Analysis of Marks and Spencer Case - Assignment Example

?Questions – Marks and Spencer case A. Trade Unions A1. The three categories of Union responses - Emphasis on Europeanization The key categories of Union responses are three: ‘mergers, new recruitment strategies and Europeanization’ (Towers and Terry 1991, p.53). In the context of the first category, a country’s existing unions are merger so that strong social units are established (Towers and Terry 1991). Such practice is common in Austria and Germany. In Germany, the most important merger of unions developed in 1998; three were the unions participated in this merger:’ the Textile and Clothing Union, the IG Metall and the Wood and Plastics Union’ (Towers and Terry 1991, p.53). The above merge resulted to the creation of a union with over three million members (Towers and Terry 1991, p.53). The last two decades a trend for Europeanization of unions has appeared (Towers and Terry 1991). More specifically, unions from various member states have started to be organized at the level of the Union ignoring the national labour systems and laws (Towers and Terry 1991, p.54). An example of this form of union response is the following one: a cooperation/ membership agreement has been signed between ‘the GMB union (Britain) and the IG Chemie-Papier-Keramik (German)’ (Morely et al. 2006, p.77). It is implied that the union responses influence the union types; this result to the increase of union’s power to confront policies which are against the rights of employees. For example, through the research developed by Dreiling and Robinson it was revealed that certain unions in USA and Canada were stronger than others in confronting NAFTA (Dreiling and Robinson 1998), a fact which was related to the types of the unions (Dreiling and Robinson 1998). On the other hand, it has been proved that trade unions are not so strong in order to face effectively the challenges of globalisation (Dolvik 2001). In the case under examination of particular importance is a specific category of union response: Europeanization. Indeed, since Marks and Spencer is established in UK the labour laws of UK should be used for resolving the dispute between the firm and its employees in France. However, it should be examined whether the unions in France had the right and the potential to cooperate with unions in Britain so that the rights of employees in the firm’s stores in France to be protected. According to Platzer (2010) the EU Reform Treaty of 2007 (Lisbon) emphasizes on the promotion of social rights and highlights the power of the EU to intervene in order to secure employment rights of people in member states (Platzer 2010). Therefore, the development of a strategic alliance between the unions in France and those in Britain would be an initiative aligned with the existing European law on industrial relations. Under these terms, top managers in Marks and Spencer cannot ignore the trade unions in France, which could ensure the support of other European countries so that the rules of the above Treaty are applied. A different assumption would be developed if the study of Kip (2011) is taken into consideration. The above researcher notes that still, the most critical arrangements related to employment relations are developed at national level (Kip 2011), i.e. it seems that European Union is not, still, ready to support effectively the unions wishing to cooperate at European level. According to the above view, the decision of top managers in Marks and Spencer to use the British labour laws for resolving labour disputes in regard to their stores in France is considered as justified. It seems that the courts handling the case have accepted the second view; even if at a first instance the court’s decision was negative for Marks and Spencer, the firm managed to support the case effectively at the next level, an effort, which was successful; when reviewing the case at the next level, the court decided that the decision should be overruled (case study, p.39). A2. The infrastructure of Unionism and common interests Trade unionism is based on the development of strategic cooperation for the promotion of employees’ rights. The forms of trade unionism can be differentiated worldwide, according to the local social and political trends and the local legal system. For example, in Chile, trade unionism focused on ‘the development of long-term agreements with firms of high economic value’ (Campero 2001, p.24). Unionism cannot survive without common interests; in fact, unionism is based on the fact that communities of people have common interests (McGrath-Shamp and Herod 2010). These common interests are achieved through common actions, which, when related to labour disputes lead to the strengthening of unionism (McGrath-Shamp and Herod 2010). Communities, as an element of unionism, are not restricted in terms of geography or other criteria (McGrath-Shamp and Herod 2010). In the case discussed in this paper, unionism could lead to the development of coordination between the unions of France and those of Britain. Such cooperation would increase the chances for success of employees’ claims for lack of prior notice to them in regard to the closure of the firm’s stores in France. Busemeyer et al. (2010) notes that European union emphasizes on employment policies, a trend reflecting to the Union’s decision to establish an effective mechanism for controlling labour relations across the member states. Appropriate legislative frameworks have been introduced for ensuring that European Union supports unionism. The above fact is reflected in the establishment of the European Employment Strategy, a scheme, which was further, enhanced using the 2007 Lisbon strategy. The cooperation of trade unions of France with the trade unions of Britain so that employment disputes in regard to the closure of the firm’s stores in France are resolved, can be characterized as logical and critical for the effective handling of the crisis. Also, the protests that unions in France and UK caused across Europe, fighting the decision of the firm to retain its decision to close its stores in France, are fully justified, indicating the relationship between unionism and common interests. B. Collective Bargaining B1. Company, Sectoral and Inter-Sectoral decisions Collective bargaining is developed at the following levels: at the national level, collective bargaining leads to the creation of interprofessional and intersectoral agreements, covering all major professions and all sectors, within the country, accordingly (Tridimas et al. 20024). In the context of interprofessional collective bargaining, sectoral agreements can be developed among the representatives of employers and employees of the particular sector (Tridimas et al. 2004). Under certain terms, sectoral agreements can be developed at the level of the company, a practice common in Sweden from 1990s onwards (Blanpain et al. 2005). The promotion of sectoral agreements at the level of the company has been based on the need for increased flexibility in regard to critical employment issues, such as work hours and level of wages (Clark et al. 2002). In 1990s Ford and Chrysler have supported the use of sectoral agreements at the corporate level. These agreements were known as ‘modern operating agreements’ (Clark et al. 2002, p.77) and focused on the increase of team working and the reduction of the rights of superiors (Clark et al. 2002, p.77). According to Alston et al. (2005), three are the levels of collective bargaining accepted in European Union: the national level, the enterprise level and the workplace level (Alston et al. 2005, p.194). It is further noted that the sectoral collective bargaining at company level is most preferred in EU (Alston et al. 2005); in the above case, the laws of the European Union are used along with the laws regulating industrial relations at national level (Alston et al. 2005, p.194). Top managers in Marks and Spencer had not accepted to discuss with the trade unions, at least at a first level, claiming that only the laws of UK, where such practice is acceptable, bound the firm. However, this approach led to severe conflicts between the organization and its employees in France. The company could have chosen to accept collective bargaining at company level negotiating the terms under which the closure of its stores in France would be developed. Instead, top managers in Marks and Spencer decided to take the risk and announce the closure of these stores the same day that the London Stock Exchange was informed. It should be noted here that Marks and Spencer is based in UK, the labour laws of which are differentiated from those of other member states. From this point of view, the practice of top managers in Marks and Spencer to ignore the French laws could be considered as justified; moreover, the decision of top managers in Marks and Spencer to promote the British rules in regard to employment issues related to the firm’s stores in France proves that the firm is not a strong supporter of Europeanization of collective bargaining. The law does not prohibit the specific practice; the appeal of the firm against the decision of the court which first heard the case was accepted. B2. Direct and Indirect Participation The participation of employees can have two different forms: it can be either direct or indirect. The former reflects ‘the personal contributions of employees to the organization’ (Leisink et al. 2007, p.193). The indirect participation refers to the representation of employees by others, the representatives. Three are the key categories of indirect participation, as developed in organizations worldwide: ‘the collective bargaining, the partnership and the consultation’ (Leisink et al. 2007, p.193). It should be noted that direct participation is prohibited where the law clearly states the need for collective bargaining, meaning that employees cannot participate directly in the development of decisions, which are taken only in the context of collective bargaining (Kaufman and Kleiner, 1993, p.165). In Marks and Spencer, top managers did not inform in advance employees in France or their unions in regard to their intention to close the firm’s stores in France. Still, they accepted to discuss with the trade unions and the work committees the deal with another firm, the department – store group Galeries Lafayette which would continue the operation of the firm’s stores in France. This means that top managers in Marks and Spencer accepted consultation, which is one of the forms of indirect participation; as for the other forms of indirect participation, such as the collective bargaining or the partnership, these were not used for the resolution of the dispute, since the firm’s top managers have been negative to such prospect. Conclusion The participation of employees in collective bargaining has been always a contradictory issue. The terms under which such initiatives need to be taken have not been clear, especially when a firm operates internationally, when different employment laws are likely to apply. At the level of the European Union efforts have been made so that the rights of employees are adequately protected. Still, there is no way for the European Union to enforce its members in order to accept specific solutions in regard to employment disputes regulating by their laws. In the case Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-382/92) the European Court of Justice condemned the practice of the British government of not ensuring the provision of information ‘in the case of collective dismissals or transfers of undertakings’ (Tridimas et al. 2004, p.331). In the specific case, the appeal of Marks and Spencer against the initial ruling of the court, which was negative for the organization, was accepted; this fact proved that the firm had not violated the European Law even if its practice to announce the closure of its stores in France before informing its employees there was against the French laws. In other words, the practices of top managers in Marks and Spencer in the specific case seem to be unavoidable, especially since they have been aligned with the UK laws which are the laws governing this case. References Alston, P, de Schutter, O. (2005) Monitoring fundamental rights in the EU: the contribution of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Blanke, T., Rose, E. (2005) Collective bargaining and wages in comparative perspective: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom ????? 56 ??? Bulletin of comparative labour relations. Hague: Kluwer Law International. Blanpain, R., Blanke, T., Rose, E. (2005) Collective bargaining and wages in comparative perspective: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Hague: Kluwer Law International. Busemeyer, M., Kellermann, C., Petring, A., & Stuchlik (2007) Overstretching Solidarity? Trade Unions’ National Perspectives on the European Economic and Social Model. International Policy Analysis. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. September 2007 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/04751.pdf Campero, G. (2001) Trade union responses to globalization: Chile. International Institute for Labour Studies (ILO). Working Paper DP/126/2001. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/gurn/00152.pdf Clark, P., Delaney, J., Frost, A. (2002) Collective bargaining in the private sector Industrial Relations Research Association series. New York: Cornell University Press. Dolvik, J. (2001) European Trade Unions: Coping with Globalisation? Presented at ETUC Conference on ‘Globalisation, Europe and Trade Unions’, Brussels 7-8 March 2001 http://www.fafo.no/pub/rapp/675/675.htm Dreiling, M., and Robinson, I. (1998) UNION RESPONSES TO NAFTA IN THE US AND CANADA: EXPLAINING INTRA- AND INTERNATIONAL VARIATION. Mobilization: An International Journal, 3(2): 163-184 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eian/Dreiling.pdf Kaufman, B., Kleiner, M. (1993) Employee representation: alternatives and future directions. New York: Cornell University Press. Kip, M. (2011) Labour Migration and the Europeanization of Trade Unions: A Look at Developments in the Construction Sector in Germany. Canadian Centre for German and European Studies. Working Paper Series Number 19/2011, p.1-12 http://ccges.apps01.yorku.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Kip_Graf-Essay-Prize-2010-edited-version.pdf Leisink, P., Veersma, U. (2007) Industrial Relations in the New Europe: Enlargement, Integration and Reform. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. McGrath-Champ, S., Herod, A. (2010) Handbook of employment and society: working space. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Morely, M., Gunnigle, P., Collings, D. (2006) Global Industrial Relations. Oxon: Routledge Platzer, H. (2010) The Europeanisation of the Trade Unions - Trade union policy challenges andpractical options at the European level. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. July 2010. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/07395.pdf Towers, B., Terry, M. (1991) Industrial Relations Journal: European Annual Review 1997. Industrial Relations Journal. European Annual Review. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tridimas, T., Nebbia, P. (2004) European Union Law for the Twenty-first Century: Internal market and free movement community policies. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Read More