Working Constructively With Unions: A Case Study Backed By Research

Sep 26

5 min read

Harun Musho’d

My background in industrial relations is mixed. I started work in 1987 in catering management in a non-union environment, then moved into Civil Service HR and reward. My next role coincided with the early-1990s move towards delegating Civil Service pay bargaining to individual departments and agencies. Because I understood the pay system, I became increasingly involved in trade union work and helped negotiate what my union regarded as one of the Civil Service’s best pay deals.

I later returned to HR, responsible among other things for negotiating pay with the unions. That did not initially go well. While still a union member, I even found myself both taking part in it as a trade union member, whilst also trying to mitigate the effects of that strike as an HR manager. Eventually we reached agreement, the relationship improved, and I remain friends with people from both sides.

After 11 years I moved to a larger public-sector body as Head of Reward and Employee Relations. Relations with the unions and management relationships were already negatively entrenched, and I made them worse by being overly confrontational with local representatives whom I saw as defensive and suspicious of management. I had to change tack.

How to make consultation meaningful

Later, first as acting HR director and then while leading a review of corporate support services, I had the opportunity to reset those relationships. I used an approach I had learned from a previous acting HR director:

Listen and record everything, including criticism
Ask people to prioritise the issues that matter most
Explain how their input will be used; and
When a response is needed, be honest, polite and frank.

I used the same approach with the trade unions (plural as there were five of them). Regular contact gradually built trust. By the time the review moved to recommendations, discussions with senior representatives and national officers were frank and constructive. The recommendations were supported by trade unions, accepted the executive management board and implemented.

Lessons learned – and what the evidence says

The problem with case studies, like my experience above, is that they are context-specific. I prefer to base management practice on research, especially meta-analysis. However, case studies, such as my experience above, can help show how research works in practice.

1. Build the relationship before you need it

Research suggests that commitment to a union and commitment to an employer can coexist rather than being competing loyalties. Two meta-analyses found a substantial positive relationship between union and organisational commitment (Reed, Young and McHugh, 1994; Bamberger, Kluger and Suchard, 1999). I stumbled across the same benefit twice, once in the small civil service organisation and then again as acting HR director in the larger public sector body.

Do not wait for a dispute: regular contact makes difficult conversations easier later.

2. Consult early enough for consultation to matter

Two meta-analyses of the wider employee-voice literature support this approach. Constructive voice is associated with a positive workplace climate (Frazier et al., 2017), while psychological safety makes people more willing to speak up (Chamberlin, Newton and LePine, 2017). Acas recommends consultation should be a genuine two-way discussion in which views are heard and concerns and suggestions genuinely considered (Acas, 2026a). I learned that the hard way, but I put it to good use in the corporate services review and have run organisational development consultation on that basis ever since.

Consultation works best while there is still something meaningful to influence.

3. Focus negotiations on problems, not just positions

A meta-analysis of wider negotiation research found that more cooperative approaches were associated with greater problem-solving and better joint outcomes (De Dreu, Weingart and Kwon, 2000). I learned this partly as a trade unionist and later applied it as a manager. Even where government limits constrained the total pay increase, there was often scope to negotiate how the pay bill was distributed to address priorities on both sides.

4. Give representatives useful information

A meta-analysis found that sharing relevant information is associated with better decision-making, knowledge integration and group performance (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009). Employers may also have a statutory duty to disclose information to recognised unions for collective bargaining where the requirements of sections 181 and 182 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are met (Acas, 2003).

In my experience, the benefits of disclosure usually outweigh the risks, although commercially sensitive information requires care.

5. Treat disagreement as normal

The CIPD describes and recommends proactive, early, problem-solving approaches (CIPD, 2025). Recent CIPD research also shows that good employee relations can coexist with workplace conflict (Cockett and Suff, 2025). The TUC recommends to trade union representatives that workplace disputes should wherever possible be dealt with through effective internal procedures and collective bargaining (TUC, 2007). Finally, Acas research also suggests that collective conciliation can bring employers and unions closer on disputed issues (Acas, 2024).

The aim is not to have a union that complies with management’s wishes. It is to build a credible working relationship in which both sides can disagree, negotiate and still work together afterwards.

For managers, the practical lesson are:

Constructive union relations should be built before they are tested.
Early consultation, openness, useful information and a willingness to work through disagreement all make difficult issues easier to resolve.
Good employee relations do not eliminate conflict; they make conflict manageable.

References

Acas (2003) Code of Practice on disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. London: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Acas (2024) Acas collective conciliation evaluation 2023. London: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Acas (2026a) Holding a consultation: Consulting employees and representatives. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Updated 10 August 2026.

Bamberger, P.A., Kluger, A.N. and Suchard, R. (1999) ‘The antecedents and consequences of union commitment: A meta-analysis’, Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), pp. 304–318. doi:10.2307/256921.

Chamberlin, M., Newton, D.W. and LePine, J.A. (2017) ‘A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions’, Personnel Psychology, 70(1), pp. 11–71. doi:10.1111/peps.12185.

CIPD (2025) Employee relations: An introduction. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Cockett, J. and Suff, R. (2025) UK industrial relations: A future with trade unions. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R. and Kwon, S. (2000) ‘Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), pp. 889–905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889.

Frazier, M.L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R.L., Pezeshkan, A. and Vracheva, V. (2017) ‘Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension’, Personnel Psychology, 70(1), pp. 113–165. doi:10.1111/peps.12183.

Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and DeChurch, L.A. (2009) ‘Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), pp. 535–546. doi:10.1037/a0013773.

Reed, C.S., Young, W.R. and McHugh, P.P. (1994) ‘A comparative look at dual commitment: An international study’, Human Relations, 47(10), pp. 1269–1293. doi:10.1177/001872679404701006.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2007) Resolving disputes at work: TUC submission to DTI review of employment dispute resolution. London: Trades Union Congress.