulting from the registration of information by means of electronic data processing (Chapter 2 Article 3). Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 (incorporating European Convention) provides right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 outlaws

Act on Co-Determination (Medbestmmandelagen, MBL) provides that important changes in the workplace should be negotiated between employer and local trade unions, and this is taken to include personal integrity matters (such as medical tests), including those related to ICT

UK

RIPA has been qualified by Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 Regulations 2000, which implements Directive 95/46/EC. allows businesses (including Computer Misuse Act 1990 government departments deals with violations of personal and public authorities) to data through 'hacking'. monitor and/or record many communications without consent to: establish facts relevant to the business; ascertain whether an

45

interception of private correspondence without consent of both parties, or specific warrant.

employee has attained the required standard; prevent or detect crime; investigate or detect unauthorised use of the telecommunications system; or ensure the systems effective operation. Organisations are also allowed to monitor but not record communications without consent in order to determine whether or not communications are business-related and to monitor communications to a confidential support help line.

Notes: European Convention = Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Directive 95/46/EC = 1995 European Parliament and Council Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Source: EIRO. As indicated by table 3, the EU Member States and Norway have several kinds of legislation relating to the protection of privacy in general, or in the context of work or new technology. These include provisions in constitutions or legal codes, legislation and, in the case of Belgium, collective agreements with the force of law. Of the countries under examination, only Belgium and, to a lesser extent, Denmark and Germany, have provisions that specifically deal with employee e-mail and the internet use and its monitoring. General provisions Many national constitutions contain a general right to protection of privacy/private life - as in Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain - while such a right, though not explicit, is implied in other cases - such as Austria, Ireland and Norway. Such a general privacy right may also stem from the Civil Code, as in France, or specific legislation, such as the UK's Human Rights Act (while the ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by all countries concerned also implies the application of its privacy provisions). The Italian parliament is currently debating a 'consolidated text' on privacy, aimed at combining all current rules on privacy into a single document, and harmonising them in order to obtain a systematic body of legislation. Many constitutions also guarantee some form of secrecy of communications (sometimes alongside a general privacy right) - such as Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. Penal or Criminal Codes forbid interception (without consent or authorisation on specific grounds) of communications and sometimes specifically telecommunications in countries such as Belgium, Denmark, France and Spain, while specific legislation covers these issues in cases such as Belgium, France and the UK. Though some of these basic provisions may be assumed to cover internet/e-mail use, this is rarely explicit, though Denmark is an exception (see below). Sweden is unusual in that there is a specific constitutional right to privacy protection related to electronic data processing.

46

All countries have data protection legislation. This is either in direct implementation of the EU Directive (95/46/EC) on the issue or pre-existing legislation which has been amended in the light of the Directive (as in Belgium and Germany) - only France does not appear specifically to have transposed the Directive (with draft legislation to this effect currently before the National Assembly). As seen above (under 'Existing EU legislation'), the Directive and its implementing legislation have implications for the employment relationship. However, it is rare for countries to have introduced specific legislation applying data protection rules to the employment context - this has occurred most notably in Finland (see box below) as well as in France, Greece (in the form of a Data Protection Authority directive) and, to some extent, Portugal. EU Directive 97/66/EC, which deals specifically with the telecommunications sector (see above), has been transposed in some countries, including Belgium, Germany, Greece and the UK, again with some employment implications. Germany is unusual in having legislation which governs data protection specifically in the context of the internet. Finnish Act on Data Protection in Working Life The Act on Data Protection in Working Life (477/2001) came into force in Finland on 1 October 2001 (FI0106191F). It applies to all employment relationships (including apprenticeship contracts) and to both employees and job applicants. It provides that an employer may process only personal data that directly relates to an employees employment relationship. Outdated or unnecessary data must not be kept by employers. Companies must draw up a description of the personal data files they hold, making this available to any interested party, and must also notify the Data Protection Ombudsman (see below) of automated data processing by sending it a description of the files held. There is an employers obligation to notify employees about these issues and employees have a right to check personal data concerning them (subject to restrictions related to state security, defence, general order and safety, and the prevention or investigation of crime). The Act covers international transfers of personal data, requiring a Finnish company that transfers employees' personal data outside the EU/EEA to notify the Data Protection Ombudsman. Beyond the employment-related provisions of general or specific data protection legislation, at least some aspects of privacy at the workplace are governed by employment (or other) law in most countries (with some exceptions, such as Ireland) - though this is rarely comprehensive. On a general level, the French Labour Code prohibits restrictions of workers' rights and freedoms except where justified and proportionate, while a Belgian national collective agreement (such agreements are given the force of law and are thus included here) provides that interference in the private lives of job applicants (and, by extension, employees) can be justified only when relevant to the employment relationship. The Italian Workers' Statute regulates a number of privacy matters, while Portugal's new Labour Code provides for privacy in areas related to workers' personal lives. The specific issue of monitoring and video surveillance at the workplace is made subject to various conditions by legislation in countries such as Belgium (a national collective agreement), Denmark and France. In some cases, works councils or other workplace employee representatives have a number of powers over the introduction and/or use of equipment for monitoring employees' performance, work etc. Agreement or co-determination is required in Austria (where employees' 'dignity' is affected), Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, while information and consultation is required in Belgium (see below), Finland and Spain. Similar rights relating to the more general issue of introducing new technology may also apply to monitoring equipment in countries such as France. The co-determination rights of local unions in Sweden are taken to include matters related to personal integrity.

47

Internet and e-mail use While some of the general and workplace-specific privacy and data protection law outlined above may have implications for employees' e-mail and internet use, there is very little specific legislation on this issue across the countries considered. The most notable exception is a Belgian national collective agreement (with the force of law) on the issue, outlined in the box below. Belgian national agreement on protection of employees' on-line privacy On 26 April 2002, employer and employee representatives on the National Labour Council (Conseil National du Travail/Nationaal Arbeidsraad, CNT/NAR) signed national collective agreement No. 81 on the protection of workers' privacy with respect to controls on electronic on-line communications data (BE0209302F). The agreement was declared mandatory under the terms of a Royal Decree of 20 September 1998. The agreement adapts general provisions concerning the protection of privacy with a view to making them applicable to the working environment, and is valid only for the private sector. The agreement does not relate to the rules for accessing and/or using electronic on-line communications equipment in the company, as these rules are the prerogative of the employer - it thus leaves any applicable company rules and practices on information and consultation in this field intact. Instead, the agreement governs workers' right to privacy when electronic communications data are collected for the purposes of monitoring. The agreement covers all on-line technologies such as the internet, e-mail and WAP, but has been drafted sufficiently widely that it will also cover future developments. In principle, monitoring of such electronic communications data should not impinge on a workers private life but, if it does, this must be kept to an absolute minimum. Only data that are necessary for monitoring may be collected. The monitoring may cover:

with regard to internet site controls, the collection of data on the duration of the connection per workstation, but not individual data on the sites visited; and with regard to the use of e-mail, the collection of data on the number of messages sent per workstation and the volume of them, but not identification of the employee who sent them.

The employer may carry out monitoring of electronic online communications data as long as it is pursuing the following objectives:

the prevention of illegal or defamatory acts, acts that are contrary to good ethics or which can damage the dignity of another person; the protection of the economic, commercial and financial interests of the company; the security and good operation of the company's ICT network systems; and the faithful observance of the principles and rules applicable in the company for the use of on-line technologies - in such cases, the employer is obliged to inform the worker of any anomaly, and to seek to avoid it happening again.

The employer must clearly and expressly define the objectives of the control exercised. Moreover, the content of data may be controlled only if the employee and other parties concerned (eg the recipient of the message) have consented to it. Before putting a monitoring system in place, the employer must also notify both the works council and the workforce.

48

'Individualisation' of electronic on-line communications data, as referred to in the agreement, means an action whose purpose is to process electronic on-line communications data collected during controls by the employer, in order to attribute them to an identified or identifiable person. In principle, the employer will first perform a general control without being able to determine what wrongdoing can be attributed to what employee. Only in the second instance can the employee responsible be sought. The agreement should be interpreted in the light of existing constitutional and statutory principles, stating: 'It is very important here to respect the constitutional and statutory principles of protecting privacy and the secrecy of telecommunications, but it is important to allow for adjustments that are nonetheless strict as far as introduction in the workplace is concerned.' However, there are those who query the agreements legality on the ground that some of its contents are at variance with legal provisions that are hierarchically superior. For example (as pointed out by Gilbert Demez, cited above), authorisation of employer monitoring of the content of e-mails may run counter to Article 314bis of the Penal Code, which bans the interception of communications and private telecommunications without the permission of the participants (see table 3 above). When adopting this agreement, the social partners nevertheless expressed a wish that a regulation on the matter should be adopted. The employers, in particular, said that they were happy with the balance between respect for privacy and the right to monitor workers; in fact, they thought that the previous rules gave respect for privacy too much importance. Other privacy provisions which deal specifically with employees' internet and e-mail use are rare, though they include the following:

The Danish Penal Code's provisions on secrecy of mails (263) make it a criminal offence to open or otherwise acquire access to the content of a letter or other closed message that is addressed to person other than oneself. Private e-mails are covered by this provision, though e-mails sent to employees in their capacity as a representative of the employing organisation are not considered to be private. Under these provisions of the Penal Code, along with the Act on Processing of Personal Data, whether or not an employer has the right to read the content of e-mails or register e-mail addresses depends on whether it has a justifiable reason for doing so which does not exceed the employee's legitimate interests. Information about employees' incoming or outgoing e-mails or about what webpages they have visited is considered to be personal information, and any monitoring can be performed only with the consent of the person concerned. In 2000, the Data Protection Agency (see below) stated that considerations relating to computer-system security and control of employees' observation of company policy are legitimate reasons to implement monitoring measures - however, the employer must inform the employee about the surveillance. Unlike private companies, public authorities are obliged to inform the Data Protection Agency about any logging, back-up or reading of employees emails. Germany's Telecommunications Act (TKG) and Teleservices Data Protection Act (TDDSG) apply where the employer has permitted private e-mail and internet use by employees. In such cases, employers' control of employees' private use of such electronic media is subject to more restrictions than is the case for professional use. Where the TKG applies, the collection and use of data is permitted for accounting purposes, to remedy service disruptions or to ensure an orderly communication process. Generally, any check on content is not permitted, unless there is specific suspicion of a serious criminal offence. Analysis of private e-mail/internet connections must be restricted to the minimum needed for recording costs. If private employee use is permitted without any reimbursement of costs, then the connection

49

data may not be analysed, with the exception of anonymous data needed to check the working of the equipment. Where private internet use is permitted, a provideruser relationship is created between the employer and the employees for the purposes of the TDDSG, because the employer provides access to a range of information to the employee. If the employee is not obliged to reimburse the cost of use, then the employer does not have any right of control without the consent of the employee. Furthermore, if the employer permits the use of the companys e -mail systems for private purposes, the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) provides that the relevant rules of conduct must be agreed with the works council and set down in a works agreement. Despite a lack of specific legislation, the general legal framework and principles are interpreted as having implications for employees' internet and e-mail use in some countries. For example, in Norway it is held that, in terms of the employer's right to read an employee's e-mail or private computerised documents, a distinction is drawn between private and enterprise-related e-mails and documents. The employer may not read an employee's private e-mail (or other documents), unless the employee has given /her consent. Enterprise related e-mails may, however, may be read by the employer, because in this cases the legitimate interest of the employer overrides the interest of the employee. The employer nevertheless has a duty to inform employees about such measures. Given the general absence of specific legislation on employees' privacy at the workplace, the introduction of such provisions has been discussed or proposed in a number of countries, sometimes with direct relevance to internet/e-mail use:

in Finland, a working party (including social partner representatives) established by the Ministry of Labour at the behest of parliament has recently examined certain specific issues not covered by the 2001 Act on Data Protection in Working Life (see above), mostly those raised by the rapid development of ICT. It issued its report in June 2003 (FI0307203F), proposing new legislation defining and limiting employers rights to use drug tests and video surveillance and to read employees' e-mails; in Germany, an Employee Data Protection Act (Arbeitnehmerdatenschutzgesetz) has been discussed for some years, and the coalition agreement of the current 'redGreen' government provides for the introduction of such a law. Moreover, several changes to existing laws (eg the TKG) are currently being debated; in Norway, a public committee currently reviewing labour law (NO0210103F) is examining, among other issues, regulations on monitoring and surveillance in working life, and thus protection of employees' privacy. In this area, the committee's brief is to examine the need to establish legal guidelines concerning when and how such monitoring and surveillance may be employed and, if necessary, to propose specific legal rules. The committee's report is due in December 2003; and in Sweden, in March 2002, a government-appointed commissioner (supported by trade unions) submitted a proposal for a new law on the protection of personal integrity in working life (Lagen om integritet i arbetslivet, LIA) (SE0203104F). Under the proposal, the protection of the personal integrity of employees, job applicants and former employees would be strengthened in two main areas - the use of information technology, and medical examinations and drug tests. For example, there would be a general ban on employers reading employees' personal e-mail.. The proposal has been heavily criticised on the grounds that it is overly complicated, and its future is currently uncertain.

50

Case law The lack of specific legislation on employees' e-mail/internet use and workplace privacy makes case law important in some countries. Significant rulings on the issue - or on related themes, such as telephone monitoring and video surveillance, which may have implications for e-mail/internet use - are reported at various levels of the judicial apparatus from countries such as Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Many of these rulings refer, of course, to very specific individual cases, while judgments from the same country may appear contradictory. However, a few themes seem common across a number of countries. Notably, cases in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK have established the necessity for employers to have issued a clear policy or instructions on internet/e-mail use before it is legitimate for them to dismiss or discipline employees on grounds of misuse (though one Dutch court has ruled that an employer had no obligation to give an employee prior notice that private use of internet was not allowed). The courts in some countries - such as Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK - understandably take a very dim view of employees using e-mail or the internet for purposes of crime, harassment (especially sexual) or distributing obscene, pornographic or offensive material. Other specific rulings of interest include the following:

a 2002 Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) ruling in Austria established that employer monitoring of employee telephone use (and thus, by extension, internet and e-mail use) affected employees' 'dignity' (see table 3 above) and thus required consultation of the works council; in 2001, the French Cour de cassation (the country's ultimate appeals court) ruled that an employer cannot read personal messages sent or received by employees using a computer placed at their disposal for work purposes, without violating the fundamental liberty constituted by the right to keep correspondence secret, even when the employer has previously banned non work-related use of the computer; in Italy in 2002, the Court of Milan rejected a complaint by a worker who alleged that her employer had breached the law on privacy by reading her office e-mail (on discovering e-mail entirely unrelated to the workers job, the employer dismissed the worker for breach of contract). The Court rejected the complaint on the grounds that the e-mail addresses allocated to employees are normal work instruments, and that the proprietorship of e-mail pertains solely to the employer; and in the Netherlands (which has seen a particularly large amount of case law in this area), in 1998, the Utrecht court ruled that the constitutional right to confidentiality of the mail also applies to e-mail, even if the employee has used the e-mail employer's connection.

Guidance Given the general paucity of specific legislation on privacy at the workplace and employees' e-mail/internet use, guidelines and opinions issued by public bodies in this area are significant in some countries. These are often the 'supervisory authority' which Member States are required to nominate by the 1995 EU data protection Directive (Article 28). Under the Directive, such supervisory bodies - which must be completely independent - should monitor the application of the provisions adopted by the Member State in question pursuant to the Directive. They must:

be consulted when drawing up administrative measures or regulations relating to the protection of individuals' rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data;

51

have investigative powers, such as powers of access to data being processed and powers to collect the information necessary for the performance of their supervisory duties; have effective powers of intervention, such as those of delivering opinions before processing operations are carried out, ordering the blocking, erasure or destruction of data, imposing a temporary or definitive ban on processing, warning or admonishing the controller, or referring the matter to national parliaments or other political institutions; have the power to engage in legal proceedings where national provisions adopted pursuant to the Directive have been violated, or to bring these violations to the attention of the judicial authorities; and hear claims lodged by any person, or by an association representing that person, concerning the protection of their rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data.

The supervisory bodies which play this role in the EU Member States and Norway, some of which existed before the Directive came into force, are set out in table 4 below. Table 4. National supervisory bodies on data protection Body Data Protection Commission (Datenschutzkommission) (part of the Federal Chancellor's Office) Commission for the Protection of Privacy (Commission de la protection de la vie prive/Commissie voor de bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer) Data Protection Agency (Datatilsynet) Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman (Tietosuojaviranomaiset) National Commission on Information Technology and Civil Liberties (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Liberts, CNIL) Federal Data Protection Commissioner (Bundesbeauftragte fr den Datenschutz) Data Protection Authority Data Protection Commissioner Regulatory Authority for the Protection of Personal Data (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) National Data Protection Commission (Commission Nationale pour la Protection des Donnes) Data Inspectorate (Datatilsynet) National Data Protection Commission (Comisso Nacional de Proteco dos Dados, CNPD) Data Protection Agency (Agencia de Proteccin de Datos) Data Inspection Board (Datainspektionen) Office of the Information Commissioner

Country Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg

Netherlands Data Protection Authority (College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, CBP) Norway Portugal Spain Sweden UK

With regard to workplace privacy and ICT, as noted above, the Greek Data Protection Authority has issued a specific directive seeking to apply data protection legislation to the area of employment relationships, covering: the collection, processing and use of workers personal data; the transmission and protection of such data; and the protection of workers

52

from the use of control and monitoring systems. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner has recommended that the protection of privacy in the workplace is best served through a policy statement or code of practice from the employer, 'where a balance is struck between employees expectations and employers' rights'. Similarly, the Norwegian Data Inspectorate has recommended that employers and employees should jointly establish procedures for monitoring of e-mails at work. In September 2000, the Danish Data Protection Agency issued a statement on legitimate reasons for monitoring of employees' e-mail/internet use by employers (see above). The Italian Regulatory Authority has specified certain cases in which it is not necessary to obtain the prior consent of the person concerned before handling personal data. This exception concerns certain public and private activities (and their employees and users), such as telematic-based communication and information services, interactive marketing (via the internet), services for commercial information and the delivery of publicity material. For each of these sectors, which are less strictly regulated than others, the Authority has drawn up codes of good practice with a view to self-regulation. France's CNIL has issued various consultation documents and reports on issue of relevance to workplace privacy and new technologies. A number of supervisory bodies have issued detailed codes of practice on employees' email/internet use. In June 2003, the UK Information Commissioner published the third part of an Employment Practices Data Protection Code, covering Monitoring at work, including employees' internet and e-mail use. The Code (which does not impose new legal obligations) aims to strike the correct balance between the legitimate expectations of employees and the interests of employers. Briefly, it provides that where employers have to monitor how staff are using computers at work, the monitoring must be open and transparent and with the knowledge of the employee. There are few circumstances in which covert monitoring is justified. Employees are entitled to expect that their personal lives remain private and they have a degree of privacy in the work environment. The Code seeks to clarify the application of the law and protect employees from unfair or excessive informationgathering in the workplace. The Portuguese National Data Protection Commission has issued detailed guidance on privacy at the workplace in relation to ICT. This includes a number of general principles, such as that: employers should inform their employees of the conditions under which the latter may make personal use of the companys ICT, the degree of tolerance and the consequences of misuse or improper use; the data to be processed and the means used should be adjusted to the companys organisation and production, and should be compatible with workers rights and duties laid down in labour legislation; and employers should favour generic control methods and avoid individual reference to personal data. The issue of internet and e-mail use is also dealt with in some detail, as set out in the box below. Portuguese National Data Protection Commission guidance on employees' internet and e-mail use

It is illogical and counterproductive for employers to forbid absolutely the use of email and internet access for any purpose other than work. It is desirable for employers to allow their employees to use the resources placed at their disposal with moderation and within reason. Employers should establish clear, precise rules on personal use of e-mail and the internet. These rules should be based on the principles of appropriateness, proportionality, joint cooperation and mutual trust. These rules should be submitted to workers and their representatives for their consideration. They should be publicised and provide clear information on the degree of tolerance, the type of control exercised and the consequences of disobeying the rules; Employers do not have the right to open e-mails addressed to workers.

53

Employers are allowed to process data only if they take into account the legitimate interests of the person concerned and the rights, freedoms and privileges of the owner of the data. Employers should choose non-intrusive control methods that comply with pre-defined principles and of which the workers are aware. Employers should not monitor workers e -mails constantly and systematically, but only occasionally, and in areas that pose a greater 'risk' for the company. E-mails may be monitored to guarantee the safety and performance of the system. With the workers knowledge, employers may adopt the necessary procedures to 'filter' certain files attached to e-mails which, in view of the nature of the workers job, clearly indicate that e-mails are not work-related (eg exe, mp3 and image files). If an employer finds that there has been disproportionate use of e-mail or the internet, the worker should be given a warning and should then be monitored, if possible by alternative, less intrusive methods. Access to e-mails should be the employers last resort, and they should preferably be accessed in the presence of the worker in question and of a representative of the works committee. Access should be limited to the recipients address, the subject and the date and time sent. There should be a degree of tolerance in relation to personal internet access, especially if it is out of working hours. General statistics may be enough for the employer to ascertain the degree of use of the internet in the workplace, and the extent to which access by employees compromises work or productivity. In order to examine the impact on cost or productivity, a worker may be monitored by counting average time online, rather than the sites visited. If there is found to be excessive, disproportionate internet use, the worker should be warned. It may be necessary to check the number of hours online (beginning and end) to prove that personal access has taken place outside working hours.

Guidelines may also be issued by official bodies other than the supervisory authorities for data protection. For example, Denmark's IT Security Council (IT-Sikkerhedsrdet- an agency within the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) has published a guide on private use of the internet and e-mail at work by employees, setting out some of the considerations for companies in drawing up a policy in this area. The Council stresses the importance of company guidelines on the issue, in view of the lack of specific legislation. Though company management has the right to decide the content of an e-mail and internet policy, the Council stresses that a good policy is one that is supported by the whole organisation. In the Luxembourg public sector, the relevant Minister has issued a 'charter of good practice' for users of ICT facilities belonging to the state, which has applied since 1 January 2003 to all state employees irrespective of their status (ie civil servants, white- and blue-collar workers and trainees). It aims to set out the instructions and restrictions that all users must respect and implement, together with basic rules of courtesy and respect for others. For example:

users must not use ICT facilities belonging to the state to load, store, publish, disseminate or distribute data, documents, images or videos that are violent, pornographic, paedophile, racist, Nazi or contrary to the accepted standards of good behaviour, or which are likely to undermine respect for people and their dignity and the protection of minors; users are forbidden to use ICT facilities belonging to the state for the purposes of harassment, threats or abuse, or generally for the purpose of violating rights; e-mail users may not send messages containing personal opinions that are 'alien to their professional activity', or which might damage the state; and

54

users have access to the internet to enable them to visit websites in the performance of their duties. When using the web, their identities and the websites visited may be logged by the state. For purposes associated with statistics, quality of service and security, the state reserves the right to monitor internet traffic and carry out regular checks and audits.

Social partner views and initiatives The issue of employee e-mail/internet use and privacy is clearly of some concern to employers and trade unions in many countries considered - though the level of interest varies and the topic does not appear to figure highly on their agendas in Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal. At the level of individual employers, there seems to be an increasing tendency to draw up and apply policies on employees' use of company e-mail and internet facilities (in some cases based on agreement with workplace employee/union representatives - see below), as in countries such as Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway and the UK. The need for such policies stressed by some court cases (see above) may increase the pressure to draw them up. In general, employers' organisations - eg in Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands - tend to stress issues such as the need and the prerogative of employers to monitor employees' activity in this area, on grounds such as: the possible damaging consequences of misuse for the company; the fact that employees are meant to be working during their working hours; and the fact that the equipment and facilities concerned are the employers' property. Employers' organisations in some countries - such as Norway, Spain (where employers are keen to promote regulation by agreement) and the UK - are concerned about the lack of clarity in the legal situation. The UK's Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has criticised the Information Commissioner 's new code on monitoring at work (see above), intended to clarify the situation, as 'confusing' and insufficiently addressing business concerns. By contrast, Austrian employers are reported as in many cases appreciating the freedom provided by a current vagueness of regulation, while German and Swedish employers' bodies are generally happy with the current legislation and opposed to changes in this area. The situation in Italy is different - Confindustria, the main employers' confederation, maintains that current regulations are excessively protective of workers right to privacy, and that this is detrimental to entrepreneurship and business development. The obligations imposed by law have increased costs for companies and reduced their competitiveness with respect to those in other countries. The procedures should be streamlined, and adjustments made so that interests are more evenly balanced. In a number of countries, employers' organisations have drawn up codes of conduct or guidelines related to privacy and e-mail/internet use at work. For example:

in February 2003, the Movement of French Businesses (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF), circulated guidelines to its members, setting out the powers and responsibilities of employers in this area, dealing with both individual employment relations and the position of employee representatives and unions; the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) has advised members companies which have electronic communications to 'put a thumb tack policy in place setting down procedures for the use of e-mail and the internet. These should define who can have access to the internet, the extent that it can be used and under what circumstances it can be used. It should also outline the action that will be taken in the event of breaches in company procedure'; in 2001, Italy's Confindustria drew up guidelines on the use of information technologies in the workplace;

55

the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (Vereniging Nederlandse Ondernemers-Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond, VNO-NCW) - the largest Dutch employers organisation - has published a model code for workplace e-mail and internet use; and the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (Nringslivets Hovedorganisasjon, NHO) has developed guidelines for member companies on how to deal with privacy at the workplace.

Trade unions in many countries are concerned that the current relationship between employees' privacy rights and employer monitoring rights is unbalanced, with the latter unfairly privileged. Trade unions are calling for clearer rules in this area and restrictions on employer monitoring in countries such as Austria (where EU legislation is seen by unions as the main hope of action in this area), Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Reflecting their concerns over privacy and employee internet/e-mail use, trade unions have undertaken a number of initiatives in this field. The fact that these issues particularly affect groups such as technical, professional or managerial staff, or specific sectors (such as ICT and telecommunications) is sometimes reflected in the activity of trade unions representing these employees. Initiatives include:

setting up working groups or committees to examine the issue - as with the Confederation of Salaried Employees and Civil Servants in Denmark (Funktionrernes og Tjenestemndenes Fllesrd, FTF) and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) - or launching campaigns - as with the UK/Irish Amicus-MSF technical workers' union; drawing up proposals for new legislation in this field, as with France's General Confederation of Labour (Confdration gnrale du travail, CGT) and the Confederal Union of Managerial Staff (Union confdrale des cadres) affiliated to the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confdration franaise dmocratique du travail, CFDT); promoting the regulation of this topic through agreements - eg at company level in the case of Germany's United Services Union (Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft, ver.di) or at national instersectoral level in the case of France's General Confederation of Labour-Force Ouvrire (Confdration gnrale du travail-Force Ouvrire, CGT-FO); and related to the previous point, issuing and promoting model company agreements or codes of practice on e-mail/internet use. For example, the UK/Irish Amicus-MSF has drawn up a 'model e-facilities agreement ' and draft code of practice for the protection of privacy at work, while the Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV) has created a model privacy code as a tool for works councils (along with codes of conducts on privacy-related issues such as sickness monitoring and medical testing) and its affiliated Allied Unions (FNV Bondgenoten) has produced a protocol on internet and e-mail use.

UNI code of practice on on-line rights at work Trade unions have also focused on the issue of workplace privacy and internet/e-mail use at international level. Notably, UNI, which brings together white-collar and private service sector workers' trade unions from around the world (including unions in the ICT sector), has been active in campaigning in the area of employees 'on -line rights' since at least 1998. In November 2000, it hosted a conference in Brussels, in collaboration with Flemish Royal Academy of Belgium of the Arts and Sciences, on the legal and practical issues raised by the use of electronic media at work. At the conference, union participants called for an end to

56

the surveillance of workers e-mail, and for a right for workers to contact their trade union from their work station. Based on the contributions made at the conference on the issue, and on the experience of companies and unions that have already implemented 'electronic facilities' agreements, UNI drew up a code of practice on on-line rights at work, designed to 'establish an internationally recognised yardstick of what constitutes good practice'. The code is in four parts: 1. Trade union communication. Works councils and/or trade unions and their representatives should have the right to access and use enterprise electronic facilities for works council/trade union purposes, both internally and externally. This includes the right to send relevant information to all employees. Employees should have the right to use enterprise electronic facilities to communicate with their trade unions and/or works council and their representatives. This part of the code seeks to extends to electronic means of communication the provisions on workers representatives' facilities contained in the 1971 ILO Convention No. 135 and Recommendation No. 143. It notes further that the nature of communication has changed, with employee representatives in different branches of a multinational company now needing to be able to cooperate and coordinate work across international borders. Moreover, an increasing number of employees are working from home, from remote telecentres or on the move. 2. Non-business communication. Employees should be permitted to use enterprise electronic facilities for non-business purposes, both internally and externally, provided that this is not detrimental to their work responsibilities. 3. Monitoring and surveillance of communication . The employer should be obliged to undertake not to subject employees use of the enterprise's electronic facilities to clandestine surveillance and monitoring. Communication should be subject to surveillance and monitoring only if: this is permitted by collective agreement; the employer is legally obliged to do so; or the employer has reasonable reason to believe that an employee has committed a criminal offence or serious disciplinary offence. Access to surveillance and monitoring records relating to individual employees should take place only in the presence of a trade union representative or a representative selected by the employee. UNI states that these provisions take into account the various international and European law and guidelines on the issue of workplace privacy (see above). 4. Conditions for use of electronic facilities . Employees rights to use enterprises' electronic facilities should be subject to a number of conditions, as follows: communication must be lawful and not include defamatory or libellous statements; enterprises' electronic facilities shall not be used as a means of sexually harassing other members of staff or spreading offensive comments based on an individuals gender, age, sexuality, race, disability or appearance, or knowingly to visit websites promoting pornography, racism or intolerance; and the employer can require a disclaimer when employees are communicating internally and externally, making clear that the views expressed are those of the author alone and not those of the enterprise.

Only in Belgium (and to some extent Denmark and Norway - see below) does it appear that the views of the social partners on the need for, and content of, regulation in this area have coincided sufficiently for a major joint initiative - the 2002 national agreement on protection of employees' on-line privacy (see above). The issue also does not seem to divide the social partners in Finland, where recent legislation has regulated matters in a detailed way.

57

Collective bargaining In most countries considered, there is generally little reference in collective bargaining to the issue of protecting privacy at the workplace, either in general or in relation to the use of email and the internet. This is especially true of bargaining at multi-employer level, and where joint regulation of this matter exists, it generally occurs at company level, either through agreements or through the exercise of the co-determination rights of works councils or other workplace employee representatives. Despite the general lack of multi-employer bargaining on privacy and e-mail/internet use, there are exceptions. At national intersectoral level, the most notable and specific example is Belgium where, as seen above, a 2002 national collective agreement (No. 81) governs the protection of employees' private lives with respect to controls on electronic online communications data (while earlier agreements covered matters such as workplace video monitoring). On more general privacy/monitoring issues, in Norway, the central 'basic agreement' between the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) and the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (Nringslivets Hovedorganisasjon, NHO) contains a supplementary agreement on monitoring activity in enterprises (there are similar rules in other basic agreements between social partner confederations). The supplementary agreement stipulates a wide range of conditions under which monitoring and control measures may be implemented by the employer, emphasising the principles of objectivity and proportionality. Furthermore, measures should not discriminate between employees or groups of employees, and thus must be applicable to all. The introduction of such measures should be discussed - though negotiations are not required - with trade union representatives as early as possible prior to implementation. Employees should also receive notice of the proposed measures before they are implemented (on the objective of monitoring, its consequences etc). Union representatives should also be consulted with regard to the handling and registration of the information acquired through such monitoring. The agreement also refers to the Act relating to the processing of personal data. If the provisions of the agreement are ignored prior to the implementation of measures, the measures may be deemed unlawful by the Labour Court. It is assumed that the agreement does not apply in cases where there are suspicions of criminal acts such as fraud or theft. Similarly, in April 2001 the Confederation of Danish Trade Unions (Landsorganisationen i Danmark, LO) and Danish Employers Confederation (Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, DA) agreed a supplement to their 'basic agreement', which concerns the new control initiatives at the workplace. It states that any new control arrangements or mechanisms at the workplace must be announced at least two weeks prior to their introduction. Finally, and very generally, in Greece the National General Collective Agreement refers to protection of personal integrity stating that: 'the contracting employer organisations underscore to their members the obligations for enterprises arising from the legislative framework as regards the protection of the individual relative to matters of a personal nature, aimed at protecting workers personal integrity'. Provisions on privacy and e-mail/internet use in sectoral collective agreements are very rare, with the most relevant example being a framework agreement concerning private e-mail use at the workplace signed by the service sector section of the Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark (Handels- og Kontorfunktionrernes Forbund, HK) and the Danish Commerce and Service (Dansk Handel & Service, DHS) employers' association. The aim is to provide a model which can be used by companies to establish a policy on employees use of e-mail. Thus is the only known Danish agreement on this topic at present, but it may be developed or copied in other sectors. Elsewhere, only in Italy and the Netherlands are any sectoral agreements reported, and these refer to more general privacy

58

matters. In the Netherlands, the agreement for public transport has an annex containing a model privacy code, while several collective agreements state that employers, when they register sickness absence, should take measures to safeguard employees' privacy. In Italy, some sectoral agreements (notably for chemicals, metalworking, banking/insurance and commerce) make explicit reference to the data protection legislation, and in particular to the protection of 'sensitive' personal information (especially about workers state of health). It is thought likely that privacy issues will be widely addressed in the next round of sectoral bargaining. It is at company/workplace level that joint regulation of employees' privacy and in some cases internet/e-mail use is most common. In some countries - such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden - bargaining or consultation on at least some aspects of the issue is promoted by legislation (or central agreements) giving works councils or other workplace representatives powers in this area (see table 3 above). At least some company/workplace-level bargaining of relevance is reported from the countries mentioned, as well as from all other countries apart from Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and the UK (where there are some agreements on more traditional privacy issues such as searching individuals or their lockers, and evidence of more informal company-level regulation of ICT-related privacy matters). However, the extent to which such joint regulation is widespread is often hard to assess. Agreements with works councils or local union representatives are reported from a number of countries, but it is not known how many of them there are. For example:

in Austria, according to the Union of Salaried Employees (Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten, GPA), there is a range of works agreements dealing with relevant privacy issues in all sectors. These agreements vary significantly in the quality of their content, depending on the power and goals of the works councils concerned; in Belgium, 'codes of conduct' regarding the use of new communication technologies and the employer's right of control have been agreed by works councils, within the framework set by the 2002 national collective agreement on the issue; in Denmark, agreements on employees' private use of the internet and e-mail have been negotiated at company level by union representatives and cooperation committees; in Ireland, there are reportedly a number of local-level collective agreements on relevant issues; in Norway, the supplementary agreement on workplace monitoring between LO and NHO provides for company-level agreements on the implementation of control and monitoring measures (if agreement is not reached, disputes may be referred to the social partner confederations), but there is no information on the extent of such agreements; and in Sweden, based on the co-determination legislation (see table 3 above), company policies, guidelines and recommendations concerning internet and e-mail use are often decided in cooperation with local unions.

More specific information is available from only a few countries. In France, company policies on internet/e-mail use ('information charters') have in some cases been agreed with employee representative bodies (such as works councils). An example is the the Renault groups July 2001 'charter on the correct use of data technology, electronic and digital resources', which was endorsed by the company and group works councils. The charter sets out the rules governing the use of the groups various collectively accessible ICT resources. Company-level bargaining involving trade unions has been more active in other aspects of the use of new technologies, especially in terms of access for union officials and members to corporate information and communication resources. The conclusion of such agreements has increased rapidly in 2002 and 2003 - usually in larger companies such as VediorBis,

59

EADS, Orange, BNF and COGEMA- following precedents set previously, for example by an agreement signed at Alstom in 2001, which included provisions on trade union access to the company's internal communication networks (FR0109105F). In Spain, there is some limited company-level bargaining on employee internet and e-mail use, mainly in the finance and telecommunications sectors, with examples including an agreement at Ericsson. As in France, electronic facilities for trade unions have been an issue for company agreements. Notably, in May 2002 a significant agreement was reached at Barclays Bank SA between management and the Trade Union Confederation of Workers Commissions (Comisiones Obreras, CC.OO). It enables CC.OO's national banking section to inform and communicate with employees, giving it an e-mail account with a direct channel to employees' personal accounts. The union is responsible for the content and proper use of its messages (which are subject to volume restrictions) and has committed itself to decreasing progressively its other means of information, such as notice boards and information sheets. Employees may use their e-mail account to communicate with the union, and the company has agreed to respect the confidentiality of communications. Commentary Against the backdrop of increasing use of new technology, and particularly of e-mail and the internet, in the employment context, the frontier between private life and work life is becoming increasingly blurred. The use of new technology at the workplace must therefore be examined as part of a broader context incorporating respect for privacy and the protection of personal data in a work setting. At EU level, the issue is high on the agenda from both a legislative and an industrial relations point of view. The European Commission is now planning to propose a specific Directive establishing a regulatory framework governing the issue of the protection of workers personal data, building on general data protection legislation. The European social partners were invited to negotiate on this issue during the preparatory phase of this initiative, but apparently without success. At international level, the ILO has drawn up a code of practice on the protection of workers' personal data, while a global trade union body, UNI, has issued a code of practice on on-line rights at work. Examination of the various national situations as regards this issue in the EU Member States and Norway allows us to draw some conclusions. As far as the use of new technology at the workplace is concerned, it is important to distinguish: on the one hand, the issue of the use of these new facilities by workers, and the opportunity for these workers to use them for private reasons; and, on the other hand, the issue of the monitoring and surveillance of workers by the employer. Both of these questions are governed both by 'a priori' measures ie by the regulatory framework (which varies from country to country in the restrictions it imposes) - and 'a posteriori'- ie through the courts. First of all, a priori, the principle of the use by workers of the internet and e-mail for private purposes is not regulated at national level, either by legislation or by collective agreements in other words, there are no regulations permitting or preventing workers using the internet or e-mail at work. Usually, it is at the discretion of individual employers to permit or forbid the use of this technology at the workplace for private reasons. The idea that employees should be entitled to at least reasonable personal use of their employers' internet and e-mail facilities is raised only in a few guidelines from national regulatory bodies such as Portugal's National Data Protection Commission, or in trade union codes of practice or model agreements at international (notably the UNI code) and national level, or in individual company policies - or more rarely company agreements.

60

Where employees are permitted, explicitly or implicitly, to use workplace internet and e-mail facilities for private reasons, then a modus operandi for such use may be laid down in codes of practice and policies, drawn up by regulatory authorities (eg in Portugal), employers' organisations (eg in France, Italy and the Netherlands) or individual employers (eg in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and the UK), or proposed by trade unions (eg in Ireland and the Netherlands) - and, less commonly, laid down in company agreements. Measures that a priori regulate the monitoring and surveillance of workers' use of new technology are primarily based on a body of law in each country, made up of: general (often constitutional) provisions relating to respect for privacy and the secrecy of correspondence; personal data protection provisions; and, less extensively, workplace-specific privacy provisions. While general privacy and secrecy provisions may often be assumed to cover internet/e-mail use, this is rarely explicit. With regard to personal data protection, most national measures implement the EU Directive (95/46/EC) on the issue and thus have implications for the employment relationship. However, specific legislation applying data protection rules to the employment context is rare, with the main example being Finland (plus France, Greece and, to some extent, Portugal). Beyond data protection, some general protection of workers' privacy is provided by law in countries such as France, Belgium (a national collective agreement), Italy and Portugal. The specific issue of video surveillance and monitoring at the workplace is regulated by legislation in countries such as Belgium (national collective agreement), Denmark and France. In some cases, works councils or other workplace employee representatives have powers over the introduction and/or use of monitoring equipment. Agreement or co-determination is required in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden while information and/or consultation is required in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Spain. Specific legislation on the monitoring of employees' e-mail and internet use exists only in Belgian (national collective agreement) and, to a lesser extent, Denmark and Germany. New legislation in this area is under debate in countries such as Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Outside the field of legislation, employer surveillance and monitoring of employees' e-mail and internet use has been the subject of guidance or codes from regulatory authorities in countries such as Denmark, Greece, Portugal and the UK. It is also dealt with in codes of practice and policies drawn up by various employers' organisations or individual employers or proposed by trade unions (eg the UNI code). This is also an issue regulated by the little multi-employer bargaining which relates to employee e-mail and internet use (eg in Belgium, Denmark and Norway) and in company agreements on the matter. Turning from the 'a priori' regulatory framework, to the 'a posteriori' role of the courts, the key question dealt with in case law is the link between the employers right to monitor and respect for workers privacy. In practice, the courts are often called on to rule on both whether or not the dismissal (or disciplining) of a worker for 'improper' private use of e-mail or the internet is justified, and whether or not an employers intrusion into the workers private life is justified. In some countries, such as Spain, these issues appear to be becoming increasingly 'judicialised', and in some countries, case law has become an essential source of law for the regulation of disputes associated with the use of new technology at the workplace. Examination of the internet/e-mail use cases that have reached the courts in the various countries under examination indicates that rulings sometimes go the way of the employers and sometimes the way of the workers - this varies from country to country, but also within a given country. However, some of the criteria used in assessing the cases appear to be recurrent. The first criterion is whether or not the employer concerned has a written policy on the private use of e-mails and the internet at the workplace - if not, the decision will probably

61

be in favour of a worker complaining of unfair dismissal, on the grounds that the employer had no stated policy on the issue, or the policy was not clear enough. However, whether the use of new technology for private reasons is permitted or not, some situations will usually result in the workers dismissal being regarded as fair - for example: if e-mails or webpages visited are pornographic, discriminatory, obscene or violent; if the use of e-mails or the internet for private purposes is done improperly, or leads to a serious loss of working time; or if the messages sent are tantamount to an attack on other people, or constitute harassment. In such a posteriori situations, the role of the trade unions will consist of supporting and defending workers involved in court cases. Individual employers in many countries (eg Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway and the UK) seem increasingly aware of some of the issues raised by employee internet/e-mail use, and a number of employers draw up and apply policies in this area (though the extent of this practice is not known). However, at the level of employers associations and trade unions, interest in these matters appears to vary considerably, and few see them as a major priority. Among national instersectoral employers' organisations, there has been some activity in drawing up codes of conduct or guidelines for their member companies, as in France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. One factor which seems to focus the attention of employers' organisations on workplace privacy and internet/e-mail use issues is the prospect of legislation in this area, as currently discussed in Germany, Norway and Sweden, or of regulatory guidance, as recently in the UK, with employers keen to protect their prerogatives. Trade unions, while generally promoting workers' privacy rights, rarely give the topic the highest priority, but like employers' organisations may be spurred into action by the prospect of legislation. Unions representing technical, professional or managerial staff, or sectors such as ICT and telecommunications, may tend to take a greater interest in workplace internet/e-mail use issues - an example being UNI and its affiliates - for example, launching campaigns and promoting codes of practice or model agreements. The issue of protecting privacy at the workplace, either in general or in relation to the use of e-mail and the internet, is rarely addressed in collective bargaining (especially above the individual enterprise level). At intersectoral level, Belgium has a notable agreement on workers' privacy related to electronic online communications data (plus other privacy-related central agreements), while some more general privacy provisions can be found in central agreements in Norway, Denmark and (to a lesser extent) Greece. At sectoral level, there is one specific agreement on workers' e-mail use in the Danish service sector, plus a handful of less specific privacy provisions in some Dutch or Italian agreements. It is at company/workplace level that joint regulation of employees' privacy and in some cases internet/e-mail use is most common, either through agreements or through the exercise of co-determination rights by works councils or other workplace employee representatives. Some such bargaining is reported from countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, though the extent to which such joint regulation is widespread is hard to assess. To sum up, the various roles taken by trade unions an d employers associations in relation to workers' privacy and internet/e-mail use are principally as follows:

in some countries, union representatives (along with works councils etc) are informed, consulted or entitled to negotiate over the installation or use of measures for monitoring workers; the social partners rarely conclude collective agreements on this issue, though this is slightly more common between enterprise/workplace-level union representatives (along with works councils etc) and management;

62

in a number of countries, trade unions and employers associations are invited to comment on draft legislation or guidance on relevant issues, and they sometimes formulate proposals and recommendations; in some cases, employers associations or trade unions have drawn up codes of practice or similar documents relating to the use of new technology at the workplace and/or the monitoring by the employer of workers, which may be important where the regulatory framework is unclear; and trade unions give members assistance in court cases arising from alleged 'improper' workplace use of e-mail and the internet for private reasons.

(Catherine Delbar, Marinette Mormont and Marie Schots, Institut des Sciences du Travail) Source: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2003/07/study/tn0307101s.htm

Activity 2:

Read the article below and discuss in groups the issued highlighted below
Health online: Source: http://www.nmc-uk.org/Documents/NMCReview/NMCReview_issue4.pdf

Social Networking
Nina Rossi Media Officer, NMC
Professional standards and boundaries must be maintained when you are online, the NMC says.
Few early users of social networking sites could have predicted how the phenomenon would both grow and grow up. Their incredible success has seen Facebook move from a domain dominated by gossiping teenagers to a powerful communication tool used by millions of people of all ages. Around 355,000 nurses and midwives registered in the UK are on Facebook. By allowing people to share information and images with a few clicks of a mouse, social media platforms which enable users to build, integrate or facilitate community have fundamentally shifted our relationship with the internet. As well as using the web as an extensive information source, we can now upload a huge amount of personal content. Each user of social networking sites can choose to communicate an unlimited level of persona information and opinion, and build an online persona which may be closely linked to their real identity. As the use of sites like Facebook and Twitter has expanded, many organisations have been quick to harness their potential as powerful tools for education and communications. The NMC uses social networking sites to engage with nurses and midwives, students and the public, and is active on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Its Facebook page alone has attracted over 21,000 regular users since its launch in 2008. It is used to share tools with online communities and answer queries on regulatory issues. Alongside the benefits of these new communications channels, there are dangers when the online activities of regulated professionals blur the boundary between their personal and professional lives. Users of social networking sites may feel they can behave in ways they would not consider acceptable in real life. The ease of posting can make it tempting to disclose information, opinions and images that might previously have been shared only with people close to us. This highlights a tension inherent in the use of social networking sites. Users desire social interaction and connectivity

63

and disclosing information plays an essential role; yet users may not wish to have their information publicly accessible to an unknown audience (Bateman et al 2010). Nearly 80 percent of adults would change the information they publish about themselves online if they thought the material would later be reproduced in the mainstream media (Press Complaints Commission 2008). This reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of sites that are as openly available as mainstream media unless the strictest privacy settings are enforced. In practice, observing professional boundaries remains more vital than ever when communication is so easy and on a much larger scale. Most nurses, midwives and students successfully manage their online presence, either by limiting the content they share or by restricting access to it. The NMC, however, has seen an increasing number of fitness to practise cases involving the use of social networking sites and other online activity. Although each case is unique and is judged on its own merits, the referrals can be divided into two broad camps: those using social networking sites to share content inappropriately, and those using them to pursue unsuitable friendships or relationships. The first type of complaint might result from something as simple as a newly qualified midwife inappropriately posting an image of a baby she has delivered, or a nurse inadvertently sharing with patients inappropriate images from her social life by failing to adjust the privacy settings on her Facebook page. The second type of complaint is exemplified in the recent case of a community psychiatric nurse, Timothy Hyde. He was struck off in September 2010 for conducting an inappropriate relationship with a former patient. He had met her when she attended a screening assessment, and offered her counselling and support. He contacted her through Facebook two weeks after she was discharged; they saw each other regularly and developed a sexual relationship. The NMC has introduced advice on the use of social networking sites to support nurses and midwives in this new terrain. Social networking sites (NMC 2011) sets out how The code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives (NMC 2008) should be applied to social networking, and provides practical tips. The principle that conduct online and conduct in the real world should be judged in the same way, and should be of an equally high standard, is central to this advice. The code says nurses and midwives must uphold the reputation of the professions at all times. This may mean deliberately keeping personal and professional lives as separate online as you would at work. Even those who do not identify themselves as a nurse or midwife online should remain mindful that their conduct there could jeopardise their registration as easily as their real life actions. Establishing strict privacy settings represents a good first step to separating personal and professional personas, but in essence everything posted online should be considered potentially public. Before posting information or images, nurses, midwives and students should always consider whether it would be appropriate to share them in real life. If they would feel concerned about posting a particular image where patients could see it, or befriending online the partner of a woman they had assisted in labour, they should be equally cautious online. Work related conversations that would be inappropriate on a bus are just as unacceptable on a social networking site. The premise that online behaviour should be as professional and private as possible is a helpful starting point.

64

Assignment

Part 1: this is worth 20% of the marks for the module

UGB 306 Employment Relations 2012-13 Questionnaire Assignment The following questionnaire is designed for you to put the concepts we cover into an actual context to aid your understanding of employment relations. In order to complete the questionnaire satisfactorily you need to understand the organisation and how it operates. Therefore you must choose an organisation where you can obtain access to extensive information. If in doubt, please discuss with your tutor. It is recommended that the organisation should employ at least 100 staff directly at the site you are studying. The organisation may have several sites and therefore employ many more. It is likely that organisations employing fewer will not be able to answer all the questions set. However, students have been able to find good answers in organisations smaller than 100. If you have to rely on secondary sources (textbooks, internet, journals, etc.), make sure the level of detail on HRM and other policies and practices is comprehensive. If unsure, please discuss with your tutor. In order to complete the questionnaire, students need to refer to a text book. Relevant chapters for each question are listed below for a selection of recommended text books. This is not an exclusive list. If you find a better source of background reading this can be used.. The answers sought from the questionnaire should be addressed after reading the appropriate pages of text. It is good practice to cite your sources in your answers. The questions seek information about organisation of your choice, which either directly or indirectly impacts upon employment relations. In conjunction with your reading you will need to seek out the relevant information from your organisation. The information can be sought from either existing documents and/or via discussions with people who can supply the information. Some questions will be straightforward for you to answer and others will take greater thought and research on your behalf. Even for those questions you find straightforward you should spend a little time thinking about it prior to and after the directed reading. Ask yourself if you need to check anything with others inside or outside your organisation for clarification. You need to answer all of the questions. The answers should be brief, usually less than 400 words per question, sometimes much less. The answers are in the readings, your organisation via records or interviews - or at the end of a telephone line. All these methods of enquiry will allow you to answer the questions successfully. Submit your answers through turnitin. The deadlines are as follows, though you can submit earlier if you wish. Feedback will be provided after each deadline. 1 & 2 11 February 2013 3 & 4 25 February 2013 5 & 6 11 March 2013

65

Name of Organisation Industry, sector, product(s) or service(s). Total numbers employed at the site Total employed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland Total employed world wide 1. Outline briefly the role of Employers Associations with particular reference to HRM/ER. List what services, if any, your company receives from an Employers' Association. If not a member, how does your organisation act independently without the services provided by an Employers' Association? 2. Using a classification of management styles taken from the readings (Purcell and Gray 1986; Purcell and Ahlstrand 1994; McLoughlin and Gourlay 1992), what management style would you say is operating in your organisation? Justify your view. 3. Identify at least one trade union which represents employees in the industry in which your organization operates. Which if any of the respective unions does your organisation recognise? What type(s) of recognition do they have and for what employees? If no, how are such issues, raised in the readings, determined in your place of work? 4. Has the organisation experienced any form of collective industrial action in recent times? If yes, give details of problem and solution. If no, list areas of individual forms of conflict that are identifiable in your organisation. 5. Briefly explain the potential consequences of the European Works Council Regulations and the Information and Consultation with Employees regulations Does your organisation have a European Works Council or National Works Council (or something similar) as per the Information and Consultation with Employees regulations? If yes, give details of who attends, how selected, typical agenda items. If no, why have the regulations not been implemented in this organisation? 6. Does your organisation attempt to gain higher productivity from employees via contingent pay? If yes, give details of the type of contingency pay, and how additional reward is measured. If no, give details of why such a policy is not pursued or is not suitable for this organisation.

66

References for questionnaire assignment No. Lewis Salamon 4th edition 268-78 236-243 Williams and Adam-Smith 2nd edition 18-19 184-201 Gennard and Judge 3rd edition 34-6; 162-8 58-9; 172-3; 218-20 .109-114; 189-98 19-22; 170-184; 256-264 414-24 328-31; 3423 43-5 310-319 431-34 446-50 466-70 5 6 322-9 105-115 267-70 404-6 523-8 226- 234 264-268 208-10 245-7 358-70 306-9 228-42 132- 140 163-172 85-95 Blyton and Turnbull Rose 3rd edition 115-9 71-81

1 2

150-2 154-9 section 4.3

258-263 section 5.7

231-6

67