Ireland: Multinational companies and collective bargaining
Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.
This study examines collective bargaining activity in multinational companies operating in Ireland as of February 2009. There is a higher level of collective bargaining coverage in multinationals than in the private sector overall. In recent years, however, there is increased evidence of so-called ‘double-breasting’ by multinationals in Ireland: older unionised sites are often unionised, whereas newer sites are increasingly non-union. Collective bargaining tends to be less prevalent in US multinationals than in multinationals of other nationalities.
1. MNCs and collective bargaining: basic data
1) MNCs account for a significant proportion of private sector employment in many European countries. Please provide the following information according to availability:
a) proportion of private sector employment accounted for by MNCs, and recent change (e.g. since 2000)
Employment in foreign-owned multinationals accounts for about 9.5% of private sector employment in Ireland, an increase on 2000.
c) proportion of service sector employment accounted for by MNCs, and recent change (e.g. since 2000)
no breakdown available
2) Please provide any available information on the breakdown of employment in multinationals between foreign-owned MNCs and home-based MNCs
The Forfas Annual Employment Survey 2006 estimates that among nearly 1,000 state development agency assisted foreign-owned firms in Ireland, total FDI employment amounted to 153,352 in 2006, an increase of 2,913 on 2005. Employment among foreign-owned firms increased by 22,731, or 17.4%, since 1997, when the employment figure attributed to FDI jobs was 130,621. Of this, in 2006, 100,687 people were employed in FDI manufacturing companies, and 51,534 in FDI internationally traded services companies. But this is an underestimate of the level of multinational employment as it does not incorporate data for indigenous Irish MNCs.
The United States is by far the biggest inward investor in Ireland. Foreign-owned MNCs in Ireland primarily come from the US (42% of all MNCs in Ireland are US-owed), UK (19%) or mainland Europe (18%). Only a small proportion of MNCs in Ireland originate in Asia or other countries outside of Europe and the US (8%). There are however a substantial number of indigenous Irish MNCs (13% of all MNCs).
3) What is the level of collective bargaining coverage amongst MNCs, and how does this compare with levels of collective bargaining coverage within the private sector? In the absence of precise figures, please provide an estimate of whether it is higher or lower than the average in:
i) the private sector overall
ii) manufacturing
iii) private services
Researchers from the University of Limerick, Ireland, conducted the most comprehensive survey of employment relations/human resources policies in multinational companies in Ireland (Gunnigle et al., 2007). MNCs that recognise unions were asked what percentage of their largest occupational group (LOG) were covered by collective bargaining. Almost seven in ten MNCs (69 per cent) reported that over three quarters of their LOG were covered by such arrangements. The coverage of collective bargaining is higher amongst Irish, UK and European MNCs than US. Almost eight in ten manufacturing MNCs (79 per cent) have collective bargaining coverage greater than 75 per cent, compared with 57 per cent amongst service sector MNCs. Although there are no precise figures on collective bargaining coverage generally in the private sector, it is undoubtedly the case that bargaining coverage is much higher in MNCs than in the private sector overall in Ireland.
On the issue of union recognition for collective bargaining purposes, Gunnigle et al. (2007) discovered that over half of all MNCs in the survey, 61 per cent, engage with trade unions at some level in Ireland. ‘It would appear that there is a country of origin effect with regard to union engagement. Irish, UK and Rest of European MNCs are more likely to engage with trade unions whereas US MNCs are least likely to engage with unions’. ‘Over 80 per cent of Irish and UK MNCs engage with trade unions, whilst rest of Europe MNCs also score high with 72 per cent. However 59 per cent of all US MNCs do not engage with unions. This is unsurprising given the preference of US MNCs to avoid unions. Bundling all foreign owned MNCs together we find a significant difference between foreign and Irish owned MNCs with 57 per cent of foreign owned MNCs engage with unions versus 83 per cent of Irish owned MNCs’.Expanding on the issue of trade union recognition, the Limerick researchers add,
‘we get a clearer picture of recognition amongst MNCs operating in Ireland..Of the 61 per cent of MNCs that engage with unions 17 per cent recognise union(s) at some/most/other sites, 29 per cent at all sites and 15% at their single sites. This would suggest that MNCs that recognise unions and have more than one site are more likely to recognise unions at all of their sites. Again there would appear to be a country of origin effect. Irish, UK, and European MNCs who recognise trade unions and have more than one site are much more likely to recognise unions at all of their sites. Unsurprisingly we find that US MNCs are much more likely to recognise trade unions at some/most/other sites’.
In terms of union density levels in MNCs, Gunnigle et al. (2007) found quite a high level of trade union density in MNCs, with a majority (53 per cent of all MNCs) reporting that over half of their employees’ are members of a trade union, whilst more than a quarter of MNCs reported that 75 per cent or more of their employees’ are members of a trade union. Lower union density figures are reported amongst US MNCs where only 10 per cent of US MNCs have union density above 75 per cent.
4) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, are MNCs covered by sector agreements? What is the nature of the relationship between MNCs and sector agreements?
a) If Yes, do they mainly conform with the provisions specified in these agreements?
b) If No, do MNCs conclude their own company agreements? If so, what if any relationship do these company agreements have with the sector agreement?
No, there is little sectoral collective bargaining in Ireland. Where unions are recognized MNCs are mainly covered by multi-employer national wage agreements, which is the primary level of collective bargaining in Ireland. MNCs also have scope to engage in single-employer bargaining at company level – for instance, over variable pay mechanisms.
5) In countries characterised by single-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, to what extent are MNCs regarded by other employers as pattern setters for wage negotiations?
2. MNCs and change in national systems of collective bargaining
1) To what extent have MNCs been a source of recent change in the agenda and outcomes of collective bargaining in respect of any of the following issues. Please distinguish between manufacturing and private services:
a) payments systems? If so, please elaborate and give examples.
b) working time arrangements? If so, please elaborate and give examples.
c) flexibility arrangements (other than working time)? If so, please elaborate and give examples.
d) handling restructuring? If so, please elaborate and give examples.
Given that a significant proportion of MNCs in Ireland are of US origin, US MNCs have had a significant impact on changes in collective bargaining in Ireland. There has been a decline in collective bargaining coverage across the private sector, and many MNCs, particularly those of US origin, have preferred to introduce their own arrangements in relation to payment systems, flexibility etc. For example, this has resulted in the increased prominence of variable payment systems (VPS) on the bargaining agenda, notably individual performance related pay (PRP) and profit sharing, etc.
According to Gunnigle et al. (2007), regular performance appraisal is common for the majority of employees in MNCs in Ireland. Employee share ownership, profit sharing and share options are used by approximately one third of MNCs for each category of employees. Foreign MNCs tend to have considerable discretion in the area of pay policy, variable pay and performance appraisal. In terms of differences according to sector and nationality, Gunnigle et al. (2007) found that regular appraisal is significantly more common for the largest occupational group (LOG) in the private service sector. MNCs located in the manufacturing sector report greater discretion in the allocation of rewards to all
employees. But they found that nationality has a more substantial impact. US MNCs are more likely to use regular performance appraisal and variable reward mechanisms than other MNCs.
2) Are any of these changes associated with MNCs headquartered in particular countries? If yes, which countries?
The United States in particular.
3) Are MNCs introducing new issues onto the bargaining agenda? If so, what are these new issues? (Examples might include equality and diversity practices; environmental issues; new employee participation practices; teleworking.)
Variable payment systems are increasingly on the bargaining agenda, as noted above. Also, in recent decades, MNCs in Ireland have placed new (mainly direct) employee involvement practices on the bargaining agenda, including problem-solving groups, company emails and newsletters, and meetings between management and the workforce.
Gunnigle et al. (2007) found that in recent years there has been increasingly high usage of direct employee communication and involvement schemes among MNCs in Ireland. Problem solving groups were found to be present in nearly three-quarters of MNCs and these were the most common form of direct involvement. By contrast, formally designed teams were present in 55 per cent of firms. The country variation in problem solving groups was substantial with 84 per cent of American MNCs having problem solving groups as against only 57 per cent in the UK. There were also sectoral differences, with 83 per cent of manufacturing companies having problem solving groups as against 66 per cent in the service sector. In contrast 56 per cent of service sector MNCs had formal teams as against 51 per cent in manufacturing.
According to Gunnigle et al. (2007), the main communication mechanisms are the traditional ones of meetings between line managers and employees, meetings with the whole workforce and systematic use of the management chain. There is also significant growth of newer forms of communication via emails, newsletters and use of a company Intranet. There is a much lower usage of attitude and opinion surveys. Most, strikingly over 70 per cent of respondents identified meetings between line managers and employees, and meetings between senior management and employees, as being the most important involvement mechanism. Attitude and opinion surveys and suggestions schemes hardly registered in terms of importance. Seventy-three per cent of companies provided information on the financial position of the company in Ireland and 62 per cent on investment in Ireland and 59 per cent on staffing plans in Ireland. American companies were to the fore in financial and investment information provision.
4) Are any of these new issues associated with MNCs headquartered in particular countries? If yes, which countries?
Again, US MNCs, in particular, have been to the forefront in pursuing VPS and new employee participation practices.
5) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, what has been the role of MNCs in opening up greater scope for company negotiations? Please distinguish between developments in manufacturing and private services.
a) are company negotiations mainly confined to issues on which sector agreements
- i) provide openings and/or a framework?
- ii) establish minimum standards or conditions?
Ireland’s multi-employer centralized bargaining agreements set down minimum pay increases that unionized companies are expected to follow. Some non-union companies may ‘shadow’ national wage agreements, which may be used as a pay benchmark. Beyond minimum pay increases set down by national wage agreements, there is latitude for MNCs to engage in company-level negotiations over issues like variable pay, working time and flexibility.
b) are there company negotiations on issues which are not addressed by sector agreements? If yes, please give examples.
Yes, including flexibility of working time and work organisation.
c) are there any instances of company negotiations resulting in breaches of provisions in sector agreements? If yes, please give examples.
Yes. Powerful employers like Irish Ferries and Independent Newspapers have been perceived to have breached national level social partnership agreements in the process of negotiating restructuring/redundancy proposals with trade unions. Independent Newspapers declined to go to the Labour Court in 2004 in relation to a dispute over redundancies. In 2005, following company-level negotiations and significant third party intervention, Irish Ferries delivered a major shock to social partnership when it replaced most of its unionised workforce with foreign agency workers on lower pay rates.
6) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, are there any recent examples of MNCs:
i) leaving a sector agreement? If yes, please give details.
Yes. In 2008, Independent Newspapers announced that it will be operating outside of any national wage agreement in future. Instead the company signalled that it would engage in local pay bargaining, adding that any future wage increase would be dependent on the performance of the company. The company also said it has left the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC).
ii) placing new operations or sites outside of the coverage of the sector agreement(s) which apply at existing sites? If yes, please give examples.
Yes. Some MNCs that engage in double-breasting arrangements have placed new sites (particularly new non-union sites) outside multi-employer national wage agreements, preferring to set pay rates at company level. Examples include Coca Cola, which opened a non-union plant which operates outside of national wage agreements.
7) In countries characterised by single-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, is there any evidence of the practice of ‘double-breasting’ by MNCs? (Double-breasting is when companies recognise trade unions for collective bargaining purposes at longer established sites, but not at more recently opened ones.) If yes, please indicate the extent of the practice and provide examples.
Yes. Gunnigle et al. (2007) asked all MNCs in Ireland that recognised unions in their study if they had established a new site over the past five years and, if they did, did they recognise unions in these new sites? They found that 61 out of 162 unionised (38 per cent) MNCs had established a new site(s) over the past five years. Looking at the incidence of union recognition amongst these MNCs, they found that just over four in ten companies (41 per cent) recognised a trade union in each of those new site(s). One quarter of these unionised MNCs did not recognise union(s) at new site(s). This would appear to suggest that there is a strong anti-union feeling amongst these MNCs, as they have previously recognised unions but have decided to avoid unions in their newer sites.Furthermore, 34 per cent either only recognised unions at some or most new sites, which by default means that they do not recognise unions at some or most of their sites. According to Gunnigle et al. (2007), ‘This would tend to suggest that these MNCs have a preference for operating on a non-union basis but faced with stiff opposition or strong pressure from trade unions have conceded recognition in some of their sites’.Regarding trade union recognition in new sites, the authors suggest there is a country of origin effect evident again. Unionised Irish and UK MNCs were much more likely to recognise a union at each of their new site(s). However, unionised US MNCs were far less likely to recognise a union at new sites. Indeed, about 50% of unionised US MNCs did not recognise unions at all at new sites; no unionised US MNC recognised unions at each of its new sites; 30% of unionised US MNCs recognised unions at most new sites; and 10% recognised unions at some new sites. European MNCs demonstrate a more mixed pattern.Gunnigle et al. (2007) found ‘a significant difference between foreign and Irish owned MNCs regarding trade union engagement, 57 per cent versus 83 per cent respectively’. Clearly, they conclude, the impact of US MNCs on this difference between foreign and Irish owned MNCs is quite significant. One of the most striking findings of their research to date is the existence of ‘double-breasting’ (MNCs have both union (usually older) and non-union (usually newer) plants). ‘US MNCs are much more likely to be non-union and furthermore are more likely to engage in double-breasting’.The conclusion of the Limerick research team is that almost six in ten MNCs that have established a new site over the previous five years has engaged in some form of double-breasting.
In terms of examples of double-breasting in Ireland, Coca Cola established a non-union plant in Ballina in the west of Ireland in 2000. The older unionised Drogheda plant was established in 1975. The company announced that it would close the unionised Drogheda plant in September 2008, with production being transferred to the Ballina plant.
3. MNCs and the cross-border dimension to collective bargaining
1) Is there evidence of MNCs using comparisons of labour costs, flexibility and performance drawn from company operations in other countries in the course of local company negotiations? If yes, please give examples when answering the following:
Yes
i) in which sectors does this typically occur?
Manufacturing mainly, but evidence of this in financial services. For example, financial services company Hibernian announced in 2008 that it was outsourcing a number of ‘back-office’ jobs from Ireland to Bangalore in India. It engaged in company negotiations with its Irish unions, and raised the issue of Indian labour costs being substantially lower than in Ireland.
ii) what is the geographical focus of the comparisons (e.g. western Europe, eastern Europe, Asia, worldwide)?
Usually Eastern Europe or Asia.
iii) what is the impact of these comparisons on the outcome of local negotiations?
Invariably, companies extract concessions from unions through ‘concession bargaining’.
2) Is there any evidence of threats to relocate operations influencing the agenda and outcomes of local company negotiations? If yes, please give examples when answering the following:
Yes.
i)in which sectors has this occurred?
Mainly in manufacturing. To give one example, from 1990 onwards – after the collapse of communism and the entry of lower-cost producers of crystal glass in eastern Europe – Irish manufacturing company Waterford Crystal frequently utilized threats of production relocation/outsourcing to influence the agenda and outcomes of company-level negotiations – for instance, to secure cost cuts, wage reductions, flexibility, rationalisation.
ii) what are the destination countries / regions of the global economy for any threatened relocations?
There are no definitive figures on the main countries to which enterprises have relocated or threatened to relocate activities, but (for instance from the information on the ERM website) it is accurate to suggest that Eastern European countries like Poland figure highly, as do countries in Asia, notably China and India.
iii) what has been the impact on the outcome of local negotiations?
There has been a tendency for employers to use the threat of relocation to extract concessions (‘concession bargaining) from unions and workers. Clearly, in many instances, internationalization of company activities has altered the balance of power in the employment relationship towards employers.
3) Is there evidence of MNCs seeking to introduce so-called ‘best’ practices and/or corporate policies from their operations in other countries in the course of local company negotiations? (This may arise through the use of benchmarking.) If yes, please give examples when answering the following:
Yes.
i)in which sectors does this typically occur?
There is evidence that MNCs attempt to introduce so-called ‘best practice’ and/or corporate policies from other countries in both manufacturing and private service sectors. This primarily occurs in non-union US firms like Intel and Dell that do not engage in company collective bargaining; but also in some unionized companies as well. Healthcare product manufacturer Abbott Ireland is an example of a unionized company that has introduced perceived best practice influenced by corporate policy in the US. The Irish plants have to compete internally for business against other Abbott plants worldwide, as Abbott Laboratories is a multinational employing 75,000 employees worldwide. Abbott Ireland has placed an emphasis, for instance, on recruiting the ‘right people’; devising an appropriate performance management system incorporating an appraisal system, including 360-degree appraisal; developing initiatives promoting continuous learning; encouraging teamwork; putting in place motivational reward/compensation mechanisms; and clear communications and employee feedback. Abbott Ireland has also emphasized core competencies, such as adaptability, innovation and teamwork, and what it calls ‘courageous leadership’.
ii) is the process linked to the use of comparisons of labour costs, flexibility and performance or other Human Resouces policies (if so, please specify)?
Yes. In Abbott Ireland, for instance, comparisons of performance, HR policies etc, are made with Abbott plants in the US and worldwide.
4) Do MNCs employ significant numbers of posted workers (e.g. amounting to more than 5% of the workforce)? If yes,
i) in which sectors does this typically occur?
ii) are these posted workers covered by local sector and/or company agreements?
No specific information on this, but, generally speaking, it seems that MNCs do not employ posted workers on a scale amounting to more than 5% of the workforce.
5) Are there any instances where MNCs headquartered in your country have engaged in transnational negotiations at either European or global levels? If yes, please provide details of the MNC(s) concerned and the issues addressed.
Yes. Certain unionized MNCs headquartered in Ireland, including Aer Lingus, Allied Irish Bank, Kerry Group, would sometimes engage in transnational negotiations at Irish/UK/European level. However, transnational bargaining affecting MNCs headquartered in Ireland is not very widespread.
4. MNCs and the social partners
4a. Employers
1) Are MNCs affiliated to the main employers’ organizations at cross-sector and sector levels?
According to Gunnigle et al’s survey of multinationals (2007), an overwhelming majority (92 per cent) of MNCs are members of an employer association, with the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) (86 per cent of all MNCs) being the preferred choice of the great majority. Manufacturing MNCs are much more likely to be IBEC members, with 94 per cent of MNCs a member, compared with 80 per cent of service sector MNCs. The authors also found that 96 per cent of unionised MNCs are a member of an employer association, compared to 85 per cent of non-union MNCs.
2) To what extent are MNCs regarded as key players within the main employers’ organizations at cross-sector and sector levels?
MNCs are regarded as very powerful players within the main employers’ organizations. This is particularly so given Ireland’s reliance as a very open economy on attracting and retaining FDI.
3) Are MNCs also organized in country-of-origin specific assocations (e.g. American or German Chambers of Commerce). If yes:
Do these associations intervene on industrial relations issues? If yes, please provide details.
Yes. In particular, many US MNCs are members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, which acts as a very influential lobby group representing members in Ireland. It would intervene on IR and labour market issues. For example, the American Chamber of Commerce -and powerful members like Intel - was perceived to have been influential in minimizing the impact of the EU Information & Consultation Directive in Ireland, as well as resisting mandatory trade union recognition in Ireland.
4) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, what influence do MNCs exercise over sector negotiations? For example, how far are MNC personnel involved as lead negotiators for employers’ organizations?
MNC personnel would tend not to be directly involved as lead negotiators for employer organizations in multi-employer bargaining (this role falls to senior representatives from Irelands biggest employer association, IBEC). In practice, however, senior managers from the biggest and most powerful multinationals play an indirect role in terms of influencing the overall employer position in multi-employer bargaining.
5) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, what, if any, kind of reforms to sector agreements are MNCs proposing? For example, are they pressing for:
i) limited reform, with modest extension of scope for company bargaining within sector agreements? If yes, please give examples.
ii) extensive reform, under which sector agreements are confined to establishing either minimum standards or a basic framework governing a few key issues? If yes, please give examples.
Under Ireland’s national social partnership model, MNCs already have substantial scope to implement their own policies at company level. National wage agreements set minimum wage increases in unionized employments, but beyond this there are few constraints on MNCs in Ireland’s liberal labour market.
6) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, is there any indication of the advantages or disadvantages that MNCs perceive in continuing to be party to sector agreements?
Yes. The main advantage MNCs associate with multi-employer bargaining in Ireland is the stability and certainty it provides, which allows them to plan ahead. However, some MNCs have questioned the perceived rigidity of ‘one size fits all’ national pay increases – this is becoming more apparent as recession takes hold in Ireland.
4b. Trade unions
1) How have trade unions responded to the impact of MNCs on the agenda and outcomes of collective bargaining? Please give examples.
In Ireland, the response of unions has been largely defensive, particularly in recent months when unions have had to contend with mounting job losses affecting members in multinationals. Given the balance of power in the private sector, in reality, unions can only try to limit the impact of company restructuring on members, rather than prevent it per se.
In a major policy speech in 2007, the president of Ireland’s largest union, the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU), made a distinguishing reference to high-end employers in the multinational FDI sector when he sent out a message to what he called ‘reasonable’ employers; which he contrasted with more ‘tyrannical’ employers:
without compromising on fundamental principles or letting working peoples’ interests down, we have to cultivate a more positive strategy towards employers who recognise unions and are prepared to maintain reasonable standards of employment, properly fund occupational pension schemes and invest in training. We certainly have to treat them better than those who refuse to recognise unions and flagrantly abuse employees.
2) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, how have trade unions responded to attempts by MNCs to broaden the scope of company negotiations? Please give examples.
To give an example, on company bargaining on variable pay unions have been prepared to engage in negotiations on flexible payment systems like profit share and collective forms of performance-related pay (PRP). But they are wary of individual PRP, which they believe can be divisive. Unions have also sought to defend basic pay in company level negotiations.
3) In countries characterised by multi-employer bargaining arrangements for the manufacturing and/or private service sectors, how have trade unions responded to any attempts by MNCs to:
i) leave sector agreements? Please give examples.
There is little they can do to prevent this.
ii) place new operations or sites outside of the coverage of the sector agreement which applies to existing operations? Please give examples.
Again, there is little unions can do to prevent this.
4) In what ways have trade unions responded to the use by MNCs in local, company negotiations of:
i) comparisons of labour costs, flexibility and performance?
Unions would sometimes challenge the basis of comparisons of labour costs, and so forth, referring, for instance, to the higher cost of living in Ireland.
ii) threats to relocate? Please give examples.
Trade unions usually regard it as a fundamental threat and, accordingly, tend to adopt defensive postures and mount rearguard actions. However, as noted above, where an employer is determined to relocate there tends to be little that unions can do to prevent this, aside from perhaps reducing the negative impact on members and securing a reasonable restructuring/redundancy package and demanding adequate consultation.
5) Are there instances where trade unions have targeted specific MNCs because of public, media or political interest in their practices? If yes,
i) have they involved political exchange, involving mobilization of popular sentiment against foreign companies as political leverage to gain concessions from government (e.g. the cases of Alstom in France and Alitalia in Italy)? Please provide examples.
The most prominent example in recent years was when unions engaged in a bitter industrial relations dispute with Irish Ferries in 2005, and attempted to mobilize public and political support. While the company proceeded with its plan to replace unionized crew with foreign agency labour, the unions did secure Irish minimum wage rates for agency crews and, on the back of the dispute, secured a commitment from the Irish Government to introduce major new employment rights legislation (which includes a tripling in the number of labour inspectors).
ii) have new industrial relations actors, such as NGOs, been involved in such campaigns? Please give examples.
New industrial relations actors have so far not been prominent in industrial disputes of this nature.
6) Are trade unions in MNCs engaged in compiling their own cross-border comparisons of working conditions etc. at sites in different countries? If yes, please give examples.
Yes. This does happen. For example, unions often make comparisons of pay and conditions in multinationals with operations in Ireland and the UK.
7) Are national and local trade unions involved in European-level negotiations with MNCs on any issues? If yes, please give details.
Occasionally in negotiations, but mainly restricted to information and consultation through European Works Councils (EWCs).
8) More generally, do trade unions have policies aimed at developing the cross-border and European-level dimensions to collective bargaining in MNCs?
Yes. UK-based union Unite has devised policies aimed at developing cross-border and European dimensions to collective bargaining in MNCs. In particular, Unite has forged links with German union IG Metall as well as two large American engineering unions, the United Steel Workers (USW) and the International Association of Machinists (IAM), in order to exert a stronger influence over international labour standards. So far, however, this has not amounted to formal collective bargaining over pay with big multinationals.
5. Commentary by the NC
In comparison to collective bargaining coverage in the Irish private sector generally (which is declining), bargaining coverage remains quite high in large multinationals operating in Ireland, particularly among Irish, UK and European MNCs. However, bargaining coverage is significantly lower among US multinationals, many of whom have been keen to avoid unions, preferring to introduce their own organization specific HRM arrangements in Irish subsidiaries. Significantly, state policy in Ireland has shifted from encouraging incoming MNCs to recognize unions for collective bargaining purposes to enabling multinationals to develop their own company-specific arrangements.
Tony Dobbins, NUI Galway