Of course thats not the way it will be portrayed by the Government, which prefers to maintain the illusion of social partnership. But thats how they are likely to materialise. Expect scare stories from the CBI. Expect intense lobbying from the unions.
John Monks, fresh to the role of director-general at the European Trade Union Confederation, described the directive when he was still general secretary of the TUC as potentially the most significant piece of employment legislation ever to be introduced in the UK.
Trade unions appear to be better prepared than the employers organisations, but then the unions have much at stake. Their goal is to ensure that existing consultation arrangements are not disrupted by the legislation and that they enhance their profile in terms of employee representation. The 1998 Workplace Employment Relations Survey revealed that union representation is often restricted these days to handling grievances, discipline and health and safety.
According to the survey, no more than 3% of employers negotiated with unions on recruitment and selection policies and only 6% on staffing levels, redeployment and other work organisation. The unions have recognised that the nature of the transposition of the directive into UK law is vital if they are to reverse their declining influence in British business.
The law will be no less influential for HR managers, who traditionally have handled the formal representations between management and employees. The law will require far broader consultation with employees on issues such as redundancy programmes and proposed mergers. It will be no longer acceptable to announce mass redundancies without prior discussion with employee representatives.
The TUC wants to ensure that consultation will be conducted through union representatives where unions are recognised, or otherwise through independent representatives elected by the employees. The last thing it wants is provision for management-nominated employees who could be viewed as company stooges.
Some would prefer it if the legislation were not to happen at all. Digby Jones, the CBIs director-general, has listed the directive as one of his top 10 regulatory threats to business. His biggest fear is that the law could stifle the abilities of managers to do their job. Susan Anderson, head of HR policy at the CBI, has warned that giving the unions a veto over restructuring plans would be disastrous for business.
Alan Johnson, the employment relations minister, has assured businesses that the British interpretation of the directive will not be about co-determination or joint decision-making. This has disappointed some union leaders, who had hoped that the law could lead to more German-style works councils. These have not been ruled out as consultative models and Johnson has suggested that enforcement provisions could well be based on those designed for European works councils. But he has taken a less prescriptive approach up to now, favouring a light-touch strategy to the implementation.
In an ideal world the discussions on this forthcoming legislation would take place in a spirit of social
partnership, but dont bank on it. There are too many vested interests at stake. The TUC is likely to focus on the types of issues that can be
subject to consultation. The directive refers to new ways
of working, organisational changes, mergers, transfers
of production, closures, cut-backs and redundancies. The TUC can be expected to have a longer list, including training, working hours, flexibility, pensions and
payment systems.
All this could add up to a much stronger management role for HR professionals. But they will need to brush up on negotiating skills that may have grown rusty since the days of 1970s confrontation. The new skills are likely to place less emphasis on hard bargaining and more on inclusiveness and that word partnership again.
richard.donkin@haynet.com
Richard Donkin is employment columnist at the Financial Times
