Purposive derecognition? Empirical evidence of managerial strategy

Abstract

Various authors have referred to the use of ‘purposive’ or ‘strategic’ approach to proactively excluding trade unions from collective bargaining. The assumption has been that exclusion is an end in itself, a return to managerial prerogative, a move back from involvement with trade unions. However, there is a ‘lacuna’ of research into negotiating processes. This research study aims to fill that lacuna in using a case in the UK where access was given to relevant documents and staff over a period of months following the derecognition process in a major process plant; this comprised two separate derecognition processes: internal and external, both affecting two craft unions. This empirical evidence questions the simple dichotomy of ‘purposive’ versus ‘reactive’ derecognition and illustrates the complexity of the processes. Further, the care with which this firm approached the issue of improving productivity illustrates that managerial power is a dynamic, not a static necessary condition for coercive change.