Implementation of the Agreement

  • R. B. McKersie
  • L. C. Hunter


Stripped to its essential features, the implementation of a productivity agreement involves the activities pursued by management and union officials to bring about change in worker behaviour. As with negotiations, the emphasis is on process. Whereas the negotiating process leads to some form of understanding, the implementation process leads to some form of operating results. The steps taken by both sides to secure desired results are the concern of this chapter; the nature and effectiveness of the results will be discussed in the next two chapters.


Collective Bargaining Industrial Relation Work Behaviour Union Leader Implementation Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See W. W. Daniel, Beyond the Wage—Work Bargain (London: P.E.P., 1970) 59.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.B.P.I. Report No. 83 Report on Agreement Relating to the Pay of Surveyors and Wood-cutting Machinists in the Saw Milling Industry, Cmnd 3768 (London: H.M.S.O., 1968) 13.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. C. Alexander (ed.), A Productivity Bargaining Symposium (London: Engineering Employers’ Federation, 1969) 92–7.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Evelyn Glor, ‘I.C.I.’s New Process’, Industrial Society, Vol. L (November, 1968) 6.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Tony Topham in his spirited essay argues for the establishment of pay and productivity committees to monitor agreements. He takes a very forthright stand in favour of direct involvement by these committees and criticises arrangements where joint productivity committees are only advisory, such as at British Petroleum. See T. Topham, in Trade Union Register, ed. K. Coates, T. Topham, M. B. Brown (London, 1969) 89.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    J. E. T. Eldridge, Industrial Disputes, Essays in the Sociology of Industrial Relations (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968) 121.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    A. Flanders, The Fawley Productivity Agreements (London: Faber and Faber, 1964) 151.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    The latter argument was reported in the N.E.D.O. study of the rubber industry. See National Economic Development Office, Plant Bargaining (London: N.E.D.O., 1969) 10.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    See D.E.P., Industrial Relations Bill, Consultative Document (London, 1970) p. 20.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    See, e.g. M. Haire, Psychology in Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964)Google Scholar
  11. P. F. Drucker, Technology, Management and Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1970)Google Scholar
  12. A. S. Judson, A Manager’s Guide to Making Changes (London: Wiley, 1966).Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    T. Cliff, The Employers’ Offensive; Productivity Deals and How to Fight Them (London: Pluto Press, 1970) 167.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    The Economist Intelligence Unit, Ltd, The National Newspaper Industry, A Survey (London, 1966) 105.Google Scholar
  15. Government Social Survey, Workplace Industrial Relations: An Enquiry Undertaken for the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (London, 1968).Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    S. Paulden and B. Hawkins, Whatever Happened at Fairfields? (London: Gower Press, 1969) 128.Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    George Cattell, ‘Industrial Relations and Efficiency’, Industrial Society (1967) 29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© R. B. McKersie and L. C. Hunter 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. McKersie
    • 1
  • L. C. Hunter
    • 2
  1. 1.New York State School of Industrial and Labor RelationsCornell UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of GlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations