6 - Expanding the Boundaries of Industrial Relations as a Field of Study: The Role of ‘New Actors’

Summary

Work on so-called ‘new actors’ in industrial relations (Heery and Frege, 2006; Cooke and Wood, 2014) has not only added to our knowledge and understanding of industrial relations but also highlighted its distinctiveness and vitality as a field of study, and expanded its boundaries. But what do we mean by an industrial relations ‘actor’? Influenced by Dunlop's (1958) concept of an ‘industrial relations system’, the field was traditionally dominated by a concern with understanding collective relations between workers, represented by trade unions, and employers, often organized in employers’ associations (Heery and Frege, 2006). The label ‘new’ can thus be applied to actors – individuals, organizations, institutions and movements – that either did not used to have much of a role in industrial relations or did have one but were neglected.

Much of the credit for stimulating a greater concern with new actors must go to Bellemare (2000). His study of the Canadian city of Montreal showed the important influence over industrial relations exercised by public transport users. The work of bus drivers, for example, was affected in some important ways by the attitudes and expectations of passengers. Bellemare's (2000) principal theoretical contribution was to conceptualize the nature of an industrial relations actor based on the extent of their involvement at three levels – the workplace, the organization and wider society, respectively – and their impact. Further studies of ‘end users’ in health and social care highlight their importance as actors in industrial relations. For example, the activities of patients’ representatives can influence how individual staff are managed in hospital settings (Bellemare et al, 2018). Moreover, empowering users of care services has important implications for how carers’ work is organized (Kessler and Bach, 2011). However, Bellemare's (2000) approach, with its emphasis on being influential at all three levels and the continuity of such influence, is perhaps too restrictive, potentially excluding actors who play an important part in industrial relations but whose involvement is restricted to a single level or is intermittent (Abbott, 2006; Kessler and Bach, 2011).

In the case of certain actors, it is not that they are necessarily ‘new’ but rather that their role has become more prominent or better understood. Some examples are as follows. John Logan (2006) detailed the important contribution made by anti-union law firms and consultants to corporate efforts to suppress unionization in the US.