Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche sur l’autonomie d’équipes de travail d’opérateurs cuvistes de deux alumineries utilisant une technologie similaire, dont l’une est syndiquée et l’autre non syndiquée. L’hypothèse voulant que la présence syndicale favorise l’autonomie des équipes de travail est infirmée par les résultats de notre étude. La discussion des résultats met en évidence les facteurs qui ont contribué à une plus grande autonomie des équipes de travail dans l’établissement non syndiqué et conduit à une réévaluation de l’effet de la présence syndicale sur le travail en équipe.
Summary
The introduction of teamwork constitutes a radical change for managers and workers because it involves flexible forms of work organization which foster the individual and collective empowerment of team members. Two models of work organization can be distinguished regarding the degree of autonomy that characterizes work teams. The lean production model gives a dominating role to managers in decision-making related to team-based work organization, whereas the socio-technical model lends much more importance to decisions made by team members in managing their work.
Several studies confirm that labour-management cooperation in managing organizational changes contributes to employee empowerment and involvement in work teams (Cohen-Rosenthal and Burton, 1993; Cooke, 1994; Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Kochan and Verma, 1991; Havlovic, Kroll and Bushe, 1993). Other studies show that the presence of a strong and independent union involved in work organization is a determining factor in the autonomy of work teams and the success of organizational changes (Cohen-Rosenthal, 1997; Frost, 2000; Lapointe, 2001; Lévesque et al., 1996; Wright and Edwards, 1998). These studies thus support the hypothesis that trade union presence has a positive effect on work team autonomy. This hypothesis is backed up by numerous studies conducted at aluminum plants in Quebec which underline the beneficial effect of trade union presence on employee job security and teamwork (Bélanger, 2001; Bélanger, Dumas and Monette, 1995; Edwards, Bélanger and Wright, 2002; Lapointe, 1991; Socher, 2000).
However, this hypothesis runs counter to other research studies which establish that trade union presence is negatively associated with employee autonomy in work organization (Cappelli and Sherer, 1989; Kirmeyer and Shirom, 1986). According to these studies, the negative impact of trade unions on employee autonomy could be explained by the rigidity of collective agreements in terms of work organization due, in particular, to the great number of job categories and task descriptions which restrict employee multiskilling and operational flexibility.
Our research aimed first to confirm the hypothesis of a positive effect of trade union presence on work team autonomy, and if such proved not to be confirmed, to highlight other factors likely to contribute to this autonomy. Thus, we conducted a study in two aluminum plants that used similar technology, one of which is unionized and the other is non-unionized. In each plant, we first conducted two sessions of direct observation in the pot-rooms as well as semi-structured interviews with HR managers and members of the union executive in the unionized plant, and non-structured interviews with pot operators during the direct-observation sessions. Second, a questionnaire was distributed to members of two teams of pot operators in each of the plants in order to assess the degree of autonomy of work teams in each plant.
The hypothesis that trade union presence has a positive effect on the autonomy of work teams is not confirmed by our research results. Indeed, the team members in the non-unionized establishment express a higher degree of autonomy than those in the unionized plant, for most indicators of our operating model, and the differences for each of the six dimensions of this model are significant at the 10% (2 dimensions), 5% (2 dimensions), or 1% (2 dimensions) levels. Moreover, these assessments are in line with the information obtained during our interviews with managers and pot operators, and confirm our direct observations of how work teams operate in the two plants, highlighting the greater flexibility and autonomy of work teams in the non-unionized plant.
These results thus lead us to consider other factors likely to explain the differences observed regarding the degree of autonomy of work teams. The first factor refers to the model of team-based work organization, which relates to the lean production model in the unionized aluminum plant, whereas in the non-unionized plant, it is closer to the socio-technical model of work organization. In addition, the management style applied in the non-unionized plant is much more participatory than that in the unionized plant where, since the start-up of operations, management has exerted more rigid control over work organization.
The striking difference in the climate of labour relations in the two establishments adds to the complexity of an analysis of the link between union presence and work team autonomy. At the time of our survey, the climate of labour relations was considered to be highly positive by employer representatives and members of work teams in the non-unionized plant whereas it was considered to be conflictual by employer and trade union representatives and pot operators in the unionized plant. Due to the conflictual climate of labour relations which has existed in this plant since its unionization, labour-management cooperation has not been able to develop and thus employee involvement in teamwork has not been fostered.
Our research results therefore show that the hypothesis of a positive relation between trade union presence and work team autonomy should be qualified. These results and other studies consulted show that the main explanatory factors of work team autonomy are forms of individual and collective participation integrated into the managerial approach to teamwork and the climate of labour relations. These two factors play a determining role both in the initial implementation of teamwork and at different stages of its development (Bourque, 1999; Cohen-Rosenthal, 1997; Harrisson, Laplante and St-Cyr, 2001). Union presence proves to be a moderating variable rather than a causal variable of work team autonomy because it can positively or negatively influence employee involvement in work teams according to whether it is associated with a cooperative or conflictual work climate.
Resumen
Este artículo presenta los resultados de una investigación sobre la autonomía de los equipos de trabajo de operadores de cubetas de dos fábricas de aluminio con tecnologías semejantes ; una de ellas sindicalizada y la otra no sindicalizada. La hipótesis que la presencia sindical favorece la autonomía de los equipos de trabajo es invalidada por los resultados de nuestro estudio. La discusión de los resultados pone en evidencia los factores que han contribuido a una mayor autonomía de los equipos de trabajo en el establecimiento no sindicalizado y conduce a una re-evaluación del efecto de la presencia sindical sobre el trabajo en equipo.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Alcan. 2002. « Bilan 2002 : responsabilité sociale des actions durables par des gens engagés ». Site Internet Alcan.
- Alcoa. 2003. « Bienvenue chez Lauralco ». Site Internet Alcoa.
- Appelbaum, Eileen et Rosemary Batt. 1994. The New American Workplace : Transforming Work Systems in the United States. Ithaca : ILR Press.
- Appelbaum, Eileen, Thomas Bailey, Peter Berg et Arne Kalleberg. 2000. Manufacturing Advantage. Ithaca : ILR Press.
- Bailey, Thomas. 1993. « Organizational Innovation in the Apparel Industry ». Industrial Relations, 32 (3), 30–48.
- Bailey, Diane E. et Sadashiv Adiga. 1997. « Measuring Manufacturing Work Group Autonomy ». Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Transactions on Engineering Management, 44 (2), 158–174.
- Batt, Rosemary et Eileen Appelbaum. 1995. « Worker Participation in Diverse Settings : Does the Form Affect the Outcome, and if So, Who Benefits ? ». British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33 (3), 353–378.
- Bélanger, Jacques. 2001. « Autorégulation du travail et division sociale : observation dans une aluminerie québécoise ». Sociologie du travail, 43, 159–177.
- Bélanger, Jacques, Martin Dumas et Isabelle Monette. 1995. « Implication négociée et régulation du travail : étude du processus d’innovation à l’usine Isle-Maligne ». Cahiers du GRT. Québec : Département des relations industrielles, Université Laval.
- Bélanger, Paul et Paul-André Lapointe. 1996. « La participation du syndicalisme à la modernisation sociale de l’entreprise ». L’État des relations professionnelles : traditions et perspectives de recherche. G. Murray, M.-L. Morin et I. da Costa, dir. Québec : PUL/Octares, 284–310.
- Betcherman, Gordon, Norm Leckie et Anil Verma. 1994. « HRM Innovations in Canada : Evidence from Establishment Surveys ». Working Paper Series, School of Industrial Relations / Industrial Relations Center, Queen’s University at Kingston.
- Bourdon, Claude et Jean Gérin-Lajoie. 1995. « L’aluminerie de Bécancour : la première convention chez ABI, juillet 1992 à juillet 1993 ». Montréal : Les Éditions de cas HEC.
- Bourque, Reynald. 1999. « Coopération patronale-syndicale et réorganisation du travail : étude de cas dans les secteurs de la métallurgie et du papier au Québec ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 54 (1), 136–165.
- Bourque, Reynald et Sossie der Stepanian. 2001. « L’effet de la présence syndicale sur le travail en équipe dans l’industrie du vêtement ». Recherches sociographiques, 42 (3), 489–515.
- Cappelli, Peter et Robert. B. McKersie. 1987. « Management Strategy and the Redesign of Workrules ». Journal of Management Studies, 24 (5), 441–462.
- Cappelli, Peter et Peter D. Sherer. 1989. « Spanning the Union/Nonunion Boundary ». Industrial Relations, 28 (2), 206–226.
- Cohen, Susan et Diane Bailey. 1997. « What Makes Teams Work : Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite ». Journal of Management, 23 (3), 239–290.
- Cohen-Rosenthal, Edward. 1997. « Sociotechnical Systems and Unions : Nicety or Necessity ». Human Relations, 50 (5), 585–604.
- Cohen-Rosenthal, Edward et Cynthia Burton. 1993. Mutual Gains : A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation. Ithaca : ILR Press.
- Cooke, William. 1994. « Employee Participation Programs, Group-Based Incentives, and Company Performance : A Union-Nonunion Comparison ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47 (4), 594–609.
- Côté, Pascale. 1996. « Le travail en équipe : la perception des travailleurs de l’usine GM à Boisbriand ». Mémoire de maîtrise, HEC Montréal.
- CSN. 1991. Prendre les devants dans l’organisation du travail. Montréal : CSN.
- Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Joel, Thomas Kochan et Anil Verma. 1991. « Recent Developments in US Employee Involvement Initiatives : Erosion or Diffusion ? ». Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations. D. Sockell, D. Lewin et D. Lipsky, dir. Greenwich : JAI Press, 5, 1–32.
- Daneau, Hubert. 2000. « Application d’un outil pour mesurer le degré d’autonomie d’une équipe de travail et comparaison de deux approches de cueillette de l’information ». Travail dirigé pour la maîtrise, École de relations industrielles, Université de Montréal.
- Deery, Stephen, Peter Erwin et Roderick Iverson. 1999. « Industrial Relations Climate, Attendance Behaviour, and the Role of Trade Unions » British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37 (4), 533–558.
- Dompierre, Geneviève, Nathalie Langis, Stéphanie Massé et Sylvie St-Onge. 2003. « Gestion par équipes de travail à l’aluminerie Lauralco ». Gazette du travail, 6 (3), 45–53.
- Eaton, Adrienne et Paula Voos. 1992. « Unions and Contemporary Innovations in Work Organization, Compensation, and Employee Participation ». Unions and Economic Competitiveness. L.Mishel et P. Voos, dir. Armonk : M.E. Sharpe, 173–215.
- Edwards, Paul, Jacques Bélanger et Martyn Wright. 2002. « The Social Relations of Productivity : A Longitudinal and Comparative Study of Aluminum Smelters ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 57 (2), 309–330.
- Freeman, Richard B. et James L. Medoff. 1987. Pourquoi les syndicats ? Une réponse américaine (trad. par Patrice Hoffmann de What Do Unions Do ?). Paris : Économica.
- Frost, Ann. 2000. « Explaining Variation in Wokplace Restructuring : The Role of Local Union Capabilities ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53 (4), 559–577.
- FTQ. 1995. Notre action syndicale et la réorganisation du travail. Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 119 pages.
- Harrisson, Denis et Normand Laplante. 1994. « Confiance, coopération et partenariat : un processus de transformation de l’entreprise québécoise ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 49 (4), 696–729.
- Harrisson, Denis, Normand Laplante et Louis St-Cyr. 2001. « Cooperation and Resistance in Work Innovation Networks ». Human Relations, 54 (2), 215–255.
- Havlovic, Stephen, Philip Kroll et Gervase Bushe. 1993. « Union Management Cooperation : A Process for Increasing Worker Autonomy and Improving Work Group Effectiveness ». Actes du 30e congrès de l’ACRI. A. Smith et E. Déom, dir. Québec : ACRI, 105–116.
- Ichniowski, Casey, John Delaney et David Lewin. 1989. « The New Human Resource Management in US Workplaces : Is it Really New and is it Only Nonunion ? ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 54 (1), 136–165.
- Kirmeyer, Sandra L. et Arie Shirom. 1986. « Perceived Job Autonomy in the Manufacturing Sector : Effects on Unions, Gender, and Substantive Complexity ». Academy of Management Journal, 29 (4), 832–840.
- Klein, Janice A. 1991. « A Reexamination of Autonomy in Light of New Manufacturing Practices ». Human Relations, 44 (1), 21–38.
- Kochan, Thomas et Paul Osterman. 1994. The Mutual Gains Enterprise. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.
- Kochan, Thomas, Harry Katz et Robert B. McKersie. 1986. The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York : Basic Books.
- Lapointe, Paul-André. 1991. « Le rapport salarial, l’automatisation et la crise dans la production de l’aluminium, étude comparative : Québec, Canada, États-Unis et France ». Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Université du Québec à Montréal.
- Lapointe, Paul-André. 2001. « Partenariat avec ou sans démocratie ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 56 (2), 244–276.
- Lawler, Edward et Suzan Mohrman. 1987. « Unions and the New Management ». Academy of Management Executive, 1 (novembre), 293–300.
- Lévesque, Christian et Pascale Côté. 1999. « Le travail en équipe dans un univers de production allégée : contrainte ou opportunité ? ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 54 (1), 80–107.
- Lévesque, Christian, Gregor Murray, Stéphane le Queux et Nicolas Roby. 1996. « Le travail en mutation : de nouveaux enjeux pour la démocratie ». Actes du Colloque Gérard-Picard V.
- Martin, Dominique. 1994. Démocratie industrielle : la participation directe dans les entreprises. Paris : PUF.
- Maschino, Dalil, Réal Morissette et Yves Turcot. 1995. « Les nouvelles pratiques en milieu de travail au Québec : enquête auprès d’établissements manufacturiers ». Le marché du travail, juillet-août, 6–8, 87–94.
- Maschino, Dalil. 1995. « Lauralco ». Le marché du travail, septembre, 112–115.
- McDuffie, John Paul. 1995. « Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance : Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (2), 197–221.
- Nappi, Carmine. 1994. L’aluminium. Paris : Éditions Économica.
- Osterman, Paul. 1994. « How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts It ? ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47 (2), 173–188.
- Parker, Mike et Jane Slaughter. 1988. Choosing Sides : Unions and the Team Concept. Boston : South End Press.
- Rankin, Tom. 1990. New Forms of Work Organization : The Challenge to North American Unions. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
- Reshef, Yonatan, Brian Bemmels et Richard A. Wolfe. 1997. « The Effect of Unionization on Workplace Innovation ». Economic and Industrial Economy, 14 (1), 109–131.
- Riffaud, Sébastien. 2003. « Présence syndicale et autonomie des équipes de travail dans l’industrie de l’aluminium ». Mémoire de maîtrise, École de relations industrielles, Université de Montréal.
- Roy, Mario. 1999. « Les équipes semi-autonomes au Québec et la transformation des organisations ». Gestion, 24 (3), 76–85
- Socher, Ulrich. 2000. « La face cachée de l’autonomie : management et performance des équipes autonomes dans deux alumineries, en France et au Canada (Québec) ». Thèse pour le doctorat de l’Institut d’études politiques de Paris.
- Verma, Anil et Robert McKersie. 1987. « Employee Involvement : The Implication of Noninvolvement by Unions ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40 (4), 556–568.
- Verma, Anil et Wilfred Zebre. 1989. « Employee Involvement Programmes and Worker Perceptions of New Technology in North America ». New Technology : International Perspectives on Human Resources and Industrial Relations. G. Bamber et R.D. Lansbury, dir. London : Unwin Hyman, 117–134.
- Wagar, Terry. 1997. « Factors Differentiating Union and Nonunion Organizations : Some Evidence from Canada ». Labor Studies Journal, 22 (1), 20–36.
- Wells, Donald. 1993. « Are Strong Unions Compatible with the New Model of Human Resource Management ? ». Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 48 (1), 56–85.
- Wright, Martyn et Paul Edwards. 1998. « Does Teamworking Work, and if so, Why ? A Case Study in the Aluminum Industry ». Economic and Industrial Democracy, 19 (1), 59–90.
- Zuboff, Shoshana. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine : The Future of Work and Power. New York : Basic Books.