Author:
Taylor Phil,Baldry Chris,Danford Andy,Stewart Paul
Abstract
This article concerns the manner in which the European Union Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) Directive has been implemented in the UK in the harsh corporate conditions of restructuring, redundancy and site closure. Drawing on interview and documentary evidence from six case companies (Peugeot-Citroën, General Motors, Prudential, Aviva, Marconi, Rolls-Royce), the article exposes major fault lines in the effectiveness of the UK’s ICE Regulations to provide even limited protection for employees who were presented with redundancy as a fait accompli. Contrary to management claims, ICE arrangements have not provided additional levels of representation either to complement unions or to fill the “representation gap” left by declining coverage. The failure to consult raises broader questions on the wider political and legislative environment in the UK.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management
Reference53 articles.
1. ACAS. 2004. Guide to the Consultation and Information Regulations. London: ACAS.
2. Addison, J. T. and W. S. Siebert. 1992. “The Social Charter: Whatever Next.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 30 (4), 495–513.
3. Amicus. 2006. “Amicus Norwich Union Offshoring Briefing.” September 2006.
4. Amicus-Prudential. 2002. “Amicus-MSF and Prudential UK and European Operations 14–Point Plan.” 04/11/02.
5. Amicus-TGWU. 2006. “The Case for Ryton.”
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献