THE PRACTICE OF JOINT CONSULTATION IN AUSTRALIA - A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE AWIRS DATA

INTRODUCTION The publication of Industrial Relations at Work by Callus et al. (1991) has provided for the first time a comprehensive and representative picture of many aspects of industrial relations in Australia, and it should act as a stimulus for further research (both of a quantitative and a qualitative nature) in the area over the next few years. Indeed, if the British experience with WIRS can be used as a guide, it is rare for any publication on industrial relations not to refer to the data sets which are available for 1980 and 1984 (and one would suspect that the same will happen with the 1991 results). The value of these data sets immeasurable, and although there are many criticisms which can be aimed at such large scale survey work (see, for example, Morris and Wood, 1991), it at least means that the debate can shift onto a firmer terrain. Clearly, given the length and complexity of the questionnaires used in the AWIRS survey, it was not feasible for the book to cover all areas of the material in sufficient detail. One of the subjects for which further analysis is necessary is that of communication and involvement, and this will form the focus of this and subsequent papers. Although, as we shall see, joint consultative committees (JCC's) are only present in a small minority of workplaces and cover no more than about one-third of the workforce, this proportion grew rapidly during the latter part of the 1980s. Accordingly, consultation is of increasing significance to the future of industrial relations in Australia. Furthermore, it is suggested that moves to decentralise the system of industrial relations in Australia will mean that joint consultation (and with it more "direct" forms of employee involvement) is likely to become even more extensive over the next few years. Although there were broad references to the need for consultation in the Restructuring and Efficiency and Structural Efficiency Principles from 1987 onwards, it was only with the National Wage Case of April 1991 that this became explicit. Here, parties seeking increases in wages or salaries allowable under the decision are required to satisfy the Commission that (amongst other things) they have established "a consultative mechanism and procedures appropriate to their size, structure and needs for consultation and negotiation on matters affecting their efficiency and productivity". It might be expected that this would act as a stimulus for more joint consultation, although even though provisions for JCCs may now be incorporated into awards, this does not necessarily imply that committees will be set up in practice. Nevertheless, even if the impact is limited, given that the AWIRS data was collected during 1989 and 1990, it is probable that JCC's are now more extensive than they were at the time of the survey. Indeed, this would tie in with developments elsewhere - especially in the USA and the UK - where managerially-initiated forms of employee involvement, cooperation, collaboration, and participation are high on the agenda of industrial relations reform (see, for example, Walton, 1985; Cooke, 1989; Marchington et al. 1991). The remainder of this paper will concentrate on the results relating to JCCs which are derived from secondary analysis of the AWIRS data. There will be some reference to the literature as appropriate, but the major focus is on the data itself. It should be emphasised at the outset that this is a preliminary analysis, and its purpose is to present information which can be developed further by other researchers as well as myself. Some of the points which are made below are more speculative than others, but they seem consistent with ideas derived from qualitative research both here and in Britain.