Open letter in support of the Labour Party's labour law reforms

If you are interested in signing the below letter  please let me know by return email by 12 pm on Thursday manoj.dias-abey@bristol.ac.uk Dr. Manoj Dias-Abey, Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol

Britain’s labour laws are in desperate need of reform. Working people are increasingly engaged in work that pays poorly, is insecure, and contains few avenues of redress if they are treated unfairly by their employers. In-work poverty is at a record high. In the large majority of families in poverty (60%) there is at least one person in work. The current government boasts about record low unemployment figures whilst at the same time it fails to protect workers from poverty pay and insecurity.

Evidence shows that collective bargaining helps to improve productivity and secure stable and well-paying jobs. In 1979, over 80% of UK workers were covered by collective agreements, but today that figure is less than 20%. The decline in collective bargaining was hastened by waves of anti-union legislation that began in the 1980s.  Today, British trade union laws are some of the most restrictive in the Western world.

The Labour Party’s 2019 manifesto proposes significant labour law reform, explaining: “[w]ork should provide a decent life for all, guaranteeing not just dignity and respect in the workplace, but also the income and leisure time to allow for a fulfilling life outside it.” We believe that this vision is backed up by a credible plan of action.

Labour will support the introduction of sectoral collective bargaining to set minimum terms and conditions covering all workers in UK sectors. Enterprise-based collective bargaining will be boosted so that employers and workers can negotiate agreements suited to the needs of their workplace. Labour will introduce a real “living wage” and require employers to replace zero-hour contracts with minimum hours contracts based on a new right to regular hours. It will ensure the full range of employment protections are available to all workers from day one of employment and it will create a properly resourced government agency to proactively enforce these rights. Race and gender pay equality will be achieved by making the state responsible for enforcing equal pay legislation and by requiring employers to publicly report on pay disparities for BAME workers.

Labour will also introduce several important corporate governance reforms for large businesses, such as worker representatives on boards and the creation of “inclusive ownership funds”, which have the potential to radically democratise the economy.

Collectively, we have spent many decades studying labour law and industrial relations in the United Kingdom. We believe that the Labour Party is the only party with a transformative plan to create jobs that offer security, fair pay and dignity at work as well as an economy that works for the many. 

Yours sincerely,

3rd December 2019

Ideas in Employment Relations Research Call for Papers for Special Issue Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society

Ideas in Employment Relations Research Call for Papers for Special Issue Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society

We are currently accepting long abstracts for this Special Issue – full details are available at the following link:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/1468232x/IR_Call%20for%20Papers_Ideas%20in%20Employment%20Relations%20Research-1572620793003.pdf

Ideas in Employment Relations Research

Call for Papers for Special Issue

Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society

Guest editors

Martin B. Carstensen (Copenhagen Business School): mbc.ioa@cbs.dk

Christian Lyhne Ibsen (Michigan State University): ibsenchr@msu.edu

Vivien Schmidt (Boston University): vschmidt@bu.edu 

We look forward to receive your long abstracts by January 15, 2020. 

Best wishes

Martin B. Carstensen, Vivien Schmidt and Christian Lyhne Ibsen

13th November 2019

CIPD Applied Research Conference

CIPD Applied Research Conference 

We are delighted to announce that tickets are now on sale for the CIPD Applied Research Conference (ARC)! The conference, taking place in Dublin City University (DCU) St Patrick’s Campus, Ireland, on 22-23 January 2020, explores cutting-edge research into work, employment and people management. 

ARC is CIPD’s annual meeting place to discuss cutting edge research into work, employment and people management. It holds a unique place in strengthening links between academic research and HR practice, focusing on the applications of research insights to organisational life and labour markets.

This year’s conference, in partnership with DCU Business School, will see the CIPD Applied Research Conference held in Ireland for the first time, further expanding our research and impact, while giving practitioners, researchers, and keen learners, the opportunity to gain insights, apply learnings, and network in one of Ireland’s most dynamic universities.

Registration for the CIPD Applied Research Conference 2020 is now open, and the fees for attending are as follows:

• Standard tickets £80/€93 + VAT
• Student tickets £55/€64 + VAT

For full details on the programme, themes, location and everything else, make sure to click https://www.cipd.co.uk/learn/events-networks/applied-research-conference

We look forward to seeing you there!

13th November 2019

CREW seminar Nov 27th November on Four day working week

Dear Colleagues,

A reminder about our exciting CREW seminar on The four day working week on 27^th Nov at Hamilton House. All welcome!

A future Labour government is committed to implement a four day working week with no loss of pay. This is also the Trades Union Congress (TUC) policy. As Stephen Hawking predicted we need to think carefully about how the potential benefits of automation and artificial intelligence are shared in society. Reductions in working time has been seen to have a positive impact on the environment and integral to challenging climate change, as well as the possibility of shared child and eldercare and benefits for mental and physical health.

Yet, how do we move towards a 4 day week? This seminar hears from Professor Andre Spicer on the wider benefits and the introduction of ‘an infrastructure of conviviality’. It reflects on the experience of trade union campaigns to cut the working week, but also hears from employers who have already introduced a 4 day week, their experiences and the outcomes for their business.

Come along and find out more, as it may be that exciting times lie ahead of us!

The Four-day working week – possibilities and implications

Wednesday 27th November 2019

TIME: 15.00 – 17.30

VENUE:  Room HH103, Hamilton House, Park Vista, Greenwich    SE10 9LZ

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/crew-seminar-four-day-working-week-tickets-78414613219

13th November 2019

BUIRA 2020 Conference - Call for papers

BUIRA 70th Anniversary Conference 2020

The past, present and future of industrial relations and the politics of work

Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,

30th June to 2nd July 2020

Call for papers

BUIRA turning 70 presents a good opportunity to reflect on the past, present and future of industrial relations. Despite facing recent challenges, the field of industrial relations continues to be a vital topic of academic and practitioner enquiry. Issues that have long been central within the study of industrial relations, such as pay, collective bargaining, rights at work, employee representation, national and transnational forms of regulation, health and safety, job (in)security, precarity, and workplace conflict are highly prominent within many current political and academic debates. Understanding the politics of work, grounded in a critical social science tradition, is crucial for academics and policy makers alike. 

IR continues to face a tough institutional environment. In the university, ‘HRM’ and ‘people and work’ has overtaken ‘industrial relations’ in the nomenclature of courses and modules. Within organisations and workplaces, trade unions continue to struggle to maintain a presence and voice for workers. While many university departments may nevertheless offer critical perspectives on work and employment, there is concern that the way ‘HRM’ is taught in some business schools may lack a sufficient diversity of perspectives and critical engagement with hegemonic neoliberalism. This in turn could lead to a potential ‘immiseration’ of the subject matter, and an inability to prevent or address trends such as the spread of precarious work, and the growing problem of in-work poverty (Dundon and Rafferty, 2018). At the same time, IR scholarship is often accused of being theoretically weak, suffering from a descriptive, and institutional bias, i.e. focusing on the dwindling institutions of trade unions and collective bargaining (Kelly, 1998). 

Where are we now? How have we got here, and what should the future of the field look like? Reflecting on historical developments in industrial relations is crucial in order to ground and contextualise current developments in the world of work. History matters in helping us to understand the changing nature of industrial relations, and yet is often overlooked in modern accounts of work relations. It is also important to reflect on pressing current issues such as the impact of austerity and the crisis in an increasingly financialised world. What have been their consequences for public sector industrial relations? What is the impact of patterns of precarious work and non-standard employment relationships on the changing nature of work and employment, skills and the quality of work? Across all of these questions, issues of social class, equality and diversity remain more relevant than ever before. Looking to the future, one key question concerns the extent to which unions can play an active role with social movements to tackle climate breakdown.

We welcome empirical (both quantitative and qualitative), analytical, conceptual and methodological papers that concern any area of industrial relations, or fields cognate to industrial relations. We would particularly appreciate submissions from early career researchers and doctoral students. Papers concerning topics under the following headings will be particularly welcome:

• Reflections and challenges for Equality and Diversity, and challenging the gender pay gap
• The consequences of new technology, digitalisation and the growth of platforms for work and industrial relations
• Climate breakdown and industrial relations
• Comparative industrial relations
• Political economy of work (e.g. austerity, financialisation, fragmentation, flexibilisation and inequality)
• New forms of collective action in the workplace, and new agents of resistance
• The rise of populism/nationalism and industrial relations

Submission details

Abstracts of papers should be submitted here:

 https://bham.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0iYSk4W03DvrkDr 

Abstracts should be a maximum of 500 words in length and cover the following headings:

•         Brief outline
•         Methodology
•         Key findings
•         References

Deadline for submission of abstracts: Monday, 13^th January 2020

All abstracts are refereed anonymously by BUIRA Executive Committee members.

References

Dundon T and Rafferty A (2018) The (potential) demise of HRM? Human Resource Management Journal 28(3): 377– 391.

Kelly J (1998) Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long Waves. London: Routledge. 

4th November 2019

Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University Lecturer/ Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management

31st October 2019

IER Free Book: Brexit and Workers' Rights

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum on whether to remain in or leave the European Union. The result was 51.9% of voters voting to leave. Two things were immediately clear. First, the negotiations would be a very complex, technical, and politically charged affair. Second, the UK would face tough choices and would not be allowed to ‘cherry-pick’ the terms of the Brexit arrangements.

About this book https://www.ier.org.uk/publications/brexit-and-workers-rights

Now, on the brink of the third deadline for a Brexit deal, two leading UK academics consider the possible implications of a ‘no-deal Brexit’ for UK workers’ rights. They conclude that the process and the post-Brexit architecture will be owned and determined by the political party in power at the time of Brexit and they pose two alternative scenarios.

Either the future could deliver a relentless process of ossification, stagnation and erosion of UK labour rights led by politicians traditionally hostile to workers’ rights. Or, the UK could not only protect those UK rights already on the statute book but could resist the tendencies of the European Commission to decentralise collective bargaining arrangements and deregulate employment protection legislation.

31st October 2019

Research position for a part-time fieldworker in Scotland for a project about regulation in the care sector.

The post is  part time and for a year. It might suit someone just finishing up their thesis, or it would suit a post-grad person who has an understanding of how social care works or an interest in improving job quality  https://jobs.kent.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=SS-137-19

31st October 2019

BUIRA Nominations Appointed Fellows of the Academy of Social Sciences

 Professor Peter Ackers, Professor John Kelly and Professor Jill Rubery have been appointed Fellows of the Academy of Social Sciences. All three were nominated by BUIRA as academics who have made a significant contribution to the social sciences.  

The Academy of Social Sciences is the national academy of academics, learned societies and practitioners in the social sciences. Its mission is to promote social science in the United Kingdom for the public benefit. https://www.acss.org.uk/introduction/

The Academy is composed of 1335 individual Fellows, 43 Learned Societies and a number of affiliates, together representing nearly 90,000 social scientists. Fellows are distinguished scholars and practitioners from academia and the public and private sectors. Most Learned Societies in the social sciences in the UK are represented within the Academy. The Academy also sponsors the Campaign for Social Science.

31st October 2019

Consultation: BUIRA Code of Practice

Please send us feedback on the below suggested BUIRA Code of Practice. 

BUIRA Code of Practice

Introduction 

The British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) is devoted to increasing scholarly and professional knowledge about the present and future of Industrial Relations. BUIRA promotes the use of this knowledge to improve the work lives of individuals through critical debate that influences public dialogue about Industrial Relations, Employment Relations, Sociology of Work and Employment and cognate fields such as HRM. At the core of its activities, BUIRA places the rights and well-being of its members and those it comes into contact with, embracing a collegiate, welcoming and inclusive environment where members’ civil and human rights and their freedom of inquiry and expression in research, teaching, and publication are respected and protected. 

This Code of Practice puts forward (1) principles that underlie the professional responsibilities and conduct of BUIRA members, and (2) enforced ethical standards that apply to BUIRA members in official roles in the association and to those participating in BUIRA-sponsored activities. BUIRA members perform many roles, acting as researchers, educators, administrators, supervisors, commentators, activists and social interventionists who maintain a personal and professional lifelong commitment to ethical standards of behaviour, and encouraging those they come in contact with, such as colleagues, students, supervisees, collaborators, professional contacts, employees and employers, to behave ethically.

 The Code of Practice is structured in three main sections: General Principles, Professional Principles, and Ethical Standards. A separate document, a “Policy and procedure for handling claims and violations related to the BUIRA Code of Practice” accompanies the present document.

 General Principles

 These general principles serve as aspirational guidelines for the members of BUIRA in matters pertaining ethical conduct. The general principles upon which BUIRA is built are:

• Responsibility: Members of BUIRA uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behaviour, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities they belong to and engage with as part of their work.

Integrity: Members of BUIRA promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the research, teaching, and practice of their profession. They strive to conduct themselves with dignity, fairness, and care in all their contacts and relationships with peers, students, professional contacts and the community at large.

Respect: Members of BUIRA establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They respect the dignity and worth of all people and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. They are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on gender identity, race, ethnicity, disability, age or youth, culture, nationality, religion, political persuasion, sexual orientation, real or suspected status with regards to AIDS/HIV, language, socioeconomic status, and subordinate status; and they are mindful of these factors when working with all people. They are committed to providing academic and professional work environments that are free of harassment (sexual or otherwise) and all forms of intimidation and exploitation (sexual or otherwise).

Professional Principles

BUIRA’s professional principles aim to support the professional interactions of colleagues within BUIRA and the Industrial and Employment Relations field more broadly. The professional principles of BUIRA will impact on members’ research, scholarship, teaching, mentoring and professional development activities.

We have two major responsibilities:

1. To the advancement of Industrial and Employment Relations knowledge

1. To commit to rigorous research that is planned, recorded, stored, analysed, reported and published with rigour
2. To ensure research results are not misleading and research is carried out in line with RCUK’s ethics policy and local institutions’ ethical procedures
3. To ensure participants’ freedom and dignity are respected
4. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality of research participants are maintained at all times.
5. To secure informed consent from participants at all times
6. To encourage timely dissemination of research findings with supportive and constructive feedback from peers
7. To manage projects and collaborations efficiently and effectively
8. To seek impact activities to encourage industrial and employment relations research to impact government policy and management practice
9. To encourage the dissemination of results and improve the exchange of information between academics and those in practice
10. To never engage in plagiarism and should plagiarism be suspected, to report it to the relevant body(ies) concerned.
11. To ensure that authorship credit reflects the professional or scientific contribution to a piece of work

3. To the BUIRA community and broader professional environment

1. To encourage meaningful exchange of ideas that invites counter/opposing views in a supportive and collegiate manner
2. To commit to the development of BUIRA through engaging in and contributing to BUIRA activities
3. To show commitment to the professional standards of BUIRA as included in this document as well as other policy documents
4. To treat all members of BUIRA and the wider Industrial and Employment Relations community with dignity and respect, demonstrating a collegiate attitude at all times.

Ethical Standards

Members of BUIRA must conduct themselves in line with the highest ethical standards. These standards are to be adhered to in all professional activities, including when interacting with other members of BUIRA and in their conduct of official roles in BUIRA.

BUIRA members must commit to the exclusion of the following:

1. Discrimination on the grounds of any individual characteristic (e.g. gender identity, race, ethnicity, disability, age or youth, culture, nationality, religion, political persuasion, sexual orientation, marital status, real or suspected status with regards to AIDS/HIV, disability, language, socioeconomic status, and subordinate status)
2. Any behaviours or acts that violate a person’s dignity. BUIRA regards the following as specific but not exhaustive examples of acts and behaviours that it deems to violate a person’s dignity:

• Physical contact ranging from unnecessary and unwelcome touching to serious assault.
• Intimidating behaviour, either physical or non-physical
• Verbal and written harassment through jokes, offensive language, gossip and slander, letters and electronic communication
• Visual display of offensive material
• Isolating, ostracising or marginalising a person
• Pressure/coercion into participation or relinquishing membership of political/religious groups
• Intrusion by pestering, spying or following.

1. Words or actions which seek to demean another person or persons (this includes language that frames a conversation or exchange in credentialist terms, within power structures or perceived hierarchical distances)
2. Any behaviours or acts that cause intimidation, humiliation, ridicule, offence or loss of privacy.
3. Exploitative relationships between those of the same grade or between individuals of different grades.
4. Destructive behaviour that seeks to undermine or otherwise harm any other person.
5. Activities that involve conflicts of interest. Should any conflict of interest arise, individuals must declare such conflict of interest.

Subscribing to the Code of Practice

On joining BUIRA, members agree to comply, promote and enforce the contents of this Code of Practice, which exemplifies the highest ethical ideals of professional conduct of the profession. BUIRA members are responsible for:

1. Familiarising themselves with the Code of Practice: Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not, in itself, a defence against inappropriate or unethical conduct.

2. Confronting ethical issues: Any violation of the Code of Practice should be reported to BUIRA’s Ethics Officer. If any member is unsure where a violation of the Code of Practice has been committed, they should consult with BUIRA’s Ethics Officer.

3. Treating all parties fairly in any dispute over violations to the Code of Practice: BUIRA members do not discriminate against a person on the basis of their having made an ethical claim or having been the subject of a claim. This consideration does not preclude taking action based upon the outcome of a claim.

4. Reporting ethical violations of others: If a BUIRA member has substantial reason to believe that there has been a violation of the Code of Practice by another BUIRA member, they should attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual. If an informal resolution appears appropriate or possible, or members seek advice about how to proceed, they may contact the BUIRA Ethics Officer for guidance.

5. Avoiding making improper claims: BUIRA members do not file or encourage the filing of claims that are frivolous and are intended to harm an alleged violator.

Policy and procedure for handling claims related to the BUIRA Code of Practice

Introduction

This document outlines the policy and procedures to deal with matters associated with the violation of the BUIRA Code of Practice. The policy and procedures are intended to reinforce the highest standards of professional ethical practice and behaviour through a process that is fair, procedurally just, and effective. This policy and procedures should be formally reviewed every four years and, if necessary, in accordance with any changes deemed necessary by the Ethics Committee. All recommended changes are approved by BUIRA’s Executive Board.

Principles

The policy and procedures are guided by the following eight principles:

1. Predictability - Each individual claim is handled in a consistent, orderly, fair, and just manner.

2. Transparency - The BUIRA Code of Practice and the Policy and Procedures for Handling Claims of Ethical Standards Violations are made available to all members. Charges and responses are made known to the parties, and decisions are explained and documented.

3. Professionalism - Each case is handled on the basis of good will and with a belief that there is no malicious intent on the part of anyone involved.

4. Impartiality - All parties are treated equally and impartially.

5. Democracy - Both parties have voice and must be given the opportunity to be heard. The process includes checks and balances.

6. Confidentiality - The process is confidential; but, within the process all individuals involved, their claims, and responses are known to each other.

7. Efficiency - A commitment is made to resolve issues swiftly, allowing proper time for quality deliberation.

8. Education - The process is intended to be educational with regard to ethics and appropriate professional practice for all parties involved.

Role, Scope and Responsibilities

The implementation of this policy and procedures is the responsibility of BUIRA members who are appointed and elected to the various roles as detailed in this document. Members involved in enforcing BUIRA’s policy and procedures have an obligation to act in an unbiased manner, to work expeditiously, to safeguard the confidentiality of any adjudication process, and to follow the procedures established to protect the rights of all individuals involved. In addition, each member is expected to act only to uphold the Ethical Standards of the Code of Practice while keeping in mind the principles that guide this policy and procedures.

There are two different dimensions to handling claims related to the BUIRA Code of Practice: (a) education, information and guidance, and (b) application and maintenance of policy and procedure for handling claims related to the BUIRA Code of Practice

.

Education, information and guidance to members

Education, information and guidance to membership about Ethical Standards related to the BUIRA Code of Practice is the responsibility of the Ethics Officer.

Ethics Officer Role

The Ethics Officer role is a single position of expert member elected by the BUIRA membership. The role has a term of 3 years and is elected outside of the stewardship cycle. The role is open to re-election only for an additional term. Having served one term, if not seeking re-election individuals shall not be eligible to serve again in the role for a period of 2 years. Having served 2 terms (e.g. including re-election), individuals shall not be eligible to serve again for a period of 5 years.

The responsibilities of the Ethics Officer are, as follows:

1. Point of contact for BUIRA members on ethics inquiries
2. Provides expert advice on ethics matters to BUIRA members
3. Provides policy and strategy advice to the Ethics Committee
4. Provides informal counselling and referrals to individuals on ethics matter
5. Educates individuals about the Code of Practice and the Policy and Procedures for handling claims related to the BUIRA Code of Practice
6. Receives and processes requests for interpretations of the Code of Practice.
7. Screens inquiries to assess whether the matter meets criteria for filing a claim. The Ethics Officer makes no judgments on the merit of a claim, but rather explains the process for filing a claim and provides forms and materials.
8. Notifies the Chair of the Ethics Committee if a claim may be forthcoming
9. Discusses claims of alleged violations to the Code of Practice with members
10. Maintains timely communication with individuals involved in a claim about the status of the claim.
11. Maintains records of ethics inquiries and claims
12. Maintains historical records of all ethics-claim procedures
13. Serves as liaison to legal counsel where appropriate
14. Coordinates appointments of roles to the Ethics Committee
15. In a case where the Ethics Officer is a party related to the claim, has a relationship with any party in the dispute or is conflicted, he/she shall recuse himself/herself and the Chair of the Ethics Committee Chair shall make an appointment of a different expert member to fill the role. In the event that a violation is proven, the Ethics Officer will be removed from the role with immediate effect and the member appointed by the Chair of the Ethics Committee will serve for the remaining of the tenure of the outgoing Ethics Officer.

Application and maintenance of policy and procedure for handling claims related to the BUIRA Code of Practice

Application and maintenance of the policy and procedure for handling claims related to the BUIRA Code of Practice are the responsibility of the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Appeals Committee.

Ethics Committee

The Ethics Committee is an enforcement committee, comprised of two members of the BUIRA Executive Board appointed by the BUIRA President (one of whom will act as Chair of the Ethics Committee), and three elected BUIRA members. All members except the Ethics Office serve for a period of 1 year. The roles are not open for consecutive re-election. Having served, individuals shall not be eligible to serve again in the same role for a period of 2 years.

The responsibilities of the Ethics Committee are, as follows:

1. Proposes new ethics-related initiatives
2. Reviews and recommends changes to the Code and the Policy and Procedures
3. Reports to BUIRA Executive Board on ethics committee meetings
4. Prepares summaries of decisions regarding ethical questions for the purpose of educating BUIRA members (Note: Summaries may be anonymised, published and distributed to the membership when the BUIRA Executive believes doing so constitutes an opportunity to educate members).
5. Explains adjudication procedures; receives and processes claims of alleged violations of the Code of Practice that have passed screening by the Ethics Officer
6. Compiles an objective, impartial, and factual account of the claim in question, and makes the best possible recommendation for the case. In taking action, the committee shall do so only for just cause and shall only take the degree of disciplinary action that is reasonable. The Ethics Committee engages in this procedures adhering to the guiding principles of predictability, transparency, professionalism, impartiality, democracy, confidentiality, efficiency and education.
7. In a case where any member of the Ethics Committee is a party related to the claim, has a relationship with any party in the claim or is conflicted, the individual shall recuse themselves from all deliberations and votes and the Ethics Committee Chair shall appoint a replacement so that the Ethics Committee shall fulfil its responsibilities. If this is the case of the Chair of the Ethics Committee, the Chair shall recuse themselves from all deliberations and votes and the President of BUIRA shall appoint a replacement so that the Ethics Committee shall fulfil its responsibilities.

Chair of the Ethics Committee

The Chair of the Ethics Committee is a single position undertaken of one of the two members of the BUIRA Executive Board appointed by the BUIRA President to be part of the Ethics Committee. The role has a term of 1 year. The role is not open to re-appointment. Having served one term, if not seeking re-election individuals shall not be eligible to serve again in the role for a period of 1 year. Having served twice, individuals shall not be eligible to serve again for a period of 5 years.

The responsibilities of the Chair of the Ethics Committee are, as follows:

1. Convenes the Ethics Committee when a claim is received
2. Presides over all adjudication processes
3. Issues the final written decision to all parties, including to the Ethics Officer and the BUIRA Executive Board
4. Confers with the BUIRA Executive Board on behalf of the Ethics Committee where appropriate
5. Reports to the BUIRA Executive Board on behalf of the Ethics Committee

Ethics Appeals Panel

In cases where individuals involved in a claim want to appeal the outcome of their claim, this will be dealt with by an Independent panel assembled to hear appeals. The Ethics Appeals Panel will be comprised by a Chair and two members appointed by the President of BUIRA. The panel is assembled to settle appeals on a case-by-case basis. This means that the term begins and ends with each case.

The responsibilities of the Ethics Appeals Panel are, as follows:

1. Reviews the claim and recommendation in an objective, impartial, and factual manner
2. Assesses the fairness of the outcome in view of the facts of the claim.

The Ethics Appeal Panel engages in these procedures adhering to the guiding principles of predictability, transparency, professionalism, impartiality, democracy, confidentiality, efficiency and education.

Operating Procedures

1. Quorum and voting - The quorum is constituted by all members of the Ethics Committee. Decisions shall be by two-thirds vote of members of the Ethics Committee. Members of the Ethics Committee are not allowed to send representatives to deliberate on their behalf. Votes on claims can be undertaken by post, by e-mail, or by voice (e.g. conference call, skype, etc). In the event that a member of the Ethics Committee has to recuse themselves from a claim, the BUIRA President shall temporarily appoint a replacement.

2. Conflicts of interest - If an individual involved in a claim challenges the composition of the Ethics Committee or the Ethics Appeal Committee, it is the responsibility of the individual to inform the President of BUIRA, in writing, before the decision is made or any appeals process begins. Challenges can be made for the following reasons: alleged bias, prejudice or conflict of interest. Notwithstanding the previous, members of the Ethics Committee or the Ethics Appeal Committee shall be vigilant in assessing their own impartiality, as well as any questionable appearances due to relationships, and shall take appropriate action to eliminate any impression of impropriety.

3. Means for handling claims - Three principal means for handling claims are telephone consultations, e-mail, and written communication. Final decisions must be completed in hardcopy.

4. Confidentiality - At the point of original suspicion or informal query, members are urged to avoid public disclosure of the situation. Once a formal claim is filed with the Ethics Officer, parties involved shall avoid public disclosure and discussion of the claim in order to respect the dignity and right to privacy of all involved. Breach of this requirement may be construed as malicious and may result in dismissal of the claim by the Chair of the Ethics Committee as it, in itself, represents a violation of the Code of Practice. Throughout the process, the Ethics Officer, the Ethics Committee or the Ethics Appeal Committee, and any parties involved are all expected to respect the confidentiality of the process as well as its outcome. Communication to parties outside the process is inappropriate and will be deemed a violation of due process.

5. Use of counsel/legal advisor - Proceedings undertaken by the Ethics Committee or and Ethics Appeals Panel are not legal proceeds and are closed to legal counsel of all parties.

6. Informal protocols and queries - In all cases, BUIRA members are first encouraged to resolve claims directly and informally with the other individual(s) involved. If informal resolution is not possible, the individual making the claim has the option to file a formal claim. The Chair of the Ethics Committee shall also assess whether informal resolution is possible at the point in the process where the response is received and both parties have provided complete information.

7. Amendment - The Policy and Procedures for handling claims of ethical-standards violations may be amended by a vote of the BUIRA Executive Board, following a recommendation by the Ethics Committee, the Ethics Officer and or an Ethics Appeals Panel. All changes (regardless of the nature) must be communicated to NUIRA members through BUIRA outlets (e.g. BUIRA newsletter, website, AGM, etc.).

8. Time limits for the filing of formal claims - Claims regarding research must be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. Claims regarding personal conduct must be filed within 6 months of the alleged incident. Claims regarding financial or other matters must be filed within 18 months of the alleged incident. The Ethics Officer may accept formal claims outside of the above time frames under exceptional circumstances.

9. Timelines - The Ethics Officer, the chair of the Ethics Committee or the Chair of an Ethics Appeals Panel may, at their discretion, accept documentation submitted late, and may also delay or postpone review of a case for good cause. Additionally, individuals involved in a claim may request that the Ethics Committee delay or postpone its review of a case for good cause if done so in writing. Otherwise all timelines for submission and response must be adhered to for matters to be resolved efficiently and in good faith.

10. Notice of legal action - If individuals involved in a claim know of any legal action (civil or criminal) related to the claim, they are required to notify the Ethics Committee. In the event of any legal action, all activity will be suspended until the conclusion of the legal action. At the conclusion of legal action it is the responsibility of the individual raising a claim to re-initiate the process with BUIRA, if desired, by notifying the Chair of the Ethics Committee.

11. Filing of formal records - Final written reports must be filed formally by the Chair of the Ethics Committee and the outcome must be shared with the Ethics Officer. A copy of the report, with all names or identifying marks removed from the report, may be made available to the Ethics Committee for the purpose of learning and improvement of processes.

Processes

Screening of Inquiries

1. All inquiries are screened by the Ethics Officer. The Ethics Officer discusses the incident with the individual to assess preliminarily if:
2. The incident occurred within the domain of a BUIRA activity
3. The incident is covered under the Ethical Standards of the Code of Practice
4. The claim is being filed within the specified time limits.

2. If YES to all of the above, the Ethics Officer sends a claim pack to the individual to initiate a formal claim. The pack includes an Ethics Claim Form, a copy of the Code of Practice, and a copy of this policy and procedures document.

3. If NO to any of the above, the Ethics Officer informs the individual that the matter is not subject to BUIRA processes and counsels the individual for educational purposes, if the individual so wishes.

4. The Ethics Officer notifies the Chair of the Ethics Committee that a claim may be forthcoming.

5. Alleged violations of the General and Professional Principles of the Code of Practice, that are non-enforceable aspirations, will not be considered.

Eligibility to File Claims

1. After initial screening by the Ethics Officer, the Ethics Committee will receive claims that BUIRA members have violated one or more sections of the Ethical

Standards of the Code of Practice from the following individuals:

1. Any member who has reason to believe that a BUIRA member has violated the Ethical Standards of the BUIRA Code of Practice
2. The Chair of the Ethics Committee on behalf of the BUIRA membership, when the Chair has reason to believe, through information received by the Committee, that BUIRA members have violated the BUIRA Code of Practice
3. Non-members (e.g. collaborators, professional contacts, service providers, etc.) under specific circumstances having to do with their involvement in BUIRA activities.

2. If possible, individuals should attempt to resolve claims directly with other members before filing ethical claims.

Filing of Formal Claims

1. All formal claims are received by the Chair of the Ethics Committee.

2. Only written claims will be considered. Oral and anonymous claims are not permitted.

3. Claims must be filed within the specified time limits. Individuals eligible to file claims must:
4. Complete and sign an Ethics Claim Form that includes the name of the individual making the claim, name of the member involved in an alleged violation, details of the alleged violation and names and contact information for any other individuals who have knowledge of the facts involving or related to the claim. The form must be signed by the individual making the claim in order for the claim to be examined.
5. Include a brief supporting statement with evidence of how the member violated the referenced ethical standards. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
6. Supply any pertinent supporting documents.

4. If a claim has been filed by a BUIRA member against a non-member, the non-member will be asked if they wish to participate in the process. If no, the Ethics Committee, based on the claim received from a member, will investigate the matter and take action commensurate with the degree of involvement of the non-member with BUIRA. If yes, the process will go forward as it would for a member.

Preliminary screening of formal claim by Ethics Officer

1. The Ethics Officer receives and screens the claim to assess preliminarily if:
2. The Claim Form is signed and filled out completely, accurately, and is accompanied by supporting materials.
3. The claim is covered under the Ethical Standards of the Code of Practice and may be a violation of a specific Standard that is referenced on the Claim Form
4. The claim has been filed within the specified time limits.

2. If YES to all of the above, the Ethics Officer notifies the Chair of the Ethics Committee and sends a copy of the Claim Form and supporting documentation.

3. If NO to any of the above, the Ethics Officer contacts the individual to:
4. Inform them that the forms and materials are not in conformance with the requirements and must be resubmitted for consideration
5. Inform them that the claim is not subject to adjudication by the Ethics Committee, or
6. Provide counselling for educational purposes, if the individual so wishes.

Preliminary screening of formal claim by the Chair of the Ethics Committee

1. The Chair of the Ethics Committee receives the screened claim and any supporting documentation from the Ethics Officer.

2. The Chair of the Ethics Committee screens the claim to determine preliminarily if:
3. The claim is a matter of education or a matter of potential violation
4. The claim, if proven, has sufficient grounds to warrant a violation of the Ethical Standards in the Code of Practice
5. The claim is not trivial
6. There is sufficient evidence to proceed

3. The Chair of the Ethics Committee verifies the specific standard that has been violated and any additional subsets of the Ethical Standards if not included on the Ethics Claim Form.

4. After initial screening by the Chair of the Ethics Committee, if the claim exhibits sufficient grounds to warrant a violation, the Chair sends a formal notice of claim to the individual involved in the alleged violation and notifies the Ethics Committee that a claim will be processed

5. If the claim does not show sufficient ground s to warrant a violation, the Chair of the Ethics Committee notifies the individual making the claim that the matter is dismissed. The Chair of the Ethics Committee places the claim and dismissal action on file and asks the Ethics Officer to record this.

Notice of claim, informal resolution, and investigation

1. Every formal claim not dismissed or deferred by the Chair of the Ethics Committee is promptly communicated to the individual involved in the alleged violation. This individual must be referred to as “Respondent” in all documentation.

2. The Chair of the Ethics Committee sends the Respondent a copy of the formal claim via tracked post (signed-for) alongside a copy of this policy and procedures document, the Code of Practice and any evidence/documents submitted in support of the claim.

3. The Respondent has 30 days from the date of receipt of the claim to respond to the Chair of the Ethics Committee. The Respondent is asked to provide a written response addressing the section(s) of the Ethical Standard(s) of the BUIRA Code of Practice they have allegedly violated and may also submit any evidence and documents they wish to be considered by the Ethics Committee in reviewing the claim.

4. If a Respondent fails to respond to the claim within the time allowed or does not respond to the inquiry in a suitable manner, the Chair of the Ethics Committee can forward the matter directly to the Ethics Committee to decide the matter without participation by the Respondent.

5. Once the Chair of the Ethics Committee receives the response, a copy is shared with the individual making the complaint (“The Complainant”). For transparency of the process, the parties involved and the Ethics Committee members will become known to each other. The parties may be asked by the Ethics Committee to provide additional information in writing that also will be shared.

6. The Chair of the Ethics Committee will ask the Complainant and Respondent if they would like to resolve the matter informally before the process of reviewing and decision begins. If not, the case moves forward. If the Complainant and Respondent both agree to discontinue the claim process, the Ethics Committee Chair will accept the withdrawal and consider the case dismissed.

7. If the case moves forward, the Chair of the Ethics Committee convenes the Ethics Committee to start the formal process. If a member of the committee is unavailable, the BUIRA President shall appoint a replacement to participate in the process to its completion.

8. The Ethics Committee receives from the Chair the signed Claim Form and supporting documentation, and the signed response from the Respondent and supporting documentation.

9. Within a timescale of 60 days, the Ethics Committee will dismiss, defer, or deliberate the case; request or allow additional information from either or both parties to be presented; and render a final written decision.

10. If the case is dismissed or deferred, the Complainant and Respondent are notified in writing of the reasons for dismissal or deferral. A claim can be dismissed by the Ethics Committee if the Respondent agrees to the fact that ethical negligence occurred and is willing to immediately take corrective action deemed sufficient by the Ethics Committee

.

Final decision

1. The Ethics Committee renders a final, written decision within 60 days from the start of the review process that is initiated when the Chair of the Ethics Committee forwards the claim, response, and all documents to the full committee.

2. The written decision includes findings of fact and conclusions as to whether a violation occurred as alleged in the claim, along with the ruling and/or sanctions. If no violation was proven, the Ethics Committee report recommends dismissal of the claim. The Chair of the Ethics Committee notifies both the Respondent and Complainant regarding the outcome of the claim and notice of final decision. The Chair then forwards a copy of the report both to the Complainant and Respondent. All final-decision reports are filed with the Chair of the Ethics Committee.

3. If the Ethics Committee dismisses the claim, the dismissal is noted in the final decision.

4. If the Ethics Committee renders a decision of violation of an Ethical Standard, the Ethics Committee may impose corrective action with or without sanctions. Corrective action can include educational requirements or other actions as may be necessary to remedy a violation or protect the interests of BUIRA.

5. Possible sanctions may include, but are not limited to:
6. Private reprimand: For ethics violations not likely to cause harm to another person or to the profession.
7. Public reprimand: For ethics violations that have been distributed or made visible to the public. The ethics violation is not likely to cause harm to another person but may harm the profession. Any public reprimand should take care not to undermine an individual’s dignity and focus on reiterating BUIRA’s position to promoting and upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct.
8. Denial of BUIRA privileges: For violations likely to cause harm to individuals and/or the profession it may be deemed appropriate to, for example, ban an individual from attending a BUIRA event.
9. Termination of membership: For violations likely to cause substantial harm to another person or to the profession or those that are of sufficient gravity to warrant such action.

6. Reinstatement: Persons whose membership has been terminated may apply for reinstatement after three years of notice of the final decision. Reinstatement requires a 2/3 vote of the Ethics Committee.

7. The penalties for failing to fulfil either corrective actions or sanctions in a satisfactory manner may result in automatic suspension of membership until the requirement(s) is met

8. A copy of the Ethics Committee report, with all names or identifying marks removed from the report, may be made available to the members of the BUIRA Executive for the purpose of learning and improvement of processes.

Notices of decisions

The decisions and decisions both of the Chair of the Ethics Committee (in the case of deferrals and dismissals) and of the Ethics Committee (in the case of dismissals and decisions of ethical violations), are subject to notice in the Ethics Committee report.

Notice of Appeal

1. If a Respondent or Complainant wants to contest the decision of the Ethics Committee, an appeal may be initiated within 30 days of the dated decision letter. The individual, known as the “Appellant,” must contact the Ethics Officer to request an appeal. The Ethics Officer screens the request for Appeal and sends an Appeals Form to the Appellant. The Appellant submits a complete and signed Appeals Form, along with a supporting statement to the Ethics Officer. Only written appeals will be considered.

2. Appeals to the Ethics Officer are only permitted on the basis of decisions and/or sanctions. Appeals are not allowed for dismissals or on matters of due process by the Ethics Committee.

3. The filing of an appeal automatically stays the implementation of the final decision by the Ethics Committee until the appeal is resolved.

4. Once the Ethics Officer receives the completed Ethics Appeal Form with supporting documentation, the Ethics Officer has to confer with the BUIRA President to determine if the Ethics Appeal Panel should be formed.

5. If NO, the appeal is dismissed.

6. If YES, the BUIRA President will assemble an independent Ethics Appeal Panel comprised of three BUIRA members with no ties to the prior process or to the Complainant or Respondent. This panel will follow the same process as the Ethics Committee, as outlined above. The Ethics Appeal Panel will use the prior documentation, including the notice of decision, to inform its process. The appealing party can submit additional documentation if necessary. The appeals process must conclude within 60 days, with a written decision and report.

7. The decision by the Ethics Appeal Panel is final, and limited to upholding the decision; upholding the decision but altering sanctions; or reversing the decision.

Filing of decided cases

A completed file containing all forms and supporting documents is forwarded to the Ethics Officer by the Chair of the Ethics Committee or the Chair of the Ethics Appeal Committee for confidential and encrypted storage at the close of a case. Any records will be kept and maintained in accordance with GDPR legislation.

31st October 2019

University of Birmingham Lecturer/Senior Lecturer - Work and Organisations

We have a vacancy for a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in the Organisation, Work and Employment group in Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham. Applications in the area of HRM/Employment Relations welcomed. Deadline is 1/12/19

https://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/BWC153/lecturer-senior-lecturer-in-work-and-organisation-teaching-and-research-38029

31st October 2019

CENTRAL LONDON BUIRA SEMINAR

A Just Transition? trade unions and climate change

Dr Béla Galgóczi (European Trade Union Institute) Two faces of a Just Transition: challenges for trade unions in addressing climate change’

Alana Dave (International Transport Federation) Towards a social model of public transport – ITF global strategy and policy

Friday 29 November 2019, 10.30am – 12.30pm, followed by buffet lunch

University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS

(opposite Madame Tussauds and nearly opposite Baker Street tube)
Room tbc

For further details and to reserve a place, contact Linda Clarke (clarkel@wmin.ac.uk)

This regular monthly seminar is focused on the urgent question of climate change and how this is and can be addressed by trade unions.

Béla Galgóczi has been working as senior research officer at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), Brussels since April 2003. His main research fields over the years have been capital and labour mobility in the EU, third country migration and income convergence. His current research focus is a just transition towards a carbon neutral economy, focussing on fair labour market transitions in carbon intensive sectors and regions. Béla will speak about the two faces of a just transition towards a net-zero carbon economy, drawing lessons from two carbon-intensive sectors, coal-based energy generation and the automobile industry, and regarding just transition not as an abstract concept but a real practice in real workplaces. While decarbonisation itself is a common objective, concrete transitions take place in work environments that are, farther on, determined by the capital-labour relationship with conflicts of interest during the transition. This is where the role of trade unions and social dialogue is key. The cases presented will demonstrate major differences between the two sectors in both the nature and the magnitude of the challenge, as well as in the applied practices and the role of actors.

Béla has a degree in electronical engineering (Budapest Technical University), in sociology (University of Sciences Budapest) with post-graduate studies in political science (University of Amsterdam) and a Ph.D. in economics (Hungarian Academy of Sciences).

Alana Dave is Urban Transport Director at the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), based in London. Alana leads the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) global programme on public transport, which includes a number of strategic projects on labour impacts and workers issues. She is responsible for the development of a trade union public transport policy to further decent work, social and climate justice and gender equality and represents the ITF in external relationships with political decision makers and public transport employers. Alana will present the ITF’s Our Public Transport programme and how it links current issues in the sector with a long-term vision of a pro-public democratic model of public transport. Alan was the education officer of the ITF from 2002 and has a long history in trade union education. She was previously the director of International Labour Research and Information Group in South Africa and projects officer of the International Federation of Workers’ Education Associations, for which she has been an executive board member since 2012.

This seminar is an opportunity to air and discuss these issues in an open forum and consider their implications for industrial relations. Anyone interested is welcome to attend this event. These meetings can be full though so, if you would like to attend and to help forecast catering provision, please Contact: Professor Linda Clarke,  clarkel@wmin.ac.uk or 020350 66528 and if you would like to attend subsequent London BUIRA seminars including:

31^st January 2020, Digitalisation, employment and industrial relations, with Prof Birgit Mahnkopf (Berlin School of Economics and Law) on The future of work in the era of ´digital capitalism´: Promises of digitalization and its impact on employment, workers and industrial relations, and Dr Kim Moody on The ‘logistics revolution’ of the 21^st century as a material aspect of digital capitalism

Room C281

27^th March 2020, Higher education, marketisation, RF/TEF and employment relations, with Prof Dorothy Bishop (University of Oxford) on REF and TEF: are they useful?" and Dr Olga Kuznetsova (Manchester Metropolitan University’ on Employee relations in marketizing universities

Room: C385

16th October 2019

MLERS: ‘Beyond ideology: comparing confrontational union responses to restructuring in France‘

We’re very excited that the November meeting of the ‘Midlands Labour Employment Relations Society’ (MLERS) will be taking place on Tuesday 12^th November 2019 18:00 – 20:00 (talk starts at 18:30) at the Birmingham & Midlands Institute (5 min walk form New Street Station).

Please register for free here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/november-midlands-labour-employment-relations-society-meeting-tickets-77030102109

‘Beyond ideology: comparing confrontational union responses to restructuring in France‘ 

Ruth Reaney, London School of Economics, Genevieve Coderre-LaPalme, University of Birmingham 

For several decades, workplace restructuring has been a central feature of a shift towards market-driven employment relations in both the public and private sectors in France (Beaujolin-Bellet and Schmidt 2012). Within this challenging environment, local unions have responded to workplace restructuring in various ways. Whilst ‘cooperative’ strategies such as concession bargaining and the negotiation of social plans are common responses to this type of restructuring, some unions have employed more ‘confrontational’ strategies such as political mobilisation to prompt negotiations about alternative plans (Pulignano and Stewart 2013; Marginson and Meardi 2009; Foster and Scott 1998; Jalette and Hebdon 2012; Greer et al 2013). Under what conditions do unions adopt a confrontational approach? While external circumstances (Frege and Kelly 2003; Jalette and Hebdon 2012; Martinez-Lucio and Stuart 2005) and power resources (Levesque and Murray 2005; Murray et al 2010) help shape the opportunities and threats which unions see in their environment, internal ideology and identity are also considered to be key factors in shaping and sustaining union strategy (Bacon and Blyton 2004; Levesque and Murray 2010; Hodder and Edwards 2015; Hyman 2001). 

In examining local unions’ choices to engage confrontational responses to restructuring, this paper compares case studies of ‘critical restructuring incidents’ in two of the country’s most unionised sectors, public healthcare and automobile manufacturing. In doing so, it extends understanding of unions’ tactical choices in responding to restructuring, thereby offering insight into the extent to which internal and external factors shape trade union strategic choice.

Findings from the study indicate that inter- and intra-union variation in strategy across and within cases is explained by the interplay which occurs between ideology and resources. Whereas some unions in the cases had confrontational responses because this forms part of their usual repertoire of action and general union identity, others opted for a confrontational response to ensure their access to resource in the future. Unions which are generally considered in the literature to be “non-militant” engaged in confrontational action in instances where it was deemed the best way to protect their legitimacy and power within the organisation and in the eyes of employees. Patterns within the case findings therefore suggest that unions’ responses to restructuring, although ostensibly similar, are motivated by various external and internal factors, demonstrating that union strategic choice is neither determined by external factors nor professed union ideology. Thus, restructuring poses strategic dilemmas for unions, forcing them to navigate the process by balancing union identity with membership and workforce preferences.

Ruth Reaney is an LSE Fellow in the Department of Management with research interests in work and employment. Her current research concerns trade union response to decreasing institutional security, with specific focus on the French labour movement.

Genevieve Coderre-LaPalme is a Lecturer in Employment Relations at Birmingham Business School. Her research so far has focused on comparative industrial relations, in particular trade union strategies towards restructuring. She is also developing research around employment, stratification and disability. 

Details on how to join MLERS and future meetings can be found on our website

16th October 2019

Time's Willy Brown obituary

Professor William Brown obituary

Academic whose work on industrial relations led to the minimum wage and who took Arthur Scargill, the miners’ leader, to task

The drive for a national minimum wage in Britain owed much to Willy Brown’s childhood ability to talk his way out of trouble. Brown, who according to his brother Henry was “a social chameleon”, came from an academic family and in time turned his negotiating skills into an economics professorship that focused on how wages should be set.

The minimum wage first hit the statute book in 1604 when James I passed an Act Fixing a Minimum Wage for textile workers. It was scrapped in the 19th century, but Tony Blair seized on the idea when he became prime minister in 1997. He created the Low Pay Commission (LPC), of which Brown was a founder member.

In the 1960s Brown had worked for the Wilson government’s Prices and Incomes Board, an early attempt to regulate the economy. After being appointed to the University of Warwick he put a strong emphasis on case-study research, but found that policymakers were not much impressed with case studies because they thought there was only limited scope to generalise from them into political solutions. So he started the Workplace Employment Relations Study, a regular exercise that he eventually persuaded the government to fund and which continued until only a few years ago.

Brown used his survey techniques to research the effects of raising the minimum wage on employment, prices, inflation, exports and imports. “It was Willy who laid down the modus operandi of the LPC,” Sir George Bain, its first chairman, said, “treating the national minimum wage as an empirical rather than theoretical question.”

The balding and bespectacled Brown rejected theoretical economics in favour of a more practical approach. It may also have better suited his sociable temperament, which inclined him to linger over a pint or three in the pub after work. New acquaintances were often taken off guard when his soft tone of voice gave way to a sudden, loud laugh that lit up his crinkly eyes.

Yet he did not suffer fools. It was at one of the university’s regular management-union seminars in 1984, when Arthur Scargill, the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, was in the throes of the miners’ strike, that Brown bared his intellectual teeth.

Bain, then the chairman of Warwick Business School, said: “I remember Willy cross-examining Scargill in a forensic way, exposing how shallow his tactics were. He thought he was just a fraud and a sham, leading the miners to disaster.” Brown, a Labour Party member since the 1950s, would have been naturally sympathetic to a well-argued union case. “He got along well with most people, including union leaders,” Bain said. “But he didn’t bother to get along with shits.”

William Arthur Brown was born in Oxford in 1945 to Joan (née Taylor) and Arthur Brown (obituary, April 9, 2003), an economist and fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, who soon after his son’s birth was appointed pro-vice chancellor at the University of Leeds.

The family had a large house in an acre of garden, much of it woodland, on the edge of the Meanwood valley north of Leeds. William (known as Willy) wrote: “The garden gave us considerable freedom from parental supervision. We were free to climb trees and dig dens — and later learn more constructive skills such as use of axes, bow saws and scythes. As they grew older, our parents beat a careful strategic retreat with the garden, allowing it to become ever more jungle-like.”

There was no television in the house, but the sound of The Goon Show and the American humourist Tom Lehrer floating out of the radio was acceptable. The family had an extensive family library, with Chambers’s Encyclopaedia to answer impossible questions from small boys. Holidays started on the Settle-to-Carlisle railway line, followed by two weeks in a hotel near Loweswater in the northwest Lake District near Crummock Water. However, Willy was pitchforked into adult reality aged 14 when his eldest brother, John, died in a climbing accident in the Swiss Alps.

“Willy was the brightest of us boys,” Henry said. “He could certainly think on his feet, and he had a real sense of mischief.” A scholarship boy, he breezed through Leeds Grammar School on his way to Wadham College, Oxford. There he read PPE and fell under the influence of Hugh Clegg, who taught Brown about real ale and took him to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. In 1968 Brown moved to the University of Warwick and then, in 1985, to Wolfson College, Cambridge, where he was the Montague Burton professor of industrial relations for 27 years. He was appointed to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) in 1998.

Yet even the knottiest problems Brown had to disentangle at Acas paled into insignificance compared with the potential pitfalls he faced at home: Brown had two pairs of stepdaughters with the same names.

He first married Kim, who had daughters Rachel and Sarah from her marriage to his friend Nick Hewitt at the University of Warwick. After his ten-year marriage to Kim ended in 2003 (it was not formally dissolved until ten years later) he partnered with Jackie Scott and they were married in 2017. She was a colleague at Cambridge, where she was head of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences and is now retired. She had two daughters, also called Rachel and Sarah. “It was a bit tricky, but he always said he wanted four daughters,” Jackie said.

Rachel Hewitt is a writer who lectures in creative writing at the University of Newcastle. Her sister Sarah was until recently a housing officer in Lewes, East Sussex. Jackie’s daughter Sarah Goodwin was a financial officer for the National Trust. Rachel Scott has worked in non- government organisations helping refugees and asylum seekers in Canada and the UK.

From 2000 Brown was master of Darwin College, Cambridge, for 12 years, but he maintained his links with Yorkshire. Henry said: “Willy and I, and many family and friends, shared a strong attachment to a remote family cottage in Middlesmoor on a steep green hillside, anchored by a stocky church and a tall stand of sycamores, in the Yorkshire Dales.” The brothers laboured to renovate the cottage in the 1970s, turning it into a spiritual home and base for energetic moorland walks, in Willy’s case punctuated by reciting huge chunks of Wordsworth and Shakespeare from memory, with a varied stock of ribald verses and limericks that often ignited that explosive laugh.

In retirement Brown and Jackie moved to Hinxton in Cambridgeshire, where he would be entranced by the Red Arrows circling the Hinxton church spire before flying over the Duxford air show, with Lancasters, Spitfires and other aircraft that had been part of his childhood. He entered local politics, using his arbitration skills to take the rough edges off commercial property development plans.

While busy with a large garden, Brown still had time for writing. As well as dozens of academic papers, he wrote several significant books on the modern workplace and the changing face of industrial relations. To those he added, two years ago, The Emerging Industrial Relations of China.

“I can see a parallel in the intellectual stance of our father,” Henry said. “Sceptical of theories and models, and happy to struggle with awkward data to make sense of the world. They were both determined that policy based on that understanding can make the world a better place.”

William Brown, CBE, professor of industrial relations, was born on April 22, 1945. He died of acute aortic dissection on August 1, 2019, aged 74

16th October 2019

Abstract Deadline Extended: Disrupting technology: contextualising continuity and change in technology, work and employment

• The state, regulation and new technology
• Historical research on the introduction of new technologies of work
• Management, resistance, organization, and technology
• Occupations, skills, professions, and technology
• Inequalities (race, gender, (dis)ability) and technology
• Methods for studying work and technology – towards a research agenda

16th October 2019

'Handbook of the Politics of Labour, Work and Employment' (ed. Gregor Gall) now published by Edward Elgar

16th October 2019

Book Series “Trade Unionism: Changing Contexts And Shifting Paradigms”

Book Series “Trade Unionism: Changing Contexts And Shifting Paradigms”  Series Editors:  Andy Hodder and Miguel Martinez Lucio

Proposals are invited for books and research monographs in the area of trade unionism. The series focuses on trade unions in terms of a range of relevant changes and developments internally and in relation to the social, economic and political environment. The series is an attempt to provide a space, not just for established academics, but for emerging commentators and researchers.

The aim of the series is to present a series of interventions that are thorough and well-grounded in terms of their analysis but that are also innovative and provocative in terms of their impact on debates and reflections on worker organisation and representation. We aim is to provide a more innovative space and variety of voices engaging with regards to the debate on and within trade unionism. To this extent, we also welcome books that involve discussants, roundtables and conference presentations and not just standard monographs and edited collections, although these latter forms will constitute the core of the series. All texts in the series will publish in paperback after 18 months of hardback sale.

 Further information: https://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/series-detail/trade-unionism-changing-contexts-and-shifting-paradigms/

16th October 2019

Moving forward in 2020, Unions 21 and bridging the gap with academics

‘Moving forward in 2020, Unions 21 wants to be more effective at bridging the gap between the academic and union community, enabling the sharing of best practices, learning and projects.

16th October 2019

New and emerging forms of worker collectivism: Resisting the rise of employers’ precarious work in the ‘gig economy’ Saturday, 26 October 11:00 – 2:00pm Djam Lecture Theatre, SOAS, London

8th October 2019

Essex Business School Lecturer in HRM (specialising in employee relations and employment law).

This is an exciting opportunity to join the Organisation Studies and Human Resource Management Group at Essex Business School. If successful, you will be part of a team of over 15 research active colleagues with a global reputation for their work in critical organisation studies, HRM, and equality and diversity.

We are keen to appoint a talented scholar with experience in the field of Human Resource Management and, ideally, with the ability to contribute to the teaching of Employment Law. We would, therefore, especially welcome applications from those with expertise in:

* UK and international employment law
* Employee relations

The offer is competitive, and includes a generous relocation allowance, the possibility of paid research leave, and research funds.

https://vacancies.essex.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=909752L0jj&WVID=9918109NEm&LANG=USA

8th October 2019

Durham looking to hire a Full Professor and an Assistant Professor in HRM (including industrial relations).

Durham University Business School is looking to hire a Full Professor and an Assistant Professor in HRM (including industrial relations).

For further information regarding the job as Professor in HRM please see the attachment or the following link:

https://www.dur.ac.uk/jobs/recruitment/vacancies/mgmt19-02/

For further information regarding the job as Assistant Professor in HRM please see the attachment or the following link:

https://www.dur.ac.uk/jobs/recruitment/vacancies/dubs18-2/

I would be very grateful if you could draw this to the attention of potential applicants. If you would like further information, please let me know.

Best wishes

Jo McBride

3rd October 2019

BUIRA History of Industrial Relations Study Group

BUIRA History of Industrial Relations Study Group

 Labour Unrest pre-First World War: Germany and the UK Compared

Tuesday 12 November 2019

3.30pm for 4.00-6.00m (Tea/ coffee from 3.30)

Room L195, University of Westminster Business School, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS (opposite Madame Tussauds and nearly opposite Baker Street tube)

For further details or to reserve a place, please email Michael Gold (m.gold@rhul.ac.uk) or Linda Clarke (clarkel@wmin.ac.uk).

Programme:

3.30-3.50pm: Tea/ coffee/ refreshments

3.50-4.00: Welcome: Michael Gold and Linda Clarke (Chairs)

4.00-4.30: Ralph Darlington

Pre-First World War Labour Unrest and Women’s Suffrage Revolt: Never the Twain Shall Meet?

During the years immediately preceding the First World War, Britain experienced social unrest on a scale beyond anything since the first half of the 19^th century. Both the women’s suffrage revolt for the vote (embracing suffragettes and suffragists) and the unprecedented labour unrest of 1910-14 (involving strikes in pursuit of higher wages, better working conditions and trade union recognition) utilised dramatic extra-parliamentary ‘direct action’ forms of militant struggle from below that represented a formidable challenge to the social and political order of Edwardian Britain. This presentation re-examines the historical record to deploy both new and previously unutilised evidence to provide a detailed assessment of the interconnections between the women’s and labour movements in this defining period of British history.

4.30-5.00: Joern Janssen

1910 Eight-week Lockout in the German Construction Industry: a Victory of Labour against Private Property

This presentation analyses the greatest industrial confrontation in German history, which ran from 15 April to 20 June 1910 and ended with the virtually complete defeat of the construction employers’ federation on 16 June 1910 through the verdict of a tripartite court of arbitration. It consolidated a new stage in labour-property relations and the role of labour in the development of anonymous capital. This industrial dispute was about a national framework agreement on collective employment relations and bargaining. It transformed employee organisation and divided the employers’ organisation, benefiting, on the one hand, the central sectoral industrial labour unions to the detriment of trade organisations and, on the other, the anonymous corporations to the detriment of personal ownership of industrial enterprise.

5.00-5.30: General discussion

5.30pm: Close (followed by drinks until 6.00pm)

The speakers:

Ralph Darlington is Emeritus Professor of Employment Relations at the University of Salford. He is the author of The Dynamics of Workplace Unionism (Mansell 1994) and Radical Unionism: The Rise and Fall of Revolutionary Syndicalism (Haymarket 2013), co-author of Glorious Summer: Class Struggle in Britain 1972 (Bookmarks 2001), and is currently researching for a book to be published by Pluto Press on The Labour Unrest 1910-1914.

Joern Janssen, born in Düsseldorf in Germany, studied architecture in the 1950s and worked as an architect from 1960 to 1970. He was awarded his PhD in political sciences (rer. pol.) in 1973 and became a Professor in construction economics at the Fachhochschule Dortmund from 1972 to 1997. He was a Visiting Professor at the University of Westminster 1997-2001, and since 1997 has been researching the history of labour-property relations.

3rd October 2019

MANCHESTER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SOCIETY PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS 2019-20

Thursday October 17 2019 6pm

Arthur Priest Memorial Lecture/ Joint Meeting with the CIPD

Reducing the Disability Employment Gap in Britain

Professor Kim Hoque

Professor of HRM, University of Warwick

Thursday 14 November 2019, 6pm

Independent Trade Unions: Organising Precarious Workers and Winning

Henry Chango Lopez

President, Independent Workers Union of Great Britain

Discussant: Dr Gabriella Alberti, University of Leeds

Thursday 5 December 2019, 6pm

Work, Technology and What Counts: Surveillance and Monitoring and Worker Responses

Dr Phoebe Moore

Associate Professor, Political Economy & Technology, University of Leicester School of Business and Guest Research Fellow, WZB Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society

Thursday 13 February 2020, 6pm

Joint meeting with the Industrial Law Society

Individual Labour and Equality Rights at Work Through the Lens of Bullying and Harassment

Professor Lizzie Barmes

Professor of Labour Law, Queen Mary University

Thursday 19 March 2020, 6pm

Employment Relations in the Informal Economy?

The Spatial Dynamics That Shape the Presence of Hand Car Washes

Ian Clark (Professor of HRM), James Hunter (Principal Lecturer in Public Policy), Richard Pickford (Knowledge Exchange and

Impact Officer), and Huw Fearnall-Williams (Lecturer in HRM and OB) Nottingham Trent University

Thursday 14 May 2020, 6pm

Shirley Lerner Memorial Lecture

Union Organising and Power:

Is This The Missing Link in Union Revitalisation?

Professor Jane Holgate

Professor of Work and Employment Relations, University of Leeds

All meetings take place at the Ground Floor, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, All Saints Campus, Oxford Road, Manchester M15 6BH (near Oxford Road railway station)

26th September 2019

Theories ion HRM and Employment Relations

The following book on Theories ion HRM and Employment Relations may be of interest.

1) https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/elgar-introduction-to-theories-of-human-resources-and-employment-relations

26th September 2019

Equal Pay @50: Making equal and fair pay a reality

 May 2020 will mark 50 years of the UK’s Equal Pay Act. Forty-five years ago the European Community enacted the Equal Pay Directive which enshrined the principle of equal value and 100 years ago the International Labour Organization (ILO) first stated the principle of equal remuneration for women and men. Yet the gender pay gap has been resilient in the UK and the gap between those who run organisations and the average pay of their workers has got increasingly wider.

While we now understand a range of explanations for unfair pay, including gender and ethnic segregation; human capital; workplace practices and processes; the limitations of the law and of course discrimination, many of these explanations remain as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. It is still the case that these reasons are as relevant today as 50 years ago and that they continue to fundamentally challenge genuine and sustained reform.

This event will engage with these and other issues relevant to making equal and fair pay a reality (see programme below). Speakers and contributors from academia, law, business, unions and equality organisations will provide insight into the context of unequal pay, strategies that have been successful and strategies that have failed, and the barriers navigated to progress equal pay. It will also provide the opportunity to share ideas on how change might take place in multiple arenas in order to affect fair and equal pay and built a strategic way forward. It will also be an opportunity to share and transfer ideas across sectors and contexts.

Equal Pay @50: Making equal and fair pay a reality

DLA Piper UK LLP | Princes Exchange | Princes Square | Leeds LS1 4BY | United Kingdom

Monday, 9 December 2019 from 10:00 to 16:00 (GMT)

Register here if you want to attend- https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/equal-pay-50-making-equal-and-fair-pay-a-reality-registration-72058558087

Who should attend?

Academics, diversity specialists, lawyers, policy makers, employers, trade unions, consultants, shareholders, third sector groups working on gender and intersectional pay gaps, living wage and students interested in reward in their careers.

The diversity of participant roles will ensure that this is a lively, interactive event committed to moving forward with respect to pay equality and provide an ideal opportunity for delegates to network and work together for change.

Organised by the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change at the University of Leeds Business School and in partnership with The Equality Trust and sponsored by DLA Piper, Global Law firm.

Programme

10:00 Registration

10:30 Session 1: Welcome and opening session: Equal Pay @50: Making equal and fair pay a reality

Chair: Jane Holgate, Leeds University Business School

• Jane Hannon: Partner, DLA Piper
• Jenny Tomlinson: Professor and Director of the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change, Leeds University Business School
• Bill Adams: Regional Secretary Yorkshire and Humber Trades Union Congress
• Jane Aitchison: Prospective parliamentary candidate Pudsey and Leeds TUC president

11:30 Session 2: Unequal pay in the private sector

Chair: Jana Javornik: Leeds University Business School

• Bob Padron: CEO Penrose Care Ltd
• John Page: Fair Pay Campaigner, Equality Trust
• Karen Reay: Regional Secretary Unite the Union

12:30 Session 3: Gender inequality and the law

Chair: Iyiola Solanke: University of Leeds, School of Law

• Karon Monagahan: QC Matrix Chambers

13:00 Lunch

13:45 Session 4: Unequal pay in the public sector
Chair: TBC

• James Lewis: Deputy Leader of Leeds City Council
• Victoria Jones: National Officer & Women’s Lead, First Division Association
• Gabriella Alberti: Leeds University and Colleges Union

14:45 All panel speakers

Chair: Jane Holgate: Leeds University Business School

15:30 Taking forward the challenge of equal pay

Chair: John Page: Equality Trust

 16:00 Close

26th September 2019

Unions and Social Movements: Institutional Rivalry or Alliance and Cooperation? - Inaugural MLERS Meeting

Heather Connolly, University of Leicester

Unions and Social Movements: Institutional Rivalry or Alliance and Cooperation?

This paper explores the relationship between labour and non-labour movements and whether the relationship is likely to be characterised by institutional rivalry or alliance and cooperation. To what extent are non-labour movements, including community-based, campaigning/single-issue groups and advocacy organisations replacing organised labour as the main dynamic force advancing workers’ interests? There are overlapping interests and methods between labour and non-labour movements but there is also the potential for and evidence of tension and rivalry. Existing research shows that much of the tension and rivalry is a result of institutional barriers rather than fundamental differences in interests and methods.

The paper draws on my research and the work of others to explore the argument that the primary (and potentially most sustainable) way in which labour and non-labour movements have come together is through ‘absorption’, where the labour movement has provided an institutional field upon which other movements can organise and campaign. The paper considers the significance of the ‘gilets jaunes’ in France – a non-labour based movement which emerged in November 2018 initially as a protest against rising fuel prices and which has enjoyed strong support from the wider population. There has been a shift in the movement’s approach from an explicit rejection of any connection with the trade union movement to the adoption of a more conciliatory approach on both sides. This rapprochement has the potential to develop synergies between the organisational capacity of the ‘old’ (the trade unions) and the imaginative spontaneity of the ‘new’ (the ‘gilets jaunes’). Drawing on the strengths of each is an important means to build effective resistance. The emergence of non-labour movements like the ‘gilet jaunes’ has important implications for trade unions reflecting on their role and their strategies for renewal.

Heather Connolly is Associate Professor of Employment Relations at the University of Leicester. Her research in France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK, explores how trade union activists respond to contemporary challenges, particularly the innovative role that unions might play in the social inclusion of migrant workers. Her publications include The Politics of Social Inclusion and Labor Representation: Immigrants and Trade Unions in the European Context, published in May 2019 by Cornell University Press.

Date And Time

Location

26th September 2019

Willy Brown's Obituary by George Bain

Read Willy Brown's Obituary in the Guardian by George Bain 

18th September 2019

BUIRA History of Industrial Relations Study Group

BUIRA History of Industrial Relations Study Group

Labour Unrest pre-First World War: Germany and the UK Compared

Tuesday 12 November 2019

3.30pm for 4.00-6.00m (Tea/ coffee from 3.30)

Room tbc, University of Westminster Business School, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS (opposite Madame Tussauds and nearly opposite Baker Street tube)

For further details or to reserve a place, please email Michael Gold (m.gold@rhul.ac.uk) or Linda Clarke (clarkel@wmin.ac.uk). 

Programme:

3.30-3.50pm: Tea/ coffee/ refreshments

3.50-4.00: Welcome: Michael Gold and Linda Clarke (Chairs)

4.00-4.30: Ralph Darlington

Pre-First World War Labour Unrest and Women’s Suffrage Revolt: Never the Twain Shall Meet?

During the years immediately preceding the First World War, Britain experienced social unrest on a scale beyond anything since the first half of the 19^th century. Both the women’s suffrage revolt for the vote (embracing suffragettes and suffragists) and the unprecedented labour unrest of 1910-14 (involving strikes in pursuit of higher wages, better working conditions and trade union recognition) utilised dramatic extra-parliamentary ‘direct action’ forms of militant struggle from below that represented a formidable challenge to the social and political order of Edwardian Britain. This presentation re-examines the historical record to deploy both new and previously unutilised evidence to provide a detailed assessment of the interconnections between the women’s and labour movements in this defining period of British history.

4.30-5.00: Joern Janssen

1910 Eight-week Lockout in the German Construction Industry: a Victory of Labour against Private Property

This presentation analyses the greatest industrial confrontation in German history, which ran from 15 April to 20 June 1910 and ended with the virtually complete defeat of the construction employers’ federation on 16 June 1910 through the verdict of a tripartite court of arbitration. It consolidated a new stage in labour-property relations and the role of labour in the development of anonymous capital. This industrial dispute was about a national framework agreement on collective employment relations and bargaining. It transformed employee organisation and divided the employers’ organisation, benefiting, on the one hand, the central sectoral industrial labour unions to the detriment of trade organisations and, on the other, the anonymous corporations to the detriment of personal ownership of industrial enterprise.

5.00-5.30: General discussion

5.30pm: Close (followed by drinks until 6.00pm)
 

The speakers:

Ralph Darlington is Emeritus Professor of Employment Relations at the University of Salford. He is the author of The Dynamics of Workplace Unionism (Mansell 1994) and Radical Unionism: The Rise and Fall of Revolutionary Syndicalism (Haymarket 2013), co-author of Glorious Summer: Class Struggle in Britain 1972 (Bookmarks 2001), and is currently researching for a book to be published by Pluto Press on The Labour Unrest 1910-1914.

Joern Janssen, born in Düsseldorf in Germany, studied architecture in the 1950s and worked as an architect from 1960 to 1970. He was awarded his PhD in political sciences (rer. pol.) in 1973 and became a Professor in construction economics at the Fachhochschule Dortmund from 1972 to 1997. He was a Visiting Professor at the University of Westminster 1997-2001, and since 1997 has been researching the history of labour-property relations.

16th September 2019

CfP JIR: ‘Old Frames and New Lenses: Frames of Reference and the Field of Industrial Relations’

Journal of Industrial Relations (JIR)

CALL FOR PAPERS

‘Old Frames and New Lenses:

Frames of Reference and the Field of Industrial Relations’

Special Issue: Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.63(2), April 2021

Special Issue Guest-Editors:

Professor Michael Barry, Griffith University, Australia

Professor Adrian Wilkinson, Griffith University, Australia

• The objective and aim of the special issue

The ‘frames of reference’ has been a guiding and enduring concept since the celebrated work of Fox (1966) (see Heery, 2016). Countless courses that introduce students to industrial/employment relations feature a discussion of the distinctions between the traditional unitarist and pluralist frames as outlined by Fox, and the Marxist/critical frame as articulated for an industrial relations audience by authors such as Hyman (1975). Through dissemination, the frames of reference has been impactful on generations of students who have gone on to become academics and practitioners. Though much used as an instructional tool, and given its wide acceptance appearing as it does in most textbooks on the subject of industrial relations (IR), it is perhaps surprising that there has been limited scholarly research seeking to apply the frames (For an exception see Ramsay, 1974).

Despite the apparent influence of the concept of frames there are issues around the application. Industrial relations academics have been prone to assert that managers’ views of the employment relationship are guided by the unitarist frame, but it is not entirely clear what this means. As Fox noted, unitarism can vary from a soft form of paternalism at one end to an absolute assertion of a right to unilaterally manage the employment relationship at the other end. Unitarism in its soft form may be manifest through welfare provisions, such as high pay and fringe benefits, or though human resource management policies that provide satisfying work and career development (Purcell and Ahlstrand, 1994; Provis, 1996). The soft variant of unitarism simply asserts that conflict can be avoided and that where effective HR policies and procedures apply, unions have no role to play. In this sense unions are not so much excluded as they are rendered unnecessary. Critical here is the role of management to avoid the conditions that would give rise to conflict, such as by providing clear and effective communication.

As similar critique of the traditional frames has been made by Purcell (1987). Purcell argued that the unitarist and pluralist frames, on their own, did not adequately explain variation in the way employers treated workers, which he labelled management styles. Purcell preferred the terms individualism and collectivism, where individualism denoted the extent to which management sought to develop individual workers (and this could range from low to high, with labour control at the low end and extensive employee development at the high end). Similarly, collectivism, scaled, related to the extent to which management supported workers having a collective voice and influence in decision making.

Cullinane and Dundon (2014) argue that while unitarism has been often cited as the guiding ideology of management, there is little evidence on which to base this assertion. They note that ‘Few studies have had empirical access to union-resistant employers, with analysis of unitarism, as a consequence, based on conjecture and inference of a presumed intent.’ Therefore, IR has suffered from an ‘excess of deduction’ and a ‘paucity’ of investigation into the actual views and intentions of management.

As might be expected there has been more research into the pluralist frame of reference given its long standing, mainstream position. Contemporary research on the pluralist frame has focused principally on examining how it has adapted (or indeed failed to do so) to the significant changes affecting work; namely the breakdown of the traditional breadwinner model of male, full time employment occurring in large manufacturing workplaces governed as they were by a prevailing structure of unionised collective bargaining. Ackers (2014) argues that pluralism has failed to move beyond its core assumption of the primacy of unions and collective bargaining, that reflected the system of the 1970s much more than contemporary employment relations, whereas at least through the efforts of authors such as Kelly (1988), Marxist analysis has engaged in some critical self-reflection and revision to reflect modern workplace realities.

The Ackers’ (2002) critique of pluralism centres on how it has failed to account for relations that occur outside the auspices of unionised collective bargaining. His account argues for a need for a new (neo) pluralism that captures the important interactions between work, family and community which have produced a growing disparity in opportunity and outcome. Ackers’ call is for pluralism to re-find its moral and ethical compass, which for him became lost in the preoccupation with rule-making processes and outcomes.

Heery (2002; 2016) has also examined how those in the pluralist academic tradition have responded to changes that cut deep into pluralisms’ core assumptions. Unlike Ackers, Heery’s (2016) overall focus remains more squarely on evolving market and workplace relations, and how pluralism has come under attack from an ascendant unitarism and neo-liberalism. More specifically, Heery (2002), examine the frames of reference through academic research on worker participation and employee voice. Heery notes that worker participation is a heavily contested area of academic analysis, and that the frames of reference offers a way to understand the divergent scholarly views, which offer both analysis and prescription of different forms of participation. In HR (and OB research) there is a strong unitarist prescription for direct participation, with employee participation seen as a means to assist business performance. Other writers have noted this trend as well, with Godard (2014) arguing that this research agenda reflects the influence of psychology on current employment relations scholarship.

John Budd has added to the work of Fox by introducing the ‘egoist’ frame of reference. The egoist frame is itself aligned to neo-liberalism and is used as a term to summarise a world view in which markets are perfectly competitive and are governed purely by supply and demand transactions. Actors are assumed to be self-interested and rational. In such markets, exit is costless and voice unnecessary because labour is a treated as a commodity. Budd and Bhava (2008) argue the need for the egoist frame as an addition to the other frames, and in particular because the unitarist frame does not properly capture the deregulatory and commodifying features of neo-liberal employment relations.

• • The scope, themes and topics to be addressed by the special issue

A key aim of this proposed special issue is to explore the relevance of frames in the contemporary world of work. Articles for inclusion in the special issue will include research that makes a significant contribution to the literature. Such research includes re-conceptualisation of frames, testing frames, and integrating theories with frames to open new avenues for research. While we invite prospective authors to focus on the questions they consider most relevant to our theme, the following are offered as illustrative questions that are consistent with the spirit of this special issue.

• o Do Frames need revisiting, revising or discarding, and why?
• o Do employees and managers see the contemporary world of work through the same lens or in vastly different ways?
• o How do we test frames in practice, and what role might differences in context (industry, sector, country) play?
• o How do changes in work practices affect the application of frames?
• o In what ways can the frames of reference inform debates around gender, race and ethnicity in employment relations?

Papers should add value both to theory-building and to practice. We welcome empirical and conceptual papers that increase our understanding of frames while developing theory.

The topics listed above are examples of possible research questions and should not be considered an exhaustive list. However, contributions to the special issue must be consistent with the theme outlined in this call for papers.

• • Special issue process:

Abstracts of between 500-1,000 words should be submitted to the Guest Editors (see contact details below) by 1 October 2019. The abstracts should clearly indicate which theme the paper fits within and outline the aims, method and significance of the proposed paper to be submitted for consideration. The organisers aim to advise the authors if their abstract has been accepted by 10 October 2019. Those who are successful will be expected to submit their full paper online to the JIR for peer review by 3 February 2020.

All submitted abstracts will be examined by the Guest Editors for suitability for the special issue. All submitted papers must be based on original material and not under consideration by any other journal or outlet. All manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Guest Editors and only those papers that fit within the aims and scope of the special issue and meet the academic and editorial standards of the journal, are sent out for external review. All papers will undergo a full double-blind review process and will be evaluated by the Guest Editors of the special issue and at least two independent reviewers.

• • Special issue timeline:

• o 1 October 2019 – Submission of abstracts to the guest editors
• o 10 October 2019 – Confirmation/acceptance of abstract and invitation to submit full paper
• o 3 Feb 2020 – Full original papers to be submitted online to the JIR for peer review
• o 28 October 2020 – Accepted papers to be finalised/submitted online to the JIR
• ➢ Publication of the special issue, JIR Vol. 63(2), April 2021

• • Contact details:

• o Organisers and Special Issue Guest-Editors:
• − Professor Michael Barry

Griffith University, Australia

Email: m.barry@griffith.edu.au

− Professor Adrian Wilkinson

Griffith University, Australia

Email: adrian.wilkinson@griffith.edu.au

• o Journal of Industrial Relations
• − JIR Editorial Office

Email: business.jir@sydney.edu.au 5

16th September 2019

New and emerging forms of worker collectivism: Resisting the rise of employers’ precarious work in the ‘gig economy’ Saturday, 26 October 11:00 – 2:00pm Djam Lecture Theatre, SOAS, London

16th September 2019

Unions and Social Movements: Institutional Rivalry or Alliance and Cooperation?

Midlands Labour and Employment Relations Society (MLERS) Meeting 

6:30-8pm, 8th October 2019 the Birmingham & Midlands Institute

Heather Connolly, University of Leicester

Unions and Social Movements: Institutional Rivalry or Alliance and Cooperation?

This paper explores the relationship between labour and non-labour movements and whether the relationship is likely to be characterised by institutional rivalry or alliance and cooperation. To what extent are non-labour movements, including community-based, campaigning/single-issue groups and advocacy organisations replacing organised labour as the main dynamic force advancing workers’ interests? There are overlapping interests and methods between labour and non-labour movements but there is also the potential for and evidence of tension and rivalry. Existing research shows that much of the tension and rivalry is a result of institutional barriers rather than fundamental differences in interests and methods.

The paper draws on my research and the work of others to explore the argument that the primary (and potentially most sustainable) way in which labour and non-labour movements have come together is through ‘absorption’, where the labour movement has provided an institutional field upon which other movements can organise and campaign. The paper considers the significance of the ‘gilets jaunes’ in France – a non-labour based movement which emerged in November 2018 initially as a protest against rising fuel prices and which has enjoyed strong support from the wider population. There has been a shift in the movement’s approach from an explicit rejection of any connection with the trade union movement to the adoption of a more conciliatory approach on both sides. This rapprochement has the potential to develop synergies between the organisational capacity of the ‘old’ (the trade unions) and the imaginative spontaneity of the ‘new’ (the ‘gilets jaunes’). Drawing on the strengths of each is an important means to build effective resistance. The emergence of non-labour movements like the ‘gilet jaunes’ has important implications for trade unions reflecting on their role and their strategies for renewal.

Heather Connolly is Associate Professor of Employment Relations at the University of Leicester. Her research in France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK, explores how trade union activists respond to contemporary challenges, particularly the innovative role that unions might play in the social inclusion of migrant workers. Her publications include The Politics of Social Inclusion and Labor Representation: Immigrants and Trade Unions in the European Context, published in May 2019 by Cornell University Press.

Join MLERS here: https://mlers.org.uk/join-us/

16th September 2019

ILERA Americas Regional Congress submission deadline is Sept 15

The ILERA Americas Regional Congress submission deadline is Sept 15. In addition to the usual call for research presentations (https://www.ryerson.ca/tedrogersschool/ilera2020/call/), there is also a special call for teaching-related contributions (see https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/tedrogersschool/ilera2020/documents/ILERA2020_mini-conference-teaching-labour-employment-relations.pdf) 

6th September 2019

The impact of work on (un)healthy aging: How to reduce social inequalities?

SEMINAR

Organisational Psychology Group &

Work and Equalities Institute

Tuesday October 22^nd 2019, 6.00pm-7.30pm,

Main Lecture Theatre (Room G.003)

Professor Johannes Siegrist

University of Düsseldorf, Germany

The impact of work on (un)healthy aging:

How to reduce social inequalities?

Epidemiologic evidence indicates that the quality of work and employment has a direct effect on workers‘ health and their aging process. This holds true for material (physical) and psychosocial (mental, emotional) aspects of work. Moreover, this quality is socially graded, with lower levels among workers in lower socioeconomic positions (SEP). In this presentation, new findings on this social gradient and its effects on health are presented and discussed, with special emphasis on an adverse psychosocial work environment, as defined by the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model. High ERI is prospectively associated with elevated risks of a variety of stress-related disorders, and these effects are often particularly strong among working people with low SEP. These theory-based findings can instruct measures towards reducing work-related health inequalities. To improve the quality of work and employment these measures need to be implemented at two levels, the organizational level of worksite health promotion in companies and the national/international level of appropriate social and labor policies.

Johannes Siegrist is Senior Professor of Work Stress Research at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Duesseldorf, Germany. Trained as sociologist at the University of Freiburg i.Br. he held Professorships at Marburg University (1973-1992) and Duesseldorf University (1992-2012) and Visiting Professorships at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, USA (1981) and Utrecht University, The Netherlands (1993). His main research area is social determinants of health, with a focus on stressful psychosocial work environments, being the author of the internationally established effort-reward imbalance model. In addition to extensive, long-standing scientific research he has been –and continues to be – involved in policy-oriented collaboration, in particular with WHO and ILO. Among other distinctions he is a member of Academia Europaea (London) and a corresponding member of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences.

6th September 2019

Inclusive Growth in Cities: Theory, Evidence and Practice Conference

Inclusive Growth in Cities: Theory, Evidence and Practice

The first academic conference on inclusive growth in the UK

University of Manchester 19th / 20th November 2019

Call for Abstracts

We welcome papers on a wide range of topics related to inclusive growth, both conceptual and empirical. The central focus is on the level of the city or city-region, but relevant findings may be drawn from other larger and smaller spatial scales. Themes could include, but are not limited to: 

 Inclusive growth: theories and concepts

 Measurement of inclusive growth, at city, neighbourhood and project level

 Labour market trends and inclusive growth

 Building Inclusive Economies (e.g. community wealth building, municipal companies, building the social economy, procurement, anchors)

 Inclusive innovation

 Politics and governance of inclusive growth, including citizen engagement

 Planning, housing and transport

 Finance, investment and appraisal models for inclusive growth

 Employment support programmes and employer/business engagement

 Education and skills

 Innovative actions at neighbourhood level

 The role of welfare states in inclusive growth

 Inclusive growth, sustainability, health and well-being

 Migration and inclusive growth

If you would like to present at the conference, please submit your abstract of 250-300 words toigau@manchester.ac.uk . Please include your name, title and institutional affiliation and indicate whether you are an early career researcher, and if so whether you would like to apply for bursary support.

Abstracts should be submitted by Monday 9th September 2019 and participants will be notified of acceptance by Friday 20th September at the latest.

Conference registration will be open from mid August. Details will be circulated via mailing lists. If you do not wish to submit an abstract but are interesting in attending, please email

igau@manchester.ac.uk to receive a direct email when registration opens. A modest conference fee (£40-50 for two days, or 1-day equivalent, to cover administration and site visits) will be payable on booking.

6th September 2019

Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 40 (2019) will be published later this month

Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 40 (2019) will be published later this month. Length is over 100,000 words; subscriptions remain low.

All subscriptions are now handled by Liverpool University Press –  

Email: suscriptions@liverpool.ac.uk

Tel: 0151 795 1080 (Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm; UK time).

Contents

Noel Whiteside

Casual Employment and its Consequences: An Historical Appraisal of Recent Labour Market Trends

Ester Stern

Australian Unions during the Formative Years of Federal Arbitration: ‘Cogs in a bureaucratic machine’?

Stephen Mustchin

Right-Wing Pressure Groups and the Anti-Union ‘Movement’ in Britain: Aims of Industry, Neoliberalism and Industrial Relations Reform, 1942–1997

R. H. (Bob) Fryer

Reforming Trades Union Governance: The Reorganization of the National Union of Public Employees

R. H. (Bob) Fryer and Steve Williams

Latecomers to Trade-Union Democracy: The Emergence, Growth and Role of Union Stewards in the National Union of Public Employees

Steven Daniels

The Thatcher and Major Governments and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, c. 1985–1992

 Huw Beynon

After the Long Boom: Living with Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century

Jim Phillips

Review Essay: The Moral Economy and Industrial Politics in the UK from the 1960s to the 1980s

Steve Jefferys

Review Essay: The Neoliberal Convergence of European Industrial Relations since the 1970s: An Economic Inevitability or the Result of European Political Choices?

Book Reviews

6th September 2019

Midlands Labour & Employment Relations Society (MLERS)

MLERS exists to develop an in-depth understanding of the politics of work among academics, trade unionists, managers, and the general public in the Midlands.

We organise monthly meetings which are addressed by internationally renowned researchers of the world of work.

Our meetings currently take place on the second Tuesday of the month during term time at the Birmingham & Midlands Institute (walking distance from New Street) at 6:30-8pm. 

At the first meeting on the 8th Oct Heather Connolly (University of Leicester) will discuss 'Unions and social movements – can they ever be brothers and sisters in arms?' see https://mlers.org.uk/events/ for more details. 

6th September 2019

Disrupting technology: contextualising continuity and change in technology, work and employment

1. The state, regulation and new technology
2. Historical research on the introduction of new technologies of work
3. Management, resistance, organization, and technology
4. Occupations, skills, professions, and technology
5. Inequalities (race, gender, (dis)ability) and technology
6. Methods for studying work and technology – towards a research agenda

3rd September 2019

William Arthur (Willy) Brown, 22 April 1945 – 1 August 2019

It is with great sadness that we convey the news that Emeritus Professor Willy Brown passed away unexpectedly on Thursday evening at his home near Cambridge.

Willy’s achievements in the industrial relations and labour economics fields were exceptional. For many decades Willy was an eminent scholar in these fields, not only in the United Kingdom but also internationally. He was arguably one of the most influential academics of his generation in both research and policy formulation. 

Willy was Emeritus Master of Darwin College and Emeritus Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Cambridge. He was previously the Director of the Industrial Relations Research Unit at the University of Warwick, which gained an international reputation for excellence and influence under his leadership, before becoming the Montague Burton Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Cambridge from 1985 to his retirement in 2012. 

Willy provided academic leadership through various senior administrative roles at Cambridge. He also served as President of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association from 1986 to 1989 and as a member of the Executive of the International Labour and Employment Relations Association (formerly the International Industrial Relations Association) from 1989 to 1995.

Willy held a number of significant government appointments in the UK including foundation member of the Low Pay Commission from 1997-2007 and as a senior member of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service Council and Panel of Arbitrators.

Willy was the author of many seminal journal articles and books including Piecework Bargaining (1973), The Changing Contours of British Industrial Relations (1981), The Evolution of the Modern Workplace (2009) and The Emerging Industrial Relations of China (2017). In 2002 he was made Commander of the British Empire for services to employment relations.

Willy was an Honorary Professor at Renmin University in Beijing and was instrumental in bringing together international and Chinese scholars to examine developments in Chinese employment relations. In 2015 he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Sydney in recognition of his significant contributions to industrial relations scholarship and policy in Australia and internationally.

Notwithstanding Willy’s considerable academic accomplishments, his greatest impact may have been through his personal connections and friendships. Willy strived to make the world not only a better place but also a fairer place. In this respect he lived by example. Willy was a truly magnificent person with a unique capacity to speak with anyone on equal terms. He was so selfless, so humble, so generous, and so kind. Willy was greatly loved and will be sorely missed.

- Willy’s former doctoral students

4th August 2019

Executive committee election results

Elections to the two vacant places on the BUIRA Executive Committee took place at the association's Annual General Meeting earlier this month in Newcastle. 

Eleanor Kirk (University of Glasgow) and  Yvonne Rueckert (Portsmouth University).

21st July 2019

Change in BUIRA Stewardship Team

Following a successful conference hosted at Newcastle University, we're pleased to announce that a team from the University of Birmingham have become the BUIRA Stewards.

Many thanks to Jo McBride, Ana Lopes, Stewart Johnstone, Stephen Procter and Michael Brooks for their hard work running the association.

The Birmingham team is as follows:

Tony Dobbins  – President

David J Bailey – Membership Officer

Genevieve Coderre-LaPalme – Events and Conference Officer

Andy Hodder – Secretary

Paul Lewis – Treasurer

Alex Wood – Communications Officer

21st July 2019

Conference schedule (link fixed)

Dear members

The latest schedule is available here.  Please check as there have been some minor adjustments.

We look forward to welcoming you all to Newcastle on Monday.

The Organising Team

27th June 2019

2019 Conference schedule

The 2019 Conference schedule is now available online

https://bit.ly/2WMP5Qu

11th June 2019

Vacancies on the BUIRA Exec

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS

The BUIRA Executive Committee will have 2 vacancies as from July 2019.

As discussed and agreed at the AGM in Leeds 2016, the voting system for vacancies on the Executive Committee will be conducted differently.

We now invite all members to forward their interest in becoming a member of the BUIRA Exec Committee to BUIRA admin to Kay Pryer and Susanne Laidler at admin@buira.org.

All members are welcome to apply regardless of career stage i.e. early, senior etc

However, we would strongly encourage women to apply for these positions as they remain to be under-represented on the Committee.

Of course this does not remove open competition and the selection process is still via the membership at the AGM, not the Stewardship or the Executive Committee.

Please include a short biography of no more than 300 words and your reasons for applying for the vacant position.

7th June 2019

Call for papers: Flexible Work Patterns Study Group Meeting Ilera European Congress 2019

From Study group 10

Call for papers: Flexible Work Patterns Study Group Meeting Ilera European Congress 2019

ILERA European Congress 2019 Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany 5–7 September 2019

The Flexible Work Patterns Study Group will meet Thursday, 5 September 2019, 9:30-11:00am before the official opening of the congress. The group covers all aspects of flexible work issues including part-time work, telework, home working, shift work, flexible hours, compressed working week, zero hours contracts and other temporary and flexible arrangements.The meeting brings together scholars working in this area to network and discuss work in progress, or recently completed, in an informal setting. Papers from doctoral students are very welcome.

Abstracts of papers to be presented at the study group are invited on any aspects of flexible working and may be at the macro, organisational or individual level; theoretically based; or on empirical research that is country, region, sector or organisation specific. 

Abstracts should be about 500 words and include:

Paper title

Name(s) of authors, institutional affiliation and contact details

  Aim

Theoretical/Research framework

Method

Findings

Discussion/Conclusion

Please send the abstract as a word file to c.edwards@kingston.ac.uk; clare.kelliher@cranfield.ac.uk; R.Croucher@mdx.ac.uk; by Monday July 1 2019 at the latest. Authors selected to present at the Study Group will be notified as soon as possible.

Note early bird tickets are available until 31 May 2019.

https://ilera2019.giraweb.de/content/registration

Please get in touch if you need further information.

We look forward to receiving your papers,

Best wishes,

Coordinators

Professor Christine Edwards Kingston University Business School Kingston Hill, Kingston Surrey KT2 7LB United Kingdom E-mail: c.edwards@kingston.ac.uk

5th June 2019

University of Manchester, Work and Equalities Institute (WEI) Research Seminar

University of Manchester

Work and Equalities Institute (WEI)

Research Seminar

Financialization, work and inequalities: the case of Italy

Dr Angelo Salento (Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy)

Date: Wednesday 12^th June 2019

Time: 15:30 - 17:00 Hrs (coffee and tea at 15:15)

Venue: Alliance Manchester Business School, Room G.013 (view campus map here: https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/maps/interactive-map/?id=26)

Abstract

The contemporary dynamics of inequality are not only a consequence of the ineffectiveness of the redistribution devices: they are primarily connected to the imbalances in the distribution of income “at its source”. The processes of financialization – i.e. the tendency of business to pursue financial accumulation strategies, or anyway to pursue the maximization of return on capital for investors in the short term – enrich financial and managerial elites, promoting a “wealthification” of income, whilst they trigger a reduction of labour costs, and a decline of wages. The analysis presented, specifically referred to the Italian case, considers both the accumulation strategies of large non-financial firms, and the effects of the “short-termist turn” of economic players in the foundational economy, which additionally operates as a regressive taxation, entailing a growing difficulty for working classes to access basic goods and services.

About the Speaker

Angelo Salento is associate professor (senior lecturer) of Economic and Labour Sociology in the Università del Salento (Lecce, Italy), where he teaches Economic and Labour Sociology, Sociology of Organizations, and Sociological Analysis of Development. His background is in labour law and economic sociology. He has done research on the regulation of economy, financialization, local and rural development, the foundational economy. In 2014 he was a visiting researcher in CRESC, University of Manchester. He is currently visiting the Alliance Manchester Business School.

5th June 2019

Special Offer: Historical Studies in Industrial Relations

Special Offer: Historical Studies in Industrial Relations

HSIR is losing its storage facilities at Keele so we are offering back-issues for sale at the bargain price of £1 per single issue, numbers 1–22 (1996–2006), and £2 per double issue/annual, numbers 23/24–31/32 (1997–2011) and 33–37 (2012–2016), plus postage and packing. This is a one-off sale as afterwards we will have to dispose of most copies. Single issues are approximately 60,000 words in length; double-issues and annuals, 110,000.

HSIR was established to provide an outlet for research on the history of industrial relations. This includes research on contemporary issues, which often lack a historical foundation. A few examples of articles:

William Brown, ‘The High Tide of Consensus: The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (1954) Revisited’. 4: 135–49.

Peter Dorey, ‘Weakening the Trade Unions, One Step at a Time: The Thatcher Governments’ Strategy for the Reform of Trade-Union Law, 1979–1984’. 37: 169–200.

John Edmonds, ‘Positioning Labour Closer to the Employers: The Importance of the Labour Party's 1997 Business Manifesto’. 22: 85–107.

Paul Edwards, ‘The Analytical Heritage of Alan Fox’s History and Heritage (1985). 14: 139–58.

Keith Ewing, ‘The State and Industrial Relations: ‘Collective Laissez-Faire’ Revisited’. 5: 1–31.

Nina Fishman, ‘“A Vital Element in British Industrial Relations”: A Reassessment of Order 1305, 1940–1951’. 8: 43–86.

Colin Hay, ‘The Trade Unions and the “Winter of Discontent”’. 36: 181–203.

Bob Hepple, ‘Wedderburn’s The Worker and the Law: An Appreciation’.

34: 215–28.

Sian Moore, ‘Gender and Class Formation: Women’s Mobilization in the Industrialization of the Bradford Worsted Industry, 1780–1845’. 35: 1–31

Jim Phillips, ‘UK Business Power and Opposition to the Bullock Committee’s 1977 Proposals on Worker Directors’. 31/32: 1–30.

John Saville, ‘The Trade Disputes Act of 1906’. 1: 11–45.

Rebecca Zahn, ‘German Codetermination without Nationalization and British Nationalization without Codetermination: Retelling the Story’. 36: 1–27.

Bill Wedderburn, ‘History of British Labour Law’. 17: 127–38.

See the HSIR website for more authors and articles.

To buy back-issues, contact Paul Smith: paulsmithblist@hotmail.co.uk

5th June 2019