Union Learning Representative Research Report 2004/05 2006Alison HollinrakeHRM Division, Lancashire Business School,University of Central Lancashire

Foreword 1

Introduction 2

Methodology 4

LSC Context 5

Employer Context 8

Affiliate Context 11

Survey 1 – Focus Groups 16

Union Learning Representative Surveys 22

ULRs’ Hopes and Fears for the ULR role 39

Conclusions 42

Recommendations 43

References 47

Contents

Acknowledgements:

Many thanks to the folllowing people for their contribution to this research project.

Dave Eva and colleagues at unionlearn with the North West TUC

All participants who were interviewed, responded to surveys,attended focus group events.

Representatives from affiliate unions in the North West region.

Dr. Val Antcliff, Research Fellow, Lancashire Business School,University of Central Lancashire

Mrs. Ridwana Malji, Survey and Data Officer, Strategic Development Service, University of Central Lancashire

Ping Ping Hong, Research Assistant, Lancashire Business School,University of Central Lancashire

1

This is the most extensive piece of research that hasbeen done on Union Learning Representatives (ULRs)in the North West. In commissioning the research weand the North West Development Agency (NWDA)hoped to gain some useful insights into how the ULRrole was developing and what we might do to supportand develop ULRs who we see as a key factor indeveloping the union contribution to the regional skillsagenda. The research has been undertaken by AlisonHollinrake, HRM Division, Lancashire Business School,University of Central Lancashire (uclan). The researchhas identified a number of interesting themes andprovided us with a wealth of information on what ULRscurrently do and their concerns. It has provided theTUC’s unionlearn with some very useful lessons andguidance that will make us better able to work withaffiliates and stakeholders in the region.

Some of the interesting findings are that the new roleis encouraging new activists to get involved in unionactivity and that there is concrete evidence that thenew role is being consolidated in most unions.Importantly the research also indicates that learningagreements are playing an important part in ensuringeffective workplace activity and providing clearconditions for ULRs to work within. There are alsosome reasons for concern. There appears to be realemployer lack of interest in and understanding of theULR role and the problems many ULRs have had ingetting time off and facilities to carry out their role isworrying. A number of reasons are given by ULRs whoreport giving up the role within 2 years which confirmsthat we still have much to do to promote theimportance of learning to union members and that weneed to look in particular at support for new ULRs thatcan prevent them losing enthusiasm. The research withstakeholders also shows that unionlearn needs to lookat stakeholder expectation since it is important thatkey stakeholders are aware of the union contribution,understand what unions are and do not haveunrealistic expectations of what they can achieve. At the same time it is important that what unions are achieving and can achieve is promoted and thatemployers are encouraged to work with ULRs to realise these benefits. This research hopefully will help us to develop our dialogue with stakeholders andenable us to improve how we do business in the NorthWest and also has important general lessons for ULRsupport nationally.

Dave Eva, Regional Manager,unionlearn with the North West TUC

Foreword

2

Harrison (2002:31) reports that serious skillsshortages have been endemic in the UK for many decades. This is despite rafts ofGovernment Initiatives related to NationalVocational Education and Training (NVET) policythat have been introduced over the past 40 yearsand can be summarised as follows:

Pre 1964: The Laissez Fair approach (deliberate none state intervention)

1964 to 1980: The development of stateintervention

1981 to 1990: The New Training Initiative and after – return to voluntarist approach

1991 to 1997: NVET embedded in lifelong learning

1997 to present: The Learning Age

Adapted from Hamlin, (1999) in Stewart,(1999:22-61)

Harrison (2000: 64-65) states that, “to beunskilled in today’s global market place is tobelong to the most vulnerable of groups in thelabour market…” In 1999 the Moser report foundthat one in five British adults was functionallyilliterate (Harrison, 2002:31). Clearly a way tosupport such individuals was required. TheGovernment sees Union Learning Representatives(ULRs) as another key to making its skills strategywork (Rana, 2001 in Harrison, 2002:31). In itsresponse to the Moser report the Governmentemphasised the ULRs’ vital role in raising interestin training and development, especially amongthe lowest skilled workers (adapted fromHarrison, 2002:31). The Labour governmentbelieves that learning is a ‘natural issue forpartnership in the workplace’ while the TUCargues that union involvement in workplacelearning typifies the contribution of modernunions to business performance (TUC, 1998).

The current role played by trade unions has itsroots in the development of Bargaining for Skillsin 1994, a series of initiatives organised by theregional offices of the TUC and the then Trainingand Enterprise Councils (TECs). The initiativeswere narrowly focused around TEC targets. It was designed to raise unionists’ awareness ofworkplace learning and give them the knowledgeto negotiate better training with employers(Wiseman, 1998:9). The new Labour governmentbuilt on these foundations by establishing the

Union Learning Fund (ULF) in 1998. The rationalefor the establishment of the ULF was based onthe notion that skill development and lifelonglearning are crucial in increasing labour flexibilityand economic growth (DfEE, 1998:7). Nowentering its ninth year, to financial year end2005/06 ULF has provided £65.1 millioninvestment in support of union led projects many of which have provided innovative ways of accessing learning for hard-to-reach groups.

A key element of the union response to theestablishment of the ULF was the training andsupport of Union Learning Representatives whowere charged with identifying learning needs andstimulating the provision of life-long learningwithin the workplace. More specifically, the TUC set out their role as follows: generatingdemand for learning amongst members; givingadvice and information to members aboutlearning; identifying the learning needs ofmembers; representing members in relation to learning; negotiating agreements relating tolearning; working with employers to introduceand implement learning initiatives; liaising withexternal organisations to win support andresources for workplace learning initiatives (TUC, 1998). Many of the subsequent bids to the ULF revolved around the concept of ULRs.

The first union learning representatives weretrained and accredited in 2000. By the end of2005 the TUC report that in excess of 13,000 ULRs have been trained in England, it is estimatedthat there are over 4000 of these within theNorthwest Region (2634 trained through the TU Education system). They are now seen bygovernment as a crucial element of its skillsstrategy. The aim is to support the growth of thenetwork of trained ULRs to 22,000 by 2010 (HMGovernment, 2005, part 1:15). Specifically theyare seen as vital in raising interest in training anddevelopment amongst the lowest skilled workers,within a population in which 20% of British adultsare functionally illiterate (Harrison, 2002:31).Their role within the government's approach to learning was further cemented by theEmployment Relations Act 2002 that providedstatutory recognition for Union LearningRepresentatives and the right to (reasonable)paid time off during working hours to undertaketheir duties and to undertake relevant training(ACAS, 2003:8). Therefore trade unions and their

Introduction

3

ULRs are central to the Government’s NationalSkills Strategy (TUC, 2004) which aims “to ensure that employers have the right skills tosupport the success of their businesses andindividuals have the skills they need to be bothemployable and personally fulfilled.” (DfES 2003).If anything the role of ULRs is likely to becomeeven more important with new proposals unveiledin the 2005 white paper, ‘Skills: getting on inbusiness, getting on at work’. These proposalspromise a stronger role for trade unions inpromoting training in the workplace, particularlyfor low-skilled employees in pursuance of theshared goal of raising employability andproductivity (TUC, 2005).

The aim of this report is to provide an overview ofthe findings to date of a Northwest DevelopmentAgency (NWDA) funded research project on behalfof unionlearn with the North West TUC (formerlyTUC Learning Services, Northwest Region)England. The aims of the research project being:

1. To identify the extent of Union LearningRepresentative (ULR) activity and its impact on Workforce Development, within the region.

2. To identify issues that enhance and inhibit ULR activity.

The findings are informing unionlearn with theNorth West TUC and associated agencies as towhat is required to support effective andsustainable ULR activity within the North Westregion. This report aims to provide evidenceagainst four objectives:

1. To identify issues related to the EmploymentRelations Act 2002 statutory recognition forUnion Learning Representatives from the 2004survey to the 2006 survey.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’practice in establishing and sustaining theirULR activity.

3. To identify the type and level of supportrequired by ULRs and their unions forsustainable ULR activity.

4. To identify if learning activity via ULRsencourages the further development of unionorganisation in the workplace and/or if unionorganisation encourages learning activity inthe workplace.

4

In order to work towards gathering data to meet the objectives given in the introduction thefollowing methodology was applied. The projecthad four main phases. The first phase was anexploratory study in order to provide an overviewof ULR activity. In order to do this a detailedpostal questionnaire was distributed to all ULRs listed on the TUC Learning Servicesdatabase as at 31st December 2003. In total, 1739questionnaires were issued, 1605 of which formedthe sample and a total of 583 were returned, anoverall response rate of 36.5%. A further postalsurvey was distributed to 61 full-time officers ofall affiliate unions represented in the region. Thisquestionnaire was designed to obtain the viewsof affiliates as to the operation of ULRs. A total of26 questionnaires were returned, a response rateof 42.6%. Two methods were applied to gatherdata from employers, one a postal survey wasused to 1281 employers listed on the TUCLearning Services database, 67 were returned, aresponse rate of 5.2% and an electronic surveywas issued to 431 employers who have affiliationto uclan in respect of call centre activity, 5 returnswere made, a response rate of 1.16%.

The second phase was designed to sketch thecontext of ULR activity. This was achieved byconducting semi-structured interviews with allDevelopment Workers and the majority of ProjectWorkers within the TUC Learning Services NorthWest team. In addition to this three ULR eventswere attended and qualitative data gatheredthrough non-participant observation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with LSC, North West Region, Workforce DevelopmentManagers. These managers negotiate withunionlearn with the North West TUC regarding the allocation of funding to support ULR activitywithin the Northwest region.

The third phase was to explore a number of theissues identified in the initial postal surveys inmore depth. Given the large size of the sample, it was decided to achieve this through the use of focus groups. Overall nine focus groups wereconducted involving six unions. Focus groupswere arranged in conjunction with TUC LearningServices who identified a ‘contact’ within theaffiliate union. Each event was chaired by theauthor and supported by a Learning Officer fromthe union concerned. Either a DevelopmentWorker or Project Worker from TUC LearningServices also attended to give TUC Learning

Services’ view of the research. Attendees were amix of ULRs, Senior Stewards, Full Time Officersalthough not all groups were represented at eachevent. Overall seventy seven ULRs attended thefocus groups.

A common schedule of issues was used as aframework for discussion for all of the groups.Analysis of the quantitative data from thequestionnaire stage of the research was used to inform the facilitation of the groups. In order to ensure that participants spoke freely, the focusgroups were not tape recorded. Instead, keypoints to emerge during the focus groups wererecorded on a flip chart, while more detailednotes were taken by the facilitator. At the end ofeach focus group, these notes were then writtenup by the facilitator. Each focus group lastedbetween one and a half and two hours.

Focus groups were chosen for a number ofreasons. Firstly, they enabled the researchersaccess to the views, experiences and perceptionsof a relatively large number of ULRs in a cost andtime efficient manner. Secondly, it provided aninformal and supportive environment (whencontrasted to a formal one-to-one interview) in which participants could express their views(Krueger, 1994). Finally, and most importantly, itallowed the researchers to take advantage of thedynamic interaction between participants andtheir views and experiences (Berg, 1995; Mertonand Kendall, 1996). This provided key insights into the complexities of the social processesunderpinning the operational reality of ULRs.

Analysis of the data collected from the groupswas a two-stage process. Firstly, the facilitation of the groups involved an ongoing analysis of the contributions from participants. Areas ofagreement and controversy emerged from thediscussion. These key themes were identified andprovided the focus for further exploration throughdiscussion. Secondly, the notes of the group wereclosely examined in terms of: the consistency ofcontribution; the frequency/extensiveness ofcomments; and the intensity of comments.

The fourth phase has been a further detailedpostal questionnaire distributed to all ULRs listedon the TUC Learning Services database as at 31stDecember 2005. In total, 1540 questionnaireswere issued, 1469 of which formed the sampleand a total of 236 were returned, an overallresponse rate of 16.1%.

Methodology

The aim of the interviews with representativesfrom LSCs which work with unionlearn with theNorth West TUC was to identify North West regionLSCs’ view of ULR activity, from experience to date and how LSCs would like to see the initiativeprogress. Interviews were held with the RegionalSkills Director, Workforce DevelopmentProgramme Managers in Greater Merseyside(manage the relationship on behalf of the region),Greater Manchester, Warrington and Cheshire andthe Director of Skills for LSC Lancashire.

“The TUC and LSC will work positively and

actively together nationally, regionally and

locally to help maximise the contribution of

each organisation to promote learning and

skills and raise demand among young people,

adults and employers”

(LSC &TUC 2005)

This is the vision of the TUC and LSC Protocol,2005. Within the North West Region there is asignificant history, from 1998 to the present of an effective working relationship between TUCLearning Services and the Training and EnterpriseCouncils (TECs, pre 2001) and TUC LearningServices, now unionlearn with the North West TUCand the Learning and Skills Councils (LSC, post2001). It was acknowledged that the North Westhad more ULRs agreed (1999/00) than all otherregions together. The North West region has beenthe catalyst for change in respect of this agenda.We asked the LSC to describe the nature of thatrelationship. It was reported that there is a goodworking relationship at strategic level. Atoperational level whilst still ‘good’ approaches arechangeable and variable. It was acknowledgedthat this was a side effect of the context in whichDevelopment and Project Workers are employed.Their terms and conditions of employment tend to be short term secondments and short termemployment contracts due to the fundingmechanism for these roles. Thus it is sometimesdifficult to develop longer term workingrelationships and work together to develop robustand agreed reporting systems and procedures.It was acknowledged that there needs to be aneffective support process for newly appointedProject Workers as regards unionlearn and LSCexpectations of the monitoring process.

The TUC and LSC protocol (2005) identifies keyshared priorities as including: equality anddiversity, implementation of the Skills Strategy,

National Employer Training Programme (now Train to Gain), the Skills for Life Strategy,Apprenticeships, the provision of information,advice and guidance and improving the skills ofworkers who deliver public services. Within theNorth West region, in the early days, prioritieswere for initial ULR training and identification of Skills for Life needs in the workplace. Thechampion for ULRs was and remains unionlearnwith the North West TUC with the impact fromactivity being as a result of unionlearn going inand using ULRs to develop activity. It was statedthat originally there was an expectation that ULRswould facilitate employer engagement but thereis limited evidence that the ULR agenda caninfluence this. ULRs tend to achieve individualengagement with colleagues.

LSC funding is fundamental to unionlearn with theNorth West TUC activity. Funding allocation is aregional decision based upon proposals from theRegional Manager, unionlearn with the NorthWest TUC and evidence of performance againsttargets from the previous year. There is someopportunity to supplement initiatives to meetspecific local needs from Local Initiative Funding.Across the region the LSC identify the best returnfrom funding to date to be in the areas of numberof trained ULRs, ULR Networks and Workshops,ULRs working with colleagues to get peopleinvolved in learning and there is some evidence of effective Skills for Life activity. Networkingamongst different contract holders has also beenseen to be effective, where different members of the employment relationship appreciate eachother’s perspective in relation to WorkforceDevelopment related issues. TU Learning Centreson employers’ premises were effective but there is a question of their sustainability once externalfunding finishes. A number of examples from theregion were cited where these have not beenunderpinned by employer funding and onceexternal funding is removed tend to become moreof a resource centre than a learning centre.

As to how the LSC evaluate the effectiveness offunded projects they advised the following:

Hard evidence, numbers achieved etc, outcomeactivity: people completing courses, whereemployers and employees are taking up fundingprovision. A combination of returns, againstprofiles of outcomes, via the end of year reportproduced by unionlearn Regional DevelopmentWorkers. The annual (from 2002) National

5

LSC Context

Employers’ Skills Survey also provides evidenceat national level. Effective evaluation of outcomesis an issue for both the LSC and unionlearn. Onerepresentative informed us that the whole issueof evidence is about activity response againstfunding not numbers. If contract holders, such asunionlearn, cannot say how many ULRs are activeand evidence the activity, it is difficult. It wasconsidered that the provision of evidence ofProject Workers’ activity; supporting individualunions to work on their own to recruit andsupport ULRs; be coordinated through unionlearnwith the LSCs at arm’s length.

North West LSCs were asked what they considerenhances the effectiveness of funded ULRprojects in the region. Responses included:

– When it is not operating in isolation from otheractivities, ULR activity only part of the jigsaw.

– Experienced people who take working throughunion representation seriously. However thiscould inhibit other side as reporting from oneperspective.

– Unionlearn need links with other partners notjust affiliates and ULRs, e.g. Business Link

– Being proactive about working processes.Need to consider impact of the protocol,reducing budgets, shifting role of unionlearnas affiliates become more involved in ULR activity.

– Champions for ULR activity within theworkplace, encouraging employerengagement. Have to get management buy-in.

– The area in which ULRs operate, developingeffective relationships with colleagues toaddress Skills for Life needs, ULR credibilityand visibility within organisations.

Conversely, the LSCs were asked what theyconsider inhibits the effectiveness of funded ULR projects in the region. Responses included:

– The need to reflect the positive nature of therelationship with unionlearn enjoyed atstrategic level at operational level.

– Could be more proactive, innovative andsuggesting, not just complying with thecontract. Not just doing ‘more of the same’.

– Activity tends to focus on working with large organisations need to increase activitywith SMEs. Suggesting maybe a peripateticapproach for affiliate and unionlearnrepresentatives.

– The current information management from LSC to unionlearn, to providers and back, does not readily provide evidence required forunionlearn to confirm the outcomes from theiractivity. For example unionlearn know howmany referrals have originated from them butproviders do not necessarily know which of the learners who present for courses areunionlearn referrals. Therefore hard evidenceof the number of unionlearn referrals whocomplete a programme of study is difficult to establish.

– Issues with the ability of FE Colleges to provide for ULR Training and colleagues’identified learning needs.

– The LSC identify a need for ULRs to work inpartnership with Business Link to establishactivity within an organisation, then ULRsmaintaining that activity after Business Linkmove out.

We were also interested in the North West LSCs’ view of employer support for ULR activity in the region. There was some variation inresponses from:

– ‘mixed bag’,

– It is so dependant on the employer. Employerscan see it as restrictive e.g. not allowing non-union members into Learning Centres

– With most large employers it is good, but in non-organised and SMEs ULRs are not recognised.

– Since ULRs have been around, employers aremore aware of the skills agenda, especially inthe public sector however it is a differentsituation in the private sector.

– Employers’ response pretty good, where thereis an organised workforce. ULRs have todemonstrate credibility to get the employer on board. If ULR activity is viewed by theemployer as a barrier and to incur cost, then it is unlikely that partnership will be achievedwith the employer.

6

– Some employers tolerate ULRs, seen as anecessity rather than as a resource. Againdepends on the credibility of the ULR(s).

– Employers consult with and use ULRs to theirown advantage.

– Evidence has to come from reporting againstthe elements of the contract.

– LSC do not deal with employers

– Employers are happy to support ULR activityand related initiatives if not having to pay.Employer Training Pilots (ETP) provide someevidence of this.

The LSCs were asked how the TUC and LSCProtocol would be facilitated in the region.Dialogue was to be sought with the RegionalSecretary North West TUC and the RegionalManager unionlearn with North West TUC, usingthe protocol to identify priorities. It will be drivenby Greater Merseyside Office on a regional basisand replicated in consistency of approach acrossthe region. At the time of these discussions it wasestablished that there was some ULR activity insome LSC Workforce Development offices.

LSC representatives identified what they see asopportunities for further unionlearn with theNorth West TUC activity:

– Delivery and facilitation of Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) agenda to MATRIXstandard appears to be more appropriate than expecting ULRs to achieve employerengagement. Unionlearn with North west TUChas a unique selling point and needs to ensureit capitalises on that.

– Influential regional skills partnership viaRegional Secretary North West TUC.

– Regionally unionlearn are key as coordinatorsfor Union Learning Fund (ULF) (the nationalLSC budget that individual unions apply to for funding to develop major priorities).

LSC representatives identified their concerns for further unionlearn with the North West TUC activity:

– Impact if ‘key individuals’ were no longerinvolved in the agenda.

– Outputs and outcomes, sometimes poorperformance

– LSC opportunity to tap into hard to reachemployers via Train to Gain, unionlearn havethe opportunity to access hard to reachlearners in the public sector.

Other insightful comments from these discussionswere for example:

– Analogy was made with other contracts that require pump priming but impact is slow to achieve.

– Contracting process is robust across the boardsometimes the monitoring process for thiscontract is less robust. It would appear thatsystems are not in place for managinginformation from the unionlearn side. Alsothere was some acknowledgement thateffective evaluation systems were not availablefrom the LSC side.

– LSC is more inclined to support a successful,forward thinking organisation.

Conclusion – LSC Context

LSCs within the region have, over time andcontinue to have, a positive relationship withunionlearn with the North West TUC. Suchworking relationships are fundamental to thepartnership at both strategic and operationallevel. LSCs’ approach each contract in a fair and equitable manner and require robustevidence of outcome activity for the fundingprovided and to secure further funding. Current information management systems andprocedures do not always facilitate this. The level and nature of information management and the sharing of relevant information, by allstakeholders, requires review and substantialdevelopment to facilitate this.

7

As discussed in the methodology, two methodswere applied to gather data from employers, onea postal survey was used to 1281 employers listedon the then TUC Learning Services database, 67were returned, a response rate of 5.2% and anelectronic survey was issued by Call NorthWest(CNW) (part of uclan), to 431 employers who haveaffiliation to uclan in respect of call centre activity,5 returns were made, a response rate of 1.16%.CNW then contacted the remaining 143participants to encourage further responses.However none of these calls prompted furtherreplies due to the ‘sensitive’ nature and lack ofunderstanding of the questionnaire. Objections tocompleting the questionnaire were as follows:

– Not comfortable disclosing information

– No ULR activity

– Not interested

– Not speaking to relevant contact within theorganisation

– ULR identity unknown

– Outright ‘No thank you’

– Not convenient to talk (and no subsequent‘right moment’ thereafter)

– Unable to contact

– No response to messages left.

Clearly justified claims cannot be made from such a low response rate. The evidence presented in this section is to provide a flavour of employers’ opinions from the responsesreceived. It also has to be acknowledged that allorganisations on the unionlearn with the NorthWest TUC database have or have had trainedULRs within the organisation

Profile of Organisations

From the responses received 45% were from thepublic sector, 51% from the private sector and 4%from the voluntary sector. The main sectorsrepresented were:

Public Administration, Education and Health 42%

Manufacturing 28%

Distribution 15%

Transport and Communications 11%

80% were organisations with 200+ employees,13% had 50-199 employees 6% had 10-49employees. The main unions represented in these workplaces were TGWU, Amicus the union,UNISON, GMB, and USDAW. 76% of respondentsreported that there were ULRs in theirorganisation, 24% no ULRs. The table below gives the number of ULRs reported to be withinthe organisation.

Number of ULRs

1 -5 62%

6-9 17%

10-15 8%

16-19 2%

20-25 6%

26-30 2%

90 2%

334 2%

Total 100%

These findings correlate with the findings fromboth ULR surveys. The reports of 90 and 334ULRs within the organisation suggest reporting ofnational figures rather than the local workplace.

The organisations that responded report 94%organisational awareness of statutory rights forULRs. 63% of the organisations had a learningagreement to support ULR activity and 98% ofthose had been jointly negotiated between theemployer and the ULR. All had been acceptedbetween 2001 and 2005 with the majoritybetween 2002 and 2004. 96% of theseagreements incorporated statutory rights forULRs. The average paid hours per month given to ULRs were:

Employer Context

8

Paid Hours per month

0 7%

1-5 22%

6-10 31%

11-15 3%

16-20 7%

25-30 6%

30-35 6%

40-45 6%

60-65 6%

96 3%

100 3%

Total 100%

The majority of organisations report that ULRs are given some resources to facilitate theiractivity e.g. office, telephone, computer access,learning centre.

We asked which department is responsible forlearning, training and development within theorganisation but the majority response was‘other’. We then asked them to rate therelationship between this department and ULRsas we are aware from ULR data that there can be conflict between ULR activity and the learning,training and development practitioners withinorganisations. The majority declined to commentbut there were reports of ‘very positive’and ‘positive’

We asked employers where they soughtinformation and guidance on facilitating ULRactivity, the following sources were cited: ACAS,Business Link, Chartered Institute of Personneland Development (CIPD), LSC, Union and the thenTUC Learning Services. As front line managers arecrucial to the facilitation of everyday ULR activitywe asked how line managers were given guidanceon facilitating ULR activity. Some said via theLearning Agreement, 1 reported a specificdevelopment programme but the majorityreported they did not know.

We asked what barriers employers experienced toULR activity. There were reports made against thefollowing categories:

Barriers

Lack of employee support

Lack of senior management support

Lack of line manager support

Lack of time

Lack of resources

Conflict between Training Department and ULRs

Lack of on-site learning centre

As regards negative outcomes of ULR activityemployers reported against:

– Confusion as to where employees should go for advice on learning and trainingopportunities.

– Ambiguity of role of Training Department vis-à-vis the role of the ULR

Employers do however experience positiveoutcomes from ULR activity as follows:

– Engaging workers who might be reluctant to discuss their learning needs

– Allies in promoting the value of learning and training within the organisation

– Generating ‘bottom-up’ demand for learning

– Source of advice for employers

– Increase in production/service provision

Finally we asked employers what their futurehopes and fears were for ULR activity:

Hopes Fears

Promotion of lifelong Additional managementlearning in the time taken up onworkplace meaningless

consultation

None, unless there is Front-line advice might a change in employee contradict trainingsupport procedures already

in place.

We do not have trade unions

9

Conclusion – Employers’ Response

As stated at the beginning of this section becauseof the low response rate these findings can onlybe acknowledged as a flavour of employerattitudes towards ULR activity. However, limitedas these are, there is an indication of the need formeaningful dialogue between the differentmembers of the employment relationship bothintra and inter organisations and agencies. ULRsare well placed to support organisations meetingsome of the informing and consultingrequirements of the revised (April 2004) Investorsin People Standard (IiP). Opportunities alsoappear to exist for unionlearn with the North WestTUC to gain access and contribute to appropriateemployer forums and networks to provideinformation, advice and guidance on ULR andrelated activity.

10

The aim of the Affiliate survey was to identify the level and extent of Union LearningRepresentative activity within individual unions. This was fundamental in informing theidentification of the baseline of Union LearningRepresentative (ULR) activity within the NorthWest Region. It should be noted however thataffiliates were surveyed only 12 months after thestatutory rights for ULRs came into practice.Questionnaires were issued to 61 Affiliate unionswith 26 returns, providing a response rate of42.6%, however 3 of those returned apart fromcontact details were null responses and identifiedthat they did not recognise ULR activity withintheir union/staff association.

Overall there is consistency across the affiliateunions as to the term used for ULRs with themajority of unions using the term ‘Union LearningRepresentatives’, the only other term reportedwas ‘Advocate Workers for Learning’.

We asked how ULR activity was acknowledgedwithin the Union’s structure. At the time of thissurvey 7 unions reported that there was formalrecognition of the role in the Rule Book. Otherresponses referred to a combination of theactivity being assigned to a specific NationalOfficer, Regional Officer and Branch Officer. As regards the role title of individuals withresponsibility for such areas of work as learningand skills agenda, ULR Policy, ULR Activity,Learning Strategy there was little consistency.Titles applied ranged from National ExecutiveCommittee, Assistant General Secretary to ProjectManager/Worker, Education Officer to LearningOrganiser, Lifelong Learning (Project) Coordinator,Recruitment, Campaigns and Organisation,Director of Organising and Learning Services.

We were interested to find out if unions regardedULR activity as a core industrial relations activity,the vast majority replied ‘yes’ but 3 unions replied‘no’ with 6 responses stating ‘don’t know’.However the vast majority of unions report thatULR issues are discussed at national and regionallevel. Also ULR issues are considered by 14unions at Branch Level although only 4 unionsreported ULR activity as a standing item on thebranch agenda.

We then asked if unions required ULRs to haveheld other union office responsibilities, only oneunion reported that it did. As regards which officeroles unions felt qualified individuals as ULRs,responses covered the range of traditional rolesfrom Shop Steward to Branch Officer. Although 6unions replied that none of the other office rolesqualified individuals as ULRs. Appointment ofULRs by unions tends to be by nomination or thatindividuals volunteer whilst 10 of the unions thatresponded advised us that their ULRs are elected.The majority of respondents told us that theirULRs receive training for the role, mostly of 5days duration and provided by TU Education.However 7 unions advised us that they providetheir own initial ULR training. All respondentswere either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with theinitial ULR training provision. As regards furtherdevelopment courses that ULRs attend unions’identification of these correlates with that of ULRsin survey 1 & 2. Provision of further developmentcourses for ULRs was reported in 11 cases to beby the union and by TU Education in 5 cases. Atrend that correlates with the findings from ULRSurvey 2. The majority of unions were satisfiedwith this training and 4 unions reported to be‘very satisfied’. We asked the unions what otherdevelopment courses they would welcome forULRs. Suggestions were:

– Time/Diary Management

– City & Guilds 929/5 (Certificate in AdultLearning Support)

– FENTO level 2 & 3 (Further Education National TrainingOrganisation, responsible for nationalstandards for teaching and supporting learningin further education in England and Wales)

– Union structure and organisation. (TU Education has addressed this need in theTUC’s initial ULR training programme since theaffiliate survey was completed).

– Funding Sources

– Project Management Training

Clearly knowledge and understanding of fundingsources is sought by many of those involved indelivering the agenda.

Affiliate Context

11

Union Learning Representative Capacity

5 of the unions that responded told us that ULRswere first appointed in 1998, 2 in 2001, 2 in 2002,2 in 2003 and 1 in 2004, 5 unions did not respondto this question. Further evidence that althoughULRs have been in place since 1998, for manyunions this is still a very new activity that requiressupport until it is embedded in their structure andprocedures and is able to sustain itself.

Total Number of ULRs in Union as at 31.12.03(to correlate with TUC Learning Services accessedfor ULR Survey 1 distribution)

No. of ULRs in Union Frequency

4 1

56 1

135 1

400 1

640 1

700 1

1500 1

No response 8

No. of ULRs in North West Region Frequency

0 1

2 2

10 1

14 1

70 1

140 2

180 1

200 2

215 1

500 1

No response 5

Unions aim for ratio of

ULRs to membership? Frequency

1:50 3

1:100 1

1:150 1

1:250 1

1:500 1

1 per branch 1

variable 1

No response 6

Target Dates Frequency

2005 2

2008 1

2006 1

2010 1

No response 9

– 13 unions state they have a data base of ULRswithin the North West region, 2 unions did nothave a regional database.

– 10 unions have a national database of ULRs, 4 unions did not have a national database.

These findings from the affiliate survey areinteresting when considered in the light of thenational target for 22,000 trained ULRs by 2010and most importantly the experiences reported by ULRs who often have responsibility for 100+members and other union office roles in theworkplace. For one of the unions that reportedthey want to achieve a 1:50 ratio by 2010, theycurrently have 200 trained ULRs and to achievethis target require 2000 trained ULRs.

12

Support for ULR Activity

The affiliate survey was issued 12 months afterstatutory rights for ULR activity and training came into practice. All unions that responded told us yes, their ULRs get paid time to fulfil ULRactivities, the amount of paid time reported isgiven below.

Average hours paid time per month Frequency

1 hour 1

3-4 hours 1

4 hours 2

16.9 hours 3

17 hours 1

Varied 3

On demand 2

Not calculated 1

Patchy/Negotiations 1

No response 5

Not applicable 2

In respect of ULRs giving unpaid time for ULRactivity 13 unions said ‘yes’ 10 said ‘no’, 3 did notrespond to this question.

Average hours unpaid time per month Frequency

1 hour 1

5-6 hours 2

7-8 hours 1

9-10 hours 1

11-12 hours 1

unknown 2

No response 11

Not applicable 4

Procedures that support the ULR Role

12 Unions report that there is a formal structure in place to support ULRs at national level, 10report so at regional level and 7 at branch level. In respect of delegated responsibility for ULRs atnational and regional level 9 report yes, at branchlevel 7 report so.

ULRs value forums and networks to support and inform their ULR activity. 8 unions holdforums at national level, the majority of these areannual events. 10 unions hold forums at regionallevel, again reporting that the majority are annualevents. 6 unions hold forums at branch level thefrequency of these tends to be monthly, although3 unions report ‘variable’ or ‘other’ frequency.There was generally a 50:50 split acrossrespondents as to whether or not they producedother forms of communication such asnewsletters for their ULRs at national, regionaland branch level. If ULRs are registered on theunionlearn with the North West TUC databasethey do receive unionlearn publications, briefingnotes etc.

Further support for ULRs is provided by unions’own and/or unionlearn Project Workers. 13 unions reported that their ULRs work with a UnionProject Worker, 8 reported that their ULRs workwith a unionlearn Project Worker. As regards theirlevel of satisfaction in respect of accessibility toUnion Project Workers 10 were either satisfied orvery satisfied, 2 reported that they weredissatisfied with the access available. For accessto unionlearn Project Workers 9 were either,satisfied or very satisfied, 2 reported that theywere dissatisfied with the access available. Givena fifth of those who responded to these questionsare dissatisfied, further investigation as to thereasons for this would be useful and alsosupports feedback from ULRs who report thatthey require further union support. What is notavailable from this data is an idea of the ratio ofProject Workers to ULRs/ workplaces.

13

Barriers that inhibit the ULR role

Lack of time 43%

Lack of office space 35%

Lack of employer/ULR agreement 35%

Lack of administrative support 30%

Lack of computer access for email/internet 30%

Lack of telephone access 22%

Lack of resources 22%

Lack of committee 17%

Lack of networking opportunity 17%

Lack of learning resources 13%

Lack of a learning Centre 13%

Lack of informal arrangements 13%

Lack of expertise/experience 9%

Lack of official time off work 9%

Lack of access to unionlearn Project Worker 4%

Lack of access to union support 4%

Overall the barriers that inhibit the ULR roleidentified by the unions reflect the barriersidentified by ULRs.

Affiliates were then asked to identify the activitiestheir ULRs are involved in.

Getting information on learning opportunities 65%

Promoting the value of learning 61%

Offering advice & guidance on learning 61%

Negotiating access to college courses 52%

Negotiating learning with the employer 48%

Developing learning resources on site 43%

Helping colleagues to get funds for learning 35%

Other 22%

Learndirect 4%

Different activities depending on local structures 4%

Dyslexia & basic skills 4%

Setting up learning centres 4%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 becauserespondents gave more than 1 answer

74% of affiliates who responded told us theirULRs get involved in assessing the learning needsof learners in the workplace, whereas ULRs reportthat 52% of them were involved in assessinglearning needs at this time, with 47% involved at the time of survey 2. Affiliates report that theassessment of learning needs tends to be using a variety of formal methods: survey 57%, formalmeetings 17%, 1 to 1 discussion with colleagues65%. Informal approaches are used but to alesser extent according to affiliate responses: ad-hoc meetings 35%, ‘in passing’ 39%.

As identified in the LSC context of this report,record keeping and reporting back on outcomesof funded activity is an LSC requirement ofunionlearn with the North West TUC. Recordkeeping also suggests formalisation of the role in the workplace. This is also perhaps a differentexpectation of the ULR role to that of other unionroles within the workplace. Of the affiliates whoresponded 26% report that their ULRs alwayskeep records, 39% sometimes, 9% never keeprecords. The format of these records were mainlypaper based or in a diary/log type system. 17% reported that the format of records wereindividual to the ULR but forms/proforma werebeing devised and/or the format was yet to be determined.

We also asked if ULRs monitored the progress of colleagues who had taken up learningopportunities. 4 affiliates told us yes, 8sometimes, 1 never. Where progress is monitoredboth formal and informal methods are reported as being used, with the majority of responsessuggesting formal methods but little detail wasgiven as to the nature of these.

In respect of providing reports on ULR activitythere was a 50:50 split from respondents. Wherereports are made 48% state these are to theunion, 13% to employer and, 4% to the TUC. Theformat of these reports varies from meeting withProject Workers, reports on Union Learning Fund(ULF) projects, written reports to branch meetingsand steering groups and from web basedreporting through to word of mouth.

Success from ULR activity was reported as thegrowth of learners and learning centres, addedvalue for members and Basic Skills projects.When asked what supports this kind ofachievement affiliates reported: good employerrelations, Project Workers, Employer/Union

14

Partnerships. ULRs reporting on what they haveachieved and thus creating further uptake andinvolvement by colleagues. We also asked whatmight inhibit this achievement affiliatesresponded: poor employer relations, the newnessof the role, time, lack of communication fromULRs, aims and objectives of unions, lack offormal recognition of the learning and skillsagenda at regional/branch level. Affiliates gave us other useful general comments such as:

– ‘Ongoing negotiations with employers thatwould allow for a significant expansion innumbers and training.’

– ‘Paid release for learning is an incentive as is matched time for learning.’

– Communication needs to be improved. We may not always be aware of the work ULRs are undertaking.’

– ‘Currently developing a structure for ULRs.’

Conclusion – Affiliate Context

Affiliate unions clearly support the learning andskills agenda. It adds to and informs their activityvia ULF funded projects, the recruitment of ULRsand their activity within the workplace. Asidentified by one of the respondents, the‘newness of the role’ and thus the opportunitiesand expectations of what comes with it are stillbeing identified and addressed by the unions. The achievement of the national target for 22,000trained ULRs by 2010 is a challenge for all partiesinvolved in the agenda. It clearly appears thatthere is the requirement for ongoing cooperationand support between the unions and unionlearnwith the North West TUC to establish protocolsand procedures to develop and sustain ULRactivity. A further fundamental issue is thedevelopment of information management systems, to facilitate the provision of evidence ofoutcome activity, required by the LSCs to maintainfunding for the activity. The requirement toprovide such evidence, to external agencies, is anextra special requirement of the ULR role that setsit apart from other lay duties. All sides of theemployment relationship need to acknowledgethis if effective ULR activity is to be facilitated,developed and sustained and deliver its potentialwithin workplaces in the North West region.

15

As discussed in the methodology section of this report, focus groups were used to explore anumber of the issues identified in the initial ULRand Affiliate postal surveys in more depth.

The following structure was applied to each eventto ensure some consistency in the data collectedacross events.

1. Becoming a ULR

2. ULR Training

a. Initial

b. Further development

3. ULR Activity in the workplace

a. Support

b. Barriers

c. Impact of statutory rights for paid time to train and practice role

4. Other support for ULR activity

a. Union

b. Other arrangements

5. Barriers to ULR activity

6. Personal achievements from ULR activity

7. Future hopes for ULR role

8. Fears for ULR role

9. Any other issues.

A wealth of information was gathered at the focus group events. Copies of the minutes weresupplied to the union officials who attended for confirmation that the minutes were a truerepresentation of what was discussed and asimportantly recorded in the spirit in which theywere discussed. The majority of findings fell intofour key categories and these informed theobjectives set for further investigation throughULR Survey 2 and this report. The followingsections contain key examples of the issuesraised and discussed at focus group events.

Issues Related to statutory recognition for Union Learning Representatives andrelated aspects of Employer/Union Learning Agreements

ULRs and other representatives report seeminglyrandom interpretation of the statutory rights andthe appropriation of facility time/ULR time withinthe workplace. In some instances it was felt that companies give it ‘lip service’. Somerepresentatives felt that more clarity was requiredin defining the term ‘reasonable’ in the wording of the statutory rights. Feedback from ULRtraining courses reported that the uncertainty of how much time is needed for ULR activity is a big worry for management (public sector). It is generally felt that senior management are aware of the statutory rights but information and understanding of this was not alwayscascading to managers lower down the hierarchy.Consequently it appears that many managersdon’t appreciate the role and rights of ULRs e.g. “Direct line manager does not ‘believe’ACAS/statutory rights.” There were reports ofexamples of line managers who had knowledgeand understanding of the ULR role and theassociated rights. Reports from representatives in the public sector were that Awareness Sessions re: ULR role and activity were being runfor line managers and other evidence that topmanagement support along with branch supporthad ‘encouraged’ awkward line managers to co-operate. ULRs observed that target driven linemanagers tend to be in a ‘no win’ situation.

In many workplaces, sites are only allowed somuch paid time for all union roles. The age ofother, related agreements re: facility time can bea problem and obviously ULRs are not listed insuch agreements. The outcome can be thatallocation is made from ‘the same cake andneeding another slice from it’.

There were reports that operational needsometimes takes away statutory rights. Forexample: a ULR reported ‘Cannot give releasewithin manufacturing’. Another example was: ‘JIT’ (just in time) mentality of companies, stafflevels too lean, impact on implementation ofstatutory rights for ULRs and also opportunitiesfor colleagues to attend learning/traininginterventions. Also, ‘some ULRs want to give up their position due to lack of time’.

Survey 1 – Focus Groups

16

It was reported that a critical issue when drawingup the detail of a learning agreement is in respectof the specification of time off to do the job. Inthis example four hours per week were given forULR activity. Conversely across events, a numberof ULRs suggested that ‘time’ should not bedefined within a Learning Agreement but the ratioof members: ULR should be. It was reported thatwithin some large organisations it was difficult toget employers to agree to realistic time/ratiocriteria to facilitate ULR activity. In one sector it was reported that they had not yet initiatedstatutory rights because management hasdecreed ‘No more ULRs, no more training forULRs’ (public sector).

General consensus was that new ULRs need moretime to establish the role.

It was reported that where possible it is useful to start with a pilot scheme for ULRs to achieve a realistic picture of appropriate time/ratio(members: ULR) required.

A number of ULRs report that despite a learningagreement being in place they always have tonegotiate paid time away from their job andprovide evidence of where they are going etc.Again the issue was said to be with the first linemanager not senior management.

Evidence of developments in affiliate unions’practice in establishing and sustaining theirULR activity

A number of unions report that new roles havebeen created within their structure to support and facilitate ULR activity and see the agenda as a priority.

One union reported that ULRs had been set up to encourage members to consider Skills for Lifeissues. The response from members was that insome areas more nominations were received thanULRs needed. At this point there were only part-time Development Workers to support ULRs andthey struggled to cover the level of interest in therole. The outcome was that volunteers becamedemoralised and felt ignored. It wasacknowledged that timely follow up toappointment is crucial and thus the importance ofthe infrastructure required, within individualunions, to support the ULR role. This and otherunions now have the ULR role in their handbookand ULRs have to be elected. Opinions were

expressed that the ULR role is often seen as a‘soft option’ by other officers. Reasons given forthis were that ULRs are not expected to negotiateterms of agreement(s) with employers, in deed insome unions this is actively discouraged as‘negotiation’ is seen as the responsibility of moretraditional union roles. ULRs report however thatincreasingly they require/desire negotiating skills.A number of ULRs report that Branch Officersand/or Branch Secretaries were supporting ULRsto negotiate a learning agreement.

In sectors where there is a high labour turnover itwas reported that this can also apply to the ULRpopulation. A union that experiences thisinformed us that their Full Time Officer has to bemore hands on and provide further support fortheir Project Workers in the field.

Some unions are now running their own ULRInitial Training events. This was to overcomeproblems experienced by the cancellation of TUEducation courses, due to low numbers, whenULRs had negotiated time-off to attend.

A number of unions have/are developing ULRhandbooks and publicity material to support theULR agenda.

An example was discussed where a regional ‘best practice’ agreement had been designed andimplemented which was then adopted at nationallevel. It was felt however that in amending this toa generic template the content had been dilutedand diluted further in application. It was feltwithin the region that this had destroyed theessence of the original agreement template. Thissuggests that ‘best practice’ has to be appliedcarefully to achieve ‘best fit’ in the local situation.

One of the affiliate unions reported that theirevidence suggested that ULRs stay in role but itwas not always clear who was active. This unionhad designed and issued time sheets in anattempt to record ULR activity, but it was stressedthat this kind of information was not collated forShop Stewards and/or Health and Safety Repswithin this union.

One union’s structure also had a role entitled‘Lifelong Learning Advisor’. It was reported thatthey hoped to move to joint appointment forindividuals as ULR/LLL Advisor as the currentsituations was confusing for members.

It was felt that there was evidence that branchesare starting to get involved and that in some

17

cases individual ULRs were driving this. It wasreported that some Branches are putting ULRs ontheir agenda as a standing item. Minutes of jointunion learning forums are sent to all unionsinvolved. Thus encouraging intra and inter unionsharing of experience, best practice. It wassuggested that there has to be a ULR on thebranch committee as well as an Education Officer.Another union reported that a new position wasbeing established in branches for LifelongLearning Coordinators.

The issue of branch autonomy was discussed and the impact of this when the ULR role is notacknowledged in the same way as the role ofShop Stewards and Health and Safety Reps. Onanother occasion, it was reported that if anindividual ULR was not also a Shop Stewardand/or Health and Safety Representative theywere not getting invited to other unionmeetings/events. Thus ULRs were workingoutside the recognised structure. There wasreported to be a congress decision to move this.

Various unions identified the need toliaise/communicate with their ULRs within theregion but it was stressed that it has to beremembered that this is a new role andstakeholders should not expect too much from ittoo soon. The ULR movement is not a ‘quick-fix’solution and will take time to establish, embedand find its level.

The type and level of support required byULRs and their unions for sustainable ULR activity

On a number of occasions ULRs and other layrepresentatives reported that events such as thisfocus group were crucial to enable unionlearn andtheir union(s) to track attitudes and feelings tothe agenda and the role to inform facilitation ofthe agenda in the workplace.

Follow up activity, by the union, unionlearnshould be increased when newly trained ULRsreturn to the workplace to establish ULR activity.

At this point, some ULRs and otherrepresentatives felt that some union structuresdid not support ULR activity. On some occasions itwas reported that there is a sense that unions aresupportive but that some unions also have theirown agenda for facilitating ULR activity. It can beconfusing for ULRs who are practicing within the

demands of the learning and skills agenda andrelated initiatives, complying with their own unionprocedures and unionlearn procedures and thatthe existence of project managers for their union,project managers for TUC = too many managers!

Some attendees felt that there was not enoughcanvassing or pressure from unionlearn to showbenefits to employers. At some events the wholeissue of ULRs in non-recognised sites wasdiscussed. In response to this, representativesfrom one union suggested that their union invitethe management from such organisations toattend a ULR Training Programme.

It was felt to be crucial that ULRs are part of thebranch structure to ensure the role is promotedand supported. In circumstances where thecompany were seen to be actively hi-jacking theagenda and/or the ULR role, the Convenor’s rolewas seen as crucial, working with the ULRs toraise the awareness of the issue with theworkforce in order to overcome this. In thisexample the support had raised the profile of theunion within the organisation and had enabledthem to recruit new members. Inclusion of ULRsin the rule book and therefore support from thebranch will hopefully alleviate managementthinking they ‘own’ ULRs.

ULRs’ allegiance is to their own union and they look to their own union for support andinformation on a day to day basis. ULRs tend toknow of the TUC (unionlearn) but are not alwaysclear how it fits into the structure. It would appearto be appropriate for unionlearn to increase thefocus of their work at affiliate level encouragingand providing information, advice and guidanceon facilitating the learning and skills agenda.

Employer/union learning agreements are seen to be crucial for clarity of procedures andacknowledgement of the role of ULRs in theworkplace. It was acknowledged that in somesituations management wanted to tie everythingdown within the agreement rather than agreeingkey principles and then letting it evolve andreviewing the agreement over time. At one eventthe union represented was hoping to achieve a50:1 ratio of members to ULR. ULRs presentcommented that they support this but if workingin a section of 25 members was it anticipated thatthe ULR would cover two sections regardless ofgeographical location? It was felt that the impactof this would dilute effectiveness of ULR activity

18

especially if facility time was based on one unit of 50. ULRs noted that there is a need to educateemployers, line managers, supervisors as to therationale for ULRs in the workplace and the termsand conditions necessary to fulfil the role.Representatives from one sector suggested thatinviting HR Business Partners would contribute to similarity across agencies and it was felt that there was a need to have ULRs in themanagement structure (public sector). Anothersuggestion was that the whole Steering Groupshould attend the initial ULR training course toensure a shared knowledge and understanding of the agenda and the ULR role. At another eventit was commented that the Government was thebiggest customer of the sector represented andthe need for compliance with such employmentrelations rights was not specified in businesscontracts with the employer organisations.

It was identified by contributors that there is a need for continuing education for Full TimeOfficers, Branch Executive Committee (BEC)members regarding the learning and skills agenda and ULR activity. It was felt that thestandardisation of agreements, policies andprocedures would be useful to guide the process(public sector). ULRs and others support interunion sharing of information/resources.

In managing the expectations of ULRs it was felt that better guidance could be given to people considering standing as ULR as to whatthe role entails. New activists, if operating just as ULR, tend to have a lack of knowledge andunderstanding of the union process and can bedisadvantaged in respect of negotiation skills(some unions ask ULRs not to negotiate). NewULRs felt unable to contribute at branch meetingsdue to lack of knowledge and understanding ofbranch structure and process. For some existingactivists the extra role has a negative impact ontheir workload and they have to pass some otherduties on to other representatives. Anotheropinion however was that there are advantages toalso being a Shop Steward (SS) in respect of thefurther knowledge and understanding and skillsthey were able to bring to the role. Within oneorganisation it was reported that there was a mixof ULRs and SS/ULRs, plus one of the SS/ULRsprovided a co-ordinator role for ULR activity and itwas reported that this was working well.

Some ULRs felt that there was too muchinformation in their initial training to be able to

transfer this effectively into the workplace at this stage of their role. Lots of ‘what’ but notalways ‘why’ and ‘how’. ULRs need to haveenough knowledge and understanding of theagenda to know what questions to ask of theirunion, learning services (unionlearn) andemployers. ULRs would welcome the provision of refresher courses to maintain appropriateknowledge, understanding and skills as their roleevolves. In one sector it was reported that theemployers will not, for example, comply with the10 week Shop Steward course and it was asked if unionlearn courses could be condensed. Theunionlearn representative agreed that the currentplatform of delivery with limited hours and nonflexible delivery should be addressed.

New ULRs can feel overwhelmed by the TrainingNeeds Analysis, Development Needs Analysis(TNA/DNA) process, getting information fromcolleagues and overcoming colleagues’ apathy.ULRs emphasised that they need to be clear inrespect of the scope of the role and what they can offer colleagues. Also there was a feeling thatthe TUC expect ULRs to negotiate with providers.Colleges do not appear to put ULRs on theircirculation database thus the ULR has to keepchasing information. The ratio of members toindividual ULRs, where ULRs are representing100+ members was discussed and a consequenceof this is the amount of resources required by theULR to complete TNA/DNA, interviews,discussions and the availability of a suitablelocation in the workplace to carry out theseactivities. Also there is the issue of negotiatingtime for members to complete TNA. Other unionsreported that initially they had encouraged newactivists to get involved but then had to fallbackon existing Shop Stewards and Health & SafetyReps (H&S). This was due to high labour turnoverin one sector and lack of interest in anothersector. Again it was agreed that a ULR’s ability tobe effective can be impeded by the other roles.

It was commented that the Information Adviceand Guidance (IAG) ULRs provide is not just aboutexternal provision but should also have access toinformation on internal training/learningprovision within the workplace. ULRs and othersrequest that websites are updated on a regularbasis. Other issues ULRs face with gaining accessto information were that some ULRs have to haveinformation sent to home address e.g. ‘Get On’information, to make sure they receive it. The

19

timing of forum meetings, networks and otherevents was discussed as events tend to always be held at the same time, often on the same day.Consequently shift workers face the sameproblems gaining access to attend these asattending ULR training and other training/learningevents. Dissemination of information within somebranches was said to be questionable. At anumber of Focus Group events the need forpublicity materials and/or access to publicitymaterials was an issue for ULRs.

In situations where redundancy negotiations arealso taking place some resistance had beenexperienced from the union to negotiate trainingopportunities at the same time. ULRs state that in this type of situation lead times are crucial from agreement, identifying needs and deliveringtraining/learning interventions for memberswhose jobs are under threat. In redundancysituations it was reported that Steering Groupactivity can also lapse even where wellestablished previously. In some instances ULRsfelt that there was an awful lot of ‘re-inventing the wheel’ with many ULRs coming up against andhaving to work through similar issues. It was feltthat there needs to be a formal, workable processfor sharing experience amongst ULRs and morefacilitated/formal opportunities to network. ULRsreport that it is useful to share best practicethrough networks but in some areas, so manynetworks were being established that crossnetwork communication can be a mine field.

Where ULRs were feeling confident and effectivein their role there were a number of requests for a development route for the role from ULR Stage1, to stage 2, 3, and then the opportunity to worktowards City & Guilds 929/5 (Certificate in AdultLearning Support).

Evidence that learning activity via ULRsencourages the further development ofunion organisation in the workplace and/orif union organisation encourages learningactivity in the workplace

It was reported on a number of occasions thatULR activity within the workplace raisesawareness of the learning and skills agenda andprovides the opportunity to provide evidence thatULR activity was creating/bringing the learningand skills agenda into the workplace. Examples

were given where ULR activity had provided theopportunity to recruit new members.

There was a school of thought that ULRs shouldbe ULRs and not have other roles. It was felt thatULR as an individual role would raise the profileof the activity. An example was given where a keynegotiator for pay and conditions was on ULRtraining and was pulled off that training. It wasreported that other senior officers had not seenthis as an issue and emphasised the status ofULR activity to traditional activity. A fundamentalissue raised was that ULRs who are not seen tobe actively getting learners involved gives the ULR role a bad name within the membership, the branch and in the eyes of the organisation. It was suggested that electing ULRs could helpovercome any ‘abuse’ of the ULR role as if a unionrepresentative is not performing then they tendnot to get re-elected.

A number of ULRs reported that changes inpersonnel within the workplace can have adramatic impact on the sustainability of activity.At one event it was stated that the agenda worksbest where ‘politics’ are overridden by peoplewho just want to get people into learning. ULRsreported the need to use forward thinkingmanagers as champions of the ULR initiative. An issue that is reported to inhibit ULR activity is the relationship between the ULR populationand the Personnel and Development functionwithin the workplace. It was felt that in order topromote the role in different organisations, hardevidence is needed to demonstrate the impact ofactivity as a contributor to reducedsickness/absence levels etc.

ULRs report that working with employers isdifficult, some had experience of getting differentresponses from different sites within the samecompany. Thus success in companies is verymixed. For ULRs it is like ‘knocking your headagainst a brick wall’ when employers do not wantto progress. Progression stops when an employertries to take control of the scheme. When theemployer wants to control things some peoplemay not be allowed to do the courses they needor want to do. It was suggested on a number ofoccasions that personal development is verymuch on the back burner in some organisationsand any provision was strictly job related. AlsoPersonal Development Plans (PDPs) are notavailable for all members of organisations and

20

can be seen as only relevant for colleagues who are looking for career advancement and thus personal development is not seen asappropriate for all. Representatives from thepublic sector stated that a regionalemployer/union learning agreement does notsupport the ULR role as their local managementdo not give support towards anything to do withlearning. It was felt that this was ironic as thelearning and skills agenda is a Governmentinitiative and the Government, in this instancewas their employer. Other more positive exampleswere given where the Employer Training Pilot hadachieved employer support and that the employerwanted to run a similar project again. Likewiseother initiatives such as Investors in People (IiP)can be used as a vehicle to encourage employersto take the ULR role and activity seriously.

ULRs report that people want to learn.Representatives from one sector report that ‘lots of lads are willing to learn but employers are opposed to anything that takes people off-site’. Within the same sector a different issue is getting colleagues to believe in themselvesenough that they are worthy of training/learningopportunities. It was discussed how crucial ULRs would be in encouraging such colleagues to get involved. ULR activity provides educationopportunities for those who have not had thempreviously. ULRs have to be able to offer IAG oninternal opportunities and external opportunitiesand thus require timely access to accurateinformation. It is reported that colleagues’raised expectations cannot always be met ifmanagement are not supportive and this has adetrimental impact on a member’s willingness to be involved in the future in this and/or similarinitiatives. This also applies if needs are identifiedand then tutors are not available to deliverrelevant training/learning programmes. ULRsreport that once a colleague has engaged it can be difficult to keep up with their ambitions.However training/learning opportunities are lesslikely to be attractive to members if there areissues with locality, travelling, accessibility (shiftworkers). Also some ULRs report ‘training turnspeople off’, it is perceived as threatening,employer led. The European Computer DrivingLicense (ECDL) for example was reported as beingperceived as ‘work’ by colleagues. They wantedother non-work related provision particularlywhen learning in their own time. Other ULRs felt

that with the right encouragement and guidancecolleagues would be interested in Skills for Lifewhere individuals have performance issues atwork. There is often a dilemma for ULRs who are required to provide IAG to both members and non members and it was reported that therewas evidence that this divides the membership.However there were examples of where there hadbeen opportunities for the conversion of ‘oldunion adversaries’ via the benefits available fromthe learning and skills agenda. Although it wasacknowledged that such colleagues may onlyremain members for as long as it suited them.

ULRs report that their activity has given themconfidence, for example to have input and a rolein the branch. There were examples where ULRsreported that it was encouraging them to becomea Union Representative as well.

21

Survey one, a detailed postal questionnaire wasdistributed to all ULRs listed on the then TUCLearning Services database as at 31st December2003. In total, 1739 questionnaires were issued,1605 of which formed the sample and a total of583 were returned, an overall response rate of36.5%. The aim of survey one was to identify theextent of Union Learning Representative (ULR)activity within the region at a given point in time.The following objectives were set to achieve the aim:

1. To gather statistical data on the number of ULRs within the region by union and byemployment sector

2. To gain insight as to why or why notindividuals choose to become ULRs

3. To identify the level and source of ULR trainingcompleted by these ULRs

4. To identify issues that enhance and inhibit ULR activity:

• impact of legislation (April 2003)

• Level of support for ULR activity within the workplace

• Level of resource allocation to support ULRactivity: time, budget, equipment, forum for discussion

5. To identify the nature and level of workforcedevelopment programmes that have beenprovided as a response to ULR activity atbranch and employing organisation level.

6. To establish the number of learners that haveenrolled, progressed and/or completed theseworkforce development programmes

7. To identify how ULR activity can support theobjectives of other agencies in the area ofWorkforce Development e.g. NWDA, LSCs.

8. To investigate resources that are available from such agencies in support ofbuilding capacity of ULR activity within theNorthwest region.

Survey two was a further detailed postalquestionnaire distributed to all ULRs listed on the TUC Learning Services database as at 31stDecember 2005. In total, 1540 questionnaireswere issued, 1469 of which formed the sampleand a total of 236 were returned, an overallresponse rate of 16.1%. The aim of survey twowas to enable us to compare the ULR experience

in 2006 to that presented in 2004/05. Unionlearnwith the North West TUC identified specificobjectives for survey two:

1. To identify issues related to the EmploymentRelations Act 2002 statutory recognition forUnion Learning Representatives from the 2004survey to the 2006 survey.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’practice in establishing and sustaining theirULR activity.

3. To identify the type and level of supportrequired by ULRs and their unions forsustainable ULR activity.

4. To identify if learning activity via ULRsencourages the further development of unionorganisation in the workplace and/or if unionorganisation encourages learning activity inthe workplace.

From the respondents to survey two, 50% advisedus that they had also completed and returnedsurvey one. We are able to confirm this. For thepurpose of this report, survey one will be referredto as T1 (time one), survey two as T2 (time two).

ULR Profile

The following table details response rates perunion at T1 and T2 that represent more than 1% ofrespondents.

Union Time 1 Time 2

AMICUS 18% 11%

BFAWU 3% 4%

CWU 2% 5%

GMB 12% 11%

PCS 10% 21%

POA 1% 0.4%

RCN 1% 1%

TGWU 15% 17%

UCATT 1% 1%

UNISON 23% 20%

USDAW 11% 9%

Responses were received from ULRs representingother unions but at T1 and T2 each was less than

Union Learning Representative Surveys

22

0.5% of responses. This information is availablefrom the researcher.

Just over two fifths (45% at T1 and 43% at T2) ofULRs have been working in their present role for10+ years, with 1-3 years service there were 31%at T1 and 22% at T2, 4-6 years service 14% at T120% at T2.

In respect of gender, there were 46% female, 54% male at T1 and 38% female, 62% male at T2.

The ethnicity of ULRs at T2 is 92% White British,3% White European, 1% Asian British, 1% AsianIndian, 1% ‘other’ and less than 0.5% for BlackAfrican, Black British, Asian Pakistani.

The age of ULRs is similar over both T1 and T2with 41% and 40% between the age of 46-55, 31% and 28% between the ages of 36-45. At bothT1 and T2 15% were between the age of 26-35. In the 56+ age range there were 9% and 14% andbetween the age of 22-25, 3%. In the 16-21 agerange there was less than 0.5% each time.

The majority of ULRs, 90% at T1 and 86% at T2 work full time with 70% and 67% workingbetween 31-40 hours per week. Nearly one fifthwork 41-50 hours per week.ULRs working 21-30hours per week has increased from 5% at T1 to10% at T2. At both times there was 3% workingup to 20 hours per week. Over two thirds of ULRs work in organisations where there is shiftworking, 69% at T1, 68% at T2. With over a third reporting days (37%), and over a quarterreporting nights (27%) and evening (26%) shiftsin the workplace.

Workplace Profile

At T1 53% of ULRs worked in the public sector,this has risen to over two thirds, 65% at T2. 40%and 30% in the private sector, 1% at each time in the voluntary sector. Industrial sectorsrepresented are as follows:

T1 T2

Agriculture & Fishing 1% 0%

Energy & Water 1% 2.6%

Manufacturing 27% 19%

Construction 1% 1%

Distribution 5% 0%

Hotels & Restaurants 1% 0.4%

Transport, Storage & Communications 11% 20%

Banking, Finance & Insurance 3% 2%

Public Administration, Education & Health 31% 36%

Other 19% 11%

Wholesale & Retail 0% 8%

Total 100% 100%

NB: Wholesale and Retail is a new category in line with therevised SICs (2003/04)

ULRs predominantly work in large organisations.

No. of employees on your site T1 T2

1-49 17% 14%

50-199 26% 21%

200-499 37% 29%

500-999 15% 16%

1000+ 5% 20%

Total 100% 100%

At T2 we asked ULRs what percentage ofemployees were union members both on their site and within their organisation. Over two thirds(69%) reported 76-100%, nearly a fifth (18%) 51-75%. Almost a tenth (9%) reported 25-50%and 4% reported 1-25%.

Becoming a Union Learning Representative

At T2 48% of ULRs have served as a ULR forbetween 3and 6 years, this is an increase from8% at T1. 30% have been ULRs for between 1-2years, a decrease from 52% at T1. Whilst ULRs forless than 1 year stands at 22% at T2 compared to39% at T1. This suggests that recruitment of ULRshas slowed down between 2004 and 2006. Thereappears to be some attrition from the role in the

23

first two years of office and slightly increasedattrition from the role thereafter.

Over half (53%) of respondents at T2 becameinterested in becoming a ULR via another unionofficer/Senior Representative, this is an increasefrom 46% at T1. With the influence of other ULRsand the TUC coming in at 14% (same as T1) and15% (18% at T1) at T2.

The process for becoming a ULR appears to beformalising within some of the unions with anincrease from T1 of 0% being elected to 18%being elected at T2. At T2 a quarter (25%) werenominated, an increase from 24%. Again at T2over half (55%) volunteered for the role comparedto 73% at T1. These shifts also have to beconsidered in terms of the unions represented by respondents.

As at T1 two thirds of ULRs have held previousunion roles. The number of new activists whohave become ULRs has seen a slight increasefrom 34% at T1 to 38% at T2. Significant numbersof ULRs also hold other union roles 61% at bothT1 and T2, and accordingly 39% of ULRs are justULRs. Based on the evidence from T1 that the ULRrole is attracting new activists, at T2 we asked ifbecoming a ULR had increased interest in theTrades Union movement, 71% said yes it had and43% told us that being a ULR had encouragedthem to consider standing for other union roles.

More than half of ULRs (57%) represent 100+union members, this has remained static acrossT1 and T2, 14% represent between 1-20 membersand 12% between 21-40 members.

ULR Training

At T1, 4% of ULRs replied they had not hadtraining to become a ULR, however at T2 99.6%replied that they had received initial ULR training,80% of this being a five day programme and 73%of the initial training being provided by TUCEducation, 24% by individual unions. Over half ofthe ULRs, 53% were satisfied with their initialtraining whilst 43% were very satisfied. Only 5%were dissatisfied with this provision. Followingsurvey one, at focus group events we were toldthat ULR training courses were often subject tobeing cancelled and so we investigated this withinsurvey 2. Over a quarter, 28% of ULRs had beensubject to the cancellation of a course. In 80% ofcases this was due to low numbers of delegates.

Other reasons included: no tutor, workcommitments, and in 8% of cases wheremanagement had refused the ULR release fromwork. At T2, 92% went on to complete theirtraining this is a slight drop from T1 where 98%completed their training. Those ULRs who havenot completed the training cited the followingreasons at T2:

Not given time to attend 14%

Not supported by members 18%

Course cancelled 54%

Other 14%

Total 100%

Both TUC Education and individual unions offerfurther development programmes for ULRs. At both T1 and T2 Basic Skills Awareness andInformation, Advice and Guidance were the toptwo courses ULRs had attended. Provision ofthese two courses and such courses as Workforce Development tends to be two thirdsTUC Education, one third union, however forprogrammes such as Investors in People,Appraisal, 50-58% of ULRs report that their unionprovided that course. Thus unions are enhancingthe courses available to ULRs that havetraditionally been provided by TUC Education. For the follow on training, 17% of ULRs had been subject to a cancellation, 79% of which were due to low numbers, 13% due to tutor being unavailable. From the respondents tosurvey two, 60% identified that they would likethe opportunity to have further development fortheir ULR role. The majority of which were in linewith the options given for further coursesattended but over and above this ULRs identifiedthe following topics as areas they would like to bedeveloped in:

– Negotiation and influencing skills

– Funding issues

– Training Opportunities available and funding

– Refresher Training for ULRs

– ULR Stage 2

– ULR Stage 3

– Adult Supporter for Skills for Life Training

24

– Staged and advanced training similar to Health & Safety Representative training

– Screening and assessment for Skills for Life

– TESOL (Teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages)

– Tutor Skills

– Employment Law

– Level 3 IT

– Level 3 Maths

ULR Activity in the Workplace

We asked ULRs if they were aware of other ULRs that belong to their union within theirworkplace, at T1 and T2 three quarters said yesthey were, whilst just over a fifth said no. Whereother ULRs from the same union exist at T1 and T2 two thirds reported between 1-5, and a furtherfifth between 6-10.On further analysis of this data it also emerges that these figures applyapparently regardless of the number ofemployees on the site. Awareness of ULRs fromother unions in the workplace was reported at T1and T2 from just over a third of ULRs. This maybesignificant as from focus groups and other eventsnewly trained ULRs reported that it can be adaunting and isolating experience to have to goback into a workplace, from their initial trainingand actually get activity started, particularlywhere no other ULRs exist. ULRs can bevulnerable at this stage and need externalsupport either from their own union, unionlearnand ULR forums and/or networks.

Information session, workshops, ULR forums were identified by the LSC as an example ofeffective unionlearn with the North West TUCactivity, we asked ULRs their opinion of these.Consistently over T1 and T2 69% of ULRs haveattended ULR events provided by unionlearn, withagain consistently 69% of ULRs having attendedbetween 1-3 events and 96% reporting that theyhad found these events useful. We asked howthese events had been useful; the table belowprovides the evidence.

T1 T2

Networking opportunity and sharing experiences 52% 82%

Get help and advice from others 20% 12%

More scope to help by gaining knowledge 14% 3%

Greater understanding of ULR duties and develop skills 14% 3%

Other (Please specify) 0% 0.6%

Total 100% 100%

Overwhelmingly the opportunity to network andshare experiences is what ULRs value from suchevents. At T2 in open responses to this questionULRs also advised that for 74% it was anopportunity to get help and advice from others,and 73% that the knowledge gained from theseevents gave them more scope to help colleagues.

Other arrangements that ULRs found supporttheir activity were newsletters/emails/magazines(33%) and arrangements such as further coursesto develop their ULR knowledge and skills (28%).It is apparent that these arrangements support,develop and hopefully sustain ULR activity in the workplace.

We asked ULRs if they had been able to put mostof their training into practice since completingtheir initial training and have compared theirresponse to length of time in role.

The issues covered by learning agreements aredetailed in the table below.

25

26

Had opportunity to practice most of training How long have you served as a ULR?since completing initial ULR course Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-6 years

T1 Yes 52 77 87

No 48 23 13

Total 100% 100% 100%

T2 Yes 33 46 66

No 67 54 34

Total 100% 100% 100%

Have you been practicing as a ULR since How long have you served as a ULR?completing your initial training? Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-6 years

T1 Yes 52 77 87

No 48 24 13

Total 100% 100% 100%

T2 Yes 57 68 84

No 43 32 16

Total 100% 100% 100%

Previous union roleHave you been practicing as a ULR since No previous union role/ Had previous union rolecompleting your initial training? no response

T1 Yes 69 68

No 31 32

Total 100% 100%

T2 Yes 71 76

No 29 24

Total 100% 100%

This evidence is quite startling and suggests that it takes time to get activity started in the workplaceand again in the first and second year of the role ULRs may require external support as discussedearlier. As the table above demonstrates, there has been a significant increase in ULRs reporting thatthey have not had the opportunity to put most of their training into practice. Whilst decreasing over‘time in role’ this is a fundamental issue concerning for example unionlearn’s and unions’ perception of ULR activity compared to the type and level of activity ULRs are actually involved in on a day to daybasis and hence the nature and content of training and development provision for ULRs. It is suggestedthat this is an area that requires further investigation.

In response to the question ‘have you been practicing as a ULR since completing your initial training’we were rather intrigued by the results. At T1 64% reported that they had been practising whilst 30%replied ‘no’, at T2 72% reported ‘yes’ with 25% telling us ‘no’. We then compared these results to thosefor ‘How long have you served as a ULR?’

Given that two thirds of ULRs report that they also have other union roles the data was analysed toidentify the impact of holding ‘other union roles’ on whether or not the ULR had been practicing sincecompleting their initial training. There appears to be no impact from having had or not had previousunion roles:

27

Current union roleHave you been practicing as a ULR since No current union role/ Has current union rolecompleting your initial training? no response

T1 Yes 70 68

No 30 32

Total 100% 100%

T2 Yes 75 74

No 25 26

Total 100% 100%

nor having or not having current, other union roles.

The table below gives detail of why ULRs have not had the opportunity to practice ULR activity.

T1 T2

Lack of support from organisation/employer 20% 44%

Lack of demand from members n/a 31%

No training suite/learning centre in place 4% 29%

Lack of support from members/no interest from members 6% 28%

Not given enough time by employer 21% 23%

Not given time by employer 3% 18%

Lack of support from own Union 2% 15%

Financial restraints 2% 14%

I have just completed my training 29% 13%

Not sure what to do 2% 13%

Not enough training knowledge 1% 13%

Lack of support from Branch n/a 9%

Carried out at a higher level in Union 1% 6%

Lack of support from TUC n/a 4%

Moved premises n/a 3%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer

There is a significant increase in the responses against ‘lack of support from members and no interestfrom members’ from 6% at T1 to 28% at T2. Additionally at T2, 31% of ULRs who responded report a‘lack of demand from members’. With an increase from 3% at T1 to 18% at T2 where ULRs are not giventime by their employer, despite the statutory rights, and a slight increase from 21% at T1 to 23% at T2for not being given enough time by the employer. A significant increase is reported from 20% at T1 to44% at T2 in respect of lack of support from the employer/organisation.

ULR Activity

The ULR role can encompass some of the stages of the systematic training cycle i.e. identification oflearning needs, sourcing learning opportunities and some aspects of the evaluation stage in respect of monitoring the progress of colleagues. Three quarters of ULRs say that the Training Departmentassesses learning needs within the workplace. In addition ULRs assess the learning needs of theirmembers. It maybe the case however that in some situations the colleagues ULRs represent are notinvolved in any formal performance management system within their organisation and thus probablyneither personal development review or personal development planning type activity is available tothem within the organisation. Hence it is appropriate that ULRs fulfil this activity with their colleagues.From the surveys 50% of ULRs at T1 and at T2 advise us that they have undertaken a learning needsanalysis within the workplace. Some ULRs apply formal methods (frequency same at T1 and T2), 44%using a survey, 16% via formal meetings, 37% informal one to one discussions with colleagues. Otherinformal methods are also applied, again frequencies are very similar at T1 and T2 with a third holdingad-hoc meetings and two thirds ‘in passing’ with colleagues. Whilst the informal methods are probablythe most comfortable for colleagues there is a concern in respect of how these needs are recorded andthen provision put in place to meet them. As regards ULRs’ views on the extent to which identifiedlearning needs are addressed within the workplace responses are similar across T1 and T2 with aquarter saying ‘always’, over two thirds ‘sometimes’ and less than 10% ‘never’. At T2 we asked theextent to which ULRs felt their activity had improved learning opportunities within the workplace, over a quarter (28%) thought ‘very little’, 51% felt some impact and over a fifth (21%) ‘considerable impact’.

The activity ULRs get involved in are evidenced in the table below

28

T1 T2

Offer one to one advice to members about learning opportunities n/a 81%

Signpost members to other sources of advice and guidance 75% 80%

Provide members with information, advice & guidance 83% n/a

Promote learning in the workplace to my employer 90% 68%

Support union organisation in your workplace n/a 65%

Recruit new union members n/a 57%

Provide advise/support re: Basic Skills/Skills for Life n/a 56%

Negotiate with my employer for training and learning opportunities 47% 55%

Represent members’ views on training and learning at appropriate forums 48% 50%

Support colleagues who are non-union members n/a 47%

Collate information in relation to workplace training and learning opportunities 43% 44%

Carry out training needs analysis n/a 43%

Arrange/broker learning opportunities with local providers n/a 34%

Help to run a learning centre n/a 34%

Support members from other unions in the workplace n/a 32%

Collate information in relation to Government training and learning initiatives 27% 24%

Monitor quality of provision 24% 23%

Assist members to access funding 34% 27%

Support innovative workplace developments e.g. Union Learning Fund Projects 30% 21%

Other 10% 9%

Work with employers to identify learning needs 50% n/a

Negotiate equal opportunities in learning 29% n/a

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 because respondents gave more than 1 answer

At T2 we asked ULRs if the nature of their role had changed over time, 50% said ‘yes’ it had,50% told us ‘no’ it has not. ULRs were asked iftheir activity had increased, decreased or if therehad been some other change. The findings arereported below.

69% told us their ULR activity had increased.Examples of this fell into six categories:

Job change/enrichment

From rep to running centre

3 active learning centres

Promoted to Learning Centre coordinator

Now a Project Worker

Development/changes within ULR role

Now I am an organiser, signposting Stewards &ULRs. Liaise with companies on training needs

Broker opportunities with local providers. Look for funding, support learners

More confident in talking to people

Now lead ULR

Role is constantly diversifying

More paper, mundane, less people contact, lose sight of why you’re doing it

Working more closely with colleagues

People want more than Basic Skills now e.g.NVQs, training for better jobs

Deeper involvement with colleagues i.e. furtherprogression outside learning centre

Trying to get more interest.

Word of mouth from staff on course

Redundancy/job security

Through redundancy issues for members

More need for activity, uncertainty in careers

Allocation of paid time

Given allocated paid time to perform duties

Supported members on full time basis in on-sitelearning centre

Other workplace initiatives

Agenda for change, knowledge & skillsframework, personal development reviews

22% told us their role had decreased. Examplesof which fell into seven categories:

Impact of redundancies

redundancies = fewer employees.

Many of the workforce have left or are leaving shortly

Funding issues

ULF funding run out, learning centre(s) now underthreat of closure.

Since government reduced funding for adultcourses, free courses stopped, staff lost interestand did not want to pay

Lack of member support

Difficulties in generating interest in the workforce

Lack of interest from members

Workers are more in tune with managementdictated training because they do it in work time.

People have taken all they wanted to take but it isat a standstill now.

Lack of employer support

Difficulty securing time off to pursue ULR role

Barriers to role in general & reluctance to providenon work related training and development.

Difficulty setting up a learning agreement

No support given by management. Refusal to giveoffice space for learning centre.

Very little consideration of employees’ needs.

Lack of union support

Difficulty setting up a learning agreement

Branch is not interested in improving employees’ skills.

Been side-lined and am no longer active as ULR

Impact of ULR’s other union roles

Other TU role has taken up most of my time.

Accepted by management but no activity due to my other Union Rep. & Health & Safety Rep.commitments.

No enforcement from other ULRs

Other workplace issues

Due to Agenda for Change, time not available forpromoting learning.

Company’s employees already well educated.

Now put ULR training into my job

29

9% told us of other changes which fell into fivecategories, examples are:

Role development

Scope of courses widened

World book day and other such initiatives

Lot of emphasis on Basic Skills

More statistical proof required by regional andnational office

Union issues

Difficulty in balancing H&S role with ULR role

Some ULRs not interested & not dedicatedenough to make it work, de-motivating.

Negotiated learning agreement

Extra planning for learning centre

Personal Development

I am one of lead ULRs

Moved onto a wider project

New job in education

Have had to develop further personal/social skillsin order to present case for Skills for Life at manydifferent levels.

Promoting PDRs. Being used for in-house trainingcourses, promoting company training

Workplace issues

Other ULR stood down as company not facilitatinghim

Centre worked well, only needed a full timecoordinator, now it’s a farce have a learningcentre & a lot less learners and/or resources ??

Funding issues

Not much take up on courses due to lack of paidtime off.

Doing a lot more in my own time

ULRs report that where non-union members usethem in their role as ULR over 50% of cases arefor information, advice and guidance on trainingand learning opportunities and provision and afifth of cases for information on Skills for Life.This should provide opportunities for recruitmentof new members and new learners. As discussed

in the LSC Context within this report there is anincreasing expectation for unionlearn with theNorth West TUC to be able to gather and reporton evidence of outcomes of activity from ULRs.This is clearly linked to ULRs recording andreporting activities. Frequencies for response atT1 and T2 are very similar, with around 50% ofULRs always keeping records of contacts withcolleagues, just over 30% sometimes keepingrecords of contact with colleagues and almost20% who never keep records of contacts withcolleagues. The format of these records tends tobe paper based, just over 30%, whilst just over a quarter keep electronic records, from T2 16%reported that they keep both electronic and hardcopy of contacts with colleagues.

In respect of monitoring the progress ofcolleagues on learning and training programmesthere is an increase from 36% at T1 to 43% at T2who always monitor the progress of colleagues, a static third who sometimes monitor progressand just over a quarter who never monitor theprogress of colleagues. The methods applied areconsistent across T1 and T2 with over 50% beingvia informal discussion and 36% by formal debriefand/or filling in a form.

When asked if they have to provide reports onULR activity responses were as follows

T1 T2

Yes 40% 43%

No 60% 57%

Total 100% 100%

There has been a slight increase across T1 and T2of ULRs who provide reports. At T1 almost a thirdof these reports were to the branch, this hasfallen at T2 to 20%. At T2 21% report ULRactivities to ULR meeting/working group, this isan increase from 13% at T1. At T1 22% reported toTraining/HR department at T2 this has fallen to11%, reporting to managers was 15% at T1 and12% at T2. Formal reporting of ULR activities at T2has risen from 28% to 62% at branch meetings,written reports have fallen from 28% to 18%,emails have risen from 6% to 11%. Report formsthat were referred to at T1 were not referred to atT2. It appears therefore that there is littleconsistency across the region of how and whereULR activity is formally reported.

30

Employer/Union Learning Agreements

At T2 two thirds of ULRs report that theirworkplace has an employer/union learningagreement, this is an increase from 60% to 63%.These agreements tend to be accepted at a rateof 15-18% per annum, except for 2004 when it is reported that 24% were accepted. Thedistribution of learning agreements across thedifferent sectors is as follows:

Does your workplace have an employer/union

learning agreement?

Sector

Public Private Voluntary

T1 Yes 62% 53% 50%

No 38% 47% 50%

Total 100% 100% 100%

T2 Yes 62% 65% 50%

No 38% 35% 50%

Total 100% 100% 100%

As the table demonstrates the percentage of employer/union learning agreements inresponses from the public sector has remainedstatic across T1 and T2, whereas in the privatesector there has been a 12% increase inworkplaces with a learning agreement at T2. With a higher percentage in the private sectorthan in the public sector at T2. Whilst it might be anticipated that where the Government is theemployer that industrial relations practice mightbe seen to be taking positive action to supportother areas of Government policy, in this instancethis is not the case.

The issues covered by learning agreements aredetailed in the table below.

To encourage the staff within your workplace to participate in learning 85%

To provide access to lifelong learning 80%

To identify Skills for Life/Basic Skills needs within the workplace 79%

Building a partnership in the workplace 73%

To establish a learning centre within the workplace 67%

Define allocation of paid time for ULR activity in line with statutory rights 65%

To work with organisations such as TUC Learning Services to ensure the partnership is a success 64%

Define facilities allocated to support ULR activity 58%

Define colleagues’ access to ULR 53%

Other 6%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 becauserespondents gave more than 1 answer

The evidence from T1 and T2 demonstrate the importance of employer/union learningagreements on ULRs’ ability to practice theiractivity in the workplace. As detailed in the table below:

Have you been Does your workplace

practicing as a ULR have an employer/union

since completing learning agreement?

your initial training? Yes No

T1 Yes 76% 65%

No 24% 35%

Total 100% 100%

T2 Yes 81% 61%

No 19% 39%

Total 100% 100%

31

The number of employer/union working groups inthe workplace has fallen slightly from 56% at T1to 51% at T2. Two thirds of these workgroupsmeet on a monthly basis and are involved in theactivities listed below:

Monitoring ULR activity 72%

Prioritising learning needs 58%

Monitoring learning needs analysis 55%

Management of Learning Centre 47%

Monitoring progress of learners 43%

Identifying and accessing external funding for learning activity 43%

Monitoring achievement of recognised qualifications 42%

Identification and monitoring standard of learning providers 42%

Other 8%

NB: % of cases adds up to more than 100 becauserespondents gave more than 1 answer

ULRs often appreciate the opportunity to meet on an informal basis, 44% have this opportunity,55% do not. This has remained constant across T1 and T2.

In respect of the resources ULRs are given to support their role, these vary from beingextremely limited for example: at a focus groupevent a ULR reported that he would just like anotice board, through to ULRs who are able to use a learning centre as a resource. Satisfactionlevels with resources have remained static acrossT1 and T2 with a fifth very satisfied, just over 50% satisfied to just over a fifth who are eitherdissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the resources they have. It would appear that a basicrequirement for resources should be identified in order for ULRs to have the opportunity to beactive within the workplace although without an employer/union learning agreement this isdifficult to achieve.

Unions and unionlearn with the North West TUCare there to support ULRs on a daily basis, howsatisfied are ULRs with this support? At T1 and T2over 50% of ULRs are satisfied. Very satisfied hasfallen from 33% to 27% with dissatisfied and verydissatisfied increasing from 13% to 19%. Fromother open questions there is evidence that ULRssometimes need more union support on a dailybasis, and would welcome more access to ProjectWorkers. At T2 we also asked ULRs to rate theirsatisfaction with the support they receive fromunionlearn, the responses mirror those for theirown union with 55% satisfied, 30% very satisfiedand 14% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. AgainULRs would welcome more access to ProjectWorkers on a regular basis. Other additionalsupport required by ULRs from their own unionand to some extent, unionlearn are given as:

– more time to support their role.

– more information on ULR activities

– More involvement from other ULRs, (whichsuggests that within workplaces there aresome active ULRs and other less active ULRs.)

– More support from learndirect

– More courses to offer colleagues in responseto identifying learning needs.

– More funding

– To have the opportunity to attend inductionevents at the workplace in order to encouragenew members and learning activity.

32

What additional support would

you like to receive

T1 T2

More union support, includes:– Project Worker – Full Time Officer contact 11% 20%

More time to support role, includes: – time from Full Time Officer– Project Worker– More facility time to be agreed 13% 17%

More employer/organisation support 18% 12%

ULR agreement 1% 1%

Attend induction events to encouragenew members & learners n/a 1%

Resources. Includes learning resources, rooms, PCs 17% 12%

More support from learndirect/ more courses 11% 2%

More information on ULR activities. includes updating & more opport-unities/events outside Liverpool 10% 8%

Recognition of role 4% 7%

Networking with other ULRs 3% 3%

More involvement from other ULRs, includes: recruit more ULRs 2% 3%

Support setting up learning centre 4% 3%

Improved training progression route n/a 1%

More funding 1% 8%

More basic skills 1% 2%

Full time person leading the project 2%

Process running fully 2%

Total 100% 100%

Statutory Rights for ULRs (April 2003)

We were conscious that at the time of survey onethere had been little time to identify any issuesrelated to the Employment Relations Act 2002statutory recognition for ULRs. Thus in survey twowe added a new section related to this issue togather information on this fundamentaldevelopment in the evolution of the ULR role.

Accordingly the evidence within this section refersto T2 only.

In the first instance we asked ULRs if theiremployer was adhering to the requirements of thestatutory rights for ULRs and then analysed thisby sector as shown below:

Is your employer adhering to the requirements of

statutory rights for ULRs?

Sector

Public Private Voluntary

T2 Yes 80% 79% 67%

No 18% 20% 33%

Yes/No 2% 1% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100%

As the findings demonstrate there is minimaldifference in the attitude of employers in thepublic and private sector. The voluntary sectorshows a higher percentage of non-adherence but this only represents 3 cases in the survey.Again demonstrating from this research that the Government as an employer, in this area ofindustrial relations, does not typically respondany differently to employers in the private sector.

Overall the findings indicated that 80% of ULRsbelieve that their employers were adhering to the requirements of the statutory rights and thiscorrelated across with the ULR’s length of time inrole. It appears therefore that there are examplesthat this applies as ULR activity is introduced into an organisation. There was however a slight increase with reports of employers’ non-compliance from ULRs with less than a year in role,22%, compared to 16% for those with 1-2 years inrole and 19% for those with 3-6 years in role. Inrespect of action taken in response to noncompliance 41% report that no action has beentaken, 24% that ‘other’ action has been taken,

33

in 20% of cases the issue had been referred to a higher level. 10% had lodged a grievance with the employer and 5% had raised ET1 (preparatorydocument for employment tribunal).

We asked if the amount of facility time for ULR activity had been agreed as part of anEmployer/Union Learning Agreement, 56%reported that it had whilst 44% that it had not.The amount of facility time agreed for ULR activity per month is detailed in the table below.

Facility time agreed for ULR activities per month

T2

None 17%

1-10 hours 11%

11-30 hours 24%

More than 30 hours 15%

Whenever required 33%

Total 100%

A third of ULRs advise that this is not a separateallocation of facility time to that given for otherunion duties. So in one third of organisationsfacility time is merely being spread more thinly to accommodate this relatively new union office.

In response to the question ‘Do you get paid time to fulfil ULR activities’ it was possible tocross reference this to T1, and at T2 87% of ULRscompared to 79% at T1 now get paid time to fulfiltheir activity. In respect of paid time for ULRtraining 92% receive this.

ULRs also give unpaid time to their activity, thishas decreased slightly from 60% at T1 to 57% at T2. The amount of unpaid time given per monthfor T1 and T2 is given below.

Average hours unpaid ULR activity per month

T1 T2

None 5% 5%

1-10 hours 75% 43%

11-30 hours 17% 25%

More than 30 hours 3% 9%

Whenever required 0% 18%

Total 100% 100%

34

ULRs were asked what impact time away from their job on ULR activity had on them, their colleagues,their relationship with their colleagues and their relationship with their line manager. The followinggives a flavour of the responses:

For the ULR:

Positives Negatives Neutral

Satisfaction Alienates me from my Nonemanager & colleagues

More support to meet the needs Big impact due to minimum Unknown as yetof the 2 jobs as ULR and convenor numbers on section

I enjoy doing something different Difficult as work 3 days Very littlethat stimulates my mind

Greater knowledge & understanding Extra pressure to complete Less time to do my job keepskeeps me up to date daily tasks but I learn new things

Time and access to talk Other jobs and duties are missed Not yet had cause to take timeto colleagues apart from my own course

Better knowledge of my duties I am disappointed I have done None, not recognised as ULRso little

Good Lack of knowledge of None, fits in with diarywork related issues commitments

Makes me feel that I am I feel guilty if there is a Currently seconded so valued as a ULR lot of work theoretically none

Less personal time required Minimum at moment due Minimal, can always make up to other roles any work

I can give more knowledge Knowledge that colleagues If needed for ULR duties, to my colleagues are put under stress it’s fine

to cope without me

From the ULR perspective another finding was that from the 139 who reported that their employer wasadhering to the statutory rights, 18% reported via this question that on return from ULR duties they hadto make their work up as they are still expected to deal with their normal workload allocation. This doesnot appear to be within the spirit of the statutory rights.

Examples from the impact on colleagues:

Positives Negatives Neutral

Benefit No support Little

Beneficial? ‘Winds’ them up None

Better service from myself Not sure but know difficulties OKare there

Hopefully to help them Extra pressure to cover Colleagues accept this

Always arouses interest Leaves them to fill gaps None yet as my work is leftin learning in production uncovered

Good, when we ran a course More work for them Allows them access to their ULR but only in their own time

Supportive Not so good Don’t know

They are confident in me Suffer as we as a team still have targets to meet

Opportunities for increasing Think I am on a ‘jolly’skills and knowledge

35

Examples from impact on relationship with line manager:

Positives Negatives Neutral

Good Has to cover my role OK

Fair at moment but would like Dodgy but understood Not affectedemployee to be working

Excellent Strained, no idea what ULR, Doesn’t say muchTU, Skills for Life are about

Very supportive Can be short-sighted re my Moans, but lets me goULR role

General understanding On the whole fine but Very littleoccasionally sarcastic commentswhich make me feel guilty

As long as knows where I am, Time away on ULR duty has They do not seem interestedno problems impact on team statistics

Has improved as I have brought I am left out of meetings, Working on it!new skills into my job updates etc

Supportive of my role Information starvation Depends

She is also a ULR Reluctance to give me time off None, fits in with diary due to my workload commitments

So the evidence presented demonstrates that the ULR experience can be very different in differentsituations and whilst statutory rights are acknowledged and supported, in many cases considerablenumbers of ULRs experience hostility, negative attitudes and lack of understanding of their role whenattempting to apply their statutory rights to facilitate ULR activity within the workplace.

Reasons for Ceasing ULR Activity

With the final mail shot for both surveys, we enclosed a pro forma to seek information as to why people were no longer ULRs. Thirty responses were received at T1, 40 at T2. The following tables provide the detail.

36

Reason T1 T2

Redundancy/ill health/retirement 52% 25%

Change of job 23% 10%

Resigned 10% 17.5%

Never actually commenced role 7% 8%

Lack of interest in workplace 7% 15%

Too much work with other union roles 3% 2.5%

Increased work load/ change of shift pattern 12.5%

Other 13% 10%

N.B. where total over 100 more than one response given

Time in role T1 T2

Less than 1 year 13% 17.5%

1-2 years 43% 40%

3-6 years 10% 5%

Not given 33% 37.5%

Due to the limited amount of evidence thesefindings are just presented as indicators of whyULRs cease activity.

Conclusion – ULR Survey 1 & 2

In respect of the ULR surveys the difference inresponse rates has to be taken into account andthe representation of unions, as PCS and UNISONULRs’ experience and opinion are dominating T2findings. There is also the slight fall in responsesfrom ULRs from the private sector and smallorganisations. However 50% of T2 returns alsoresponded at T1 so there has been theopportunity to gain further knowledge andunderstanding of the ULR experience over time.

The conclusions for this section are reportedagainst the four objectives identified for the fullreport on the research project.

1. To identify issues related to the Employment

Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for

Union Learning Representatives from the

2004 survey to the 2006 survey.

a. Whilst the requirement to have a learningagreement is not stated within the statutoryrights for ULRs, if employers are adhering to the statutory rights then it is more likely that a negotiated learning agreementis in place. In respect of the ULRs at T2 who advised us that there was anEmployer/Union Learning agreement at their workplace, 69% say that theiremployer is adhering to the requirements ofthe statutory rights for ULRs, however 31%tell us their employer is not adhering to therequirements of the statutory rights. This isin addition to the fact that overall one thirdof ULRs are attempting to be active withoutthe support of a learning agreement tofacilitate resources for the role.

b. In respect of other stakeholders’expectations of ULRs, how can one ULRwith 100+ members, plus other duties,devote enough time and effort to motivatecolleagues and provide hard evidence tothose colleagues of what the learning andskills agenda can offer them and hardevidence to others of outcome activity.

c. ULR funding requires evidence of theoutcome of activity. The formalisation ofrecord keeping does not appear to behappening yet. There is the impact of timefor ULRs to complete this activity. They alsorequire the support from their members togather evidence. There needs to be a

consistent, systematic, workable approachto this activity.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’

practice in establishing and sustaining their

ULR activity.

a. ULRs are prevalent in large, organisedworkplaces and effective, sustainableactivity that is facilitated by the employer is very dependant on the existence of an appropriate employer/union learning agreement.

b. Potential shifts in the requirements of the ULRrole, at different stages of the employmentcycle, need to be considered in respect oflearning agreements and ULR training.

c. The findings in respect of opportunity to practice, following initial training,demonstrate the need for ongoing supportfrom the union for the ULR role and gettinglearning agreements in place.

3. To identify the type and level of support

required by ULRs and their unions for

sustainable ULR activity.

a. There is evidence that the ULR role evolves over time. Within learningagreements and /or ULR training thepotential role of the ULR throughout theemployment cycle perhaps need to beconsidered in respect of generic skills andknowledge, resources and more specialisedskills and knowledge, resources that maybe required at different stages.

b. In order to achieve the recruitment of ULRsrequired to meet the 2010 objective andaffiliate unions projected ratio for membersto ULR there is a clear need for unionlearnwith the North West TUC to work closelywith unions at regional level

c. The implications need to be considered of the fact that a quarter of ULRs who responded had experienced the cancellation of an initial trainingprogramme. What is not known from this research is how many potential ULRs do not come back at a later date tocomplete their training. 55% of those whohave not completed their training stated itwas due to the course being cancelled.

37

d. The findings in respect of opportunity to practice, following initial training,demonstrate the need for ongoing supportfrom the union for the ULR role and gettinglearning agreements in place.

e. Other Union officers and Officials are also of great importance to the recruitmentof ULRs. ULRs look to their other layrepresentatives and Full Time Officers forsupport on a day to day basis. Unionlearnevents also provide recognised andappreciated support for ULRs, particularlyin the early stages of their role.

f. It would appear that the basic requirementsfor ULR activity in the workplace can bedifficult to achieve. Thus it would appearthat there is a need to concentrate on thebasics for the time being, sharingknowledge and understanding betweenunionlearn and the unions, at regional level, unions with ULRs in the workplace to identify how to achieve ‘best fit’ fordifferent situations from identified ‘bestpractice’ approaches. It would also bebeneficial for unionlearn to be able toaccess employer forums to share thisknowledge and understanding.

g. Sadly it appears that structures andsystems within some organisations are notfacilitating effective ULR practice. Issuessuch as broader, organisational context, job design, patterns of work, targets forproduction/service provision. and thetraditional barriers to training anddevelopment activity within the workplaceare evident as barriers to ULR activity. Keyinitiatives such as Agenda for Change in the NHS are also highlighted as having adetrimental impact on ULR activity. Rathernaively, one might expect the organisationto identify ULR activity as a vehicle forhelping the workforce deal with suchchange in the workplace. Employers require information and guidance toidentify these opportunities.

h. The issue of the collection of evidence of activity is a concern and an importantissue to some stakeholders. This requires a consistent, systematic, workableapproach to the collection of evidence of outcome activity.

4. To identify if learning activity via ULRs

encourages the further development of union

organisation in the workplace and/or if union

organisation encourages learning activity in

the workplace.

a. The issue of lack of support, lack of interest from members is a serious concern.This would appear to be a whole unionissue not just one to be addressed by ULRs and related officers, officials. But asdiscussed earlier, the ratio of members toULRs, the other responsibilities many ULRshave plus the facilitation of enough timeand effort to motivate colleagues andprovide hard evidence to those colleaguesof what the learning and skills agenda canoffer them has to be considered.

b. In The Learning Age (Fryer, 1997) suggested a shift in responsibility for Life Long Learning activity to individuals.The Skills Strategy (2003) highlights a key role for ULRs in the “facilitation ofimproving the skills of the workforce and helping businesses to improveproductivity, innovation, profitability andcompetitiveness” (DTI DfES, 2003). ButULRs require support, realistic ratios ofmembers to ULRs and resources tofacilitate their opportunity to do that.

c. Stakeholders need to be realistic as to what can be expected from ULR activity. It would appear that ULRs are an effectivecatalyst to raise the learning and skillsagenda within the workplace and canfacilitate learning opportunities within the workplace. Their strengths are when working with their members.

d. Access to the services of a ULR and theavailability of accessible Learning andTraining intervention opportunities remainan issue for part time and shift workers.

38

In survey 2 we asked ULRs to express their ‘Hopes and Fears’ for the role as had been asked in thefocus group events. The following identifies the key areas that ULRs referred to in answering thesequestions. The comments are presented as expressed in the responses.

ULRs’ Hopes and Fears for the ULR role

39

Hopes

Continue to provide learning opportunities

None. Union only paying lip service

To get ULRs from other departments, currently all from one department

To be established in all workplaces & to be as widespread as H&S reps.

Get involved more & understand what is happening & what to say

none

To become an essential part of every company so people can improve themselves

More understanding of role from employersMore time from employers

Gain agreements for learning resources, get employees involved in courses, learning & advanced knowledge

To be able to continue the work that is going on and not stop due to lack of funding

To get more companies on board More learning centres open to families and community

To expand

Improved progression route for all ULRs and thatthey are treated with same esteem & respect asother TU reps.

That it continues to evolve & funding remains in place

That things will get better

Fears

Currently being redeployed and get impression that new line manager wishes to restrict my activities

No real interest

No, will get bigger and better with management support

To become redundant through lack of demand

Nobody takes it very seriously

It has already become non-existent, fear that theywill become a thing of the past

If we are not given more time to do our job peoplewill not become ULRs & role will die

Government funding decreasing

No agreement being negotiated with company

With lack of adult funding we will not be able toget the funds to train. LSCs do not seem botheredif we have ULRs or not

Lack of funding

No volunteers

That it may be seen as a passing phase and wither away due to lack of support

I believe funding will decrease & henceopportunities will die off

Hardly anyone is interested in learning in this Agency. Local FE College has pulled the plug on TU courses making the role of the ULReven harder

40

Hopes

Funding increase to allow ULRs to provide betterfacilities/courses to staff. Better trainingopportunities for ULRs. To work hand in hand,complementing employer’s learning

To see real recognition & support & not merely lip service

That the role becomes integrated in an expanded,positively thinking learning strategy

That it goes on becoming more & more highprofile.

I hope that I make a difference to my colleagues

To instil in our management that learning is for everyone not just qualifications for them

More time to be effective

That there will be more of us with more time to devote to our duties

Not a great deal

To be fully recognised as an importantrepresentative in the workplace & respect from ALL managers

Company to take ULR & learning seriously

To start the job

More recognition in general with management.Encouraged more by Government

That it will be sustained

Fears

Need to ‘weed out’ uninterested & uncommittedULRs and give the position to someone else. Needto be managed better, motivated more, otherwiseULRs leave.

To see the hardworking efforts of ULRs dashed bysmall minded persons who know nothing aboutULR & learning agenda, do not want to know andwant to keep control of their own little domains.

Attitude of our employer to learning will kill therole. Employer withdrew from learning agreementsome 2 years ago.

It took a while for management to get on boardbut I persevered. I am sure some managementwould not be as enthusiastic

That colleagues won’t take advantage of thelearning available to them

none

My colleagues are all highly educated & they canfend for themselves – I am not really needed

That the companies we are employed by only takethe segments that suit them and not embrace thewhole package.

Small companies do not encourage ULR role tofunction. Prefer to promote what they see fit.

Fears that management might disillusion ULRswho are not as strong as others

If courses don’t happen due to managementblocking employees’ time off, people will just lose interest

As a ULR in the bus company I feel that they willnot let me do the job as a ULR

Companies are not forced to recognise ULRs. Lackof funds, colleges charging for CLAIT and ECDLhave been a major blow to ULRs

If government was to stop funding TUC ProjectWorkers it would seriously hamper the ULR role.

That the new organisation will see less benefit inworking with the union

41

Hopes

To become a major element in the development of workforce skills, knowledge & employability

Not known, see Q3.12 (no progress, no facilitiesdue to disinterested, hostile employer)

That they are dedicated solely on the learningagenda & not as currently Union Reps with a fullagenda trying to piecemeal deliver for education& training

Improve all aspects of role. To be able to continue

Now that the warehouse is closing, I would like tofind another job where there are ULRs

Fears

It will be diluted to being a tool of management

Employer hostility to civilian staff (& their needs)is increasing due to new chief officer’s preferenceto advancing the interests of uniformed staff

Can’t recruit enough volunteersLack of funding for courses for more mature studentsLong term future of NHSBreakdown of partnership between management and TUs

That employers only want staff trained to acertain level, once that is attained training will stop

Because I might not find another job that hasULRs. Then all my training will go to waste

From consideration and analysis of the data thefollowing conclusions have been drawn in respectof the stated objectives.

1. To identify issues related to the Employment

Relations Act 2002 statutory recognition for

Union Learning Representatives from the

2004 survey to the 2006 survey.

a. The key reasons for ULRs dropping out arelack of time and failure to obtain facilityarrangements.

b. There is evidence that employers are notmeeting the spirit of the statutory rights.Contrary to other aspects of industrialrelations policy and practice it appears thatpublic sector employers are neither betternor worse than private sector employers.

2. To identify developments in affiliate unions’

practice in establishing and sustaining their

ULR activity.

a. From the evidence presented it appearsthat unions are getting to grips with theagenda and ULRs are becoming integratedinto union structures.

3. To identify the type and level of support

required by ULRs and their unions for

sustainable ULR activity.

a. There is clear evidence that an appropriateemployer/union learning agreement andembedding in union structure andprocedures promotes effective activity.

b. Wider support for ULRs remainsunsystematic and haphazard. We are able to identify from both surveys that theopportunity to attend and contribute tonetworks, have access to advice and sharingof good practice are key resources ULRsneed and report they have found valuable.

c. The vulnerable stage of a ULR’sdevelopment is in the first 2 years of therole where support, both internal andexternal to the workplace is crucial.

4. To examine if learning activity via ULRs

encourages the further development of union

organisation in the workplace and/or if union

organisation encourages learning activity in

the workplace.

a. There are discernible shifts in the ULR role. It becomes more sophisticated as it is embedded in union and workplacestructures.

b. If the ULR role can develop to encourageemployer engagement, the implications of this need to be considered in respect of:

i. the skills ULRs require

ii. affiliate unions’ perceptions of the ULR role

iii. how ULRs are organised in theworkplace, particularly in large complex organisations such as those in the public sector.

Conclusions

42

2004/05 Recommendations

1. There is clearly a continuing need for TUC Learning Services to workclosely with unions at regional level to move the agenda forward.

2. Provision of continuing education for Full Time Officers regarding thelearning and skills agenda and ULR activity. Propose development of ‘Toolkit’

3. The need for continuing education of branch executive committeemembers regarding the learning and skills agenda and ULR activity.Propose development of ‘Toolkit’

4. There is a need for continuing briefings for employers to promote thevalue of the role re: ULR activity. Statutory rights for ULRs to beemphasised. Again, development of an employers’ ‘Toolkit’ may be a start to this activity.

5. There is a need to gain access to appropriate employer forums toencourage meaningful dialogue on the value of the learning and skills agenda.

6. To make use of representatives from both sides of the employmentrelationship where activity is effective and they are able to offer thebenefit of their experience on how to overcome barriers to facilitating ULR activity.

7. Provision of pro-forma ‘best practice’ learning agreements, policies andprocedures to guide the process but also to be used as a vehicle forunions and employers to achieve ‘best fit’ for their organisation, sector.

8. Encourage formalised process(es) for sharing best practice, both intra and inter union.

9. There is evidence that employer/union learning agreements, workplacelearning committees underpin effective ULR activity. Some affiliate unionswould like to see the introduction of legislation to enforce this.

10. TU Education programme needs to be reactive to the evolving training and education needs of ULRs.

11. It is acknowledged that there are ‘follow on’ TUC Education programmes for ULRs. A longer term aim may be the provision of aneducation programme that would enable ULRs to provide something of an “IAG – One Stop Shop” for colleagues, from needs analysis throughto evaluation of learning and recording development achieved. Usingfurther Personal Development Planning to identify continuingdevelopment needs of individuals.

12. Encourage the provision by unions of networking opportunities for ULRs. Encourage mentoring activity within the ULR population.

13. There is a need for continuing meaningful dialogue between fundingagencies, TUC Learning Services, Unions and learning providers tofacilitate timely provision against identified learning needs.

14. TUC Learning Services, LSCs and other funding bodies need to identifyworkable mechanisms for robust information management to evidenceULR activity.

Recommendations

43

Stakeholders

unionlearnaffiliate unions

unionlearnaffiliate unions

unionlearnaffiliate unions

unionlearnaffiliate unionsLSCNWDA

unionlearnaffiliate unions

unionlearnaffiliate unionsLSCNWDA

unionlearnaffiliate unionsLSC

unionlearnaffiliate unions

unionlearnaffiliate unionsNWDA

unionlearn

unionlearn

unionlearnaffiliate unionsLSC

unionlearnaffiliate unionsLSCNWDA

unionlearn LSC training/learningproviders

North West LSCs

1. There is the need for a more strategicrelationship between unionlearn and the LSC.

2. There is a feeling on both sides that thecurrent relationship is about contractmanagement. From unionlearn’s experiencethis does not facilitate innovation. There is theopportunity to work together to identify whereULR growth is supported and to direct fundedactivity in a particular way to sustain that anddevelop activity in other harder to reach areasof the workforce within the region.

3. There appears to be a need for LSC tounderstand where unions are strong and whatthey are good at instead of trying to fit theminto LSC approaches and objectives.

4. In respect of the learning and skills agenda,there is a need to develop a framework to seewhere the opportunities and responsibilitiesfor stakeholders fit.

5. There is a need to identify and build uponwhere ULRs are effective and consider how toengage and develop the contribution of otherstakeholders.

6. The revised IiP Standard (2004) focuses on arange of people management issues, such asemployee involvement and empowerment,reward and recognition. There areopportunities for unionlearn to demonstrateits contribution at strategic, regional level andfor unionlearn, union(s) and ULRs to contributeat strategic and operational level in theachievement of the IiP standard in workplaces.

7. In respect of Skills for Life, the LSC might lookat how the work of unionlearn can be focussedtowards sectors/geographic areas where thereare Skills for Life needs and thus be targetedto help meet the needs of Sector SkillsCouncils (SSC) /Sector Skills ProductivityAlliance (SSPA).

8. Building on current achievements, there ispotential for unionlearn impact, in contributingto the LSC/NWDA SME (small to medium sizedenterprises) strategy over the longer term.

NWDA

1. NWDA is in the position to promote the valueof working with unions within the region.

2. The opportunity exists to pilot the unionlearnlink into Sector Skills Productivity Alliances via representation and involvement on thoseby sector. Thus, contributing to/facilitating aregional context for skills issues.

3. In respect of NWDA brokerage on behalf of the LSC/unionlearn formal contract, action to be taken to ensure Business Link, LSC give unionlearn access to that information for circulation to ULRs. Thus giving equity of access to information held by skills broker that employers have access to.

4. NWDA desire the development of ULR role, to that of skills broker in time.

5. There is a role for NWDA to encourage robustinformation collection and management tohelp activity contribute to regional productivityand skills targets.

6. There is a need to turn strategic activity tooperational/practical activity. Sector SkillsProductivity Alliances (SSPA) as in 2 above, are examples of practical activity. Unionlearn in other regions are involved in skillsmarketing, redundancy counselling via aregional fund. There is no such regional fund in the North West region.

7. Consider the strategic NWDA/LSC North Westapproach versus the approach in other regions.Where strategic partners have targets but thenfor example unionlearn is provided with a fundthat unionlearn administrates and monitorsoutcomes to ensure that project work iscontributing towards the strategic objectives of RDA and LSC.

8. Key stakeholders see unionlearn as a vehiclefor achieving their strategies. There is anopportunity to sustain activity throughsupporting unionlearn in things they are goodat, like hard-to-reach workers in the publicsector. Unionlearn can influence workforceopinion, crucial in changing heart and mindsattitude of workforce in respect of engaging inlearning activity.

2006 Recommendations

44

Employers

1. There is need for meaningful dialogue betweenthe different members of the employmentrelationship both intra and inter organisationsand agencies.

2. ULRs are well placed to support organisationsmeeting some of the informing and consultingrequirements of the revised (April 2004)Investors in People Standard (IiP) and otherworkplace initiatives such as Agenda forChange in the health service.

3. Facilitate opportunities for unionlearn with theNorth West TUC to gain access and contributeto appropriate employer forums, networks toprovide information, advice and guidance onULR and related activity.

4. Evidence from other research (Lewis et al(2003:106), demonstrates that a positiveemployment relationship demonstrates theexistence of a ‘good employer’. The learningenvironment requires a positive employmentrelationship, (Rainbird et al, 2004:38, Heyes inRainbird 2000:154). Where the data providesevidence of this working, it works well fromboth sides, with employers appreciating the value of providing facility time andunderstanding the ULR role and what unions can contribute in the workplace.

Affiliate unions

1. The data received from affiliate unions in theregion has been useful in identifying the typeand level of activity they were involved in, inrespect of ULR activity. However this data was gathered in 2004. Given the evolutionarynature of the agenda and targets to beachieved by 2010 it seems probable thataffiliate activity may have been developingrapidly over the past 18 months. Thus it wouldappear appropriate to work with affiliateunions in the region via a further survey,interviews with Regional Secretaries and thosewith responsibility for the learning and skillsagenda to establish the current andanticipated level of activity.

2. ULRs are likely to drop out if they have notbeen a union representative before. There is a crucial role for networks and forums tosupport them particularly in first two years of office.

3. Importance of employer/union learningagreement to set foundations for effective ULRactivity in the workplace. Especially around theareas of facility time and resources.

4. Continuing education and training of unionpolicy/decision makers and those involved inthe delivery of the learning and skills agenda,about the role of ULRs.

5. Continuing integration of ULRs into branch structure.

6. Continuing briefings for bargaining officers andfull time officers in identifying the value of theULR role and to apply it as an integral part ofthe bargaining framework in the workplace.

7. Unions have to give higher priority to issuesthat can enable them to offer competitiveadvantage to the employers in workplaces, in which they have members e.g. productivityand performance and to demonstrate to otheragencies such as the NWDA and LSC how they can contribute to regional targets in these areas.

45

Unionlearn with the North West TUC

1. To further develop strategic relationship withregional stakeholders and partners.

2. Preparing and supporting affiliate unions toparticipate in such forums as Sector SkillsCouncils etc.

3. Working to promote the learning and skillsagenda and the contribution of ULRs inachieving this to employers.

4. Provision of support to affiliates and ULRs;training, advice, networking and disseminationof good practice.

5. There is need for unionlearn to continue toscan the environment to be aware of changingcontext(s) and develop its activity accordingly.

6. Inform Government policy to consider theimpact of decisions on the work of unionlearn.At times the impact of policy decisions appearsto be off the radar e.g. impact of changes toadult learning funding.

7. Collecting data as evidence to demonstrate a good job is being done and promotingsuccesses and effective practice.

8. Unionlearn with the North West TUC to workwith affiliates to develop common systems andframeworks.

9. Unionlearn with the North West TUC toconsider how best it develops its strategicrelationship with key stakeholders.

10. Unionlearn with the North West TUC toevaluate the consequence of continuing tooperate as it does now or to develop its policyand practice, in line with that in other regions,where unionlearn distributes funds to unions.

46

ACAS code of practice 3, (2003), Time off forTrade union duties and activities, ACAS

Berg, B.L. (1995) ‘Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences’, Chapter 4, Allyn and Bacon.

Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Clough, B. (2003), From Spearholders toStakeholders: The Emerging Role of Unions in theUK Learning and Skills System, in Cooney, R. andStuart, M. (2004), Trade Unions and Training:Issues and International Perspectives, CaulfieldEast, National Key Centre in Industrial Relations,Monash University.

Cully, M. Woodland, S. O’Reilly, A. Dix, G. (1999),Britain at Work. As depicted by the 1998Workplace Employee Relations Survey, Routledge

Department for education and skills, (2003),Skills for Success, What the skills strategy meansfor business, Department for education and skills

Forrester, K. (2004), ‘The Quiet Revolution’? tradeunion learning and renewal strategies, Work,Employment and Society, vol. 18 (2): 413-420

Harrison, R. (2002), Learning and Developmentthird edition, CIPD

Harrison, R. (2005), Learning and Development,4th edition, CIPD

HM Government, (March 2005), Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work, The Stationery Office.

Kersley, B. Alpin, C.Forth, J. Bryson, A. Bewley, H.Dix, G. Oxenbridge, S. (2005), Inside theWorkplace: First Findings from the 2004Workplace Employment Relations Survey, dti,ESRC, ACAS, PSI

Krueger, R.A. (1994) ‘Focus Groups – A PracticalGuide for Applied Research’, Sage.

Learning and Skills Council & TUC, (March 2005),Trades Union Congress and Learning and SkillsCouncil Protocol, LSC

Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. & Saunders, M. (2003),Employee Relations, understanding theemployment relationship, FT Prentice Hall.

Merton, R and Kendall, P (1996) ‘The FocusedInterview’, American Journal of Sociology, 51 (6)pp. 541-57.

Rainbird, H (2000), Training in the Workplace,Macmillan.

Rainbird, H. (2003), A Further Education, People Management Vol. 9 (18): 48

Rainbird, H. Fuller, A. Munro, A. (2004), Workplace Learning in Context, Routledge

Rainbird, H (2005) 'Assessing PartnershipApproaches to Lifelong Learning: A New andModern Role for the Trade Unions?', in M. Stuartand M. Martinez Lucio (eds.) Partnership andModernisation in Employment Relations, pp.26-62. London: Routledge.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2003),Research Methods for Business Students, third edition, Harlow, FT Prentice Hall.

Stewart, J. (1999), Employee DevelopmentPractice, FT Pitman

Stuart, M., and Cooney, R. (2004) 'Trade Unionsand Training: An Introduction', in Cooney, R. andStuart, M (eds.) Trade Unions and Training: Issuesand International Perspectives, National KeyCentre Monograph.

TUC, (2004), The Quiet Revolution the rise of the union learning representative, Trades Union Congress

Wallis, E. Stuart, M. Greenwood, I, (2005),Learners of the Workplace Unite, Work,Employment and Society Vol 19(2): 283-304

Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human ResourceDevelopment, FT Prentice Hall

Wiseman, (1998), Bargaining for Skills – The TECs and TUC find common ground, EmployeeDevelopment Bulletin

Wood, H. Moore, S. (2004), The Union LearningExperience: National Survey of Union Officers and ULRs, Summary Report, Working LivesResearch Institute.

www.learningservices.ork.uk/national/learning-42860-fo.cfmTUC, (2005), White Paper on Skills – Guide to the elements of the strategy, accessed28.09.05

York Consulting, (2003), Union Learning RepSurvey, TUC Learning Services

Web sites

FENTO, www.lluk.org/documents/standards/teach_stan.pdf

References

47

Alison HollinrakeHRM DivisionDepartment of Strategy & InnovationLancashire Business School Greenbank BuildingUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonPR1 2HE

Telephone: 01772 894781email: ahollinrake@uclan.ac.uk

North West TUC

unionlearn

Suite 506-510The Cotton ExchangeOld Hall StreetLiverpool L3 9UD

Telephone 0151 236 5432