Board-level Employee Representation in Europe. Priorities, Power and Articulation Jeremy Waddington and Aline Conchon New York and London: Routledge, 2016, £95.00 hardback, 282 pages + xvi, ISBN: 978-1-138-79202-9 (hardback) ISBN: 978-1-315-76238-8 (e-boo

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-202
Author(s):  
Michael Gold
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Board Level

Board-level employee representation in the Visegrád countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Zybała
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
National Level ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Class ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Policy Paradigm ◽  
Labour Participation ◽  
Board Level ◽  
Practical Agenda ◽  
Visegrád Countries

This article addresses the complexity of trade-union approaches to board-level employee representation in the Visegrád countries, and the barriers it faces in particular national settings. Trade unionists in these countries accept the relevance of such employee representation in theory, but their practical agenda covers other issues which they perceive as more important as they struggle to survive at many levels of activity, and face growing existential uncertainty and risk. Unions also lack capacity to overcome obstacles such as reluctance on the part of the political class and managerial hostility to board-level representation; they cannot exert influence on major policy decisions at national level. They are operating in a more and more difficult environment, reflecting not merely a declining membership base, but also the recent economic crisis that failed to change the economic policy paradigm in the Visegrád countries: policies there still rely on a neoliberal approach and hence are not conducive to labour participation. What can still be seen as the predominant model is the traditional one of the market economy in which rights of ownership reign supreme.

Corporate Governance, Employee Voice and the Interests of Employees: The Broken Promise of a ‘World Leading Package of Corporate Reforms’

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Villiers
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Employee Motivation ◽  
Employee Voice ◽  
Corporate Value ◽  
Workplace Democracy ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Corporate Governance System ◽  
Union Representation ◽  
Board Level

Abstract Following a series of corporate governance scandals which involved exploitative treatment of workers, reforms were introduced to the UK’s corporate governance system in 2018, presented both as an attempt to rebuild trust and to afford a stronger voice for workers in that system. This paper explores the new landscape from a workers’ voice and protection perspective. It highlights that, while corporate governance has a role in ensuring workers’ needs are met, there is a tension between the goals of any reforms in this territory: board-level employee representation could be seen as a way of democratising the economy and valuing the part played by labour in that process, but it could also be seen as a way of increasing corporate value, economic performance or employee motivation, and disregarding the implications for labour. It is argued in this paper that worker protection requires a more genuine workplace democracy with full involvement of trade union representation. This would also help to broaden the corporate governance framework’s horizon towards a more genuine stakeholder vision beyond the existing tokenistic legal and regulatory nods in that direction.

scholarly journals Serious misconduct of health professionals in disciplinary tribunals under the National Law 2010–17

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni Millbank
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Sexual Misconduct ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Health Practitioner ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Uniform Manner ◽  
Board Level

Objective There is a gap in knowledge regarding serious disciplinary matters concerning health professionals under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (hereafter ‘National Law’). The present study applies a typology of misconduct to the first 7 years of available tribunal cases under the National Law brought against the five most populous regulated health professions with the overarching goal of mapping the relationship between type of misconduct and outcome. As subquestions, the study examined whether the ostensibly uniform law is producing consistency of outcomes, both between the professions and between jurisdictions. Methods All publicly available Australian tribunal-level decisions concerning complaints of serious misconduct and/or impairment brought against the five most populous regulated health professions (nurses and midwives, doctors, psychologists, pharmacists, and dentists) were gathered from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2017. Decisions were coded for case and respondent attributes, the type/s of misconduct alleged, whether proved, and the relevant disciplinary outcome. Respondent attributes were: profession, sex, legal representation, and certain identified ‘risk’ factors from previous studies. The type of allegation was coded based on five main categories or heads of misconduct, with subtypes within each. Outcomes for proved conduct were coded and categorised for severity. Analyses of cases was conducted using SPSS, version 21 (IBM, New York, NY, USA). Data was subject to statistical analysis using Pearson’s Chi-squared test with an α value of 0.05. Results Major variations were identified in outcomes across the professions, with doctors being subject to less severe outcomes than other professions, in particular compared with nurses, even when the same main head of misconduct was in issue. Differences in legal representation did not completely account for such variation. Marked disparities were also identified between outcomes in different states and territories, suggesting that the National Law is not being applied in a uniform manner. Conclusion Tribunal cases reflected complaint data in that: (1) male practitioners were greatly over-represented as respondents; (2) outcomes were most severe for sexual misconduct and least severe for clinical care; and (3) doctors faced less severe outcomes than other professions. There were also significant variations in severity of outcome by jurisdiction. Variations were more pronounced when deregistration was the focus of analysis. What is known about this topic? Existing research on complaints data under the National Law in place since 2010 has suggested that doctors may be receiving less severe outcomes than other professions at board level. There is a gap in knowledge concerning serious disciplinary matters heard by tribunals. Unlike data on complaints against regulated health professionals collated by AHPRA, legal tribunals, which hear only the most serious matters, do not record data on cases in a consistent or centralised form. What does this paper add? This study is the first to compare tribunal outcomes for the five most populous professions by reference to the type of misconduct proved. The finding that different professions are receiving different outcomes for the same malfeasance is novel. Other novel findings include significant variations in severity of outcome by jurisdiction, more pronounced variations in outcomes by both profession and jurisdiction when deregistration was the focus of analysis and variations in outcome according to legal representation. What are the implications for practitioners? There are major implications for policy makers and decision makers in terms of whether the National Law is operating consistently, with important outcomes for practitioners in terms of equitable and fair treatment when facing disciplinary charges.

Negotiated board-level employee representation in European Companies: Leverage for the institutional power of labour?

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lafuente Hernández
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
European Law ◽  
European Company ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Institutional Power ◽  
Board Level ◽  
First Time

The European Company Directive anchored board-level employee representation in European law for the first time. Rules negotiated between management and worker representatives became the primary source for formulating and designing such representation as an institution of European industrial relations. However, I show that negotiated rules on board-level representation provide limited institutional leverage for European workers. I examine the fragmented and incomplete legal framework applicable, the diverse forms and patterns of negotiated rules and their potential and limitations for supporting workers’ power on boards.

Board-level employee representation in Europe

1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-296
Author(s):  
Mark Carley
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
European Company ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Worker Participation ◽  
Board Level

This article examines briefly the nature of employee representation on company boards, its extent in western Europe and the revival of the European Company Statute which has once again brought this form of indirect worker participation to the fore. The article goes on to outline some of the main findings of recent research by the author into board-level representation in five countries (Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland and the Netherlands), highlighting areas of diversity and of convergence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document