Personnel Review

Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices

Carol Gill Denny Meyer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Carol Gill Denny Meyer, (2013),"Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices", Personnel
Review, Vol. 42 Iss 5 pp. 508 - 528
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2011-0117
Downloaded on: 06 November 2014, At: 01:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2506 times since 2013*
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Roberto Luna#Arocas, Joaquín Camps, (2007),"A model of high performance work practices and turnover intentions",
Personnel Review, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 26-46
Patrick Flood, Thomas Turner, (1993),"Human Resource Strategy and the Non#union Phenomenon", Employee Relations,
Vol. 15 Iss 6 pp. 54-66
David Lewin, Bruce E. Kaufman, (2006),"Introduction", Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, Vol. 15 pp. ix-xv

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 234603 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR
42,5 Union presence, employee
relations and high performance
work practices
508
Carol Gill
Melbourne Business School, Carlton, Australia
Received 31 July 2011
Revised 9 July 2012 Denny Meyer
Accepted 14 September
2012
Faculty of Life and Social Science, Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn, Australia
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between unions, employee
relations and the adoption of high performance work practices (HPWP).
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses survey data collected from the senior members
of the human resource management (HRM) function in 189 large Australian organisations.
Findings – It was found that unions, when coupled with good employee relations, facilitate the
adoption of HPWP and consequently have a positive impact on organisational competitiveness,
contradicting the simplistic notion that unions are “bad for business”.
Research limitations/implications – This study used cross-sectional survey data from HRM
managers, who while being the best single source of information, may have distorted their responses.
Further research is required to confirm these results using several data sources collected from a larger
sample over more than one time period.
Practical implications – This research has implications for Government and organisation
approaches to union presence and management in organisations.
Social implications – This research contributes to HRM and organisational competitiveness, which
has implications for GDP.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the debate on whether the individual and direct voice
provided by HPWP is a substitute for union collective voice, with the associated implication that
unions are unnecessary and even destructive to organisation competitive advantage.
Keywords Human resource management, Trade unions, Employee relations,
High performance work practices, Competitive advantage, Australia, Large enterprises
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
There is some evidence that managers regard unions as hindrances to workplace
performance and this has resulted in union avoidance, suppression and substitution
(Bryson, 2005; Chen, 2007; Kochan et al., 1986). However, there is also research evidence
that indicates that unions can play a significant and positive role in enhancing
organisation competitiveness through facilitating the implementation of High
Personnel Review Performance Work Practices (HPWP) (Gill, 2009). In particular, unions can play an
Vol. 42 No. 5, 2013
pp. 508-528 important role in removing many of the barriers to the adoption of HPWP by
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited advocating long-term investment in change that is positive for the organisation
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-07-2011-0117 (Freeman and Medoff, 1984). They can provide the communication infrastructure that
 facilitates the introduction of HPWP (Rubinstein, 2000). Finally, unions can help create Union presence
employee trust, co-operation and job security that HPWP need to be introduced and HPWP
effectively (Bryson, 2001; Delery et al., 2000; Deery et al., 1994; Freeman and Medoff,
1984; Miller and Mulvey, 1993). It has also been argued that HPWP are a union
substitute because they introduce direct employee individual voice which negates the
need for collective employee voice (Galang, 1999). However, some evidence indicates
that direct individual voice is not a substitute for collective and indirect voice that 509
allows employees to initiate issues and articulate grievances (McLoughlin and
Gourlay, 1992; Rubinstein, 2001). It has been proposed that employee relations
moderate the impact that unions have on the adoption of productive work practices.
Co-operation is critical to the successful introduction of HPWP and where there are
poor employee relations, employees and unions can prevent management from
introducing HPWP and negatively impact on organisational competitiveness (Freeman
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

and Medoff, 1984). In this research we test this proposition by investigating the
relationship between unions, employee relations and the adoption of HPWP. We
challenge prevailing Government and organisation attitudes towards unions by
proposing that employee relations are important to the adoption of HPWP. Based on
extant theory and empirical research we anticipate that union workplaces with good
employee relations will have a more positive impact than union workplaces with poor
employee relations and workplaces without a union. To test this proposition, we
analysed a national survey of human resource managers working in large public
companies. The following section of this paper incorporates a review of the literature
and develops the study’s hypotheses. We then provide a Methods section that outlines
the sample and analysis procedures and describes the measures used, their validity
and reliability. The Results section provides the outcomes of the hypothesis testing.
Finally, the Conclusions section summarises the results of the study, describes the
limitations of the study and the need for future research, and then discusses the
implications of the results for theory as well as practice.

Theory and hypotheses

Organisations can choose the low or high road to competitive advantage. On the “low
road” organisations use traditional work practices to achieve limited and replicable
competitive advantage through cost minimisation. This is achieved through a
mechanistic work design that focuses on reducing individual jobs to a set of simple
tasks managed through supervisory control. On the “high road” organisations use
HPWP that focus on the synergistic application of practices that enhance employee
skills and increase their involvement[1] (Gephardt and Van Buren, 1996; Wright and
Snell, 1998). It is argued that these practices create sustainable competitive advantage
through ambiguous processes that are difficult to imitate, such as co-operation among
management, labour and co-workers (Collins and Smith, 2006; Goshal and Nahapiet,
1998; Swart and Kinnie, 2003; Whitener, 2001; Whitener et al., 1998). Despite some
methodological issues, there is substantial research linking HPWP with organisational
competitiveness (Combs et al., 2006). In particular, a landmark study by Huselid (1995)
found that they diminish employee turnover and increase productivity and corporate
financial performance through practices that improve intermediate employee
outcomes, such as the knowledge, skills, abilities motivation and engagement of
employees. However, some commentators have argued that while HPWP have a
 PR positive impact on employers, they have had a negative impact on employees and
42,5 unions. It has been argued that the positive effects of HPWP on competitiveness are
obtained at the expense of employees through intensification of the work process and
management by stress (Godard and Delaney, 2001; Rinehart et al., 1997; Turnbull,
1988) and that HPWP have been used as a strategy to replace unions (Keenoy, 1991;
Turnbull, 1992). This explains initial union resistance to some aspects of HPWP
510 (Godard and Delaney, 2001).
Given research supporting the link between HPWP and organisation performance,
it is not clear why many organisations have failed to adopt a full suite of these
practices, especially when there is evidence that these practices are most effective when
they are implemented together as a system or bundle of complementary, highly-related
and overlapping practices (Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999). A number of reasons for this have
been considered in the extant literature.
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

First, managers and others who will lose power through the devolved decision
making and flattened hierarchies of HPWP may resist the adoption of HPWP (Kochan
et al., 1986). Organisations with unskilled and less educated managers may focus on
the “low road” of work organisation, including longer working hours, work
intensification and increased surveillance of workers, while better qualified managers
seek “high road” competitive advantage through the quality of their products and
services (Erickson and Jacoby, 2003).
Second, company ownership and corporate governance is geared towards
short-term results. Investors in organisations demand an immediate return and
organisations prefer to distribute profits as dividends rather than invest in long-term
initiatives like HPWP. Shares are frequently traded on stock markets because they are
more diffusely owned and held for a shorter time, with the mechanism for holding
management accountable being the hostile takeover. Management responds by
maximising short-term shareholder returns rather than adding long-term value.
Managers introducing HPWP must invest in a bundle of reforms that are costly to
implement and then wait for results because there is a lagged effect. Because HPWP
take time to implement and register results, change initiatives may be abandoned after
limited implementation fails to deliver measurable results (Appelbaum and Batt, 1995).
Third, long histories of labour management conflict and mistrust inhibit the
implementation of HPWP. It is argued that the levels of trust and co-operation required
by HPWP may be difficult to achieve and maintain. Employees must be willing to learn
new skills, offer ideas and suggestions based on their knowledge and commit to quality
and productivity. To get this commitment, employers must offer a quid pro quo of job
security (Clarke and Payne, 1997). If organisations are forced to restructure and layoff
employees it will impact on employee trust and the stability of team membership
which are important to the success of HPWP (Osterman, 2000).
Finally, Appelbaum and Batt (1995) argue that an institutional framework geared to
outmoded management approaches, associated with mass production, does not
adequately support organisations to implement HPWP. Government policies shape not
only what employers do but also the nature of the employment relationship and the
rights and obligations of all parties involved. In particular, Government has an indirect
role in helping to create a business environment that encourages organisations to adopt
HPWP.
 It has been proposed that a co-operative, rather than adversarial, relationship with Union presence
unions can address many of these barriers (Appelbaum and Batt, 1995). The following and HPWP
section will examine how unions impact on the adoption of HPWP before examining
management’s prevailing attitude towards unions.

Union impact on HPWP adoption

Classic research by Freeman and Medoff (1984) indicates that unions can have both a 511
positive and negative impact on productivity. Unions can have a negative impact by
using their monopoly position to drive up wages and to introduce restrictive work
practices that inhibit management’s ability to introduce productive work practices
such as HPWP. Unions can also encourage management to introduce more productive
work practices so they can stay competitive despite higher wages. Finally, they
propose that “unionism per se is neither a plus nor a minus to productivity: what
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

matters is how unions and management interact at the organisation” (p. 179),
concluding that productivity depends not on what unions and management do
separately but on their relationship with one another. Cooperative industrial relations
promote the positive aspects of unionism and adversarial industrial relations increase
the negative aspects of unionism (see Figure 1). When management sees a positive role
for unions they can ensure effective changes are introduced and facilitate the
introduction of change in general and HPWP in particular (Bryson et al., 2006).
To leverage the positive aspects of unionism, management must replace the
pluralist perspective that has dominated traditional industrial relations with a
partnership approach that places less emphasis on conflict of interests between
employers and employees and more emphasis on mutual gain (Godard and Delaney,
2001). This also ensures that the implementation of HPWP benefits all stakeholders
including employees who are critical to the successful implementation of HPWP.
There is some evidence that supports the negative impact of unions (Denny, 1997;
Miller and Mulvey, 1993; Pantuosco et al., 2001; Vedder and Gallaway, 2002). Several
research studies show that HPWP are less likely to exist in highly unionised

Figure 1.
The impact of unions on
productivity
 PR organisations (Cohen and Pfeffer, 1986; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990) however,
42,5 contradictory studies show that union presence has a neutral impact (Black and Lynch,
2001; Galang, 1999; Moreton, 1999) and a positive impact (Armstrong et al., 1998; Black
and Lynch, 2001; Freeman and Rogers, 1999; Gregg and Machin, 1988; Marginson,
1992; Pil and Macduffie, 1996; Sisson, 1993; Wood and Fenton-O’creevy, 2005) on
HPWP adoption. There are also studies that find that unions moderate the relationship
512 between HPWP and outcomes (Lloyd, 2001; Rubinstein, 2001; Voos, 1987) There is
some indication that the quality of industrial relations moderates union impact with
research proposing that HPWP are less likely in organisations characterised by union
militancy (Wells, 1993).
Extant research indicates that there are a number of ways in which unions may
overcome many of the barriers to implementing HPWP and facilitate HPWP adoption.
First, unions promote a long-term and organisation wide perspective. Systems of
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Corporate Governance that impose a short-term time frame are not conducive to the
implementation of HPWP which require longer time horizons. It has been argued that
unions counter management predisposition towards unilateral, short-term decision
making which market pressures promote (Freeman and Medoff, 1984). Unions take an
organisation wide perspective when contributing to decisions while management can
make poorer decisions based on their own interests and incentives (Freeman and
Rogers, 1999). The independence of unions allows unions to challenge decisions that
are not in the best interest of their membership and to challenge the logic of
management proposals. Union representatives are able to take a longer-term
perspective because their career paths are not tied to the organisation. It has been
found that conflict is not detrimental to decision making processes because different
perspectives often result in better quality decisions that are more likely to be accepted
by employees, subsequently improving the speed of implementation (Rubinstein et al.,
1993).
Second, unions enhance collective and individual voice. It has been argued that
HRM provides avenues for direct and individual employee voice which negates the
need for collective employee voice through unions. However, evidence indicates that
individual voice is not a substitute for collective voice, which allows employees to
initiate issues and articulate grievances (Bryson et al., 2007). There are distinctive
differences between collective and individual employee voice. Individual voice through
HRM is direct through management and part of the work process, while collective
voice is indirect through union leadership and not part of the work process[2]
(Rubinstein, 2001). Direct voice mechanisms that are incorporated into the
management chain make it difficult for employees to provide genuine input without
fearing reprisals (McLoughlin and Gourlay, 1992). In particular, it is difficult for
individual workers to have an impact on managerial policy or action if it represents a
direct challenge to managerial authority (Freeman and Medoff, 1984).
There is substantial research evidence that indicates that union organisations have
more effective individual and collective voice because unions extend voice
mechanisms; make direct voice more effective; and provide a collective voice which
delivers different outcomes to individual and management sponsored voice (Benson,
2000; Haynes et al., 2005; Millward et al., 1992). Research has shown that individual and
collective voice can coexist and have a synergistic effect when introducing HPWP
(Kessler and Purcell, 1995; Frohlich and Pekruhl, 1996; Lloyd, 2001; Sisson, 1993).
 Third, union networks provide an effective communication infrastructure. It has Union presence
been proposed that unions can add value by providing an efficient way of and HPWP
communicating and negotiating with employees. In particular, union networks have an
infrastructure that facilitates lateral communication and coordination; union
representatives act as a “lubricant”; and negotiations are also less expensive if the
organisation only has to deal with union specialists (Black and Lynch, 2001; Bryson,
2005; Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 1989; Eaton and Voos, 1989; Rubinstein, 2000, 2001). 513
More specifically, there is evidence that union communication infrastructure
facilitates the introduction of HPWP. It has been demonstrated that effective
communication is required to introduce HPWP because they require the involvement
and commitment of employees (Cooke, 1990, 1992; Eaton and Voos, 1994; Levine and
Tyson, 1990; Rubinstein, 2000).
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Fourth, unions increase employee trust and commitment. Rubinstein (2001)

proposes that employees trust unions because they are independent and union leaders,
unlike appointed managers, are elected to represent the interests of employees. There is
evidence that employees see a positive role for unions in protecting their interests when
change is introduced (Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Levine, 1995; Marshall, 1992).
However, the strength of unions and the quality of the relationship between unions and
management seem to moderate the ability of unions to create employee trust in
management and commitment to management (Bryson, 2001; Deery et al., 1994;
Moreton, 1999; Ramirez et al., 2007).
Finally, unions reduce employee withdrawal. Research has demonstrated that the
collective voice of unionism leads to lower probabilities of quitting, longer job tenure
and a lower lay-off rate which reduces the costs of training and recruitment and
increases productivity (Delery et al., 2000; Freeman and Medoff, 1984; Miller and
Mulvey, 1993). More specifically, Osterman’s (2000) research found that the presence of
a union reduced the probability that HPWP were associated with layoffs. Unions
contribute to the effective implementation of HPWP because job tenure contributes to
stable team membership, which is important to team effectiveness, and employees are
more prepared to participate in employee involvement programs when they feel the
union will protect their employment security (Black and Lynch, 2001; Levine and
Tyson, 1990).
In this research we investigate the relationship between unions, employee relations
and the adoption of HPWP. We propose that employee relations are important to the
adoption of HPWP and that workplaces with a union presence and good employee
relations would be more successful in this regard than union workplaces with poor
employee relations and workplaces without a union. Specifically, we will test the
following hypotheses:
(1) Non-union workplaces are more likely to adopt HPWP than union workplaces
with poor employee relations.
(2) Union workplaces with good employee relations are more likely to adopt HPWP
than non-union workplaces.
(3) Union workplaces with good employee relations are more likely to adopt HPWP
than union workplaces with poor employee relations.
 PR Methodology
42,5 Sample and survey procedure
A total of 179 HR managers from large private sector Australian organisations (500 þ
employees) in multiple industries participated in a paper survey conducted in 2000.
This sample of workplaces was obtained by sending a survey addressing the Human
Resource (HR) Manager in a population of 896 large organisations identified in the Dun
514 & Bradstreet (1999) Business Who’s Who online data base. The respondents selected
themselves into the sample by returning the anonymous and confidential survey. The
accompanying letter assured anonymity and offered an executive summary of the
results of the research to respondents. The request for an executive summary was
submitted in a separate document to maintain respondent anonymity.
The data collection focused on large organisations because they were most likely to
have well-established HR functions managed by experienced professionals.
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Respondents were asked to consider the overall management of the majority of

employees in the workplace for which they had HRM responsibility. This could have
been the entire organisation or part of an organisation.
There was a 20 per cent response rate delivering a sample of respondents from most
industry groups. Most of the respondents (84.8 per cent) were the most senior HRM
manager or a senior member of HRM.
A wide range of industries was represented in the sample with the largest numbers
for manufacturing (28 per cent), services (11 per cent), transport and communication
(10 per cent) and construction (9 per cent). In our survey a union presence was reported
by 81 per cent of respondents while 19 per cent of respondents reported no union
presence in their workplace. The percentages are not dissimilar to those found in the
1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS), which, to our
knowledge, is the last publically available census of union workplaces in Australia.
The AWIRS survey found that approximately one quarter of all workplaces with more
than 20 employees have no union (Deery et al., 2001). In our sample 41 per cent of the
workplaces agreed that they had good employee relations, scoring 5 and above (agree
responses) on this 7 point scale. Two of the managers did not respond to the question
regarding a union presence in their company, while 145 managers answered positively
and 32 managers answered negatively. Of these177 respondents (82 per cent) were
from workplaces with a union presence and 32 (18 per cent) were from workplaces
without a union presence.

Measures
The survey covered questions about employee relations, union presence and the
adoption of HPWP. In particular, the HPWP and Employee Relations items were based
on the work of Walton (1985). All survey items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale
anchored with “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). The testing of the
hypotheses required the construction of scales which have validity, reliability and
unidimensionality (Green et al., 2006). An exploratory factor analysis was performed
using the maximum likelihood method and an oblimin rotation in order to identify the
latent constructs underlying HPWP and employee relations. The analysis (see Table I)
produced four factors explaining 62 per cent of the variation in 16 of a possible 24 items
included in the questionnaire. The remaining eight items were removed in order to
 Union presence
Factor
1 2 3 4 and HPWP
Retraining, redeployment and employability take precedence
over downsizing 1.009 0.031 0.060 2 0.020
This work place is committed to avoiding downsizing where
possible 0.595 2 0.013 2 0.100 0.009 515
Management treats employees as its most important asset
and a source of competitive advantage 0.085 0.776 2 0.062 0.010
In this work place coordination and control are based more on
shared goals, values and traditions than monitoring and
sanctions 2 0.046 0.725 2 0.063 0.104
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Supervisors facilitate rather than direct the workforce

through their interpersonal and conceptual ability 2 0.035 0.710 2 0.113 0.108
This work place uses amicable planning and problem solving
rather than adversarial employee relations 0.208 0.590 0.069 0.097
The overall workplace relationship between managers and
employees is excellent 0.055 0.525 2 0.022 0.346
Management does not treat employees as an expense of doing
business 0.008 0.440 2 0.103 0.076
Management does not believe that employees must be
controlled by external sanctions 2 0.005 0.425 0.061 2 0.018
All employees in this workplace are managed in the same
way 0.003 0.310 2 0.118 2 0.082
In this work place information is shared widely at all levels 0.057 2 0.020 20.862 0.066
In this work place employee participation is encouraged on a
wide range of issues 0.102 0.093 20.767 0.070
Employee views are actively sought through processes such
as attitude surveys 0.010 0.342 20.343 2 0.045
Management believes that employees are primarily self-
motivated and self-controlled 2 0.062 0.051 2 0.145 0.633
This work place puts greater emphasis on hiring employees
based on cultural fit than on hiring for specific job-relevant
skills 0.049 2 0.031 0.038 0.466 Table I.
Exploratory factor
This workplace reduces status distinctions to de-emphasise analysis for HPWP and
hierarchy 2 0.004 0.237 2 0.062 0.416 employee relations

ensure adequate loadings and discriminant validity[3]. The constructs suggested by

this analysis were as follows.
.
Factor 1: Employee security with two items.
.
Factor 2: Employee relations with eight items.
. Factor 3: Employee voice with three items.
.
Factor 4: Employee empowerment with three items.
 PR The validity of these constructs was tested using confirmatory factor analysis with
42,5 AMOS version 7, producing adequate goodness of fit statistics (Byrne, 2001,
CMIN/DF , 3. RMSEA , 0.10, GFI . 0.90, CFI . 0.90) in all cases. Scales were
constructed for each of the previous four constructs from which the descriptive
statistics shown in Table II were calculated. The Cronbach alpha measures of
reliability are close to or above the 0.60 level required by Hair et al. (2010).
516 The initial analysis concerned a comparison of organisations with and without a
union presence in terms of these scales. The scales were reasonably normal in
distribution for each of these groups so a MANOVA test was conducted. Structural
equation modelling (SEM) with an invariance test was used to compare the relationship
between employee relations and HPWP adoption for workplaces with and without a
union presence. Hair et al. (2010) claim that for SEM at least five observations are
required for each correlation, so there was sufficient data to fit a model with four scales,
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

even in the case of the small sample of workplaces without a union. A bootstrap
analysis was used in order to obtain 90 per cent confidence intervals for the
standardised weights and R-square values. Finally, workplaces were classified as
having good or not good employee relations. Workplaces were categorised as having
“good” employee relations if they had a score of 5 or above (agree responses).
Workplaces were categorised as having “not good” employee relations if they scored
below 5 (neutral or disagree responses). The hypotheses were then tested using
suitable contrasts, making special 3-group MANOVAs unnecessary.

Limitations of data collection

Data were collected from the single source of the human resource professional. The fear
with a single source is that it may cause common method bias for the independent and
dependent variables, producing inflated estimates of the relationships between the
variables (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). However, the four dimensions derived from the
data in the factor analysis shown in Table I suggest that this is not the case and
surveys filled out by a single well-informed informant are a common procedure when
sample size and costs may become prohibitive (Klassen and Whybark, 1999).
This research examines workplaces across multiple industries. Whilst single
industry research can provide greater validity by controlling for industry conditions it
can eliminate environmental and technological sources of variation which have been

Employee Employee Employee Employee

relations (ER) voice (EV) security (ES) empowerment(EE)

Means 4.56 4.53 4.54 3.97

Standard deviation 1.04 1.41 1.59 1.13
Cronbach’s alpha 0.842 0.799 0.759 0.584
Correlations
Employee relations 1.000 0.661 * * 0.339 * * 0.499 * *
Employee voice 0.661 * * 1.000 0.307 * * 0.376 * *
Employee security 0.339 * * 0.307 * * 1.00 0.203 *
Table II. Employee empowerment 0.499 * * 0.376 * * 0.203 * 1.00
Descriptive statistics and
correlations Notes: *p , 0.01, * *p , 0.001
 cited as key antecedents of the adoption of HPWP (Pfeffer, 1998). Becker and Huselid Union presence
(1998) propose that both industry specific and multiple industry research are important and HPWP
to the development of empirical research in this area.
The data sample was collected in 2000 and a case needs to be made for the
applicability of the findings of this paper in 2012. Since 2000 there has been a continued
decline in union membership from 24.7 per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2012
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012a, b). There has also been a decline in the number 517
of industrial disputes which is likely to be associated with a change in the legal terms
under which industrial action can take place and a sustained period of prosperity
characterised by strong employment growth and decline in unemployment despite
recent global financial events that which have affected employment in other countries
(Branberry, 2008). However, we argue that this research is of significant value in the
current context. In particular, as cited previously, a significant proportion of the
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Australian workforce continue to be union members and unions are unlikely to

disappear any time soon. Second, the effective implementation of change is a
significant current management concern and the role of human resources is critical to
achieving this outcome (Australian Human Resources Institute, 2012). Third, from time
to time Australian Governments launch significant attacks on unions and the rights of
workers as demonstrated by the introduction of “Work Choices” legislation in 2006
(Stewart, 2011). Consequently, while calling for more research, it is argued that the
findings of this article are robust and relevant in 2012 and make a contribution to the
way that unions are positioned and viewed in the current Australian context.

Results
A MANOVA test on the previous scales showed significant differences depending on
union presence (Wilk’s Lambda ¼ 0.928, Fð4; 172Þ ¼ 3:350; p ¼ 0:011, partial eta
squared ¼ 0.072). In particular, there was a significant difference in employee relations
in union and non-union workplaces (Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 6:123; p ¼ 0:014, partial eta
squared ¼ 0.034). It seems that employee relations are better when there is no union
presence (Mean ¼ 4.96, SD ¼ 1.06) than when there is a union presence (Mean ¼ 4.47,
SD ¼ 1.03). However, there were no significant differences for employee voice
(Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 0:006; p ¼ 0:940), employee security (Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 3:42; p ¼ 0:066) or
employee empowerment (Fð1; 175Þ ¼ 1:303; p ¼ 0:255).
Using structural equation modelling the effect of employee relations on HPWP
adoption was tested, showing an excellent fit (Chi-square ¼ 0.716, df ¼ 2, p ¼ 0.699).
However, a test of invariance showed that different weights were required for
workplaces with and without a union presence (Chi-square ¼ 17.8, df ¼ 3, p , 0.001).
Figure 2 shows how the weights change when a union presence is introduced.
However, a comparison of 90 per cent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for
workplaces with and without unions showed that only in the case of Employee
Security was there no overlap, suggesting a significant difference in the loadings for
only this variable.
It therefore appears that HPWP adoption is measured differently depending on the
existence of a union presence. Employee security is an important element of HPWP
adoption only when there is a union presence. There is also some indication that
employee voice becomes a more important aspect of HPWP adoption when there is no
union presence, suggesting that employee voice acts as a substitute for union voice.
 PR
42,5

518
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Figure 2.
The effect of employee
relations on HPWP
adoption with
standardised weights
shown for workplaces
with and without a union
presence

Interestingly, however, there is also some indication that employee empowerment is a

more important component of HPWP in the case of union workplaces than non-union
workplaces.
Employee relations explained 80 per cent of the variation in HPWP adoption (with a
90 per cent confidence interval of 66 to 98 per cent) when there is a union presence and
70 per cent of the variation in HPWP adoption (with a wide 90 per cent confidence
interval of 24 to 100 per cent due to the sample size) when there is no union presence.
Figure 2 suggests that workplaces with better employee relations are more likely to
implement HPWP regardless of union presence although employee relations seemed
slightly more important to the adoption of HPWP in workplaces with union presence,
as evidenced by the R-Square values. This result indicates that employee relations is
important to the adoption of HPWP and suggests support for all three hypotheses.
Finally, a MANOVA test is used to test the hypotheses explicitly with employee
relations scores of at least five characterised as “good” and scores below this
categorised as “not good” because of a neutral or poor evaluative response from survey
participants. As expected from previous results, workplaces without a union presence
were significantly (Chi-square ¼ 5.659, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.017) more likely to have good
employee relations (59 per cent) than those with a union (37 per cent).
Table III shows mean values for the HPWP of employee security, voice and
empowerment for workplaces with and without a union presence and with and without
“good” employee relations. The MANOVA test shows significant differences between
 Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Mean SD
Employee relations Not good Good ANOVA tests
Union presence No a Yes b No c Yes d F(3,173) p-value Partial h 2 Hypotheses supported (a)

Employee voice 3.28 1.65 4.09 1.28 5.37 0.96 5.33 1.09 19.002 ,0.001 0.248 2,3
Employee security 5.08 1.41 4.12 1.66 4.95 1.23 4.96 1.47 4.525 0.004 0.073 1,3
Employee empowerment 4.00 1.01 3.52 1.00 4.28 1.31 4.60 0.97 13.218 ,.001 0.186 1,2,3
Sample size 13 92 19 53
Notes: aContrasts: (a+c-2b) for H1, (2d-a-c) for H2, (d-b) for H3

according to employee
HPWP adoption
and HPWP
Union presence

presence
relations and union
Table III.
519
 PR these four groups (Wilks Lambda ¼ 0.640, Fð9; 416Þ ¼ 9:32; p , 0:001, partial
42,5 h 2 ¼ 0:138). As shown in Table III there was a moderate effect size (h 2 ¼ 0:073) in
the case of employee security with larger effect sizes in the case of employee
empowerment (h 2 ¼ 0:186) and employee voice (h 2 ¼ 0:248).
Contrast tests showed support for H1 in terms of employee security
(tð173Þ ¼ 2:769; p ¼ 0:006) and in terms of employee empowerment
520 (tð173Þ ¼ 2:910; p ¼ 0:004) but not in terms of employee voice
(tð173Þ ¼ 0:834; p ¼ 0:411). Non-union workplaces were more likely to implement
employee security and employee empowerment than union workplaces with poor
employee relations.
However, there is support for the second hypothesis in terms of employee voice
(tð173Þ ¼ 3:410; p , 0:001) and employee empowerment (tð173Þ ¼ 1:991; p ¼ 0:048)
but no support for this hypothesis in the case of employee security
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

(tð173Þ ¼ 0:142; p ¼ 0:887). Union workplaces with good employee relations were
more likely to introduce employee voice and employee empowerment than non-union
workplaces.
Finally there is support for H3 in the case of employee voice
(tð173Þ ¼ 6:209; p , 0:001), employee security (tð173Þ ¼ 3:153; p ¼ 0:002) and
employee empowerment (tð173Þ ¼ 6:124; p , 0:001). Union workplaces with good
employee relations were more likely to implement employee voice, security and
empowerment than union workplaces with poor employee relations.
In summary H1 is supported in the case of employee security and employee
empowerment with non-union workplaces more likely to implement employee security
and employee empowerment than union workplaces with poorer employee relations.
However, contrary to expectation, there is no support for this hypothesis in the case
of employee voice. Also contrary to expectation, the second hypothesis is supported
only in the case of employee voice and empowerment with significantly higher
employee voice and empowerment for workplaces with a union presence and good
employee relations than for workplaces without a union presence. Employee security
levels were very similar for non-union workplaces and union workplaces with good
employee relations. Finally there is support for the third hypothesis for all three HPWP
variables, in that workplaces with a union presence are more likely to adopt HPWP if
they have good employee relations.

Discussion
In this section we interpret some of the more important and unexpected findings,
mention the limitations of our study, make recommendations for future research and
consider the practical implications of our findings.
Overall we found that unions can have a positive impact on organisational
competitiveness by facilitating the adoption of HPWP and that this impact is
moderated by the quality of employee relations.
First, employee relations had a significant impact on HPWP adoption in both union
and non-union workplaces. We also found a relationship between union presence and
the adoption of HPWP with differences in the nature of HPWP in union versus
non-union workplaces. We found that employee voice is more likely to be a component
of HPWP in non-union workplaces, supporting the proposition that individual voice
may be used as a substitute for collective voice in non-union workplaces because they
 do not have the benefits of collective voice or the communication infrastructure that Union presence
unions provide. It has been proposed that HPWP, which use direct and online voice and HPWP
through management, is inferior to union voice because employees do not feel they can
provide genuine input without management reprisal. Without genuine voice, barriers
to effective implementation of HPWP are more likely as management resists its loss of
power, focuses on initiatives that deliver results in the short-term and is instrumental
in its management of employees, resulting in lack of trust and the co-operation 521
essential to HPWP success. We were not able to investigate whether HPWP voice was
as effective as union voice in this study but propose that this is an important avenue
for future research.
We also found that HPWP focused on employee security were more likely to be
adopted in workplaces with a union presence. The greater focus on employee security
may reflect union priorities and bargaining power. Whilst numerical flexibility may be
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

positive for workplaces using traditional work practices to achieve competitive

advantage through cost minimisation, HPWP need employment security to ensure the
effective implementation of other practices in the HPWP system. Employee voice and
empowerment need employee commitment are discretionary and can be withdrawn if
employees do not trust management and feel they may lose their jobs. Consequently,
non-union workplaces may fail to effectively implement HPWP because they offer poor
employment security. Again, without outcome data we were unable to test this
proposition but suggest it be addressed in future research.
In addition to this, union workplaces were more likely to focus on employee
empowerment than non-union workplaces when implementing HPWP, stressing a
flatter workplaces structure, more flexible employees and management that believe
employees are self-motivated and controlled. The greater emphasis on empowerment
in HPWP in union workplaces is interesting given initial union resistance to the
elimination of seniority rights and job classifications (Godard and Delaney, 2001).
However, it may be that empowerment is more easily implemented in union
workplaces that provide trust, commitment, security and voice. In particular it has
been asserted that empowerment must be coupled with job security to be effective so
high performance work systems that fail to include this vital component may be more
likely to fail. This result contradicts the assumption that unions introduce restrictive
work practices and supports the proposition that unions can facilitate the introduction
of HPWP.
Second, the results indicated that workplaces without a union presence had better
employee relations. There are two possible explanations for this result in that employee
relations could be an antecedent and/or consequence of union presence. Poor employee
relations may encourage employees to join a union or union presence may agitate the
relationship between employees and management. Only future research using time
series data can provide a definitive conclusion on this issue.
We specifically hypothesised that employee relations would be important to the
adoption of HPWP and that union workplaces with good employee relations would
have a more positive impact on HPWP than union workplaces with poor employee
relations and workplaces without a union presence. Our findings provided some
support for all three hypotheses, with employee relations being important to the
implementation of HPWP in both union and non-union workplaces.
 PR H1 proposed that non-union workplaces would be more likely to implement HPWP
42,5 than union workplaces with poor employee relations. This hypothesis is based on
extant theory that proposes that unions with poor employee relations will introduce
restrictive work practices that inhibit the introduction of HPWP. This hypothesis was
partially supported. We found that workplaces with a union presence and poor
employee relations were less likely to implement employee security and empowerment
522 than non-union workplaces. However, contrary to expectation, there is no support for
this hypothesis in the case of employee voice. This may be because these workplaces
introduce individual and direct employee voice as a substitute for union collective voice
to minimize the impact of unions or to replace unions, rather than as part of an HPWP
system.
H2 proposed that union workplaces with good employee relations are more likely to
introduce HPWP than non-union workplaces. This hypothesis is based on extant
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

theory that proposes that unions with positive employee relations encourage
management to introduce more productive work practices and facilitate the
implementation of productive work practices. This hypothesis was partially
supported. We found that union workplaces with good employee relations were
more likely to introduce employee voice and employee empowerment than non-union
workplaces. However, the level of employee security was similar for non-union
workplaces and for union workplaces with good employee relations. It is difficult to
explain this result. Could it be that, in the interest of maintaining good employee
relations, unions “side with management” at the expense of their membership? In this
case the “partnership” approach is not one of mutual gains for employers and
employees, especially if, as some authors have suggested, employee voice is a poor
substitute for collective voice (McLoughlin and Gourlay, 1992; Rubinstein, 2001) and
employee empowerment leads to work intensification and increased employee stress
(Sisson (1993). Clearly, this result points to the need for further research to confirm this
result and examine the impact of HPWP adoption on employer and employee
outcomes.
H3 proposed that union workplaces with good employee relations would be more
likely to implement HPWP than union workplaces with poor employee relations based
on the proposition that employee relations moderate the impact that unions have on the
adoption of productive work practices. This hypothesis was supported. Union
workplaces with good employee relations were more likely to introduce employee
voice, employee security and employee empowerment, supporting the proposition that
employee relations moderate the impact that unions have on HPWP adoption.
In conclusion, this study found that while unions can have a negative impact on the
adoption of HPWP when employee relations are poor, a union presence was valuable to
the adoption of HPWP when employee relations are good. Given HPWP have been
linked to competitive advantage, workplaces would do well to perceive unions as
having the potential to have a positive impact on employer outcomes. However, good
employee relations, which moderate the impact of unions on HPWP adoption, are less
likely in union workplaces and management needs to concern itself with developing
this essential success factor.
This study has identified some interesting results that require further investigation.
It also has several limitations which could be addressed in future research. First, a
larger sample with a substantial proportion of union workplaces would be difficult, yet
 valuable, to obtain. Research based on time-series and multiple source data would also Union presence
enhance the validity of the research findings. Finally, more complex research that and HPWP
explored both the antecedents and consequents of HPWP adoption would answer some
of the questions raised in this discussion. In particular, future research could examine
the impact of individual HPWP on employer and employee outcomes.
There are several key theoretical and practical implications of these findings. We
investigated the nature of HPWP in union and non-union workplaces. In doing so we 523
contributed to the debate on whether HPWP individual and direct voice are a
substitute for collective voice by finding that non-union workplaces focus on voice
practices in HPWP adoption and suggesting they do this because they lack the voice
mechanisms provided by unions. Second, we found that non-union workplaces were
less likely to introduce employee security in their suite of HPWP which may have
implications for the effectiveness of HPWP. Third, we found that employee
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

empowerment was a less likely HPWP component in non-union workplaces,

contradicting the assumption that unions introduce restrictive work practices. Most
significantly, our research supported the proposition that employee relations moderate
the relationship between union presence and HPWP adoption, which have been linked
to superior organisation performance, contradicting the simplistic notion that unions
are ‘bad for business’. Overall, we have demonstrated that unions, when coupled with
good employee relations, facilitate the adoption of HPWP and consequently have a
positive impact on organisational competitiveness. This has implications for
Government and organisation approaches to union presence and management in
organisations. In particular, given that Bryson and his colleagues (Bryson, 2004;
Bryson et al., 2006) have demonstrated that management is crucial in determining the
outcomes from union and employer interactions, this research stresses the importance
of focussing on management attitudes to unions.

Notes
1. Boxall and Purcell (2008) propose that HPWP are drawn from three sources: Walton (1985)
concept of the High Commitment Work Practice focused on winning employee commitment
to organisation goals through positive incentives and identification with company culture
rather than trying to control behaviour through routine, short-cycle jobs and direct
supervision. Lawler (1986) focused on High Involvement Practices which had an emphasis
on redesigning jobs to involve employees more fully in decision making and on skill and
motivational practices that support this. High Performance Work Practices based on an
influential US public report involving reforms to work practices to increase employee
involvement in decision making and companion investments in employee skills and
performance incentives to ensure they can undertake these greater responsibilities and are
motivated to do so.
2. The mechanisms of collective voice are management-union negotiations, collective
negotiations and collective industrial action. Individual voice mechanisms include
individual employee negotiations; employee consultation through quality circles,
suggestion schemes, employee surveys; performance appraisals; grievance and
disciplinary procedures; committees including joint consultative committees, health and
safety committees, task force or ad hoc joint committees; and employee representatives ie.
Health and safety and employee board representatives. Some researchers include individual
acts of dissent such as absences from work and shirking as mechanisms of individual voice
(Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Lawler et al., 1995).
 PR 3. The discarded items were: It is common for employees to look beyond their individual jobs to
address system problems/improvements. Accountability focuses on the team rather than the
42,5 individual. Decision making is decentralised. Jobs are designed to empower employees.
Work has not intensified and/or working hours have decreased. Training focuses on the
overall development of the employee and is not confined to the current job role. In this
workplace rewards are based more on group achievement than individual pay geared to job
evaluation. This work place has a principle of equality of salary sacrifice in hard times. This
524 workplace has a profit sharing or share ownership scheme so people are rewarded when
business is doing well.

References
Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1995), “Worker participation in diverse settings: does the form affect
the outcome, and, if so, who benefits?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33 No. 3,
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

pp. 353-378.
Armstrong, P., Marginson, P., Edwards, P. and Purcell, J. (1998), “Divisionalization in the UK:
diversity, size and the devolution of bargaining”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012a), ABS 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade
Union Membership, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, March 30 2001, available at:
ABS web site: www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/CE8F52DF98E29
B2ACA256A1F00073CC0/$File/63100_aug%202000.pdf (accessed July 8, 2012).
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012b), ABS 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade
Union Membership, August 2011, available at: ABS web site: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6310.0Main%20Features2August%202011?opendocument&
tabname¼Summary&prodno¼6310.0&issueequals;August%202011&num¼&view¼
(accessed July 8, 2012).
Australian Human Resources Institute (2012), The Future of Work and the Changing Workplace:
Challenges and Issues for Australian HR Practitioners 2010, available at:
www.ahri.com.au/MMSDocuments/profdevelopment/research/research_papers/fow_
white_ paper.pdf (accessed July 8, 2012).
Becker, G. and Huselid, M. (1998), “High performance work systems and firm performance:
a synthesis of research and managerial implications”, Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 16, pp. 53-101.
Benson, J. (2000), “Employee voice in union and non-union Australian workplaces”, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 453-459.
Black, S.E. and Lynch, L.M. (2001), “How to compete: the impact of workplace practices and
information technology on productivity”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 434-445.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2008), Management, Work and Organisations, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Branberry, L. (2008), “Propensity to join and maintain membership of unions amongst casual
school teachers in NSW”, RMIT Working Paper Series No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Bryson, A. (2001), “The foundation of ‘partnership’? union effects on employee trust in
management”, National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 76, pp. 91-104.
Bryson, A. (2004), “Managerial responsiveness to union and nonunion worker voice in Britain”,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 213-241.
Bryson, A. (2005), “Union effects on employee relations in Britain”, Human Relations, Vol. 58
No. 9, pp. 1111-1139.
 Bryson, A., Charlwood, A. and Forth, J. (2006), “Worker voice, managerial response and labour Union presence
productivity: an empirical investigation”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 438-455. and HPWP
Bryson, A., Gomez, R. and Willman, P. (2007), “The diffusion of workplace voice and
high-commitment human resource management practices in Britain, 1984-1998”, Industrial
and Corporate Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 395-426.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS – Basic Concepts, Applications, 525
and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
Chen, S. (2007), “Human resource strategy and unionization: evidence from Taiwan”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1116-1131.
Clarke, M.C. and Payne, R.L. (1997), “The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 205-224.
Cohen, Y. and Pfeffer, J. (1986), “Employment practices in the dual economy”, Administrative
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Collins, C. and Smith, K. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human
resource paractices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006), “How much do high-performance work
practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 501-528.
Cooke, W.N. (1990), “Factors influencing the effects of joint union-management programs on
employee-supervisor relations”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 587-603.
Cooke, W.N. (1992), “Product quality improvement through employee participation: the effects of
unionization and joint union-management administration”, Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 119-134.
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., McKersie, R. and Walton, R. (1989), “Dispute resolution and the
transformation of US industrial relations: a negotiations perspective”, Labor Law Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 475-483.
Deery, S., Walsh, J. and Knox, A. (2001), “The non-union workplace in Australia: bleak house or
human resource innovator?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 669-683.
Deery, S.J., Iverson, R.D. and Erwin, P.J. (1994), “Predicting organizational and union
commitment: the effect of industrial relations climate”, British Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 581-597.
Delery, J.E., Gupta, N., Shaw, J.D., Jenkins, J.R. and Ganster, M.L. (2000), “Unionization,
compensation, and voice effects on quits and retention”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 625-645.
Denny, K. (1997), “Productivity and trade unions in British manufacturing industry 1973-1985”,
Applied Economics, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 1403-1409.
Eaton, A.E. and Voos, P. (1989), “The ability of unions to adapt to innovative workplace
arrangements”, American Economic Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 172-176.
Eaton, A.E. and Voos, P. (1994), “Productivity-enhancing innovations in work organization,
compensations and employee participation in the union versus the non-union sectors’”, in
Lewin, D. and Sockell, D. (Eds), Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT.
 PR Erickson, C.L. and Jacoby, S.M. (2003), “The effect of employer networks on workplace
innovation and training”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 203-223.
42,5 Freeman, R.B. and Medoff, J.L. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Freeman, R.B. and Rogers, J. (1999), What Workers Want, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Frohlich, D. and Pekruhl, U. (1996), Direct Participation and Organisational Change –
Fashionable but Misunderstood? An Analysis of Recent Research in Europe, Japan and the
526 USA, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Galang, M.C. (1999), “Stakeholders in high-performance work systems”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 287-305.
Gephardt, M. and Van Buren, M. (1996), “Building synergy: the power of high performance work
systems”, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 22-36.
Gill, C. (2009), “Union impact on the effective adoption of high performance work practices”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 39-50.
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Godard, J. and Delaney, J.T. (2001), “An industrial relations perspective on the high-performance
paradigm”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 395-429.
Goshal, A. and Nahapiet, J. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational
advantage”, Journal of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-262.
Green, K.W., Wu, C., Whitten, D. and Medlin, B. (2006), “The impact of strategic human resource
management on firm performance and HR professionals’ work attitude and work
performance”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, pp. 559-579.
Gregg, P.A. and Machin, S.J. (1988), “Unions and the incidence of performance linked pay
schemes in Britain”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 91-107.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Haynes, P.B., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2005), “Non-union voice and the effectiveness of joint
consultation in New Zealand”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 229-256.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38, pp. 635-672.
Keenoy, T. (1991), “The roots of metaphor in the old and the new industrial relations”, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-328.
Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (1995), “Strategic choice and new forms of employment relations in the
public service sector: developing an analytical framework”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 206-229.
Klassen, R. and Whybark, D. (1999), “The impact of environmental technologies on
manufacturing performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 599-615.
Kochan, T.A. and Osterman, P. (1994), Mutual Gains Bargaining, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Kochan, T.A., Katz, H.C. and McKersie, R.B. (1986), The Transformation of American Industrial
Relations, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Lawler, E. (1986), High-Involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S. and Ledford, G. (1995), Creating High-performance Organizations,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Levine, D.I. (1995), Reinventing the Workplace, Brookings, Washington, DC.
 Levine, D.I. and Tyson, L. (1990), “Participation, productivity and the firm’s environment”, cited Union presence
2001 in Godard, J. and Delaney, J.T., “An industrial relations perspective on the
high-performance paradigm”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 395-429. and HPWP
Lincoln, J.R. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1990), Culture, Control and Commitment, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lloyd, C. (2001), “What do employee councils do? The impact of non-union forms of
representation on trade union organisation”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, 527
pp. 313-327.
McLoughlin, I. and Gourlay, S. (1992), “Enterprise without unions: the management of employee
relations in non-union firms”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 669-691.
Marginson, P. (1992), “European integration and transnational management-union relations in
the enterprise”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 529-545.
Marshall, R. (1992), “The future role of government in industrial relations”, Industrial Relations,
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 31-49.

Miller, P. and Mulvey, C. (1993), “What do Australian unions do?”, Economic Record, Vol. 69
No. 206, pp. 315-342.
Millward, N., Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W.R. (1992), Workplace Industrial Relations in
Transition, Dartmouth, Aldershot.
Moreton, D. (1999), “A model of labour productivity and union density in British private sector
unionised establishments”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 322-344.
Osterman, P. (2000), “Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: trends in diffusion and
effects on employee welfare”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, pp. 179-196.
Pantuosco, L., Parker, D. and Stone, G. (2001), “The effect of unions on labor markets and
economic growth: an analysis of state data”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 195-205.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Pfeffer, J. and Veiga, J.F. (1999), “Putting people first for organisational success”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 37-48.
Pil, F.K. and Macduffie, J.P. (1996), “The adoption of high-involvement work practices”,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 423-455.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.
Ramirez, M., Guy, F. and Beale, D. (2007), “Contested resources: unions, employers, and the
adoption of new work practices in US and UK Telecommunications”, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 495-517.
Rinehart, J., Huxley, C. and Robertson, D. (1997), Just Another Car Factory? Lean Production and
its Discontents, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Rubinstein, S.A. (2000), “The impact of co-management on quality performance: the case of the
Saturn Corporation”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, pp. 197-218.
Rubinstein, S.A. (2001), “Unions as value-adding networks: possibilities for the future of US
unionism”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 581-598.
Rubinstein, S.A., Bennett, M. and Kochan, T. (1993), “The Saturn Partnership: Co-Management
and the Reinvention of the Local Union”, in Kaufman, B. and Kleiner, M. (Eds), Employee
Representation: Alternatives and Future Directions, IRRA Press, Madison, WI, pp. 339-370.
Sisson, K. (1993), “In search of HRM?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 201-210.
 PR Stewart, A. (2011), Stewart’s Guide to Employment Law, 3rd ed., The Federation Press, Sydney.
42,5 Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2003), “HRM and knowledge workers’”, in Boxall, P. (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Turnbull, P.J. (1988), “The economic theory of trade union behaviour: a critique”, British Journal
of Industrial Relations, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Turnbull, P.J. (1992), “Employment regulation, state intervention and the economic performance
528 of European ports”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 385-404.
Vedder, R. and Gallaway, L. (2002), “The economic effects of labor unions revisited”, Journal of
Labor Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 105-130.
Voos, P. (1987), “Managerial perceptions of the economic impact of labor relations programs”,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Walton, R. (1985), “From control to commitment in the workplace”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Downloaded by University of Vermont At 01:28 06 November 2014 (PT)

Wells, D. (1993), “Are strong unions compatible with the new human resource management?”,
Relations Industrielles, Vol. 48, pp. 56-85.
Whitener, E. (2001), “Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 515-535.
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgarrd, M. and Werner, J. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust: and
exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.
Wood, S.J. and Fenton-O’creevy, M.P. (2005), “Direct involvement, representation and employee
voice in UK multinationals in Europe”, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 27-50.
Wright, P. and Snell, S. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in
strategic human resource management”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 756-772.

Further reading
Drago, R. (1996), “Workplace transformation and the disposable workplace: employee
involvement in Australia”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 334-355.
Guest, D.E. and Peccei, R. (2001), “Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage”,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 207-236.
Kochan, T. (1980), Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations; From Theory to Policy and
Practice, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Marginson, P., Edwards, P.K., Purcell, J. and Sisson, K. (1988), “What do corporate offices really
do?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 229-245.

Corresponding author
Carol Gill can be contacted at: c.gill@mbs.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints