Influence of Collective Bargaining on Employee Relations & Organizational Commitment.
| Author | Chowdhury, Arup Roy |
Introduction
Harmonious industrial relations is being considered as one of the building blocks to organizational success in today's business complexity. While many of the age old organizations and also the new ones are opting for unionless structure, collective bargaining still remains an effective process which can influence employee relation climate and organizational commitment. Lately, there is a shift from traditional forms of arms length collective bargaining to move towards "mutual gains bargaining" in unionized organizations. There are organizations wherein distributive and integrative bargaining have been used in interest based negotiations and strategic bargaining. Also in its new avatar, the union acts in the capacity of a shared agent by assuming dual agency role thereby (a) providing numerous services to the employer while still fulfilling its obligations to its members; (b) compensate the organization for the privilege of differentially rewarding its membership and improving its internal and external security.
Research Question
RQ1: Does collective bargaining influence perception of organizational players which in turn affect organizational commitment with regard to strive, job satisfaction, intention to quit and loyalty?
RQ2: Does collective bargaining influence perception of organizational players which in turn affect employee relations climate with regard to cooperation, consultation, confrontation and communication?
Collective Bargaining
Collins, Hatcher and Ross (1993) suggest collective bargaining as a process where both employees and their employer have a say in organizational decision making. Collective bargaining is being viewed as a multidimensional system which focuses on (a) negotiation of new agreements between union and management; (b) implement the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement; (c) shape the climate for employee relations and organizational commitment (Chamberlain & Kuhn, 1965; Walton & McKersie, 1965). Researchers like Jones and Blakemore, Hunt and Kiker observed two kinds of effects: (a) bargaining effect that represents the differential between the wage received by a non-unionized worker employed in a collective bargaining unit as compared to one not covered by collective bargaining agreement; (b) membership effect that represents the wage differential between unionized and non-unionized workers covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Employee Relations Climate
Dastmalchian, Adamson and Blyton (1986) defined employee relations climate as an estimate of union-management cooperation, mutual regard, apathy, joint participation, trust /fairness. Guest & Peccei (2001); Ichniowski (1986) and Fryxell and Gordon (1989) argued that procedural j ustice will also be associated positively if employees perceive fairness in the processes for determining outcomes and management is willing to accept its obligations under the collective bargaining arrangements. Hammer and Stern (1986); Cooke (1989) and Newton and Shore (1992) argued that employee relations climate will be more cooperative where the union adopts a problem solving or integrative approach to bargaining emphasizing the common or complementary interests of the parties.
Organizational Commitment
Gordon and Ladd (1990) suggested that workers who view the union-management relationship as positive will be more likely to engage in "irrevocable and volitional acts supportive of both union and management." The theoretical rationale for these relationships is that participation promotes feelings of independence, influence, and esteem among employees, which in turn enhance morale and organizational commitment (Locke & Schweiger, 1979).
Unionized/ Non- unionized Categories
According to Jacobi, Keller and Muller-Jentsch (1998), Katz and Darbishire (2000) and Budd (2004), "unionized" category refers to situations in which majority of the concerned workers are members of a trade union thus enabling the latter to become a collective bargaining representative of that workforce. Mironi (2010) described "unionized" and "non-unionized" organizations as workplaces where employer-employee relations are primarily collective and individual in nature. The main differences between the two are in the processes by which employment rights and duties are established, modified, administered and enforced.
Objective of the Study
To study the influence of collective bargaining on employee relations climate (cooperation, confrontation, communication, consultation) and organizational commitment (job satisfaction, strive, intention to stay, loyalty) perception amongst organizational players (unionized category, contract workers and white collar employees).
Sample Size
Responses sought through questionnaire from 600 respondents out of which 78.33% responded. (Table 1)
Hypotheses
Basic framework for study is given in Fig. 1. The hypotheses taken for the study are stated as:
Hypothesis 1: Organizational players involved in collective bargaining process have more perceived influence in positive employee relations climate than players who wish to participate in collective bargaining process but did not have the opportunity to do so.
Hypothesis 2: Organizational players involved in collective bargaining process have high organizational commitment than players who wish to participate in collective bargaining process but did not have the opportunity to do so.
Hypothesis 3: Employee relations climate for cooperation, confrontation, communication, consultation will be positively related to organizational commitment.
Organizational Commitment Dimensions Questionnaire
Organizational commitment was measured using items adapted from Mowday et al. (1979), Allen and Meyer (1990), Dastmalchian, Adamson & Blyton (1986). The adapted instrument consisted of 15 items of which four items were reverse scored. The questionnaire was refined as per organizational need. Responses were sought using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale's reliability coefficient in this study was 0.84. Sample items include: "I am willing to put extra effort to make my organization successful", "I am loyal to my organization", "I am proud to tell others that my company values me and is committed to me as an employee", "I always tell my friends that my organization is a great place to work for", "I really care about the fate of this company" etc.
Employee Relation Climate Dimensions Questionnaire
Employee relations climate was measured using items adapted from Deery, Erwin and Iverson (1999). The adapted instrument consisted of 12 items of which four items were reverse scored. Responses were sought using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1(never) to 5 (always). The scale's reliability coefficient in this study was 0.86. Sample items include: "Union & management is reasonable and transparent in dealing with each other", "In negotiations/grievance handling union uses pressure tactics", "Union and Management in my organization encourages new and innovative ways of doing things to improve productivity", "In my organization it is easy to be loyal to both the union and management etc.
Organizational Commitment Index
An index is proposed to measure organizational commitment which is arrived at by taking the weighted average of job satisfaction, intention to stay, strive, loyalty on a 5 point Likert type scale.
Employee Relations Climate Index
An index is proposed to measure employee relations climate which is arrived at by taking the weighted average of cooperation, commitment, confrontation, communication perception on a 5 point Likert type scale.
Descriptive Statistics
Organizational Commitment Dimensions
Permanent Employee: Mean score for items in organizational commitment dimensions for organization I, organization II and organization III ranged from 3.36 to 3.87, 3.60 to 4.13 and 4. 08 to 4.49 respectively. Mean values of variables indicated that respondents of organization I, organization II and organization III were satisfied with Strive: organization I (X= 3.94, [sigma] = 0.78)...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
