ILPC 2026

This paper considers the integration of union partnership processes within HRM systems at a major UK retail organisation and analyses the associated interactions, tensions and contradictions this brings to employment relations. The institutional processes and commitments which are practiced as part of a detailed management-union social partnership agreement are found to act, in various ways, as a missing variable in the organisation’s ‘high performance work system’. This activity is achieved through the union’s channels of communication, its consultation capacity and its role in policing and enforcing the terms of the partnership agreement and prescribed organisational HRM policy. Debates around partnership swing from the notions of mutual gains, cooperation and reciprocity (Ackers and Payne, 1998), to the incorporation and compliance of unions to management agendas (Kelly, 1996). The inevitable risks for unions in entering partnership with employers are explored by Martinez-Lucio and Stuart (2005), while Geary and Trif (2011) explore the distribution of partnership gains. It is these notions of union risk and the complexities of the distribution of any gains achieved through partnership which are explored in this paper. Data was collected through a single embedded case study at a market leading UK retailer which boasts one of the most detailed management-union partnership agreements in the UK, covering over half a million employees. Fifty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted across eight sites in the north of England with union officials, managers and shop floor employees, as well as documentary analysis of the partnership agreement and company HR policies. The partnership allows for union mechanisms to contribute to and augment so called ‘soft’ HRM systems already present in the organisation, principally through drawing on the union’s parallel communication systems which reinforce those of the organisation. Upwards and downwards systems of organisational communication are thus enhanced by the partnership system, potentially distributing gains for both the organisation and employees. While the union is afforded some level of consultation around other HRM practices through the partnership system, in reality its influence is found to be weak. Union voice and employee voice through union channels is embraced where organisational benefits are seen, but otherwise union influence only constitutes a monitoring and policing role where considerable union time and resources are constantly required simply to hold management to account over pragmatic implementation of their own HR policy and even breaches employment legislation. The resulting conditions of employment are perceived to be superior to those expected in the absence of partnership, due to the ability of the union to counter some harsh HRM decisions, however the distribution of gains are far from mutual because management are able to extract value from union systems where it suits productivity, while the union must continue to focus resources on preventing deterioration of working conditions. In this way, partnership contributes to the sustainability of a high performance work system, but at considerable cost to union resources and for little or no improvement in conditions of employment.