Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJohnstone, Stewarten_US
dc.contributor.authorWilkinson, Adrianen_US
dc.contributor.authorAckers, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.editorPhil Jamesen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:09:28Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:09:28Z
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.issn01425455en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1108/01425450410544470en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/16836
dc.description.abstractThis paper presents the findings of a case study undertaken in a UK utility company, referred to as Energy Co. The main aim of the study was to assess how the agreement of a partnership arrangement in 1995 had affected the conduct of employment relations. The study found that partnership was born out of a poor industrial relations climate, and driven primarily by management. They hoped that it might improve industrial relations, raise employee commitment, inform and educate the workforce, and increase employee contribution. Partnership was not intended to encourage joint governance or power sharing. In practice, partnership combined direct employment involvement (EI) such as team briefing and problem solving groups, with representative participation through a formal partnership council system. Management suggested that, on balance, partnership had been successful, with benefits including improved industrial relations, quicker pay negotiations and increased legitimacy of decision making. It was also suggested that there was a positive link - albeit indirect and intangible - with organisational performance. Union representatives also proposed that partnership was a success, citing benefits including greater access to information, greater influence, inter-union co-operation, and more local decision making. Employee views were more mixed. There was also clear evidence of several tensions. Four were particularly noteworthy: employee apathy, management-representative relations, employee-representative relations, and the role of full-time union officials (FTOs). Despite espoused partnership, management hostility to unions was evident, and a preference for non-union employment relations clear. Consequently, the future of the partnership in its current form is uncertain.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent323771 bytes
dc.format.extent92197 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherEmeralden_US
dc.publisher.placeUKen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom353en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto376en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue4en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEmployee Relationsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume26en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode350201en_US
dc.titlePartnership Paradoxes A Case Study of an Energy Companyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2004 Emerald. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.date.issued2015-05-12T05:11:24Z
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record