Union Learning Representative Research Report (North West Region)

Union Learning Representative Research Report 2004/05

2006

Alison Hollinrake HRM Division, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire

Contents Foreword

1

Introduction

2

Methodology

4

LSC Context

5

Employer Context

8

Affiliate Context

11

Survey 1 – Focus Groups

16

Union Learning Representative Surveys

22

ULRs’ Hopes and Fears for the ULR role

39

Conclusions

42

Recommendations

43

References

47

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to the folllowing people for their contribution to this research project.

Dave Eva and colleagues at unionlearn with the North West TUC All participants who were interviewed, responded to surveys, attended focus group events.

Representatives from affiliate unions in the North West region.

Dr. Val Antcliff, Research Fellow, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire Mrs. Ridwana Malji, Survey and Data Officer, Strategic Development Service, University of Central Lancashire Ping Ping Hong, Research Assistant, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire

Foreword This is the most extensive piece of research that has been done on Union Learning Representatives (ULRs) in the North West. In commissioning the research we and the North West Development Agency (NWDA) hoped to gain some useful insights into how the ULR role was developing and what we might do to support and develop ULRs who we see as a key factor in developing the union contribution to the regional skills agenda. The research has been undertaken by Alison Hollinrake, HRM Division, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire (uclan). The research has identified a number of interesting themes and provided us with a wealth of information on what ULRs currently do and their concerns. It has provided the TUC’s unionlearn with some very useful lessons and guidance that will make us better able to work with affiliates and stakeholders in the region.

Some of the interesting findings are that the new role is encouraging new activists to get involved in union activity and that there is concrete evidence that the new role is being consolidated in most unions.

Importantly the research also indicates that learning agreements are playing an important part in ensuring effective workplace activity and providing clear conditions for ULRs to work within. There are also some reasons for concern. There appears to be real employer lack of interest in and understanding of the ULR role and the problems many ULRs have had in getting time off and facilities to carry out their role is worrying. A number of reasons are given by ULRs who report giving up the role within 2 years which confirms that we still have much to do to promote the importance of learning to union members and that we need to look in particular at support for new ULRs that can prevent them losing enthusiasm. The research with stakeholders also shows that unionlearn needs to look at stakeholder expectation since it is important that key stakeholders are aware of the union contribution, understand what unions are and do not have unrealistic expectations of what they can achieve.

At the same time it is important that what unions are achieving and can achieve is promoted and that employers are encouraged to work with ULRs to realise these benefits. This research hopefully will help us to develop our dialogue with stakeholders and enable us to improve how we do business in the North West and also has important general lessons for ULR support nationally.

Dave Eva, Regional Manager, unionlearn with the North West TUC

1

Introduction Harrison (2002:31) reports that serious skills shortages have been endemic in the UK for many decades. This is despite rafts of Government Initiatives related to National Vocational Education and Training (NVET) policy that have been introduced over the past 40 years and can be summarised as follows: Pre 1964: The Laissez Fair approach (deliberate none state intervention) 1964 to 1980: The development of state intervention 1981 to 1990: The New Training Initiative and after – return to voluntarist approach 1991 to 1997: NVET embedded in lifelong learning 1997 to present: The Learning Age Adapted from Hamlin, (1999) in Stewart, (1999:22-61) Harrison (2000: 64-65) states that, “to be unskilled in today’s global market place is to belong to the most vulnerable of groups in the labour market…” In 1999 the Moser report found that one in five British adults was functionally illiterate (Harrison, 2002:31). Clearly a way to support such individuals was required. The Government sees Union Learning Representatives (ULRs) as another key to making its skills strategy work (Rana, 2001 in Harrison, 2002:31). In its response to the Moser report the Government emphasised the ULRs’ vital role in raising interest in training and development, especially among the lowest skilled workers (adapted from Harrison, 2002:31). The Labour government believes that learning is a ‘natural issue for partnership in the workplace’ while the TUC argues that union involvement in workplace learning typifies the contribution of modern unions to business performance (TUC, 1998).

The current role played by trade unions has its roots in the development of Bargaining for Skills in 1994, a series of initiatives organised by the regional offices of the TUC and the then Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). The initiatives were narrowly focused around TEC targets. It was designed to raise unionists’ awareness of workplace learning and give them the knowledge to negotiate better training with employers (Wiseman, 1998:9). The new Labour government built on these foundations by establishing the

2

Union Learning Fund (ULF) in 1998. The rationale for the establishment of the ULF was based on the notion that skill development and lifelong learning are crucial in increasing labour flexibility and economic growth (DfEE, 1998:7). Now entering its ninth year, to financial year end 2005/06 ULF has provided £65.1 million investment in support of union led projects many of which have provided innovative ways of accessing learning for hard-to-reach groups.

A key element of the union response to the establishment of the ULF was the training and support of Union Learning Representatives who were charged with identifying learning needs and stimulating the provision of life-long learning within the workplace. More specifically, the TUC set out their role as follows: generating demand for learning amongst members; giving advice and information to members about learning; identifying the learning needs of members; representing members in relation to learning; negotiating agreements relating to learning; working with employers to introduce and implement learning initiatives; liaising with external organisations to win support and resources for workplace learning initiatives (TUC, 1998). Many of the subsequent bids to the ULF revolved around the concept of ULRs. The first union learning representatives were trained and accredited in 2000. By the end of 2005 the TUC report that in excess of 13,000 ULRs have been trained in England, it is estimated that there are over 4000 of these within the Northwest Region (2634 trained through the TU Education system). They are now seen by government as a crucial element of its skills strategy. The aim is to support the growth of the network of trained ULRs to 22,000 by 2010 (HM Government, 2005, part 1:15). Specifically they are seen as vital in raising interest in training and development amongst the lowest skilled workers, within a population in which 20% of British adults are functionally illiterate (Harrison, 2002:31).

Their role within the government's approach to learning was further cemented by the Employment Relations Act 2002 that provided statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives and the right to (reasonable) paid time off during working hours to undertake their duties and to undertake relevant training (ACAS, 2003:8). Therefore trade unions and their

ULRs are central to the Government’s National Skills Strategy (TUC, 2004) which aims “to ensure that employers have the right skills to support the success of their businesses and individuals have the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled.” (DfES 2003).

If anything the role of ULRs is likely to become even more important with new proposals unveiled in the 2005 white paper, ‘Skills: getting on in business, getting on at work’. These proposals promise a stronger role for trade unions in promoting training in the workplace, particularly for low-skilled employees in pursuance of the shared goal of raising employability and productivity (TUC, 2005).

The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the findings to date of a Northwest Development Agency (NWDA) funded research project on behalf of unionlearn with the North West TUC (formerly TUC Learning Services, Northwest Region) England. The aims of the research project being: 1. To identify the extent of Union Learning Representative (ULR) activity and its impact on Workforce Development, within the region.

2. To identify issues that enhance and inhibit ULR activity.

The findings are informing unionlearn with the North West TUC and associated agencies as to what is required to support effective and sustainable ULR activity within the North West region. This report aims to provide evidence against four objectives: 1. To identify issues related to the Employment Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives from the 2004 survey to the 2006 survey.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’ practice in establishing and sustaining their ULR activity.

3. To identify the type and level of support required by ULRs and their unions for sustainable ULR activity.

4. To identify if learning activity via ULRs encourages the further development of union organisation in the workplace and/or if union organisation encourages learning activity in the workplace.

3

Methodology In order to work towards gathering data to meet the objectives given in the introduction the following methodology was applied. The project had four main phases. The first phase was an exploratory study in order to provide an overview of ULR activity. In order to do this a detailed postal questionnaire was distributed to all ULRs listed on the TUC Learning Services database as at 31st December 2003. In total, 1739 questionnaires were issued, 1605 of which formed the sample and a total of 583 were returned, an overall response rate of 36.5%. A further postal survey was distributed to 61 full-time officers of all affiliate unions represented in the region. This questionnaire was designed to obtain the views of affiliates as to the operation of ULRs. A total of 26 questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 42.6%. Two methods were applied to gather data from employers, one a postal survey was used to 1281 employers listed on the TUC Learning Services database, 67 were returned, a response rate of 5.2% and an electronic survey was issued to 431 employers who have affiliation to uclan in respect of call centre activity, 5 returns were made, a response rate of 1.16%.

The second phase was designed to sketch the context of ULR activity. This was achieved by conducting semi-structured interviews with all Development Workers and the majority of Project Workers within the TUC Learning Services North West team. In addition to this three ULR events were attended and qualitative data gathered through non-participant observation. Semistructured interviews were conducted with LSC, North West Region, Workforce Development Managers. These managers negotiate with unionlearn with the North West TUC regarding the allocation of funding to support ULR activity within the Northwest region.

The third phase was to explore a number of the issues identified in the initial postal surveys in more depth. Given the large size of the sample, it was decided to achieve this through the use of focus groups. Overall nine focus groups were conducted involving six unions. Focus groups were arranged in conjunction with TUC Learning Services who identified a ‘contact’ within the affiliate union. Each event was chaired by the author and supported by a Learning Officer from the union concerned. Either a Development Worker or Project Worker from TUC Learning Services also attended to give TUC Learning 4

Services’ view of the research. Attendees were a mix of ULRs, Senior Stewards, Full Time Officers although not all groups were represented at each event. Overall seventy seven ULRs attended the focus groups.

A common schedule of issues was used as a framework for discussion for all of the groups.

Analysis of the quantitative data from the questionnaire stage of the research was used to inform the facilitation of the groups. In order to ensure that participants spoke freely, the focus groups were not tape recorded. Instead, key points to emerge during the focus groups were recorded on a flip chart, while more detailed notes were taken by the facilitator. At the end of each focus group, these notes were then written up by the facilitator. Each focus group lasted between one and a half and two hours.

Focus groups were chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly, they enabled the researchers access to the views, experiences and perceptions of a relatively large number of ULRs in a cost and time efficient manner. Secondly, it provided an informal and supportive environment (when contrasted to a formal one-to-one interview) in which participants could express their views (Krueger, 1994). Finally, and most importantly, it allowed the researchers to take advantage of the dynamic interaction between participants and their views and experiences (Berg, 1995; Merton and Kendall, 1996). This provided key insights into the complexities of the social processes underpinning the operational reality of ULRs. Analysis of the data collected from the groups was a two-stage process. Firstly, the facilitation of the groups involved an ongoing analysis of the contributions from participants. Areas of agreement and controversy emerged from the discussion. These key themes were identified and provided the focus for further exploration through discussion. Secondly, the notes of the group were closely examined in terms of: the consistency of contribution; the frequency/extensiveness of comments; and the intensity of comments.

The fourth phase has been a further detailed postal questionnaire distributed to all ULRs listed on the TUC Learning Services database as at 31st December 2005. In total, 1540 questionnaires were issued, 1469 of which formed the sample and a total of 236 were returned, an overall response rate of 16.1%.

LSC Context The aim of the interviews with representatives from LSCs which work with unionlearn with the North West TUC was to identify North West region LSCs’ view of ULR activity, from experience to date and how LSCs would like to see the initiative progress. Interviews were held with the Regional Skills Director, Workforce Development Programme Managers in Greater Merseyside (manage the relationship on behalf of the region), Greater Manchester, Warrington and Cheshire and the Director of Skills for LSC Lancashire.

“The TUC and LSC will work positively and actively together nationally, regionally and locally to help maximise the contribution of each organisation to promote learning and skills and raise demand among young people, adults and employers” (LSC &TUC 2005) This is the vision of the TUC and LSC Protocol, 2005. Within the North West Region there is a significant history, from 1998 to the present of an effective working relationship between TUC Learning Services and the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs, pre 2001) and TUC Learning Services, now unionlearn with the North West TUC and the Learning and Skills Councils (LSC, post 2001). It was acknowledged that the North West had more ULRs agreed (1999/00) than all other regions together. The North West region has been the catalyst for change in respect of this agenda.

We asked the LSC to describe the nature of that relationship. It was reported that there is a good working relationship at strategic level. At operational level whilst still ‘good’ approaches are changeable and variable. It was acknowledged that this was a side effect of the context in which Development and Project Workers are employed.

Their terms and conditions of employment tend to be short term secondments and short term employment contracts due to the funding mechanism for these roles. Thus it is sometimes difficult to develop longer term working relationships and work together to develop robust and agreed reporting systems and procedures.

It was acknowledged that there needs to be an effective support process for newly appointed Project Workers as regards unionlearn and LSC expectations of the monitoring process.

The TUC and LSC protocol (2005) identifies key shared priorities as including: equality and diversity, implementation of the Skills Strategy,

National Employer Training Programme (now Train to Gain), the Skills for Life Strategy, Apprenticeships, the provision of information, advice and guidance and improving the skills of workers who deliver public services. Within the North West region, in the early days, priorities were for initial ULR training and identification of Skills for Life needs in the workplace. The champion for ULRs was and remains unionlearn with the North West TUC with the impact from activity being as a result of unionlearn going in and using ULRs to develop activity. It was stated that originally there was an expectation that ULRs would facilitate employer engagement but there is limited evidence that the ULR agenda can influence this. ULRs tend to achieve individual engagement with colleagues.

LSC funding is fundamental to unionlearn with the North West TUC activity. Funding allocation is a regional decision based upon proposals from the Regional Manager, unionlearn with the North West TUC and evidence of performance against targets from the previous year. There is some opportunity to supplement initiatives to meet specific local needs from Local Initiative Funding.

Across the region the LSC identify the best return from funding to date to be in the areas of number of trained ULRs, ULR Networks and Workshops, ULRs working with colleagues to get people involved in learning and there is some evidence of effective Skills for Life activity. Networking amongst different contract holders has also been seen to be effective, where different members of the employment relationship appreciate each other’s perspective in relation to Workforce Development related issues. TU Learning Centres on employers’ premises were effective but there is a question of their sustainability once external funding finishes. A number of examples from the region were cited where these have not been underpinned by employer funding and once external funding is removed tend to become more of a resource centre than a learning centre.

As to how the LSC evaluate the effectiveness of funded projects they advised the following: Hard evidence, numbers achieved etc, outcome activity: people completing courses, where employers and employees are taking up funding provision. A combination of returns, against profiles of outcomes, via the end of year report produced by unionlearn Regional Development Workers. The annual (from 2002) National 5

Employers’ Skills Survey also provides evidence at national level. Effective evaluation of outcomes is an issue for both the LSC and unionlearn. One representative informed us that the whole issue of evidence is about activity response against funding not numbers. If contract holders, such as unionlearn, cannot say how many ULRs are active and evidence the activity, it is difficult. It was considered that the provision of evidence of Project Workers’ activity; supporting individual unions to work on their own to recruit and support ULRs; be coordinated through unionlearn with the LSCs at arm’s length.

North West LSCs were asked what they consider enhances the effectiveness of funded ULR projects in the region. Responses included: – When it is not operating in isolation from other activities, ULR activity only part of the jigsaw.

– Experienced people who take working through union representation seriously. However this could inhibit other side as reporting from one perspective.

– Unionlearn need links with other partners not just affiliates and ULRs, e.g. Business Link – Being proactive about working processes.

Need to consider impact of the protocol, reducing budgets, shifting role of unionlearn as affiliates become more involved in ULR activity.

– Champions for ULR activity within the workplace, encouraging employer engagement. Have to get management buy-in.

– The area in which ULRs operate, developing effective relationships with colleagues to address Skills for Life needs, ULR credibility and visibility within organisations.

Conversely, the LSCs were asked what they consider inhibits the effectiveness of funded ULR projects in the region. Responses included: – The need to reflect the positive nature of the relationship with unionlearn enjoyed at strategic level at operational level.

– Could be more proactive, innovative and suggesting, not just complying with the contract. Not just doing ‘more of the same’.

6

– Activity tends to focus on working with large organisations need to increase activity with SMEs. Suggesting maybe a peripatetic approach for affiliate and unionlearn representatives.

– The current information management from LSC to unionlearn, to providers and back, does not readily provide evidence required for unionlearn to confirm the outcomes from their activity. For example unionlearn know how many referrals have originated from them but providers do not necessarily know which of the learners who present for courses are unionlearn referrals. Therefore hard evidence of the number of unionlearn referrals who complete a programme of study is difficult to establish.

– Issues with the ability of FE Colleges to provide for ULR Training and colleagues’ identified learning needs.

– The LSC identify a need for ULRs to work in partnership with Business Link to establish activity within an organisation, then ULRs maintaining that activity after Business Link move out.

We were also interested in the North West LSCs’ view of employer support for ULR activity in the region. There was some variation in responses from: – ‘mixed bag’, – It is so dependant on the employer. Employers can see it as restrictive e.g. not allowing nonunion members into Learning Centres – With most large employers it is good, but in non-organised and SMEs ULRs are not recognised.

– Since ULRs have been around, employers are more aware of the skills agenda, especially in the public sector however it is a different situation in the private sector.

– Employers’ response pretty good, where there is an organised workforce. ULRs have to demonstrate credibility to get the employer on board. If ULR activity is viewed by the employer as a barrier and to incur cost, then it is unlikely that partnership will be achieved with the employer.

– Some employers tolerate ULRs, seen as a necessity rather than as a resource. Again depends on the credibility of the ULR(s).

– Employers consult with and use ULRs to their own advantage.

– Evidence has to come from reporting against the elements of the contract.

– LSC do not deal with employers – Employers are happy to support ULR activity and related initiatives if not having to pay.

Employer Training Pilots (ETP) provide some evidence of this.

The LSCs were asked how the TUC and LSC Protocol would be facilitated in the region.

Dialogue was to be sought with the Regional Secretary North West TUC and the Regional Manager unionlearn with North West TUC, using the protocol to identify priorities. It will be driven

by Greater Merseyside Office on a regional basis and replicated in consistency of approach across the region. At the time of these discussions it was established that there was some ULR activity in some LSC Workforce Development offices.

LSC representatives identified what they see as opportunities for further unionlearn with the North West TUC activity: – Delivery and facilitation of Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) agenda to MATRIX standard appears to be more appropriate than expecting ULRs to achieve employer engagement. Unionlearn with North west TUC has a unique selling point and needs to ensure it capitalises on that.

– Influential regional skills partnership via Regional Secretary North West TUC.

– LSC opportunity to tap into hard to reach employers via Train to Gain, unionlearn have the opportunity to access hard to reach learners in the public sector.

Other insightful comments from these discussions were for example: – Analogy was made with other contracts that require pump priming but impact is slow to achieve.

– Contracting process is robust across the board sometimes the monitoring process for this contract is less robust. It would appear that systems are not in place for managing information from the unionlearn side. Also there was some acknowledgement that effective evaluation systems were not available from the LSC side.

– LSC is more inclined to support a successful, forward thinking organisation.

Conclusion – LSC Context LSCs within the region have, over time and continue to have, a positive relationship with unionlearn with the North West TUC. Such working relationships are fundamental to the partnership at both strategic and operational level. LSCs’ approach each contract in a fair and equitable manner and require robust evidence of outcome activity for the funding provided and to secure further funding.

Current information management systems and procedures do not always facilitate this. The level and nature of information management and the sharing of relevant information, by all stakeholders, requires review and substantial development to facilitate this.

– Regionally unionlearn are key as coordinators for Union Learning Fund (ULF) (the national LSC budget that individual unions apply to for funding to develop major priorities).

LSC representatives identified their concerns for further unionlearn with the North West TUC activity: – Impact if ‘key individuals’ were no longer involved in the agenda.

– Outputs and outcomes, sometimes poor performance

7

Employer Context As discussed in the methodology, two methods were applied to gather data from employers, one a postal survey was used to 1281 employers listed on the then TUC Learning Services database, 67 were returned, a response rate of 5.2% and an electronic survey was issued by Call NorthWest (CNW) (part of uclan), to 431 employers who have affiliation to uclan in respect of call centre activity, 5 returns were made, a response rate of 1.16%.

CNW then contacted the remaining 143 participants to encourage further responses.

However none of these calls prompted further replies due to the ‘sensitive’ nature and lack of understanding of the questionnaire. Objections to completing the questionnaire were as follows:

Number of ULRs 1 -5

62%

6-9

17%

– Not comfortable disclosing information

10-15

8%

– No ULR activity

16-19

2%

– Not interested

20-25

6%

– Not speaking to relevant contact within the organisation

26-30

2%

90

2%

– ULR identity unknown

334

2%

– Outright ‘No thank you’

Total

100%

– Not convenient to talk (and no subsequent ‘right moment’ thereafter) – Unable to contact – No response to messages left.

Clearly justified claims cannot be made from such a low response rate. The evidence presented in this section is to provide a flavour of employers’ opinions from the responses received. It also has to be acknowledged that all organisations on the unionlearn with the North West TUC database have or have had trained ULRs within the organisation

Profile of Organisations From the responses received 45% were from the public sector, 51% from the private sector and 4% from the voluntary sector. The main sectors represented were:

8

80% were organisations with 200+ employees, 13% had 50-199 employees 6% had 10-49 employees. The main unions represented in these workplaces were TGWU, Amicus the union, UNISON, GMB, and USDAW. 76% of respondents reported that there were ULRs in their organisation, 24% no ULRs. The table below gives the number of ULRs reported to be within the organisation.

Public Administration, Education and Health

42%

Manufacturing

28%

Distribution

15%

Transport and Communications

11%

These findings correlate with the findings from both ULR surveys. The reports of 90 and 334 ULRs within the organisation suggest reporting of national figures rather than the local workplace.

The organisations that responded report 94% organisational awareness of statutory rights for ULRs. 63% of the organisations had a learning agreement to support ULR activity and 98% of those had been jointly negotiated between the employer and the ULR. All had been accepted between 2001 and 2005 with the majority between 2002 and 2004. 96% of these agreements incorporated statutory rights for ULRs. The average paid hours per month given to ULRs were:

Paid Hours per month

Barriers

0

7%

Lack of employee support

1-5

22%

Lack of senior management support

6-10

31%

Lack of line manager support

11-15

3%

Lack of time

16-20

7%

Lack of resources

25-30

6%

Conflict between Training Department and ULRs

30-35

6%

Lack of on-site learning centre

40-45

6%

60-65

6%

96

3%

100

3%

Total

100%

The majority of organisations report that ULRs are given some resources to facilitate their activity e.g. office, telephone, computer access, learning centre.

We asked which department is responsible for learning, training and development within the organisation but the majority response was ‘other’. We then asked them to rate the relationship between this department and ULRs as we are aware from ULR data that there can be conflict between ULR activity and the learning, training and development practitioners within organisations. The majority declined to comment but there were reports of ‘very positive’ and ‘positive’ We asked employers where they sought information and guidance on facilitating ULR activity, the following sources were cited: ACAS, Business Link, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), LSC, Union and the then TUC Learning Services. As front line managers are crucial to the facilitation of everyday ULR activity we asked how line managers were given guidance on facilitating ULR activity. Some said via the Learning Agreement, 1 reported a specific development programme but the majority reported they did not know.

As regards negative outcomes of ULR activity employers reported against: – Confusion as to where employees should go for advice on learning and training opportunities.

– Ambiguity of role of Training Department vis-à-vis the role of the ULR Employers do however experience positive outcomes from ULR activity as follows: – Engaging workers who might be reluctant to discuss their learning needs – Allies in promoting the value of learning and training within the organisation – Generating ‘bottom-up’ demand for learning – Source of advice for employers – Increase in production/service provision Finally we asked employers what their future hopes and fears were for ULR activity: Hopes

Fears

Promotion of lifelong learning in the workplace

Additional management time taken up on meaningless consultation

None, unless there is a change in employee support

Front-line advice might contradict training procedures already in place.

We do not have trade unions

We asked what barriers employers experienced to ULR activity. There were reports made against the following categories:

9

Conclusion – Employers’ Response As stated at the beginning of this section because of the low response rate these findings can only be acknowledged as a flavour of employer attitudes towards ULR activity. However, limited as these are, there is an indication of the need for meaningful dialogue between the different members of the employment relationship both intra and inter organisations and agencies. ULRs are well placed to support organisations meeting some of the informing and consulting requirements of the revised (April 2004) Investors in People Standard (IiP). Opportunities also appear to exist for unionlearn with the North West TUC to gain access and contribute to appropriate employer forums and networks to provide information, advice and guidance on ULR and related activity.

10

Affiliate Context The aim of the Affiliate survey was to identify the level and extent of Union Learning Representative activity within individual unions. This was fundamental in informing the identification of the baseline of Union Learning Representative (ULR) activity within the North West Region. It should be noted however that affiliates were surveyed only 12 months after the statutory rights for ULRs came into practice.

Questionnaires were issued to 61 Affiliate unions with 26 returns, providing a response rate of 42.6%, however 3 of those returned apart from contact details were null responses and identified that they did not recognise ULR activity within their union/staff association.

Overall there is consistency across the affiliate unions as to the term used for ULRs with the majority of unions using the term ‘Union Learning Representatives’, the only other term reported was ‘Advocate Workers for Learning’.

We asked how ULR activity was acknowledged within the Union’s structure. At the time of this survey 7 unions reported that there was formal recognition of the role in the Rule Book. Other responses referred to a combination of the activity being assigned to a specific National Officer, Regional Officer and Branch Officer.

As regards the role title of individuals with responsibility for such areas of work as learning and skills agenda, ULR Policy, ULR Activity, Learning Strategy there was little consistency.

Titles applied ranged from National Executive Committee, Assistant General Secretary to Project Manager/Worker, Education Officer to Learning Organiser, Lifelong Learning (Project) Coordinator, Recruitment, Campaigns and Organisation, Director of Organising and Learning Services.

We were interested to find out if unions regarded ULR activity as a core industrial relations activity, the vast majority replied ‘yes’ but 3 unions replied ‘no’ with 6 responses stating ‘don’t know’.

However the vast majority of unions report that ULR issues are discussed at national and regional level. Also ULR issues are considered by 14 unions at Branch Level although only 4 unions reported ULR activity as a standing item on the branch agenda.

We then asked if unions required ULRs to have held other union office responsibilities, only one union reported that it did. As regards which office roles unions felt qualified individuals as ULRs, responses covered the range of traditional roles from Shop Steward to Branch Officer. Although 6 unions replied that none of the other office roles qualified individuals as ULRs. Appointment of ULRs by unions tends to be by nomination or that individuals volunteer whilst 10 of the unions that responded advised us that their ULRs are elected.

The majority of respondents told us that their ULRs receive training for the role, mostly of 5 days duration and provided by TU Education.

However 7 unions advised us that they provide their own initial ULR training. All respondents were either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the initial ULR training provision. As regards further development courses that ULRs attend unions’ identification of these correlates with that of ULRs in survey 1 & 2. Provision of further development courses for ULRs was reported in 11 cases to be by the union and by TU Education in 5 cases. A trend that correlates with the findings from ULR Survey 2. The majority of unions were satisfied with this training and 4 unions reported to be ‘very satisfied’. We asked the unions what other development courses they would welcome for ULRs. Suggestions were: – Time/Diary Management – City & Guilds 929/5 (Certificate in Adult Learning Support) – FENTO level 2 & 3 (Further Education National Training Organisation, responsible for national standards for teaching and supporting learning in further education in England and Wales) – Union structure and organisation.

(TU Education has addressed this need in the TUC’s initial ULR training programme since the affiliate survey was completed).

– Funding Sources – Project Management Training Clearly knowledge and understanding of funding sources is sought by many of those involved in delivering the agenda.

11

Union Learning Representative Capacity 5 of the unions that responded told us that ULRs were first appointed in 1998, 2 in 2001, 2 in 2002, 2 in 2003 and 1 in 2004, 5 unions did not respond to this question. Further evidence that although ULRs have been in place since 1998, for many unions this is still a very new activity that requires support until it is embedded in their structure and procedures and is able to sustain itself.

Frequency

1:50

3

1:100

1

1:150

1

1:250

1

1:500

1

1 per branch

1

Total Number of ULRs in Union as at 31.12.03

variable

1

(to correlate with TUC Learning Services accessed for ULR Survey 1 distribution)

No response

6

Target Dates

Frequency

No. of ULRs in Union

Frequency

4

1

56

1

135

1

400

1

640

1

700

1

1500

1

No response

8

No. of ULRs in North West Region

12

Unions aim for ratio of ULRs to membership?

Frequency

0

1

2

2

10

1

14

1

70

1

140

2

180

1

200

2

215

1

500

1

No response

5

2005

2

2008

1

2006

1

2010

1

No response

9

– 13 unions state they have a data base of ULRs within the North West region, 2 unions did not have a regional database. – 10 unions have a national database of ULRs, 4 unions did not have a national database.

These findings from the affiliate survey are interesting when considered in the light of the national target for 22,000 trained ULRs by 2010 and most importantly the experiences reported

by ULRs who often have responsibility for 100+ members and other union office roles in the workplace. For one of the unions that reported they want to achieve a 1:50 ratio by 2010, they currently have 200 trained ULRs and to achieve this target require 2000 trained ULRs.

Support for ULR Activity

Procedures that support the ULR Role

The affiliate survey was issued 12 months after statutory rights for ULR activity and training came into practice. All unions that responded told us yes, their ULRs get paid time to fulfil ULR activities, the amount of paid time reported is given below.

12 Unions report that there is a formal structure in place to support ULRs at national level, 10 report so at regional level and 7 at branch level.

In respect of delegated responsibility for ULRs at national and regional level 9 report yes, at branch level 7 report so.

Average hours paid time per month

Frequency

1 hour

1

3-4 hours

1

4 hours

2

16.9 hours

3

17 hours

1

Varied

3

On demand

2

Not calculated

1

Patchy/Negotiations

1

No response

5

Not applicable

2

In respect of ULRs giving unpaid time for ULR activity 13 unions said ‘yes’ 10 said ‘no’, 3 did not respond to this question.

Average hours unpaid time per month Frequency 1 hour

1

5-6 hours

2

7-8 hours

1

9-10 hours

1

11-12 hours

1

unknown

2

No response

11

Not applicable

4

ULRs value forums and networks to support and inform their ULR activity. 8 unions hold forums at national level, the majority of these are annual events. 10 unions hold forums at regional level, again reporting that the majority are annual events. 6 unions hold forums at branch level the frequency of these tends to be monthly, although 3 unions report ‘variable’ or ‘other’ frequency.

There was generally a 50:50 split across respondents as to whether or not they produced other forms of communication such as newsletters for their ULRs at national, regional and branch level. If ULRs are registered on the unionlearn with the North West TUC database they do receive unionlearn publications, briefing notes etc.

Further support for ULRs is provided by unions’ own and/or unionlearn Project Workers. 13 unions reported that their ULRs work with a Union Project Worker, 8 reported that their ULRs work with a unionlearn Project Worker. As regards their level of satisfaction in respect of accessibility to Union Project Workers 10 were either satisfied or very satisfied, 2 reported that they were dissatisfied with the access available. For access to unionlearn Project Workers 9 were either, satisfied or very satisfied, 2 reported that they were dissatisfied with the access available. Given a fifth of those who responded to these questions are dissatisfied, further investigation as to the reasons for this would be useful and also supports feedback from ULRs who report that they require further union support. What is not available from this data is an idea of the ratio of Project Workers to ULRs/ workplaces.

13

Barriers that inhibit the ULR role Lack of time

43%

Lack of office space

35%

Lack of employer/ULR agreement

35%

Lack of administrative support

30%

Lack of computer access for email/internet

30%

Lack of telephone access

22%

Lack of resources

22%

Lack of committee

17%

Lack of networking opportunity

17%

Lack of learning resources

13%

Lack of a learning Centre

13%

Lack of informal arrangements

13%

Lack of expertise/experience

9%

Lack of official time off work

9%

Lack of access to unionlearn Project Worker

4%

Lack of access to union support

4%

Overall the barriers that inhibit the ULR role identified by the unions reflect the barriers identified by ULRs. Affiliates were then asked to identify the activities their ULRs are involved in.

Getting information on learning opportunities

65%

Promoting the value of learning

61%

Offering advice & guidance on learning

61%

Negotiating access to college courses

52%

Negotiating learning with the employer

48%

Developing learning resources on site

43%

Helping colleagues to get funds for learning

35%

Other

22%

Learndirect

4%

Different activities depending on local structures

4%

Dyslexia & basic skills

4%

Setting up learning centres

4%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer 14

74% of affiliates who responded told us their ULRs get involved in assessing the learning needs of learners in the workplace, whereas ULRs report that 52% of them were involved in assessing learning needs at this time, with 47% involved at the time of survey 2. Affiliates report that the assessment of learning needs tends to be using a variety of formal methods: survey 57%, formal meetings 17%, 1 to 1 discussion with colleagues 65%. Informal approaches are used but to a lesser extent according to affiliate responses: ad-hoc meetings 35%, ‘in passing’ 39%.

As identified in the LSC context of this report, record keeping and reporting back on outcomes of funded activity is an LSC requirement of unionlearn with the North West TUC. Record keeping also suggests formalisation of the role in the workplace. This is also perhaps a different expectation of the ULR role to that of other union roles within the workplace. Of the affiliates who responded 26% report that their ULRs always keep records, 39% sometimes, 9% never keep records. The format of these records were mainly paper based or in a diary/log type system.

17% reported that the format of records were individual to the ULR but forms/proforma were being devised and/or the format was yet to be determined.

We also asked if ULRs monitored the progress of colleagues who had taken up learning opportunities. 4 affiliates told us yes, 8 sometimes, 1 never. Where progress is monitored both formal and informal methods are reported as being used, with the majority of responses suggesting formal methods but little detail was given as to the nature of these.

In respect of providing reports on ULR activity there was a 50:50 split from respondents. Where reports are made 48% state these are to the union, 13% to employer and, 4% to the TUC. The format of these reports varies from meeting with Project Workers, reports on Union Learning Fund (ULF) projects, written reports to branch meetings and steering groups and from web based reporting through to word of mouth.

Success from ULR activity was reported as the growth of learners and learning centres, added value for members and Basic Skills projects.

When asked what supports this kind of achievement affiliates reported: good employer relations, Project Workers, Employer/Union

Partnerships. ULRs reporting on what they have achieved and thus creating further uptake and involvement by colleagues. We also asked what might inhibit this achievement affiliates responded: poor employer relations, the newness of the role, time, lack of communication from ULRs, aims and objectives of unions, lack of formal recognition of the learning and skills agenda at regional/branch level. Affiliates gave us other useful general comments such as: – ‘Ongoing negotiations with employers that would allow for a significant expansion in numbers and training.’

– ‘Paid release for learning is an incentive as is matched time for learning.’

– Communication needs to be improved.

We may not always be aware of the work ULRs are undertaking.’

– ‘Currently developing a structure for ULRs.’

Conclusion – Affiliate Context Affiliate unions clearly support the learning and skills agenda. It adds to and informs their activity via ULF funded projects, the recruitment of ULRs and their activity within the workplace. As identified by one of the respondents, the ‘newness of the role’ and thus the opportunities and expectations of what comes with it are still being identified and addressed by the unions.

The achievement of the national target for 22,000 trained ULRs by 2010 is a challenge for all parties involved in the agenda. It clearly appears that there is the requirement for ongoing cooperation and support between the unions and unionlearn with the North West TUC to establish protocols and procedures to develop and sustain ULR activity. A further fundamental issue is the development of information management systems, to facilitate the provision of evidence of outcome activity, required by the LSCs to maintain funding for the activity. The requirement to provide such evidence, to external agencies, is an extra special requirement of the ULR role that sets it apart from other lay duties. All sides of the employment relationship need to acknowledge this if effective ULR activity is to be facilitated, developed and sustained and deliver its potential within workplaces in the North West region.

15

Survey 1 – Focus Groups As discussed in the methodology section of this report, focus groups were used to explore a number of the issues identified in the initial ULR and Affiliate postal surveys in more depth.

Issues Related to statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives and related aspects of Employer/Union Learning Agreements

The following structure was applied to each event to ensure some consistency in the data collected across events.

ULRs and other representatives report seemingly random interpretation of the statutory rights and the appropriation of facility time/ULR time within the workplace. In some instances it was felt that companies give it ‘lip service’. Some representatives felt that more clarity was required in defining the term ‘reasonable’ in the wording of the statutory rights. Feedback from ULR training courses reported that the uncertainty of how much time is needed for ULR activity is a big worry for management (public sector). It is generally felt that senior management are aware of the statutory rights but information and understanding of this was not always cascading to managers lower down the hierarchy.

Consequently it appears that many managers don’t appreciate the role and rights of ULRs e.g. “Direct line manager does not ‘believe’ ACAS/statutory rights.” There were reports of examples of line managers who had knowledge and understanding of the ULR role and the associated rights. Reports from representatives in the public sector were that Awareness Sessions re: ULR role and activity were being run for line managers and other evidence that top management support along with branch support had ‘encouraged’ awkward line managers to co-operate. ULRs observed that target driven line managers tend to be in a ‘no win’ situation.

1. Becoming a ULR 2. ULR Training a. Initial b. Further development 3. ULR Activity in the workplace a. Support b. Barriers c. Impact of statutory rights for paid time to train and practice role 4. Other support for ULR activity a. Union b. Other arrangements 5. Barriers to ULR activity 6. Personal achievements from ULR activity 7. Future hopes for ULR role 8. Fears for ULR role 9. Any other issues.

A wealth of information was gathered at the focus group events. Copies of the minutes were supplied to the union officials who attended for confirmation that the minutes were a true representation of what was discussed and as importantly recorded in the spirit in which they were discussed. The majority of findings fell into four key categories and these informed the objectives set for further investigation through ULR Survey 2 and this report. The following sections contain key examples of the issues raised and discussed at focus group events.

16

In many workplaces, sites are only allowed so much paid time for all union roles. The age of other, related agreements re: facility time can be a problem and obviously ULRs are not listed in such agreements. The outcome can be that allocation is made from ‘the same cake and needing another slice from it’.

There were reports that operational need sometimes takes away statutory rights. For example: a ULR reported ‘Cannot give release within manufacturing’. Another example was: ‘JIT’ (just in time) mentality of companies, staff levels too lean, impact on implementation of statutory rights for ULRs and also opportunities for colleagues to attend learning/training interventions. Also, ‘some ULRs want to give up their position due to lack of time’.

It was reported that a critical issue when drawing up the detail of a learning agreement is in respect of the specification of time off to do the job. In this example four hours per week were given for ULR activity. Conversely across events, a number of ULRs suggested that ‘time’ should not be defined within a Learning Agreement but the ratio of members: ULR should be. It was reported that within some large organisations it was difficult to get employers to agree to realistic time/ratio criteria to facilitate ULR activity. In one sector it was reported that they had not yet initiated statutory rights because management has decreed ‘No more ULRs, no more training for ULRs’ (public sector).

General consensus was that new ULRs need more time to establish the role.

It was reported that where possible it is useful to start with a pilot scheme for ULRs to achieve a realistic picture of appropriate time/ratio (members: ULR) required.

A number of ULRs report that despite a learning agreement being in place they always have to negotiate paid time away from their job and provide evidence of where they are going etc.

Again the issue was said to be with the first line manager not senior management.

Evidence of developments in affiliate unions’ practice in establishing and sustaining their ULR activity A number of unions report that new roles have been created within their structure to support and facilitate ULR activity and see the agenda as a priority.

One union reported that ULRs had been set up to encourage members to consider Skills for Life issues. The response from members was that in some areas more nominations were received than ULRs needed. At this point there were only parttime Development Workers to support ULRs and they struggled to cover the level of interest in the role. The outcome was that volunteers became demoralised and felt ignored. It was acknowledged that timely follow up to appointment is crucial and thus the importance of the infrastructure required, within individual unions, to support the ULR role. This and other unions now have the ULR role in their handbook and ULRs have to be elected. Opinions were

expressed that the ULR role is often seen as a ‘soft option’ by other officers. Reasons given for this were that ULRs are not expected to negotiate terms of agreement(s) with employers, in deed in some unions this is actively discouraged as ‘negotiation’ is seen as the responsibility of more traditional union roles. ULRs report however that increasingly they require/desire negotiating skills.

A number of ULRs report that Branch Officers and/or Branch Secretaries were supporting ULRs to negotiate a learning agreement.

In sectors where there is a high labour turnover it was reported that this can also apply to the ULR population. A union that experiences this informed us that their Full Time Officer has to be more hands on and provide further support for their Project Workers in the field.

Some unions are now running their own ULR Initial Training events. This was to overcome problems experienced by the cancellation of TU Education courses, due to low numbers, when ULRs had negotiated time-off to attend.

A number of unions have/are developing ULR handbooks and publicity material to support the ULR agenda.

An example was discussed where a regional ‘best practice’ agreement had been designed and implemented which was then adopted at national level. It was felt however that in amending this to a generic template the content had been diluted and diluted further in application. It was felt within the region that this had destroyed the essence of the original agreement template. This suggests that ‘best practice’ has to be applied carefully to achieve ‘best fit’ in the local situation.

One of the affiliate unions reported that their evidence suggested that ULRs stay in role but it was not always clear who was active. This union had designed and issued time sheets in an attempt to record ULR activity, but it was stressed that this kind of information was not collated for Shop Stewards and/or Health and Safety Reps within this union.

One union’s structure also had a role entitled ‘Lifelong Learning Advisor’. It was reported that they hoped to move to joint appointment for individuals as ULR/LLL Advisor as the current situations was confusing for members.

It was felt that there was evidence that branches are starting to get involved and that in some 17

cases individual ULRs were driving this. It was reported that some Branches are putting ULRs on their agenda as a standing item. Minutes of joint union learning forums are sent to all unions involved. Thus encouraging intra and inter union sharing of experience, best practice. It was suggested that there has to be a ULR on the branch committee as well as an Education Officer.

Another union reported that a new position was being established in branches for Lifelong Learning Coordinators.

The issue of branch autonomy was discussed and the impact of this when the ULR role is not acknowledged in the same way as the role of Shop Stewards and Health and Safety Reps. On another occasion, it was reported that if an individual ULR was not also a Shop Steward and/or Health and Safety Representative they were not getting invited to other union meetings/events. Thus ULRs were working outside the recognised structure. There was reported to be a congress decision to move this.

Various unions identified the need to liaise/communicate with their ULRs within the region but it was stressed that it has to be remembered that this is a new role and stakeholders should not expect too much from it too soon. The ULR movement is not a ‘quick-fix’ solution and will take time to establish, embed and find its level.

The type and level of support required by ULRs and their unions for sustainable ULR activity On a number of occasions ULRs and other lay representatives reported that events such as this focus group were crucial to enable unionlearn and their union(s) to track attitudes and feelings to the agenda and the role to inform facilitation of the agenda in the workplace.

Follow up activity, by the union, unionlearn should be increased when newly trained ULRs return to the workplace to establish ULR activity.

At this point, some ULRs and other representatives felt that some union structures did not support ULR activity. On some occasions it was reported that there is a sense that unions are supportive but that some unions also have their own agenda for facilitating ULR activity. It can be confusing for ULRs who are practicing within the 18

demands of the learning and skills agenda and related initiatives, complying with their own union procedures and unionlearn procedures and that the existence of project managers for their union, project managers for TUC = too many managers!

Some attendees felt that there was not enough canvassing or pressure from unionlearn to show benefits to employers. At some events the whole issue of ULRs in non-recognised sites was discussed. In response to this, representatives from one union suggested that their union invite the management from such organisations to attend a ULR Training Programme.

It was felt to be crucial that ULRs are part of the branch structure to ensure the role is promoted and supported. In circumstances where the company were seen to be actively hi-jacking the agenda and/or the ULR role, the Convenor’s role was seen as crucial, working with the ULRs to raise the awareness of the issue with the workforce in order to overcome this. In this example the support had raised the profile of the union within the organisation and had enabled them to recruit new members. Inclusion of ULRs in the rule book and therefore support from the branch will hopefully alleviate management thinking they ‘own’ ULRs. ULRs’ allegiance is to their own union and they look to their own union for support and information on a day to day basis. ULRs tend to know of the TUC (unionlearn) but are not always clear how it fits into the structure. It would appear to be appropriate for unionlearn to increase the focus of their work at affiliate level encouraging and providing information, advice and guidance on facilitating the learning and skills agenda.

Employer/union learning agreements are seen to be crucial for clarity of procedures and acknowledgement of the role of ULRs in the workplace. It was acknowledged that in some situations management wanted to tie everything down within the agreement rather than agreeing key principles and then letting it evolve and reviewing the agreement over time. At one event the union represented was hoping to achieve a 50:1 ratio of members to ULR. ULRs present commented that they support this but if working in a section of 25 members was it anticipated that the ULR would cover two sections regardless of geographical location? It was felt that the impact of this would dilute effectiveness of ULR activity

especially if facility time was based on one unit of 50. ULRs noted that there is a need to educate employers, line managers, supervisors as to the rationale for ULRs in the workplace and the terms and conditions necessary to fulfil the role.

Representatives from one sector suggested that inviting HR Business Partners would contribute to similarity across agencies and it was felt that there was a need to have ULRs in the management structure (public sector). Another suggestion was that the whole Steering Group should attend the initial ULR training course to ensure a shared knowledge and understanding of the agenda and the ULR role. At another event it was commented that the Government was the biggest customer of the sector represented and the need for compliance with such employment relations rights was not specified in business contracts with the employer organisations.

It was identified by contributors that there is a need for continuing education for Full Time Officers, Branch Executive Committee (BEC) members regarding the learning and skills agenda and ULR activity. It was felt that the standardisation of agreements, policies and procedures would be useful to guide the process (public sector). ULRs and others support inter union sharing of information/resources.

In managing the expectations of ULRs it was felt that better guidance could be given to people considering standing as ULR as to what the role entails. New activists, if operating just as ULR, tend to have a lack of knowledge and understanding of the union process and can be disadvantaged in respect of negotiation skills (some unions ask ULRs not to negotiate). New ULRs felt unable to contribute at branch meetings due to lack of knowledge and understanding of branch structure and process. For some existing activists the extra role has a negative impact on their workload and they have to pass some other duties on to other representatives. Another opinion however was that there are advantages to also being a Shop Steward (SS) in respect of the further knowledge and understanding and skills they were able to bring to the role. Within one organisation it was reported that there was a mix of ULRs and SS/ULRs, plus one of the SS/ULRs provided a co-ordinator role for ULR activity and it was reported that this was working well.

Some ULRs felt that there was too much information in their initial training to be able to

transfer this effectively into the workplace at this stage of their role. Lots of ‘what’ but not always ‘why’ and ‘how’. ULRs need to have enough knowledge and understanding of the agenda to know what questions to ask of their union, learning services (unionlearn) and employers. ULRs would welcome the provision of refresher courses to maintain appropriate knowledge, understanding and skills as their role evolves. In one sector it was reported that the employers will not, for example, comply with the 10 week Shop Steward course and it was asked if unionlearn courses could be condensed. The unionlearn representative agreed that the current platform of delivery with limited hours and non flexible delivery should be addressed.

New ULRs can feel overwhelmed by the Training Needs Analysis, Development Needs Analysis (TNA/DNA) process, getting information from colleagues and overcoming colleagues’ apathy.

ULRs emphasised that they need to be clear in respect of the scope of the role and what they can offer colleagues. Also there was a feeling that the TUC expect ULRs to negotiate with providers.

Colleges do not appear to put ULRs on their circulation database thus the ULR has to keep chasing information. The ratio of members to individual ULRs, where ULRs are representing 100+ members was discussed and a consequence of this is the amount of resources required by the ULR to complete TNA/DNA, interviews, discussions and the availability of a suitable location in the workplace to carry out these activities. Also there is the issue of negotiating time for members to complete TNA. Other unions reported that initially they had encouraged new activists to get involved but then had to fallback on existing Shop Stewards and Health & Safety Reps (H&S). This was due to high labour turnover in one sector and lack of interest in another sector. Again it was agreed that a ULR’s ability to be effective can be impeded by the other roles.

It was commented that the Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) ULRs provide is not just about external provision but should also have access to information on internal training/learning provision within the workplace. ULRs and others request that websites are updated on a regular basis. Other issues ULRs face with gaining access to information were that some ULRs have to have information sent to home address e.g. ‘Get On’ information, to make sure they receive it. The 19

timing of forum meetings, networks and other events was discussed as events tend to always be held at the same time, often on the same day.

Consequently shift workers face the same problems gaining access to attend these as attending ULR training and other training/learning events. Dissemination of information within some branches was said to be questionable. At a number of Focus Group events the need for publicity materials and/or access to publicity materials was an issue for ULRs. In situations where redundancy negotiations are also taking place some resistance had been experienced from the union to negotiate training opportunities at the same time. ULRs state that in this type of situation lead times are crucial from agreement, identifying needs and delivering training/learning interventions for members whose jobs are under threat. In redundancy situations it was reported that Steering Group activity can also lapse even where well established previously. In some instances ULRs felt that there was an awful lot of ‘re-inventing the wheel’ with many ULRs coming up against and having to work through similar issues. It was felt that there needs to be a formal, workable process for sharing experience amongst ULRs and more facilitated/formal opportunities to network. ULRs report that it is useful to share best practice through networks but in some areas, so many networks were being established that cross network communication can be a mine field.

Where ULRs were feeling confident and effective in their role there were a number of requests for a development route for the role from ULR Stage 1, to stage 2, 3, and then the opportunity to work towards City & Guilds 929/5 (Certificate in Adult Learning Support).

Evidence that learning activity via ULRs encourages the further development of union organisation in the workplace and/or if union organisation encourages learning activity in the workplace It was reported on a number of occasions that ULR activity within the workplace raises awareness of the learning and skills agenda and provides the opportunity to provide evidence that ULR activity was creating/bringing the learning and skills agenda into the workplace. Examples

20

were given where ULR activity had provided the opportunity to recruit new members.

There was a school of thought that ULRs should be ULRs and not have other roles. It was felt that ULR as an individual role would raise the profile of the activity. An example was given where a key negotiator for pay and conditions was on ULR training and was pulled off that training. It was reported that other senior officers had not seen this as an issue and emphasised the status of ULR activity to traditional activity. A fundamental issue raised was that ULRs who are not seen to be actively getting learners involved gives the ULR role a bad name within the membership, the branch and in the eyes of the organisation.

It was suggested that electing ULRs could help overcome any ‘abuse’ of the ULR role as if a union representative is not performing then they tend not to get re-elected.

A number of ULRs reported that changes in personnel within the workplace can have a dramatic impact on the sustainability of activity.

At one event it was stated that the agenda works best where ‘politics’ are overridden by people who just want to get people into learning. ULRs reported the need to use forward thinking managers as champions of the ULR initiative.

An issue that is reported to inhibit ULR activity is the relationship between the ULR population and the Personnel and Development function within the workplace. It was felt that in order to promote the role in different organisations, hard evidence is needed to demonstrate the impact of activity as a contributor to reduced sickness/absence levels etc.

ULRs report that working with employers is difficult, some had experience of getting different responses from different sites within the same company. Thus success in companies is very mixed. For ULRs it is like ‘knocking your head against a brick wall’ when employers do not want to progress. Progression stops when an employer tries to take control of the scheme. When the employer wants to control things some people may not be allowed to do the courses they need or want to do. It was suggested on a number of occasions that personal development is very much on the back burner in some organisations and any provision was strictly job related. Also Personal Development Plans (PDPs) are not available for all members of organisations and

can be seen as only relevant for colleagues who are looking for career advancement and thus personal development is not seen as appropriate for all. Representatives from the public sector stated that a regional employer/union learning agreement does not support the ULR role as their local management do not give support towards anything to do with learning. It was felt that this was ironic as the learning and skills agenda is a Government initiative and the Government, in this instance was their employer. Other more positive examples were given where the Employer Training Pilot had achieved employer support and that the employer wanted to run a similar project again. Likewise other initiatives such as Investors in People (IiP) can be used as a vehicle to encourage employers to take the ULR role and activity seriously.

that with the right encouragement and guidance colleagues would be interested in Skills for Life where individuals have performance issues at work. There is often a dilemma for ULRs who are required to provide IAG to both members and non members and it was reported that there was evidence that this divides the membership.

However there were examples of where there had been opportunities for the conversion of ‘old union adversaries’ via the benefits available from the learning and skills agenda. Although it was acknowledged that such colleagues may only remain members for as long as it suited them.

ULRs report that their activity has given them confidence, for example to have input and a role in the branch. There were examples where ULRs reported that it was encouraging them to become a Union Representative as well.

ULRs report that people want to learn.

Representatives from one sector report that ‘lots of lads are willing to learn but employers are opposed to anything that takes people offsite’. Within the same sector a different issue is getting colleagues to believe in themselves enough that they are worthy of training/learning opportunities. It was discussed how crucial ULRs would be in encouraging such colleagues to get involved. ULR activity provides education opportunities for those who have not had them previously. ULRs have to be able to offer IAG on internal opportunities and external opportunities and thus require timely access to accurate information. It is reported that colleagues’ raised expectations cannot always be met if management are not supportive and this has a detrimental impact on a member’s willingness to be involved in the future in this and/or similar initiatives. This also applies if needs are identified and then tutors are not available to deliver relevant training/learning programmes. ULRs report that once a colleague has engaged it can be difficult to keep up with their ambitions.

However training/learning opportunities are less likely to be attractive to members if there are issues with locality, travelling, accessibility (shift workers). Also some ULRs report ‘training turns people off’, it is perceived as threatening, employer led. The European Computer Driving License (ECDL) for example was reported as being perceived as ‘work’ by colleagues. They wanted other non-work related provision particularly when learning in their own time. Other ULRs felt 21

Union Learning Representative Surveys Survey one, a detailed postal questionnaire was distributed to all ULRs listed on the then TUC Learning Services database as at 31st December 2003. In total, 1739 questionnaires were issued, 1605 of which formed the sample and a total of 583 were returned, an overall response rate of 36.5%. The aim of survey one was to identify the extent of Union Learning Representative (ULR) activity within the region at a given point in time.

The following objectives were set to achieve the aim:

in 2006 to that presented in 2004/05. Unionlearn with the North West TUC identified specific objectives for survey two:

1. To gather statistical data on the number of ULRs within the region by union and by employment sector

3. To identify the type and level of support required by ULRs and their unions for sustainable ULR activity.

2. To gain insight as to why or why not individuals choose to become ULRs

4. To identify if learning activity via ULRs encourages the further development of union organisation in the workplace and/or if union organisation encourages learning activity in the workplace.

3. To identify the level and source of ULR training completed by these ULRs 4. To identify issues that enhance and inhibit ULR activity: • impact of legislation (April 2003) • Level of support for ULR activity within the workplace • Level of resource allocation to support ULR activity: time, budget, equipment, forum for discussion 5. To identify the nature and level of workforce development programmes that have been provided as a response to ULR activity at branch and employing organisation level.

6. To establish the number of learners that have enrolled, progressed and/or completed these workforce development programmes

22

1. To identify issues related to the Employment Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives from the 2004 survey to the 2006 survey.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’ practice in establishing and sustaining their ULR activity.

From the respondents to survey two, 50% advised us that they had also completed and returned survey one. We are able to confirm this. For the purpose of this report, survey one will be referred to as T1 (time one), survey two as T2 (time two).

ULR Profile The following table details response rates per union at T1 and T2 that represent more than 1% of respondents.

Union

Time 1

Time 2

AMICUS

18%

11%

BFAWU

3%

4%

CWU

2%

5%

7. To identify how ULR activity can support the objectives of other agencies in the area of Workforce Development e.g. NWDA, LSCs.

GMB

12%

11%

PCS

10%

21%

8. To investigate resources that are available from such agencies in support of building capacity of ULR activity within the Northwest region.

POA

1%

0.4%

RCN

1%

1%

TGWU

15%

17%

Survey two was a further detailed postal questionnaire distributed to all ULRs listed on the TUC Learning Services database as at 31st December 2005. In total, 1540 questionnaires were issued, 1469 of which formed the sample and a total of 236 were returned, an overall response rate of 16.1%. The aim of survey two was to enable us to compare the ULR experience

UCATT

1%

1%

UNISON

23%

20%

USDAW

11%

9%

Responses were received from ULRs representing other unions but at T1 and T2 each was less than

0.5% of responses. This information is available from the researcher.

Just over two fifths (45% at T1 and 43% at T2) of ULRs have been working in their present role for 10+ years, with 1-3 years service there were 31% at T1 and 22% at T2, 4-6 years service 14% at T1 20% at T2.

In respect of gender, there were 46% female, 54% male at T1 and 38% female, 62% male at T2.

The ethnicity of ULRs at T2 is 92% White British, 3% White European, 1% Asian British, 1% Asian Indian, 1% ‘other’ and less than 0.5% for Black African, Black British, Asian Pakistani.

The age of ULRs is similar over both T1 and T2 with 41% and 40% between the age of 46-55, 31% and 28% between the ages of 36-45. At both T1 and T2 15% were between the age of 26-35.

In the 56+ age range there were 9% and 14% and between the age of 22-25, 3%. In the 16-21 age range there was less than 0.5% each time.

The majority of ULRs, 90% at T1 and 86% at T2 work full time with 70% and 67% working between 31-40 hours per week. Nearly one fifth work 41-50 hours per week.ULRs working 21-30 hours per week has increased from 5% at T1 to 10% at T2. At both times there was 3% working up to 20 hours per week. Over two thirds of ULRs work in organisations where there is shift working, 69% at T1, 68% at T2. With over a third reporting days (37%), and over a quarter reporting nights (27%) and evening (26%) shifts in the workplace.

Workplace Profile At T1 53% of ULRs worked in the public sector, this has risen to over two thirds, 65% at T2. 40% and 30% in the private sector, 1% at each time in the voluntary sector. Industrial sectors represented are as follows:

T1

T2

Agriculture & Fishing

1%

0%

Energy & Water

1%

2.6%

Manufacturing

27%

19%

Construction

1%

1%

Distribution

5%

0%

Hotels & Restaurants

1%

0.4%

Transport, Storage & Communications

11%

20%

Banking, Finance & Insurance

3%

2%

Public Administration, Education & Health

31%

36%

Other

19%

11%

Wholesale & Retail

0%

8%

100%

100%

Total

NB: Wholesale and Retail is a new category in line with the revised SICs (2003/04)

ULRs predominantly work in large organisations.

No. of employees on your site

T1

T2

1-49

17%

14%

50-199

26%

21%

200-499

37%

29%

500-999

15%

16%

1000+

5%

20%

Total

100%

100%

At T2 we asked ULRs what percentage of employees were union members both on their site and within their organisation. Over two thirds (69%) reported 76-100%, nearly a fifth (18%) 51-75%. Almost a tenth (9%) reported 25-50% and 4% reported 1-25%.

Becoming a Union Learning Representative At T2 48% of ULRs have served as a ULR for between 3and 6 years, this is an increase from 8% at T1. 30% have been ULRs for between 1-2 years, a decrease from 52% at T1. Whilst ULRs for less than 1 year stands at 22% at T2 compared to 39% at T1. This suggests that recruitment of ULRs has slowed down between 2004 and 2006. There appears to be some attrition from the role in the 23

first two years of office and slightly increased attrition from the role thereafter.

Over half (53%) of respondents at T2 became interested in becoming a ULR via another union officer/Senior Representative, this is an increase from 46% at T1. With the influence of other ULRs and the TUC coming in at 14% (same as T1) and 15% (18% at T1) at T2.

The process for becoming a ULR appears to be formalising within some of the unions with an increase from T1 of 0% being elected to 18% being elected at T2. At T2 a quarter (25%) were nominated, an increase from 24%. Again at T2 over half (55%) volunteered for the role compared to 73% at T1. These shifts also have to be considered in terms of the unions represented by respondents.

As at T1 two thirds of ULRs have held previous union roles. The number of new activists who have become ULRs has seen a slight increase from 34% at T1 to 38% at T2. Significant numbers of ULRs also hold other union roles 61% at both T1 and T2, and accordingly 39% of ULRs are just ULRs. Based on the evidence from T1 that the ULR role is attracting new activists, at T2 we asked if becoming a ULR had increased interest in the Trades Union movement, 71% said yes it had and 43% told us that being a ULR had encouraged them to consider standing for other union roles.

More than half of ULRs (57%) represent 100+ union members, this has remained static across T1 and T2, 14% represent between 1-20 members and 12% between 21-40 members.

ULR Training At T1, 4% of ULRs replied they had not had training to become a ULR, however at T2 99.6% replied that they had received initial ULR training, 80% of this being a five day programme and 73% of the initial training being provided by TUC Education, 24% by individual unions. Over half of the ULRs, 53% were satisfied with their initial training whilst 43% were very satisfied. Only 5% were dissatisfied with this provision. Following survey one, at focus group events we were told that ULR training courses were often subject to being cancelled and so we investigated this within survey 2. Over a quarter, 28% of ULRs had been subject to the cancellation of a course. In 80% of cases this was due to low numbers of delegates.

24

Other reasons included: no tutor, work commitments, and in 8% of cases where management had refused the ULR release from work. At T2, 92% went on to complete their training this is a slight drop from T1 where 98% completed their training. Those ULRs who have not completed the training cited the following reasons at T2: Not given time to attend

14%

Not supported by members

18%

Course cancelled

54%

Other

14%

Total

100%

Both TUC Education and individual unions offer further development programmes for ULRs. At both T1 and T2 Basic Skills Awareness and Information, Advice and Guidance were the top two courses ULRs had attended. Provision of these two courses and such courses as Workforce Development tends to be two thirds TUC Education, one third union, however for programmes such as Investors in People, Appraisal, 50-58% of ULRs report that their union provided that course. Thus unions are enhancing the courses available to ULRs that have traditionally been provided by TUC Education.

For the follow on training, 17% of ULRs had been subject to a cancellation, 79% of which were due to low numbers, 13% due to tutor being unavailable. From the respondents to survey two, 60% identified that they would like the opportunity to have further development for their ULR role. The majority of which were in line with the options given for further courses attended but over and above this ULRs identified the following topics as areas they would like to be developed in: – Negotiation and influencing skills – Funding issues – Training Opportunities available and funding – Refresher Training for ULRs – ULR Stage 2 – ULR Stage 3 – Adult Supporter for Skills for Life Training

– Staged and advanced training similar to Health & Safety Representative training

T1

T2

– Screening and assessment for Skills for Life

Networking opportunity and sharing experiences

52%

82%

– TESOL (Teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages)

Get help and advice from others

20%

12%

– Tutor Skills

More scope to help by gaining knowledge

14%

3%

Greater understanding of ULR duties and develop skills

14%

3%

Other (Please specify)

0%

0.6%

100%

100%

– Employment Law – Level 3 IT – Level 3 Maths

Total

ULR Activity in the Workplace We asked ULRs if they were aware of other ULRs that belong to their union within their workplace, at T1 and T2 three quarters said yes they were, whilst just over a fifth said no. Where other ULRs from the same union exist at T1 and T2 two thirds reported between 1-5, and a further fifth between 6-10.On further analysis of this data it also emerges that these figures apply apparently regardless of the number of employees on the site. Awareness of ULRs from other unions in the workplace was reported at T1 and T2 from just over a third of ULRs. This maybe significant as from focus groups and other events newly trained ULRs reported that it can be a daunting and isolating experience to have to go back into a workplace, from their initial training and actually get activity started, particularly where no other ULRs exist. ULRs can be vulnerable at this stage and need external support either from their own union, unionlearn and ULR forums and/or networks.

Information session, workshops, ULR forums were identified by the LSC as an example of effective unionlearn with the North West TUC activity, we asked ULRs their opinion of these.

Consistently over T1 and T2 69% of ULRs have attended ULR events provided by unionlearn, with again consistently 69% of ULRs having attended between 1-3 events and 96% reporting that they had found these events useful. We asked how these events had been useful; the table below provides the evidence.

Overwhelmingly the opportunity to network and share experiences is what ULRs value from such events. At T2 in open responses to this question ULRs also advised that for 74% it was an opportunity to get help and advice from others, and 73% that the knowledge gained from these events gave them more scope to help colleagues.

Other arrangements that ULRs found support their activity were newsletters/emails/magazines (33%) and arrangements such as further courses to develop their ULR knowledge and skills (28%).

It is apparent that these arrangements support, develop and hopefully sustain ULR activity in the workplace.

We asked ULRs if they had been able to put most of their training into practice since completing their initial training and have compared their response to length of time in role.

The issues covered by learning agreements are detailed in the table below.

25

Had opportunity to practice most of training since completing initial ULR course T1

Yes

52

77

87

No

48

23

13

100%

100%

100%

Yes

33

46

66

No

67

54

34

100%

100%

100%

Total T2

How long have you served as a ULR? Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-6 years

Total

This evidence is quite startling and suggests that it takes time to get activity started in the workplace and again in the first and second year of the role ULRs may require external support as discussed earlier. As the table above demonstrates, there has been a significant increase in ULRs reporting that they have not had the opportunity to put most of their training into practice. Whilst decreasing over ‘time in role’ this is a fundamental issue concerning for example unionlearn’s and unions’ perception of ULR activity compared to the type and level of activity ULRs are actually involved in on a day to day basis and hence the nature and content of training and development provision for ULRs. It is suggested that this is an area that requires further investigation.

In response to the question ‘have you been practicing as a ULR since completing your initial training’ we were rather intrigued by the results. At T1 64% reported that they had been practising whilst 30% replied ‘no’, at T2 72% reported ‘yes’ with 25% telling us ‘no’. We then compared these results to those for ‘How long have you served as a ULR?’ Have you been practicing as a ULR since completing your initial training?

T1

Yes

52

77

87

No

48

24

13

100%

100%

100%

Yes

57

68

84

No

43

32

16

100%

100%

100%

Total T2

How long have you served as a ULR? Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-6 years

Total

Given that two thirds of ULRs report that they also have other union roles the data was analysed to identify the impact of holding ‘other union roles’ on whether or not the ULR had been practicing since completing their initial training. There appears to be no impact from having had or not had previous union roles: Previous union role Have you been practicing as a ULR since No previous union role/ Had previous union role completing your initial training? no response T1

Yes

69

68

No

31

32

100%

100%

Yes

71

76

No

29

24

100%

100%

Total T2

Total 26

nor having or not having current, other union roles.

Have you been practicing as a ULR since completing your initial training?

T1

Current union role No current union role/ Has current union role no response

Yes

70

68

No

30

32

100%

100%

Yes

75

74

No

25

26

100%

100%

Total T2

Total

The table below gives detail of why ULRs have not had the opportunity to practice ULR activity.

T1

T2

Lack of support from organisation/employer

20%

44%

Lack of demand from members

n/a

31%

No training suite/learning centre in place

4%

29%

Lack of support from members/no interest from members

6%

28%

Not given enough time by employer

21%

23%

Not given time by employer

3%

18%

Lack of support from own Union

2%

15%

Financial restraints

2%

14%

I have just completed my training

29%

13%

Not sure what to do

2%

13%

Not enough training knowledge

1%

13%

Lack of support from Branch

n/a

9%

Carried out at a higher level in Union

1%

6%

Lack of support from TUC

n/a

4%

Moved premises

n/a

3%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer

There is a significant increase in the responses against ‘lack of support from members and no interest from members’ from 6% at T1 to 28% at T2. Additionally at T2, 31% of ULRs who responded report a ‘lack of demand from members’. With an increase from 3% at T1 to 18% at T2 where ULRs are not given time by their employer, despite the statutory rights, and a slight increase from 21% at T1 to 23% at T2 for not being given enough time by the employer. A significant increase is reported from 20% at T1 to 44% at T2 in respect of lack of support from the employer/organisation.

27

ULR Activity The ULR role can encompass some of the stages of the systematic training cycle i.e. identification of learning needs, sourcing learning opportunities and some aspects of the evaluation stage in respect of monitoring the progress of colleagues. Three quarters of ULRs say that the Training Department assesses learning needs within the workplace. In addition ULRs assess the learning needs of their members. It maybe the case however that in some situations the colleagues ULRs represent are not involved in any formal performance management system within their organisation and thus probably neither personal development review or personal development planning type activity is available to them within the organisation. Hence it is appropriate that ULRs fulfil this activity with their colleagues.

From the surveys 50% of ULRs at T1 and at T2 advise us that they have undertaken a learning needs analysis within the workplace. Some ULRs apply formal methods (frequency same at T1 and T2), 44% using a survey, 16% via formal meetings, 37% informal one to one discussions with colleagues. Other informal methods are also applied, again frequencies are very similar at T1 and T2 with a third holding ad-hoc meetings and two thirds ‘in passing’ with colleagues. Whilst the informal methods are probably the most comfortable for colleagues there is a concern in respect of how these needs are recorded and then provision put in place to meet them. As regards ULRs’ views on the extent to which identified learning needs are addressed within the workplace responses are similar across T1 and T2 with a quarter saying ‘always’, over two thirds ‘sometimes’ and less than 10% ‘never’. At T2 we asked the extent to which ULRs felt their activity had improved learning opportunities within the workplace, over a quarter (28%) thought ‘very little’, 51% felt some impact and over a fifth (21%) ‘considerable impact’.

The activity ULRs get involved in are evidenced in the table below T1

T2

Offer one to one advice to members about learning opportunities

n/a

81%

Signpost members to other sources of advice and guidance

75%

80%

Provide members with information, advice & guidance

83%

n/a

Promote learning in the workplace to my employer

90%

68%

Support union organisation in your workplace

n/a

65%

Recruit new union members

n/a

57%

Provide advise/support re: Basic Skills/Skills for Life

n/a

56%

Negotiate with my employer for training and learning opportunities

47%

55%

Represent members’ views on training and learning at appropriate forums

48%

50%

Support colleagues who are non-union members

n/a

47%

Collate information in relation to workplace training and learning opportunities

43%

44%

Carry out training needs analysis

n/a

43%

Arrange/broker learning opportunities with local providers

n/a

34%

Help to run a learning centre

n/a

34%

Support members from other unions in the workplace

n/a

32%

Collate information in relation to Government training and learning initiatives

27%

24%

Monitor quality of provision

24%

23%

Assist members to access funding

34%

27%

Support innovative workplace developments e.g. Union Learning Fund Projects

30%

21%

Other

10%

9%

Work with employers to identify learning needs

50%

n/a

Negotiate equal opportunities in learning

29%

n/a

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer 28

22% told us their role had decreased. Examples of which fell into seven categories:

At T2 we asked ULRs if the nature of their role had changed over time, 50% said ‘yes’ it had, 50% told us ‘no’ it has not. ULRs were asked if their activity had increased, decreased or if there had been some other change. The findings are reported below.

Impact of redundancies

69% told us their ULR activity had increased.

Examples of this fell into six categories:

Funding issues

Job change/enrichment

ULF funding run out, learning centre(s) now under threat of closure.

From rep to running centre 3 active learning centres Promoted to Learning Centre coordinator Now a Project Worker

redundancies = fewer employees.

Many of the workforce have left or are leaving shortly

Since government reduced funding for adult courses, free courses stopped, staff lost interest and did not want to pay Lack of member support Difficulties in generating interest in the workforce

Development/changes within ULR role Now I am an organiser, signposting Stewards & ULRs. Liaise with companies on training needs Broker opportunities with local providers.

Look for funding, support learners More confident in talking to people Now lead ULR Role is constantly diversifying More paper, mundane, less people contact, lose sight of why you’re doing it Working more closely with colleagues People want more than Basic Skills now e.g.

NVQs, training for better jobs Deeper involvement with colleagues i.e. further progression outside learning centre Trying to get more interest.

Word of mouth from staff on course

Lack of interest from members Workers are more in tune with management dictated training because they do it in work time.

People have taken all they wanted to take but it is at a standstill now.

Lack of employer support Difficulty securing time off to pursue ULR role Barriers to role in general & reluctance to provide non work related training and development.

Difficulty setting up a learning agreement No support given by management. Refusal to give office space for learning centre.

Very little consideration of employees’ needs.

Lack of union support Difficulty setting up a learning agreement Branch is not interested in improving employees’ skills.

Been side-lined and am no longer active as ULR

Redundancy/job security

Impact of ULR’s other union roles

Through redundancy issues for members

Other TU role has taken up most of my time.

More need for activity, uncertainty in careers Allocation of paid time

Accepted by management but no activity due to my other Union Rep. & Health & Safety Rep. commitments.

Given allocated paid time to perform duties

No enforcement from other ULRs

Supported members on full time basis in on-site learning centre

Other workplace issues

Other workplace initiatives

Due to Agenda for Change, time not available for promoting learning.

Agenda for change, knowledge & skills framework, personal development reviews

Company’s employees already well educated.

Now put ULR training into my job 29

9% told us of other changes which fell into five categories, examples are: Role development Scope of courses widened World book day and other such initiatives Lot of emphasis on Basic Skills More statistical proof required by regional and national office Union issues Difficulty in balancing H&S role with ULR role Some ULRs not interested & not dedicated enough to make it work, de-motivating.

Negotiated learning agreement Extra planning for learning centre Personal Development I am one of lead ULRs Moved onto a wider project New job in education Have had to develop further personal/social skills in order to present case for Skills for Life at many different levels.

in the LSC Context within this report there is an increasing expectation for unionlearn with the North West TUC to be able to gather and report on evidence of outcomes of activity from ULRs. This is clearly linked to ULRs recording and reporting activities. Frequencies for response at T1 and T2 are very similar, with around 50% of ULRs always keeping records of contacts with colleagues, just over 30% sometimes keeping records of contact with colleagues and almost 20% who never keep records of contacts with colleagues. The format of these records tends to be paper based, just over 30%, whilst just over a quarter keep electronic records, from T2 16% reported that they keep both electronic and hard copy of contacts with colleagues.

In respect of monitoring the progress of colleagues on learning and training programmes there is an increase from 36% at T1 to 43% at T2 who always monitor the progress of colleagues, a static third who sometimes monitor progress and just over a quarter who never monitor the progress of colleagues. The methods applied are consistent across T1 and T2 with over 50% being via informal discussion and 36% by formal debrief and/or filling in a form.

When asked if they have to provide reports on ULR activity responses were as follows

Promoting PDRs. Being used for in-house training courses, promoting company training Workplace issues Other ULR stood down as company not facilitating him Centre worked well, only needed a full time coordinator, now it’s a farce have a learning centre & a lot less learners and/or resources ??

Funding issues Not much take up on courses due to lack of paid time off.

Doing a lot more in my own time ULRs report that where non-union members use them in their role as ULR over 50% of cases are for information, advice and guidance on training and learning opportunities and provision and a fifth of cases for information on Skills for Life.

This should provide opportunities for recruitment of new members and new learners. As discussed 30

T1

T2

Yes

40%

43%

No

60%

57%

Total

100%

100%

There has been a slight increase across T1 and T2 of ULRs who provide reports. At T1 almost a third of these reports were to the branch, this has fallen at T2 to 20%. At T2 21% report ULR activities to ULR meeting/working group, this is an increase from 13% at T1. At T1 22% reported to Training/HR department at T2 this has fallen to 11%, reporting to managers was 15% at T1 and 12% at T2. Formal reporting of ULR activities at T2 has risen from 28% to 62% at branch meetings, written reports have fallen from 28% to 18%, emails have risen from 6% to 11%. Report forms that were referred to at T1 were not referred to at T2. It appears therefore that there is little consistency across the region of how and where ULR activity is formally reported.

Employer/Union Learning Agreements At T2 two thirds of ULRs report that their workplace has an employer/union learning agreement, this is an increase from 60% to 63%.

These agreements tend to be accepted at a rate of 15-18% per annum, except for 2004 when it is reported that 24% were accepted. The distribution of learning agreements across the different sectors is as follows: Does your workplace have an employer/union learning agreement?

Sector T1

T2

The issues covered by learning agreements are detailed in the table below.

To encourage the staff within your workplace to participate in learning

85%

To provide access to lifelong learning

80%

To identify Skills for Life/Basic Skills needs within the workplace

79%

Building a partnership in the workplace

73%

To establish a learning centre within the workplace

67%

Define allocation of paid time for ULR activity in line with statutory rights

65%

Public

Private

Voluntary

Yes

62%

53%

50%

No

38%

47%

50%

Total

100%

100%

100%

Define facilities allocated to support ULR activity

58%

Yes

62%

65%

50%

Define colleagues’ access to ULR

53%

No

38%

35%

50%

Other

6%

Total

100%

100%

100%

As the table demonstrates the percentage of employer/union learning agreements in responses from the public sector has remained static across T1 and T2, whereas in the private sector there has been a 12% increase in workplaces with a learning agreement at T2.

With a higher percentage in the private sector than in the public sector at T2. Whilst it might be anticipated that where the Government is the employer that industrial relations practice might be seen to be taking positive action to support other areas of Government policy, in this instance this is not the case.

To work with organisations such as TUC Learning Services to ensure the partnership is a success 64%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer

The evidence from T1 and T2 demonstrate the importance of employer/union learning agreements on ULRs’ ability to practice their activity in the workplace. As detailed in the table below: Have you been practicing as a ULR since completing your initial training?

T1

T2

Does your workplace have an employer/union learning agreement?

Yes No

Yes

76%

65%

No

24%

35%

Total

100%

100%

Yes

81%

61%

No

19%

39%

Total

100%

100%

31

The number of employer/union working groups in the workplace has fallen slightly from 56% at T1 to 51% at T2. Two thirds of these workgroups meet on a monthly basis and are involved in the activities listed below: Monitoring ULR activity

72%

Prioritising learning needs

58%

Monitoring learning needs analysis

55%

Management of Learning Centre

47%

Monitoring progress of learners

43%

Identifying and accessing external funding for learning activity

43%

Monitoring achievement of recognised qualifications

42%

Identification and monitoring standard of learning providers

42%

– more time to support their role.

Other

8%

– more information on ULR activities

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer

– More involvement from other ULRs, (which suggests that within workplaces there are some active ULRs and other less active ULRs.)

ULRs often appreciate the opportunity to meet on an informal basis, 44% have this opportunity, 55% do not. This has remained constant across T1 and T2.

– More support from learndirect

In respect of the resources ULRs are given to support their role, these vary from being extremely limited for example: at a focus group event a ULR reported that he would just like a notice board, through to ULRs who are able to use a learning centre as a resource. Satisfaction levels with resources have remained static across T1 and T2 with a fifth very satisfied, just over 50% satisfied to just over a fifth who are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the resources they have. It would appear that a basic requirement for resources should be identified in order for ULRs to have the opportunity to be active within the workplace although without an employer/union learning agreement this is difficult to achieve.

32

Unions and unionlearn with the North West TUC are there to support ULRs on a daily basis, how satisfied are ULRs with this support? At T1 and T2 over 50% of ULRs are satisfied. Very satisfied has fallen from 33% to 27% with dissatisfied and very dissatisfied increasing from 13% to 19%. From other open questions there is evidence that ULRs sometimes need more union support on a daily basis, and would welcome more access to Project Workers. At T2 we also asked ULRs to rate their satisfaction with the support they receive from unionlearn, the responses mirror those for their own union with 55% satisfied, 30% very satisfied and 14% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Again ULRs would welcome more access to Project Workers on a regular basis. Other additional support required by ULRs from their own union and to some extent, unionlearn are given as:

– More courses to offer colleagues in response to identifying learning needs.

– More funding – To have the opportunity to attend induction events at the workplace in order to encourage new members and learning activity.

What additional support would you like to receive More union support, includes: – Project Worker – Full Time Officer contact

Statutory Rights for ULRs (April 2003) T1

T2

11%

20%

More time to support role, includes: – time from Full Time Officer – Project Worker – More facility time to be agreed 13%

17%

More employer/organisation support 18%

12%

ULR agreement

1%

1%

Attend induction events to encourage new members & learners n/a

1%

Resources. Includes learning resources, rooms, PCs

12%

More support from learndirect/ more courses

17% 11%

2%

We were conscious that at the time of survey one there had been little time to identify any issues related to the Employment Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for ULRs. Thus in survey two we added a new section related to this issue to gather information on this fundamental development in the evolution of the ULR role.

Accordingly the evidence within this section refers to T2 only.

In the first instance we asked ULRs if their employer was adhering to the requirements of the statutory rights for ULRs and then analysed this by sector as shown below: Is your employer adhering to the requirements of statutory rights for ULRs? Sector T2

Public

Private

Voluntary

Yes

80%

79%

67%

No

18%

20%

33%

2%

1%

0%

100%

100%

100%

More information on ULR activities. includes updating & more opportunities/events outside Liverpool

10%

8%

Yes/No

Recognition of role

4%

7%

Total

Networking with other ULRs

3%

3%

More involvement from other ULRs, includes: recruit more ULRs

2%

3%

Support setting up learning centre

4%

3%

Improved training progression route

n/a

1%

More funding

1%

8%

More basic skills

1%

2%

Full time person leading the project

2%

Process running fully

2%

Total

100% 100%

As the findings demonstrate there is minimal difference in the attitude of employers in the public and private sector. The voluntary sector shows a higher percentage of non-adherence but this only represents 3 cases in the survey.

Again demonstrating from this research that the Government as an employer, in this area of industrial relations, does not typically respond any differently to employers in the private sector.

Overall the findings indicated that 80% of ULRs believe that their employers were adhering to the requirements of the statutory rights and this correlated across with the ULR’s length of time in role. It appears therefore that there are examples that this applies as ULR activity is introduced into an organisation. There was however a slight increase with reports of employers’ noncompliance from ULRs with less than a year in role, 22%, compared to 16% for those with 1-2 years in role and 19% for those with 3-6 years in role. In respect of action taken in response to non compliance 41% report that no action has been taken, 24% that ‘other’ action has been taken,

33

in 20% of cases the issue had been referred to a higher level. 10% had lodged a grievance with the employer and 5% had raised ET1 (preparatory document for employment tribunal).

We asked if the amount of facility time for ULR activity had been agreed as part of an Employer/Union Learning Agreement, 56% reported that it had whilst 44% that it had not.

The amount of facility time agreed for ULR activity per month is detailed in the table below.

Facility time agreed for ULR activities per month T2 None

17%

1-10 hours

11%

11-30 hours

24%

More than 30 hours

15%

Whenever required

33%

Total

100%

A third of ULRs advise that this is not a separate allocation of facility time to that given for other union duties. So in one third of organisations facility time is merely being spread more thinly to accommodate this relatively new union office.

In response to the question ‘Do you get paid time to fulfil ULR activities’ it was possible to cross reference this to T1, and at T2 87% of ULRs compared to 79% at T1 now get paid time to fulfil their activity. In respect of paid time for ULR training 92% receive this.

ULRs also give unpaid time to their activity, this has decreased slightly from 60% at T1 to 57% at T2. The amount of unpaid time given per month for T1 and T2 is given below.

34

Average hours unpaid ULR activity per month T1

T2

None

5%

5%

1-10 hours

75%

43%

11-30 hours

17%

25%

More than 30 hours

3%

9%

Whenever required

0%

18%

100%

100%

Total

ULRs were asked what impact time away from their job on ULR activity had on them, their colleagues, their relationship with their colleagues and their relationship with their line manager. The following gives a flavour of the responses:

For the ULR: Positives

Negatives

Neutral

Satisfaction

Alienates me from my manager & colleagues

None

More support to meet the needs of the 2 jobs as ULR and convenor

Big impact due to minimum numbers on section

Unknown as yet

I enjoy doing something different that stimulates my mind

Difficult as work 3 days

Very little

Greater knowledge & understanding Extra pressure to complete keeps me up to date daily tasks

Less time to do my job keeps but I learn new things

Time and access to talk to colleagues

Other jobs and duties are missed

Not yet had cause to take time apart from my own course

Better knowledge of my duties

I am disappointed I have done so little

None, not recognised as ULR

Good

Lack of knowledge of work related issues

None, fits in with diary commitments

Makes me feel that I am valued as a ULR

I feel guilty if there is a lot of work

Currently seconded so theoretically none

Less personal time required

Minimum at moment due to other roles

Minimal, can always make up any work

I can give more knowledge to my colleagues

Knowledge that colleagues are put under stress to cope without me

If needed for ULR duties, it’s fine

From the ULR perspective another finding was that from the 139 who reported that their employer was adhering to the statutory rights, 18% reported via this question that on return from ULR duties they had to make their work up as they are still expected to deal with their normal workload allocation. This does not appear to be within the spirit of the statutory rights.

Examples from the impact on colleagues: Positives

Negatives

Neutral

Benefit

No support

Little

Beneficial?

‘Winds’ them up

None

Better service from myself

Not sure but know difficulties are there

OK

Hopefully to help them

Extra pressure to cover

Colleagues accept this

Always arouses interest in learning

Leaves them to fill gaps in production

None yet as my work is left uncovered

Good, when we ran a course

More work for them

Allows them access to their ULR but only in their own time

Supportive

Not so good

Don’t know

They are confident in me

Suffer as we as a team still have targets to meet

Opportunities for increasing skills and knowledge

Think I am on a ‘jolly’ 35

Examples from impact on relationship with line manager: Positives

Negatives

Neutral

Good

Has to cover my role

OK

Fair at moment but would like employee to be working

Dodgy but understood

Not affected

Excellent

Strained, no idea what ULR, TU, Skills for Life are about

Doesn’t say much

Very supportive

Can be short-sighted re my ULR role

Moans, but lets me go

General understanding

On the whole fine but occasionally sarcastic comments which make me feel guilty

Very little

As long as knows where I am, no problems

Time away on ULR duty has impact on team statistics

They do not seem interested

Has improved as I have brought new skills into my job

I am left out of meetings, updates etc

Working on it!

Supportive of my role

Information starvation

Depends

She is also a ULR

Reluctance to give me time off due to my workload

None, fits in with diary commitments

So the evidence presented demonstrates that the ULR experience can be very different in different situations and whilst statutory rights are acknowledged and supported, in many cases considerable numbers of ULRs experience hostility, negative attitudes and lack of understanding of their role when attempting to apply their statutory rights to facilitate ULR activity within the workplace.

Reasons for Ceasing ULR Activity With the final mail shot for both surveys, we enclosed a pro forma to seek information as to why people were no longer ULRs. Thirty responses were received at T1, 40 at T2. The following tables provide the detail.

Reason

T1

T2

Redundancy/ill health/retirement

52%

25%

Change of job

23%

Resigned

T1

T2

Less than 1 year

13%

17.5%

10%

1-2 years

43%

40%

10%

17.5%

3-6 years

10%

5%

Never actually commenced role

7%

8%

Not given

33%

37.5%

Lack of interest in workplace

7%

15%

Too much work with other union roles

3%

2.5%

Increased work load/ change of shift pattern Other

12.5% 13%

10%

N.B. where total over 100 more than one response given

36

Time in role

Due to the limited amount of evidence these findings are just presented as indicators of why ULRs cease activity.

Conclusion – ULR Survey 1 & 2 In respect of the ULR surveys the difference in response rates has to be taken into account and the representation of unions, as PCS and UNISON ULRs’ experience and opinion are dominating T2 findings. There is also the slight fall in responses from ULRs from the private sector and small organisations. However 50% of T2 returns also responded at T1 so there has been the opportunity to gain further knowledge and understanding of the ULR experience over time.

The conclusions for this section are reported against the four objectives identified for the full report on the research project.

1. To identify issues related to the Employment Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives from the 2004 survey to the 2006 survey. a. Whilst the requirement to have a learning agreement is not stated within the statutory rights for ULRs, if employers are adhering to the statutory rights then it is more likely that a negotiated learning agreement is in place. In respect of the ULRs at T2 who advised us that there was an Employer/Union Learning agreement at their workplace, 69% say that their employer is adhering to the requirements of the statutory rights for ULRs, however 31% tell us their employer is not adhering to the requirements of the statutory rights. This is in addition to the fact that overall one third of ULRs are attempting to be active without the support of a learning agreement to facilitate resources for the role. b. In respect of other stakeholders’ expectations of ULRs, how can one ULR with 100+ members, plus other duties, devote enough time and effort to motivate colleagues and provide hard evidence to those colleagues of what the learning and skills agenda can offer them and hard evidence to others of outcome activity. c. ULR funding requires evidence of the outcome of activity. The formalisation of record keeping does not appear to be happening yet. There is the impact of time for ULRs to complete this activity. They also require the support from their members to gather evidence. There needs to be a

consistent, systematic, workable approach to this activity.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’ practice in establishing and sustaining their ULR activity. a. ULRs are prevalent in large, organised workplaces and effective, sustainable activity that is facilitated by the employer is very dependant on the existence of an appropriate employer/union learning agreement. b. Potential shifts in the requirements of the ULR role, at different stages of the employment cycle, need to be considered in respect of learning agreements and ULR training. c. The findings in respect of opportunity to practice, following initial training, demonstrate the need for ongoing support from the union for the ULR role and getting learning agreements in place.

3. To identify the type and level of support required by ULRs and their unions for sustainable ULR activity. a. There is evidence that the ULR role evolves over time. Within learning agreements and /or ULR training the potential role of the ULR throughout the employment cycle perhaps need to be considered in respect of generic skills and knowledge, resources and more specialised skills and knowledge, resources that may be required at different stages. b. In order to achieve the recruitment of ULRs required to meet the 2010 objective and affiliate unions projected ratio for members to ULR there is a clear need for unionlearn with the North West TUC to work closely with unions at regional level c. The implications need to be considered of the fact that a quarter of ULRs who responded had experienced the cancellation of an initial training programme. What is not known from this research is how many potential ULRs do not come back at a later date to complete their training. 55% of those who have not completed their training stated it was due to the course being cancelled.

37

d. The findings in respect of opportunity to practice, following initial training, demonstrate the need for ongoing support from the union for the ULR role and getting learning agreements in place.

4. To identify if learning activity via ULRs encourages the further development of union organisation in the workplace and/or if union organisation encourages learning activity in the workplace.

e. Other Union officers and Officials are also of great importance to the recruitment of ULRs. ULRs look to their other lay representatives and Full Time Officers for support on a day to day basis. Unionlearn events also provide recognised and appreciated support for ULRs, particularly in the early stages of their role.

a. The issue of lack of support, lack of interest from members is a serious concern.

This would appear to be a whole union issue not just one to be addressed by ULRs and related officers, officials. But as discussed earlier, the ratio of members to ULRs, the other responsibilities many ULRs have plus the facilitation of enough time and effort to motivate colleagues and provide hard evidence to those colleagues of what the learning and skills agenda can offer them has to be considered.

f. It would appear that the basic requirements for ULR activity in the workplace can be difficult to achieve. Thus it would appear that there is a need to concentrate on the basics for the time being, sharing knowledge and understanding between unionlearn and the unions, at regional level, unions with ULRs in the workplace to identify how to achieve ‘best fit’ for different situations from identified ‘best practice’ approaches. It would also be beneficial for unionlearn to be able to access employer forums to share this knowledge and understanding. g. Sadly it appears that structures and systems within some organisations are not facilitating effective ULR practice. Issues such as broader, organisational context, job design, patterns of work, targets for production/service provision. and the traditional barriers to training and development activity within the workplace are evident as barriers to ULR activity. Key initiatives such as Agenda for Change in the NHS are also highlighted as having a detrimental impact on ULR activity. Rather naively, one might expect the organisation to identify ULR activity as a vehicle for helping the workforce deal with such change in the workplace. Employers require information and guidance to identify these opportunities. h. The issue of the collection of evidence of activity is a concern and an important issue to some stakeholders. This requires a consistent, systematic, workable approach to the collection of evidence of outcome activity.

38

b. In The Learning Age (Fryer, 1997) suggested a shift in responsibility for Life Long Learning activity to individuals.

The Skills Strategy (2003) highlights a key role for ULRs in the “facilitation of improving the skills of the workforce and helping businesses to improve productivity, innovation, profitability and competitiveness” (DTI DfES, 2003). But ULRs require support, realistic ratios of members to ULRs and resources to facilitate their opportunity to do that. c. Stakeholders need to be realistic as to what can be expected from ULR activity.

It would appear that ULRs are an effective catalyst to raise the learning and skills agenda within the workplace and can facilitate learning opportunities within the workplace. Their strengths are when working with their members. d. Access to the services of a ULR and the availability of accessible Learning and Training intervention opportunities remain an issue for part time and shift workers.

ULRs’ Hopes and Fears for the ULR role In survey 2 we asked ULRs to express their ‘Hopes and Fears’ for the role as had been asked in the focus group events. The following identifies the key areas that ULRs referred to in answering these questions. The comments are presented as expressed in the responses.

Hopes

Fears

Continue to provide learning opportunities

Currently being redeployed and get impression that new line manager wishes to restrict my activities

None. Union only paying lip service

No real interest

To get ULRs from other departments, currently all from one department

No, will get bigger and better with management support

To be established in all workplaces & to be as widespread as H&S reps.

To become redundant through lack of demand

Get involved more & understand what is happening & what to say

Nobody takes it very seriously

none

It has already become non-existent, fear that they will become a thing of the past

To become an essential part of every company so people can improve themselves

If we are not given more time to do our job people will not become ULRs & role will die

More understanding of role from employers More time from employers

Government funding decreasing

Gain agreements for learning resources, get employees involved in courses, learning & advanced knowledge

No agreement being negotiated with company

To be able to continue the work that is going on and not stop due to lack of funding

With lack of adult funding we will not be able to get the funds to train. LSCs do not seem bothered if we have ULRs or not

To get more companies on board More learning centres open to families and community

Lack of funding

To expand

No volunteers

Improved progression route for all ULRs and that they are treated with same esteem & respect as other TU reps.

That it may be seen as a passing phase and wither away due to lack of support

That it continues to evolve & funding remains in place

I believe funding will decrease & hence opportunities will die off

That things will get better

Hardly anyone is interested in learning in this Agency. Local FE College has pulled the plug on TU courses making the role of the ULR even harder

39

Hopes

Fears

Funding increase to allow ULRs to provide better facilities/courses to staff. Better training opportunities for ULRs. To work hand in hand, complementing employer’s learning

Need to ‘weed out’ uninterested & uncommitted ULRs and give the position to someone else. Need to be managed better, motivated more, otherwise ULRs leave.

To see real recognition & support & not merely lip service

To see the hardworking efforts of ULRs dashed by small minded persons who know nothing about ULR & learning agenda, do not want to know and want to keep control of their own little domains.

That the role becomes integrated in an expanded, positively thinking learning strategy

Attitude of our employer to learning will kill the role. Employer withdrew from learning agreement some 2 years ago.

That it goes on becoming more & more high profile.

It took a while for management to get on board but I persevered. I am sure some management would not be as enthusiastic

I hope that I make a difference to my colleagues

That colleagues won’t take advantage of the learning available to them

To instil in our management that learning is for everyone not just qualifications for them

none

More time to be effective

My colleagues are all highly educated & they can fend for themselves – I am not really needed

That there will be more of us with more time to devote to our duties

That the companies we are employed by only take the segments that suit them and not embrace the whole package.

Not a great deal

Small companies do not encourage ULR role to function. Prefer to promote what they see fit.

To be fully recognised as an important representative in the workplace & respect from ALL managers

Fears that management might disillusion ULRs who are not as strong as others

Company to take ULR & learning seriously

If courses don’t happen due to management blocking employees’ time off, people will just lose interest

To start the job

As a ULR in the bus company I feel that they will not let me do the job as a ULR

More recognition in general with management.

Encouraged more by Government

Companies are not forced to recognise ULRs. Lack of funds, colleges charging for CLAIT and ECDL have been a major blow to ULRs

That it will be sustained

If government was to stop funding TUC Project Workers it would seriously hamper the ULR role.

That the new organisation will see less benefit in working with the union

40

Hopes

Fears

To become a major element in the development of workforce skills, knowledge & employability

It will be diluted to being a tool of management

Not known, see Q3.12 (no progress, no facilities due to disinterested, hostile employer)

Employer hostility to civilian staff (& their needs) is increasing due to new chief officer’s preference to advancing the interests of uniformed staff

That they are dedicated solely on the learning agenda & not as currently Union Reps with a full agenda trying to piecemeal deliver for education & training

Can’t recruit enough volunteers Lack of funding for courses for more mature students Long term future of NHS Breakdown of partnership between management and TUs

Improve all aspects of role. To be able to continue

That employers only want staff trained to a certain level, once that is attained training will stop

Now that the warehouse is closing, I would like to find another job where there are ULRs

Because I might not find another job that has ULRs. Then all my training will go to waste

41

Conclusions From consideration and analysis of the data the following conclusions have been drawn in respect of the stated objectives.

1. To identify issues related to the Employment Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives from the 2004 survey to the 2006 survey. a. The key reasons for ULRs dropping out are lack of time and failure to obtain facility arrangements. b. There is evidence that employers are not meeting the spirit of the statutory rights.

Contrary to other aspects of industrial relations policy and practice it appears that public sector employers are neither better nor worse than private sector employers.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’ practice in establishing and sustaining their ULR activity. a. From the evidence presented it appears that unions are getting to grips with the agenda and ULRs are becoming integrated into union structures.

3. To identify the type and level of support required by ULRs and their unions for sustainable ULR activity. a. There is clear evidence that an appropriate employer/union learning agreement and embedding in union structure and procedures promotes effective activity. b. Wider support for ULRs remains unsystematic and haphazard. We are able to identify from both surveys that the opportunity to attend and contribute to networks, have access to advice and sharing of good practice are key resources ULRs need and report they have found valuable. c. The vulnerable stage of a ULR’s development is in the first 2 years of the role where support, both internal and external to the workplace is crucial.

42

4. To examine if learning activity via ULRs encourages the further development of union organisation in the workplace and/or if union organisation encourages learning activity in the workplace. a. There are discernible shifts in the ULR role. It becomes more sophisticated as it is embedded in union and workplace structures. b. If the ULR role can develop to encourage employer engagement, the implications of this need to be considered in respect of: i. the skills ULRs require ii. affiliate unions’ perceptions of the ULR role iii. how ULRs are organised in the workplace, particularly in large complex organisations such as those in the public sector.

Recommendations 2004/05 Recommendations

Stakeholders

1. There is clearly a continuing need for TUC Learning Services to work closely with unions at regional level to move the agenda forward.

unionlearn affiliate unions

2. Provision of continuing education for Full Time Officers regarding the learning and skills agenda and ULR activity. Propose development of ‘Toolkit’

unionlearn affiliate unions

3. The need for continuing education of branch executive committee members regarding the learning and skills agenda and ULR activity.

Propose development of ‘Toolkit’

unionlearn affiliate unions

4. There is a need for continuing briefings for employers to promote the value of the role re: ULR activity. Statutory rights for ULRs to be emphasised. Again, development of an employers’ ‘Toolkit’ may be a start to this activity.

unionlearn affiliate unions LSC NWDA

5. There is a need to gain access to appropriate employer forums to encourage meaningful dialogue on the value of the learning and skills agenda.

unionlearn affiliate unions

6. To make use of representatives from both sides of the employment relationship where activity is effective and they are able to offer the benefit of their experience on how to overcome barriers to facilitating ULR activity.

unionlearn affiliate unions LSC NWDA

7. Provision of pro-forma ‘best practice’ learning agreements, policies and procedures to guide the process but also to be used as a vehicle for unions and employers to achieve ‘best fit’ for their organisation, sector.

unionlearn affiliate unions LSC

8. Encourage formalised process(es) for sharing best practice, both intra and inter union.

unionlearn affiliate unions

9. There is evidence that employer/union learning agreements, workplace unionlearn learning committees underpin effective ULR activity. Some affiliate unions affiliate unions would like to see the introduction of legislation to enforce this.

NWDA 10. TU Education programme needs to be reactive to the evolving training and education needs of ULRs.

unionlearn

11. It is acknowledged that there are ‘follow on’ TUC Education programmes for ULRs. A longer term aim may be the provision of an education programme that would enable ULRs to provide something of an “IAG – One Stop Shop” for colleagues, from needs analysis through to evaluation of learning and recording development achieved. Using further Personal Development Planning to identify continuing development needs of individuals.

unionlearn

12. Encourage the provision by unions of networking opportunities for ULRs. Encourage mentoring activity within the ULR population.

unionlearn affiliate unions LSC

13. There is a need for continuing meaningful dialogue between funding agencies, TUC Learning Services, Unions and learning providers to facilitate timely provision against identified learning needs.

unionlearn affiliate unions LSC NWDA

14. TUC Learning Services, LSCs and other funding bodies need to identify workable mechanisms for robust information management to evidence ULR activity.

unionlearn LSC training/learning providers 43

2006 Recommendations North West LSCs

NWDA

1. There is the need for a more strategic relationship between unionlearn and the LSC.

1. NWDA is in the position to promote the value of working with unions within the region.

2. There is a feeling on both sides that the current relationship is about contract management. From unionlearn’s experience this does not facilitate innovation. There is the opportunity to work together to identify where ULR growth is supported and to direct funded activity in a particular way to sustain that and develop activity in other harder to reach areas of the workforce within the region.

2. The opportunity exists to pilot the unionlearn link into Sector Skills Productivity Alliances via representation and involvement on those by sector. Thus, contributing to/facilitating a regional context for skills issues.

3. There appears to be a need for LSC to understand where unions are strong and what they are good at instead of trying to fit them into LSC approaches and objectives.

4. In respect of the learning and skills agenda, there is a need to develop a framework to see where the opportunities and responsibilities for stakeholders fit.

5. There is a need to identify and build upon where ULRs are effective and consider how to engage and develop the contribution of other stakeholders.

6. The revised IiP Standard (2004) focuses on a range of people management issues, such as employee involvement and empowerment, reward and recognition. There are opportunities for unionlearn to demonstrate its contribution at strategic, regional level and for unionlearn, union(s) and ULRs to contribute at strategic and operational level in the achievement of the IiP standard in workplaces.

7. In respect of Skills for Life, the LSC might look at how the work of unionlearn can be focussed towards sectors/geographic areas where there are Skills for Life needs and thus be targeted to help meet the needs of Sector Skills Councils (SSC) /Sector Skills Productivity Alliance (SSPA).

8. Building on current achievements, there is potential for unionlearn impact, in contributing to the LSC/NWDA SME (small to medium sized enterprises) strategy over the longer term.

44

3. In respect of NWDA brokerage on behalf of the LSC/unionlearn formal contract, action to be taken to ensure Business Link, LSC give unionlearn access to that information for circulation to ULRs. Thus giving equity of access to information held by skills broker that employers have access to.

4. NWDA desire the development of ULR role, to that of skills broker in time.

5. There is a role for NWDA to encourage robust information collection and management to help activity contribute to regional productivity and skills targets.

6. There is a need to turn strategic activity to operational/practical activity. Sector Skills Productivity Alliances (SSPA) as in 2 above, are examples of practical activity. Unionlearn in other regions are involved in skills marketing, redundancy counselling via a regional fund. There is no such regional fund in the North West region.

7. Consider the strategic NWDA/LSC North West approach versus the approach in other regions.

Where strategic partners have targets but then for example unionlearn is provided with a fund that unionlearn administrates and monitors outcomes to ensure that project work is contributing towards the strategic objectives of RDA and LSC. 8. Key stakeholders see unionlearn as a vehicle for achieving their strategies. There is an opportunity to sustain activity through supporting unionlearn in things they are good at, like hard-to-reach workers in the public sector. Unionlearn can influence workforce opinion, crucial in changing heart and minds attitude of workforce in respect of engaging in learning activity.

Employers

Affiliate unions

1. There is need for meaningful dialogue between the different members of the employment relationship both intra and inter organisations and agencies.

1. The data received from affiliate unions in the region has been useful in identifying the type and level of activity they were involved in, in respect of ULR activity. However this data was gathered in 2004. Given the evolutionary nature of the agenda and targets to be achieved by 2010 it seems probable that affiliate activity may have been developing rapidly over the past 18 months. Thus it would appear appropriate to work with affiliate unions in the region via a further survey, interviews with Regional Secretaries and those with responsibility for the learning and skills agenda to establish the current and anticipated level of activity.

2. ULRs are well placed to support organisations meeting some of the informing and consulting requirements of the revised (April 2004) Investors in People Standard (IiP) and other workplace initiatives such as Agenda for Change in the health service.

3. Facilitate opportunities for unionlearn with the North West TUC to gain access and contribute to appropriate employer forums, networks to provide information, advice and guidance on ULR and related activity.

4. Evidence from other research (Lewis et al (2003:106), demonstrates that a positive employment relationship demonstrates the existence of a ‘good employer’. The learning environment requires a positive employment relationship, (Rainbird et al, 2004:38, Heyes in Rainbird 2000:154). Where the data provides evidence of this working, it works well from both sides, with employers appreciating the value of providing facility time and understanding the ULR role and what unions can contribute in the workplace.

2. ULRs are likely to drop out if they have not been a union representative before. There is a crucial role for networks and forums to support them particularly in first two years of office.

3. Importance of employer/union learning agreement to set foundations for effective ULR activity in the workplace. Especially around the areas of facility time and resources.

4. Continuing education and training of union policy/decision makers and those involved in the delivery of the learning and skills agenda, about the role of ULRs. 5. Continuing integration of ULRs into branch structure.

6. Continuing briefings for bargaining officers and full time officers in identifying the value of the ULR role and to apply it as an integral part of the bargaining framework in the workplace.

7. Unions have to give higher priority to issues that can enable them to offer competitive advantage to the employers in workplaces, in which they have members e.g. productivity and performance and to demonstrate to other agencies such as the NWDA and LSC how they can contribute to regional targets in these areas.

45

Unionlearn with the North West TUC 1. To further develop strategic relationship with regional stakeholders and partners.

2. Preparing and supporting affiliate unions to participate in such forums as Sector Skills Councils etc.

3. Working to promote the learning and skills agenda and the contribution of ULRs in achieving this to employers.

4. Provision of support to affiliates and ULRs; training, advice, networking and dissemination of good practice.

5. There is need for unionlearn to continue to scan the environment to be aware of changing context(s) and develop its activity accordingly.

6. Inform Government policy to consider the impact of decisions on the work of unionlearn.

At times the impact of policy decisions appears to be off the radar e.g. impact of changes to adult learning funding.

7. Collecting data as evidence to demonstrate a good job is being done and promoting successes and effective practice.

8. Unionlearn with the North West TUC to work with affiliates to develop common systems and frameworks.

9. Unionlearn with the North West TUC to consider how best it develops its strategic relationship with key stakeholders.

10. Unionlearn with the North West TUC to evaluate the consequence of continuing to operate as it does now or to develop its policy and practice, in line with that in other regions, where unionlearn distributes funds to unions.

46

References ACAS code of practice 3, (2003), Time off for Trade union duties and activities, ACAS

Rainbird, H. (2003), A Further Education, People Management Vol. 9 (18): 48

Berg, B.L. (1995) ‘Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences’, Chapter 4, Allyn and Bacon.

Rainbird, H. Fuller, A. Munro, A. (2004), Workplace Learning in Context, Routledge

Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press Clough, B. (2003), From Spearholders to Stakeholders: The Emerging Role of Unions in the UK Learning and Skills System, in Cooney, R. and Stuart, M. (2004), Trade Unions and Training: Issues and International Perspectives, Caulfield East, National Key Centre in Industrial Relations, Monash University.

Cully, M. Woodland, S. O’Reilly, A. Dix, G. (1999), Britain at Work. As depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, Routledge

Rainbird, H (2005) 'Assessing Partnership Approaches to Lifelong Learning: A New and Modern Role for the Trade Unions?', in M. Stuart and M. Martinez Lucio (eds.) Partnership and Modernisation in Employment Relations, pp.26-62. London: Routledge.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business Students, third edition, Harlow, FT Prentice Hall.

Stewart, J. (1999), Employee Development Practice, FT Pitman

Department for education and skills, (2003), Skills for Success, What the skills strategy means for business, Department for education and skills

Stuart, M., and Cooney, R. (2004) 'Trade Unions and Training: An Introduction', in Cooney, R. and Stuart, M (eds.) Trade Unions and Training: Issues and International Perspectives, National Key Centre Monograph.

Forrester, K. (2004), ‘The Quiet Revolution’? trade union learning and renewal strategies, Work, Employment and Society, vol. 18 (2): 413-420

TUC, (2004), The Quiet Revolution the rise of the union learning representative, Trades Union Congress

Harrison, R. (2002), Learning and Development third edition, CIPD

Wallis, E. Stuart, M. Greenwood, I, (2005), Learners of the Workplace Unite, Work, Employment and Society Vol 19(2): 283-304

Harrison, R. (2005), Learning and Development, 4th edition, CIPD HM Government, (March 2005), Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work, The Stationery Office.

Kersley, B. Alpin, C.Forth, J. Bryson, A. Bewley, H. Dix, G. Oxenbridge, S. (2005), Inside the Workplace: First Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, dti, ESRC, ACAS, PSI Krueger, R.A. (1994) ‘Focus Groups – A Practical Guide for Applied Research’, Sage.

Learning and Skills Council & TUC, (March 2005), Trades Union Congress and Learning and Skills Council Protocol, LSC Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. & Saunders, M. (2003), Employee Relations, understanding the employment relationship, FT Prentice Hall.

Merton, R and Kendall, P (1996) ‘The Focused Interview’, American Journal of Sociology, 51 (6) pp. 541-57.

Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Development, FT Prentice Hall Wiseman, (1998), Bargaining for Skills – The TECs and TUC find common ground, Employee Development Bulletin Wood, H. Moore, S. (2004), The Union Learning Experience: National Survey of Union Officers and ULRs, Summary Report, Working Lives Research Institute. www.learningservices.ork.uk/national/learning42860-fo.cfmTUC, (2005), White Paper on Skills – Guide to the elements of the strategy, accessed 28.09.05 York Consulting, (2003), Union Learning Rep Survey, TUC Learning Services Web sites FENTO, www.lluk.org/documents/standards/ teach_stan.pdf

Rainbird, H (2000), Training in the Workplace, Macmillan.

47

Alison Hollinrake HRM Division Department of Strategy & Innovation Lancashire Business School Greenbank Building University of Central Lancashire Preston PR1 2HE Telephone: 01772 894781 email: ahollinrake@uclan.ac.uk North West TUC unionlearn Suite 506-510 The Cotton Exchange Old Hall Street Liverpool L3 9UD Telephone 0151 236 5432