A new National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) was established in Ireland in early 2001 to replace the previous National Centre for Partnership (NCP). The main role of the NCPP is to provide institutional support for diffusing workplace partnership. It remains to be seen how much success the NCPP will experience in the context of Ireland's voluntarist industrial relations system.
The National Centre for Partnership (NCP) was established in July 1997 (IE9706202N) under the terms of the 1997-2000 national agreement, Partnership 2000 (IE9702103F). The main role of the NCP was to promote and facilitate the development of enterprise-level "partnership" between employers, trade unions and workers. Its functions included: providing assistance and support to organisations in developing workplace partnership arrangements; disseminating "best practice"; and monitoring developments. In early 2001, the NCP was replaced by a new National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP).
Context of the new NCPP
The creation of the NCP in 1997 was prompted by concerns at the time that although social partnership was evolving at national level, workplace partnership and advanced forms of work organisation were not very widely diffused at local level. Research findings taken from the University College Dublin (UCD) National survey of employee relations and human resource practices in Ireland (see "Collaborative production and the Irish boom: Work organisation, partnership and direct participation in Irish workplaces", WK Roche and JF Geary, Economic and Social Review, 51(1), 1999) revealed that workplace partnership arrangements between employers and unions were rare, as were advanced forms of work organisation that provide workers with direct participation opportunities (IE9807120F). It was concluded that employers' preferred approach for introducing change is primarily through unilateral management decision-making, particularly in relation to strategic business issues. The survey was conducted in the last six months of 1996 and the first six months of 1997, just before the NCP was established. It is the most comprehensive piece of research to date on the diffusion of enterprise partnership and new forms of work organisation in Ireland.
Roche and Geary also concluded that the diffusion of new forms of work organisation in Ireland has been hampered by the nature of the institutional environment. They suggest that in the context of a "voluntarist" industrial relations system, there are few institutional forces promoting worker or union participation at enterprise level, and that firms are free to choose from any number of models of employment relations. As a result, Ireland has a fragmented system of industrial relations, characterised by diversity in employment practices. Ireland's voluntarist industrial relations system is deemed to be less receptive to workplace partnership than many continental European systems, which have institutional frameworks and regulations promoting representative involvement bodies such as works councils.
Another important issue is that responsibility for workplace innovation in Ireland is divided and replicated across a number of state institutions such as the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC), theNational Centre for Partnership (NCP) and the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). This has resulted in structural complexity, a duplication of roles, difficulty in developing a strategic direction, and competition for limited resources. Another thorny issue referred to by Roche and Geary is that employers and trade unions cannot agree on what constitutes partnership. Employers argue that direct employee involvement in non-union enterprises constitutes partnership, while the unions argue that partnership in any true sense must involve collective representation.
Some progress would appear to have been made in diffusing partnership arrangements since the data for the UCD study was collated and the NCP was established. A survey published by Industrial Relations News in December 1999 examined 68 examples of local partnership arrangements (IE0001204F). The NCP has played an important role in diffusing partnership arrangements, in terms of finding out why, and under what conditions, workplace innovations succeed and of providing guidance to ensure that these lessons can be diffused to other organisations. On the whole, however, it is still the case that beyond a few high-profile examples, advanced forms of workplace partnership are still not very widespread across the economy.
It is in this context that the establishment of the new National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) must be viewed. It represents an attempt to improve institutional support for enterprise partnership.
Structure and role of the NCPP
The NCPP was established in early 2001 under the provisions of the current national agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) (IE0003149F). It is stated in the PPF under the heading of "Partnership at the level of the enterprise" that: "IBEC and ICTU and the proposed National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) will work together to develop guidelines to assist enterprises in embarking on and successfully putting in place partnership arrangements. The important role of institutional support in this context is recognised by the parties."
The NCPP is headed by Peter Cassells, the recently appointed executive chair. Significantly, Mr Cassells was formerly the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), and he has substantial credibility, in terms of his key role in promoting social partnership over the past 13 years. Such a high-profile appointment would appear likely to bolster the clout and status of the NCPP.
An important part of the job description of the NCPP executive chair is to implement the recommendations of a recent evaluation report to the office of the Prime Minister (Taoiseach) on partnership in Ireland ("Partnership at work in Ireland - an evaluation of progress under Partnership 2000", R O'Donnell and P Teague, Report to the Department of the Taoiseach, 2001). Some of the report's key recommendations concern the future role of the NCPP. The authors of the report see the NCPP as the "conduit" for public financial support for partnership. Other recommendations include the deepening of partnership through consensus building, dissemination, monitoring, research, analysis, training and facilitation.
Mr Cassells has stated that the NCPP will have been judged to be effective if: "national prosperity continues and is shared more fairly, with a reduction in inequality"; and there is a "remodelling of social partnership and a deepening of partnership in the workplace". Interestingly, Mr Cassells believes that a major test for the NCPP will be to try to engage non-union companies such as the Intel information technology firm in the partnership process (reported in Industrial Relations News, 8, 2001).
The NCPP has been promised more resources than the NCP, and significantly, it is now one of three bodies under a new umbrella organisation, the Office for National Economic and Social Development. The other two bodies are theNational Economic and Social Council (NESC) and theNational Economic and Social Forum (NESF). All three organisations have now been established as statutory bodies. They will operate under the auspices of the Department of the Taoiseach, but the relationship will be an "arms-length" one.
Commentary
Although social partnership has evolved at national level as a result of five successive national agreements dating back to 1987, partnership is not very widely embedded at enterprise level. It remains to be seen whether the new NCPP can succeed in triggering the wider diffusion of workplace partnership. Significantly, the new body would appear to have more "teeth" than the NCP, in the sense that it has a greater status and a very high-profile executive chair, and seems likely to benefit from a larger budget. It would appear to be the case, however, that workplace partnership is unlikely to increase significantly in the context of a voluntarist industrial relations system, under which employers are free to choose from a wide variety of employment relations practices. Moreover, there is still significant disagreement amongst employers and trade unions in relation to what the definition of partnership actually is: does it encompass collective representation or individual employee involvement? It would seem that legislation or regulation would be required to diffuse partnership, and, in this sense developments relating to the proposed EU Directive on national information and consultation rules (EU0012285F) will be very important (Tony Dobbins, CEROP, UCD).