opening doors to learning - ulr survey report 2008

Opening doorsto learningUnion learning representative survey report 2008

This survey was designed and analysed byProfessor Nicolas Bacon and Professor Kim Hoquefrom Nottingham University Business School, inconsultation with the research and strategy teamat unionlearn.

Unionlearn is the TUC organisation that supportsunion-led strategies for learning and skills. Ithelps unions open up learning and skillsopportunities for their members and developand deliver trade union education for theirrepresentatives and officers.

www.unionlearn.org.uk

Contents02 Executive summary

04 Introduction

06 Who are today’s ULRs?

08 Where are today’s ULRs?

11 What do ULRs do inthe workplace?

12 How much time do ULRshave for their activities?

14 Training, resources andfacility time for ULRs

18 Working with employers

20 Training for members atthe workplace

24 What works for ULRs?

28 Next steps

31 References

1Opening doors to learning

Foreword

This survey of union learning representatives (ULRs)is the fourth to be conducted on behalf of the TUCsince 2000, and the first to be commissioned sincethe launch of unionlearn in 2006. The design of thequestions and the analysis of the results wereconducted by Professor Nic Bacon and ProfessorKim Hoque of Nottingham University.

Several of the questions from the earlier surveys have been carried forward, andthe first part of this report describes the profile of current ULRs, and how their rolehas developed over the years. Where appropriate the report also makescomparisons with the another group of union specialists – health and safety reps.

Previous surveys have concentrated on identifying what ULRs actually do, butthis one has gone a step further, by attempting to distil what it is that makesULRs have an impact on the amount of training provided in the workplace. Thevalue of this type of research is that it gives us the evidence to support the claimsthat seem so obvious. For example, to be fully effective, a ULR needs to feelvalued, and an essential element of feeling valued is to be consulted onlearning and training issues at work, ideally for learning and skills to be partof the bargaining agenda.

In May 2008 the Government announced plans to introduce a right to requesttime off for training, a welcome first step in supporting union efforts to improveaccess to learning for all workers. This survey goes a long way to providing theevidence to support the TUC campaign for training to be a collective bargainingissue in the statutory union recognition procedure. We expect it to be supportedby a supplementary survey of employer contacts identified by the ULRs whoresponded to the main survey. The detailed results of both surveys will bepublished in the unionlearn research series later this year.

Liz SmithDirectorunionlearn

© Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk

Executive summary

Almost 1,400 valid responses were received to the 2007/8 survey– around 12.5 per cent of all those who were sent a questionnaire.The analysis reveals a number of good news stories – for unions,ULRs, members and the Government – but it also shows that thereis still a lot of work to be done to ensure that all ULRs and membersget the optimum benefit from union learning.

ULRs continue to stand out as a new breed ofunion activist:

� More than a third had never undertaken any sortof union role before becoming a ULR.

� Approximately a third of these ‘new activists’now have at least one other role in the union.

� ULRs are more likely than other unionrepresentatives to be women, although age andethnic background remain similar across the rangeof representatives.

Responses were received from ULRs in the public,private and voluntary sectors, and from most of themajor industrial sectors.

It is clear that ULRs cover all grades of employee, witha third dealing with at least some professional ormanagerial staff.

Most ULRs work for large organisations and on largesites, but there are a small number who work inorganisations with no more than 99 employees.

The amount of time ULRs spend on performing theirrole has continued to increase over the years;however, over half still spend less than two hours aweek on their ULR activities and for more than a thirdnone of the time they spend on ULR duties is paid forby the employer (a further third have to perform atleast a proportion of ULR work in their own time).

2 Opening doors to learning

Many ULRs also have to manage without office space,office equipment and communication equipment.

Just over half of ULRs responding had a learningagreement, and fewer than half had access to alearning centre at the workplace.

ULRs perform a wide range of activities:

� Almost all give information and advice on learningto their members.

� More than half also arrange courses for theirmembers.

� Almost half have conducted a learning needsassessment in the last year.

� A significant proportion reports that the amount oftraining undertaken at the workplace hasincreased during the past year as a result of theiractivities.

Only one third of ULRs felt that their work was valuedby their managers, and fewer than half haddiscussions with their managers about training atleast once a quarter.

Almost three quarters of ULRs reported that theiractivities had resulted in an increase of at least onetype of training at the workplace.

The researchers used standard statistical methods toestablish the key ingredients of ULRs' successes.Several criteria were found to be statisticallyinsignificant, including all personal characteristics,the ULRs’ unions, the sectors they worked in, and theemployers’ engagements with Train to Gain. Theanalysis demonstrated that, to optimise the benefitsof union learning in terms of the Government’s skillsagenda, and encourage employers to invest intraining, the criteria that need to be in place are:


� Managers value ULR activities.

� The employer negotiates or consults with unionson training.

� ULRs should have contact with some level ofmanagement to discuss training.

� A formal learning agreement with the employeris in place.

� Sufficient time per week is available to spend onULR activity.

� ULRs are encouraged and enabled to remain inpost long-term.

� ULR constituencies should be no larger than200 members.

� A learning needs assessment should beconducted every two years.

� A learning centre is available in the workplace.

� There is support from a Union Learning Fundproject.

The support available to ULRs from their unions andfrom unionlearn needs to be maintained andenhanced, but clearly ULRs also need real supportfrom their employers. Much of their work is of directbenefit to the organisation as well as to workers,however, the work of a substantial majority of ULRssurveyed goes unsupported by their managers.

Introduction

The impressive achievements of union learningrepresentatives over the last 10 years have beena major factor in the high regard in which unionlearning is now held in government departments.

Employers are encouraged by organisations as wide-ranging as sector skillscouncils, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and theCBI to make use of ULRs’ expertise and the relationship of trust they are able todevelop with the rest of the workforce.

“I’d like to pay tribute to those manyunion learning reps who do greatwork up and down the land in helpingtheir colleagues to gain new skillsand experiences.”

Richard Lambert, CBI Director–General


“What’s most likely to get you studying again? Your bestfriend at work saying ‘you can do it!’ So I’m proud thatour labour movement has produced 18,000 volunteerunion learning reps – ‘best friends’ in 6,000 workplacesup and down the country.”

John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)


There are plenty of stories of the excellence of ULRs. However, if the Government isto continue to support union learning with money as well as encouraging words,and if more employers are going to give ULRs the time and respect they need tofunction effectively in the workplace, we also need to be able to give them solidevidence. In addition to the added value brought by ULRs, this should include thelevel of support they need to produce the best possible results.

The survey was posted in October 2007 to all those ULRs whose details are heldon the central unionlearn database. The main sources of ULR contact details forthe unionlearn database are the records from TUC training courses. These haverecently been augmented by the inclusion of those ULRs trained by the publicsector union, Unison, but unionlearn is still in the process of replicating this withseveral private sector unions. Although the ratio of responses between public andprivate sector ULRs does not, therefore, accurately reflect the ratio of all ULRs,detailed statistical analysis showed there were no significant differences betweenthe experiences of ULRs based on the sector they work in.

A repeat mailing was sent out in January 2008, and the combined exerciseresulted in the return of over 1,500 questionnaires. Some of these had to beexcluded from the final analysis because the respondents were no longer active asULRs, so this report uses responses from 1,389 current ULRs. Thanks are due toeveryone who was able to complete the survey, and to the unions that helpedto swell the response rate by encouraging their ULRs to respond.

The first part of this report presents a snapshot of the profile and activity of ULRsas at the end of 2007. Comparisons are made when appropriate with earlier ULRsurveys, with the surveys of health and safety representatives that are conductedin alternate years to the ULR survey, and with similar data captured by theWorkplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS) in relation to the wholerange of union representatives. The report then goes on to examine all of thoseelements in order to assess which ones are most likely to contribute to meeting ofthe Government’s skills strategy by increasing the amount of training taking placein the workplace.

This report demonstrates that, although physical resources such ascommunication channels are important to ULRs, having the confidence that theirwork is valued by the employer (as well as the members) is just as crucial. Thereare all sorts of factors that can help to build this confidence, but this survey clearlydemonstrates that there is a strong link between being involved in decisionsabout training issues at work and feeling valued as a ULR.

Who are today’s ULRs?

ULRs continue to be more representative of the whole workforce thanunion representatives in general. More than four out of every 10 ULRsare women. Seven per cent are from ethnic minority groups: thiscompares with the four per cent of union representatives and six percent of employees who classified themselves in categories other thanwhite in WERS 2004. There was a slight increase in the average age ofULRs in 2007, as can be seen from Figure 1, but this increase is smallenough to be accounted for by the ageing of the 75 per cent of 2007ULRs who were in post at the time of the 2005 survey.

As well as comparing the profile of ULRs in 2005 and 2007, Figure 1 comparesthese with the profile of health and safety reps, in a similar survey in 2006. The‘average’ profile is very similar – male, middle aged, white and having at least oneother role in the union, but health and safety reps are considerably more likelythan ULRs to be male, and less likely to have another union role. Approximatelyhalf of health and safety reps had another union role at the time of the survey,compared with two-thirds of ULRs in both 2005 and 2006, and only three in 10health and safety reps were female, compared with almost half of ULRs.


Perc

enta

geof

reps

ULRs 2005

5853

93

64

H&S Reps 2006

7063

94

51

ULRs 2007

5861

93

64

Male Age 46–60 White has other union role

Figure 1Profile of ULRsand safety reps

Figure 3 compares the profile of those ULRs who have only been in post since2005 with the overall figure, showing that ULRs are increasingly likely to beyoung, female, and new to trade union activism. Exactly half of the ULRs recruitedin the two years prior to the survey were women, and 45 per cent were agedunder 45. The slight increase in the number of ULRs from ethnic minoritiesamong all new activists was not replicated in the newly recruited ULRs, where theproportions were exactly the same as for all ULRs – 93 per cent white, seven percent from ethnic minorities.


Perc

enta

geof

allU

LRs

experienced reps ‘new activists’

male

0

64

47

36

5356

71

9193

44

29

female age <46 age 46+ white

Figure 2Profile ofexperiencedreps and‘new activists’

Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

all ULRs new ULRs

male

5853

female

4247

age <46

3441

age 46+

6659

white

9393

new activist

36

44

Figure 3Profile of all ULRsand ‘new’ ULRs

The role of ULR has attracted a significant proportion of members new to tradeunion activity since the early days, rising from nine per cent of ULRs in 2000to a peak of 36 per cent in 2005, where it appears to have stabilised.Figure 2 shows that, as has been the case in all ULR surveys, these ‘new activists’are more likely than their more experienced counterparts to be young andfemale. A new feature this time is that they are also very slightly more likely tocome from an ethnic minority group.

Where are today’s ULRs?

The unionlearn database of ULRs does not yet contain contactdetails for most of those private sector ULRs who have been trainedby their own union. Therefore, the figures in this section do notreflect the whole population of ULRs. However, no significantdifference could be found between the experiences of ULRs in thepublic and private sectors.


Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

public sector private and voluntary sectors

2000

28

72

2003

5248

2005

62

38

2002

67

23

2006

67

33

2007

71

29

2004

61

39

Figure 4ULRs/safety repsby sector

The majority of ULRs who responded to the survey came from the publicsector, with just over 28 per cent in the private and nearly two per cent in thevoluntary sectors.

Figure 4 plots the change in the sectoral distribution over the four ULR surveys,combining the private and voluntary sectors in order to compare it with theequivalent statistics from the safety reps survey. Although the proportion of ULRscoming from the public sector has almost trebled since 2000, the increase hasresulted in a similar distribution of ULRs to that which has existed for safety repssince at least 2002.

ULRs by sector Safety reps by sector


The increase in public sector representation from 62 to 71 per cent of allrespondents was matched by an increase from six to 15 per cent in those workingin health and social work. There were also significant increases in the proportionof ULRs in the transport, storage and communications, and education sectors,pushing manufacturing down to fourth place from second in 2005 (see Table 1).

The consequential reduction in representation is spread fairly evenly acrossother sectors, with none dropping more than four percentage points.

Table 1: Industry sectors of ULRs

Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

2005 2007

1000+

20

28

501–1000

16 15 16

251–500

21

51–250

30 28

–10

13 14

Figure 5Workplace size

Sector Percentage of all ULRs2005 2007

Public administration and defence 30 26

Transport, storage and communications 10 16

Health and social work 6 15

Manufacturing 19 15

Education 6 10

Other community, social and personal services 7 8

Wholesale, retail and motor trade 8 5

Electricity, gas and water supply 2 1

Financial intermediation 4 1

Construction 1 1

Real estate and business services - 1

62%21%

17%

management/professional only

non-management/non-professional only

mixed


Figure 7Type of employeerepresented

Previous surveys asked about the number of employees at the ULR’s site and inthe whole organisation; Figure 5 compares the responses for individual work sites.There are now 28 per cent working at sites with over 1,000 employees, up from 20per cent in 2005.

The proportion of ULRs working for organisations employing over 1,000 peopleacross all sites remains approximately three quarters, barely changed from 2005.

A new question in this survey asked how many employees the ULR wasresponsible for. Twenty eight per cent covered more than 200 people, but at theother end of the scale, 26 per cent have constituencies of 50 people or less. Asonly 14 per cent of ULRs work at sites with fewer than 50 employees, it follows thatalmost half of these small ‘constituencies’ are in larger workplaces (see Figure 6).

Most ULRs represent workers from only non-managerial or non-professionalgrades, but more than a fifth only represent management and/or professionalemployees. When the 17 per cent that represent all grades of employee are addedinto the equation, it is clear that more than a third of ULRs support members whoare managers or professional staff at least some of the time.

101–200 employees

200+ employees

51–100 employees

50 employees or fewer

29%

22%23.5%

25.5%

Figure 6Size of ULR‘constituency’

One of the first things that every ULR is asked to do on returning to work aftertheir initial training is to conduct a learning needs assessment (LNA). Ideally theywill repeat this exercise every two years. In 2007, fewer than half of ULRs (47 percent) reported conducting a LNA in the previous two years. The equivalentquestion in 2005 did not specify a time period, so the 62 per cent response ratein that survey could indicate a tendency for ULRs not to repeat the exercise.

The major activity of a ULR continues to be to provide information and advice onlearning to members, with 85 per cent saying they do so in 2007, up from 83 percent in 2005.

A new question in the 2007 survey was about ULRs actually arranging courses fortheir members, and this is being done by 59 per cent of respondents. Just overone in five were aware that their employer has consulted a Train to Gain skillsbroker, and in more than half of those cases (11 per cent of all respondents) theULR has been involved in the Train to Gain process.


What do ULRs do inthe workplace?

The detailed day-to-day activity of ULRs is not something that is setin stone. It can vary according to the priorities of individual unions,the needs of particular groups of workers, the number of other ULRsoperating at the workplace and the amount of time available to theULR. Nevertheless, the three activities shown in Figure 8 can beregarded as ‘core’ for most ULRs.

Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

85

give informationand advice

arrange training courses

59

conduct learning needs analyses

47

Figure 8What ULRs do

The equivalent question in the health and safety survey showed a considerablysmaller proportion of safety reps spending more than five hours per week onhealth and safety work. The safety reps’ role has been established forconsiderably longer than the ULR role, so Figure 10 suggests that unions may behaving more success than in the past in securing facilities time for reps.


more than10 hours per week

11 10 913

9

5–10 hours

8

2–5 hours

20 18 17

1–2 hours

2027

18

less than1 hour

42 4037

Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

2007 2005 2003

Figure 9Time spent on ULRactivities per week

Perc

enta

geof

reps

ULRs health and safety reps

up to 1 hour

37

53

1–5 hours

3834

5–10 hours

137

116

more than 10 hours0

Figure 10Hours per weekspent on specificunion activities byULRs and safetyreps

Howmuch time do ULRshave for their activities?

The number of ULRs having relatively long periods of time tospend on their activities continues to grow.

Figure 9 shows that although more than half still spend fewer than two hours aweek on their duties, that figure has come down from over two thirds in 2003 andalmost two thirds in 2005. Almost a quarter of ULRs are spending five hours ormore a week on ULR activities, and 11 per cent are spending more than 10 hours,i.e. at least a day and a half each week, including work done in their own time.


Case studyJenny Ford

When Jenny Ford became a ULR almost fiveyears ago she was fairly typical of the newclass of activist that union learning isattracting. Not only had she never held anyunion roles before, she actually joined theunion in order to become a ULR, havingspent the previous 15 years working for thePortsmouth NHS Trust believing unionswere “all about strikes and militancy”.

Part of Jenny’s job as a facilities supervisor(domestics and porters) at St JamesPortsmouth City Teaching Primary CareTrust was to ensure staff underwentmandatory training courses. It was adifficult job – everything about the courseswas intimidating to people who had leftschool at 16 with no expectations of evergoing near a classroom again. But Jenny’sapproach caught the attention of theUNISON branch secretary, who persuadedher to join the union and become a ULRalmost simultaneously. She is nowresponsible for 200 members in herdepartment at the Trust. In addition, she isnow chair of the South East RegionalWomen’s committee as well as a member ofthe region’s education committee.

Jenny doesn’t have a set number of hoursfor her ULR work, but says it averages out toabout a day a week. Her manager Chris Hillsupports her wholeheartedly, and is happyfor her to take the time when she needs todo so. During that time she works withproviders, Train to Gain brokers and NVQassessors ensuring that her members aregetting the sort of training they need forNVQs in catering, hospitality and cleaning.In the last four months she has arrangedtraining for at least 20 of her members. Shealso arranges non-vocational courses, suchas a recent ESOL course for migrantworkers. She even ensures that cover isavailable for members attending the non-vocational courses.

Jenny acknowledges that her job would bemuch more difficult without the support shehas from both management and her unionbranch. The Trust makes no bones about hervalue to them – the Associate Director ofLearning and Development, Anne Axford,has even said that she wants a ULR in everydepartment. No doubt Jenny would be agood ULR in any circumstances, but being sohighly valued must contribute to theoutstanding nature of her achievements.

Training, resources andfacility time for ULRs

In order to perform their duties ULRs need at the very minimum tobe trained, to have the communication channels to make contactwith their members, to have the time and space to meet withthem, and to have access to the technology or other equipmentneeded to perform any of these activities.

The facilities and facility time currently allowed to union representatives forconducting their duties was recently the subject of a consultation by the formerDepartment of Trade and Industry. Data from the Workplace EmploymentRelations Survey 2004 (WERS) shows that the majority of union representativesare trained, have at least some facilities provided by their employer, and havepaid time off for both training and to conduct their duties. The figures in Table 2relate to the whole spectrum of union representatives. Respondents also raisedthe point that many representatives, who are in theory entitled to time off, donot take some or all of it because they are not provided with either cover for theperiod of their absence or a reduction in their workload.

The rest of this section will be looking at these elements in relation to ULRs,along with some more specifically learning-related resources that may beavailable to them.


Table 2: Facilities and facility time for union representatives

Received some sort of training for their role 75%

Paid time off for training 82%

Spend less than one hour a week on union work 24%

Spend two to four hours a week on union work 33%

Spend more than five hours a week on union work 43%

Paid time off for trade union activity 89%

Have office equipment provided by the employer 91%

Have office space provided by the employer 55%

Have access to email at work 62%

Source 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey


Perc

enta

geof

reps

learning centre learning agreement

2003

4751

2005

52

61

4451

2007Figure 11 Learningagreements andlearning centres

A primary indication of employer engagement with union learning is the existenceof a learning agreement with the union. In addition to supporting ULRs by settingout the specific terms under which they operate in a particular workplace, theexistence of a learning agreement can enhance ULRs’ confidence in performingtheir duties. Figure 11 shows that the proportion of ULRs reporting a learningagreement in 2007 declined to 51 per cent from 61 per cent in 2005, returning tothe 2003 level. In Table 3 the responses for 2007 are shown broken down byindustrial sector. One third of the ULRs who do not have a learning agreement arefrom two of the sectors which have a significantly greater representation in thissurvey than they did in 2005. Between them ULRs working in education, healthand social work represent a quarter of all respondents in 2007, compared withjust 12 per cent in 2005.

The reduction in the proportion of ULRs saying that they have the use of a learningcentre at their workplace, from a high of 52 per cent in 2005 to below the 2003figure of 47 per cent, at just 44 per cent may be partly attributed to the greaterproportion in the same two sectors. However this also reflects recent changes inFE funding, which have meant that free or discounted ICT courses, previously oneof the mainstays of union learning centre provision, have not been available since2006. Learning centres are an important enabling factor for ULRs at the workplace,and unions are currently considering strategies to restore their viability.

ULR trainingAs in 2005, 98 per cent of ULRs had undergone their initial training, with just twoper cent still waiting for a course. In response to two new questions in this survey,more than a quarter of ULRs felt that they had not yet had sufficient training tocarry out their roles effectively, and 83 per cent responded that their employersprovide them with reasonable time off for relevant ULR training.

Union Learning FundTwenty-four per cent of respondents reported being involved in a Union LearningFund (ULF) project. The ULF was set up in 1998 to promote activity by tradeunions in support of the Government’s objective of creating a learning society, byinfluencing the increase in take-up of learning in the workplace and boostingunions’ capacity as learning organisations. A major theme of ULF projects is therecruitment, training and ongoing support of ULRs.

Learning agreements and learning centres

Whether or not the amount of time provided by an employer is sufficient dependslargely on what the ULR actually needs to do, and this can vary widely, so thisyear the survey included questions on the ULR’s perception of sufficiency of time.The responses to these questions are shown in Table 4. This was the first timethat ULRs had been asked specifically about time off for ULR training, andalthough the positive response looks high compared with time for the otheractivities, it is still disappointing that 17 per cent of ULRs consider that they arenot getting enough time off for this essential element of their role.


Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s worked paid

more than10 hours

11 9

5–10hours

13 11

2–5hours

2016

less than1 hour

none

23

14 14

34

1–2hours

18 16

Figure 12Hours worked andpaid by employer

Table 3: Industrial sector of ULRs having learning agreements andlearning centres

Industrial sector Percentage of all ULRs withlearning agreement learning centre

public admin and defence 60 33

education 26 28

electricity, gas and water supply 43 40

health and social work 37 43

transport, storage and communications 59 55

financial intermediation 69 44

manufacturing 58 71

mining and quarrying 75 25

other community, social and personal services 46 31

construction 68 68

wholesale, retail and motor trade 53 42

real estate and business services 36 18

agriculture, forestry and fishing 0 0

hotels and restaurants 50 50

Facility timeFigure 9 showed how the time commitment for a ULR has increased over theyears. Figure 12 compares the amount of time ULRs actually spend on their rolewith the amount of paid time off they are given. For 60 per cent of ULRs time spenton activities at work is fully paid by their employers, but a third still receive no paidtime off at all, compared with 11 per cent of the senior union representativessurveyed in WERS. Thirty-two per cent of those ULRs who responded to the 2007survey perform some or all of their duties in their own time.

Having time off, whether paid or not, is of little value if the ULR still has to return toa full workload, yet only 46 per cent reported having cover for their regular job or areduced workload.

Since 2003 ULRs have been legally entitled to ‘reasonable’ paid time off toconduct their duties, and guidance on interpreting this right is contained in theACAS Code of Practice on Time off for Trade Union Duties and Activities. In theGovernment’s response to the public consultation on the facilities and facility timementioned earlier, it was acknowledged that many representatives are using theirown time to undertake their duties, and that the increasing stress and timecommitment contributes to the difficulty some workplaces are having in recruitingrepresentatives. It has therefore asked ACAS to “[revise] the existing code ofconduct so that it provides updated guidance on time off issues… in particular toconsider how the issues of cover [and] reduced workloads… should be treated inits Code”. The results of this survey underline the urgency for this development.

Time off for members to consult ULRsA surprisingly high percentage of ULRs (75 per cent) felt that their members hadsufficient time off to consult their ULR during normal working time. However thisleaves 25 per cent who don’t , which underlines anecdotal evidence that manymembers have to consult ULRs during break periods.

Other facilities and provisionsA majority of ULRs report that employers provide sufficient facilities for them tocarry out their role. Employers provide office space to more than two-thirds ofULRs, and office equipment and communication equipment to three-quarters.Despite this, a significant minority of ULRs lack basic facilities. Employers do notprovide one-third of ULRs with office space and approximately one-quarter ofULRs with office equipment or communication equipment.


Table 4: Time off for ULR activities

ULR has reasonable time off to: yes noUndergo relevant ULR training 83% 17%

Conduct ULR role 70% 30%

Discuss members’ individual training needs 66% 34%

Arrange learning or training for members 64% 36%

Table 5: Facilities provided by employer

Percentage of ULRsyes no

Office space 67 33

Office equipment (e.g. computer, photocopier) 73 27

Communication equipment (e.g. phone, email, internet) 75 25

Working with employers

Figure 13 shows the percentage of ULRs reportingcontact with management to discuss trainingissues in a range of different time periods.Although one-third of ULRs report contact at leastonce a month, many ULRs report infrequentcontact and, in some cases, no contact at all withmanagement on training issues. Over one-quarterhad no contact with any level of management todiscuss training matters during the previous 12months.

ULRs were asked to identify the extent to which union representatives wereinvolved in their managers’ decisions about training by classifying it asnegotiation, consultation or information. This question is similar to one asked ofemployee representatives in the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 2004(WERS), and the two sets of responses are shown in Figure 14. ULRs report thatmanagers normally negotiate or consult with union representatives whendeciding training issues in only a minority (37 per cent) of cases, and that theyprovide information to union representatives about training related decisions in


at least once a week

daily

at least once every two weeks

at least once every three months

at least once a month

at least once every six months

not at all

once a year

7%

28%

3%

5%

19%

16%11%

11%

Figure 13Frequency ofcontact withany level ofmanagementto discusstraining issues

17 per cent of cases. The remaining 45 per cent of ULRs were not aware of theiremployer involving the union in training decisions in any way at all.

Only eight per cent of union representatives in the WERS reported negotiation ontraining, but 64 per cent were aware of either consultation or information. TheGovernment has used the eight per cent figure for negotiation as evidence thatbargaining on training is not yet sufficiently commonplace to be included as oneof the statutory collective bargaining issues in voluntary recognition agreements.The results of this survey demonstrate that training is becoming morecommonplace as an element of workplace negotiations, and will add weight toTUC and union campaigns to make training a subject of future collectivebargaining agreements.

Since many ULRs report infrequent contact with managers, and managers oftendo not involve union representatives in training issues, it is not surprising thatmany ULRs feel undervalued. Figure 15 shows that only one-third of ULRs believemanagers at their workplace value ULR activities. The remaining two-thirds reportthat managers do not value ULR activities in their workplace or that managementshows ambivalence to ULRs.

The attitude of middle managers to union representatives was an issue raised inresponse to the consultation on the facilities and facility time of unionrepresentatives. Concerns included inadequate training of managers, and theproblem of budgets and performance targets of managers not being adjusted totake account of the presence of union representatives in their teams. Theseissues are to be addressed in the revision of the ACAS Code of Practice on Timeoff for Union Representatives.


Perc

enta

geof

resp

onse

s ULR survey 2007 WERS 2004

negotiation

158

consultation

22

38

information

17

26

Perc

enta

geof

resp

onse

s

stronglydisagree

1815

disagree

2733

neither agreenor disagree

agree stronglyagree

7Figure 15Managers at theworkplace valueULR activity

Figure 14Involvement ofunionrepresentatives intraining decisions

Training for members atthe workplace

The questions about training at the workplace deliberately askedabout union members only, since not all ULRs work with non-members, and it is the only constituency about which they canrealistically be expected to be able to make an assessment.

Even so there were a relatively high number of respondents who did not have theconfidence to answer these questions: six and 10 per cent respectively for thetwo questions about time off for training, and around 20 per cent for each of thequestions about ULRs’ perceptions of their impact on training. By making thisdecision not to ‘guess’ at responses, ULRs have almost certainly added to thevalidity of the following analysis, as there were still well in excess of onethousand responses to be considered in each case.

Training levels in workplaces with ULRs

According to the Labour Force Survey, in 2007 only 14.4 per cent of all employeeshad received any job-related training in the previous 12 months, yet Figure 16shows that, in 74 per cent of ULR workplaces, at least a few union members weregiven time off from their normal work duties for training. Despite this clearpremium attached to union learning, there is still progress to be made. In over halfof the workplaces no more than 20 per cent of the members received training,and there were only 20 per cent of workplaces where most or all members hadreceived training during working hours in the previous twelve months.


Perc

enta

geof

ULR

sre

port

ing

inea

chca

tego

ry

100%

11

80–99%

9

40–59%

9

20–39%

12

0%

26

60–79%

8

1–19%

26

Proportion of members receiving training

Figure 16Proportion ofmembers atworkplace giventime off for training


The survey also asked about the amount of training received. According to theNational Employer Skills Survey, in 2005 employers provided the equivalent of8.7 training days per employee, and the CIPD annual survey of learning, trainingand development managers (2008) reports an average of 5 days per employee.Figure 17 shows the proportion of ULRs reporting an average amount of trainingper year in six categories, ranging from none to more than 10 days, with a sixth inthe latter category and a similar proportion reporting no training time at all givento members in the ULR’s workplace.

Figure 18 compares the results from the ULR survey with those in WERS.According to WERS 18 per cent of employees across both unionised and non-unionised workplaces had received five days training or more in the previousyear, whereas the ULR survey shows 34 per cent of ULRs reporting this level oftraining. Even though union members in more than 40 per cent of workplacesreceived less than two days training during the past 12 months, and 18 per centhad none at all, these figures are considerably better than the 2004 WERSresults, which were that over a third of workers had not received any training atall, further emphasising the added benefit of union learning.

5–10 days

10 days or more

2–5 days

less than 1 day

1–2 days

no time

18%

23%

18%

16%

15%

10%

Figure 17Amount of trainingreceived by members

Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

ULR 2007 WERS 2004

18

48

34 36

46

18

none 1–4 days 5 or more days

Figure 18Average number ofdays training receivedby members last year

A central aim of the 2007 Survey was to assess the impact of ULRs on trainingactivity. The foregoing comparison of data from the ULR survey with that fromWERS 2004 certainly seems to suggest that the presence of ULRs has a positiveimpact on training levels, and the next set of questions was designed to identifyULRs’ own perceptions of the extent to which they had an impact in the previoustwelve months. This section summarises the findings, which will be presented ingreater detail in the forthcoming detailed report of the survey, which will bepublished as part of the unionlearn series of research reports.

There were two sets of questions in this group, one about training funded by theemployer, and one about training funded by someone other than the employer,such as the individual, their union, or the Government. There may be some cross-over between the two groups of findings, as ULRs may not always be aware thattheir employer has accessed external funding for training. This seems particularlylikely in respect of the 36 per cent who reported an increase in employer-fundedtraining in basic literacy and numeracy skills, which almost always attract a 100per cent government subsidy. Even if this is the case, however, it is stillreasonable to treat the ‘employer-funded’ category as training that is in somesignificant way supported by the employer.

ULRs were asked to report whether the levels of training in the previous twelvemonths had increased, decreased or stayed the same. Almost three quarters (73per cent) reported an increase in at least one type of training.

For individual types of training the largest proportion of responses was in the‘stayed the same’ category. Although only 15 per cent indicated that all types oftraining had stayed at the same level, this went up to over 60 per cent foremployer-funded personal interest/leisure courses, and for job-related trainingnot funded by the employer and not leading to a formal qualification. As 75 percent of ULRs have been in post for more than two years, the ‘stayed the same’category will reflect much of the increase in training levels that was achieved inprevious periods. Even so, most ULRs who reported that the level of at least onetype of training had stayed the same, also reported an increase in at least oneother type of training.


Perc

enta

geof

ULR

s

75

increase in at least one type of training

all types stayedthe same

15

all types decreased

3Figure 19Levels of workplacetraining over previous12 months

ULR impact on training

Similarly, a decrease in levels of training could simply mean that activity hassettled down following an initial surge when the ULR(s) first became active at theworkplace. Fewer than three per cent reported a decrease in all categories oftraining. Most decreases were reported in the employer-funded category, with 10per cent of ULRs reporting a decrease in the amount of employer-funded trainingfor accredited vocational or academic courses, and 13 per cent noting thatemployer funding for personal interest/leisure courses has declined. The first ofthese will, at least partly, reflect the increase in access to government funding inthe 22 per cent of workplaces where ULRs reported their employers haveengaged with Train to Gain. The second is disappointing, but unsurprising giventhe decrease in the size of training budgets reported by public sectorrespondents to the 2008 CIPD Learning and Development survey, from £250 perperson in 2006/7 to £222 per person in 2007/8.

The third category of responses is from the ULRs who reported an increase intraining levels over the previous 12 months. At least a third reported increases inall but one type of training, although even employer-funded personalinterest/leisure courses increased in 25 per cent of workplaces. The 33 per centincrease in unaccredited job-related training not paid for by the employer almostcertainly reflects the fairly large minority of ULRs who represent professional ormanagerial staff. Many of these may have obligations to engage in certain levelsof continuing professional development, which may or may not be formallyaccredited. They may need ULR assistance in identifying appropriate training andfinding good providers, but are likely to be paying for their own training.

The next section identifies the critical issues helping ULRs to increase employeeparticipation in training where this has occurred.



The remainder of the report aims to determine which ULR characteristics andactivities are most likely to have an impact on three important training outcomes:

� providing information/advice to members and arrangingtraining courses for members

� increasing employee participation in employer-funded training

� increasing employee participation in training not funded by employers.

This part of the analysis was performed by comparing the responses to all theother questions and using statistical tests to determine which had a direct impacton these three outcomes; the findings rather than the detail of the analysis isreported here. Issues mentioned previously in this report are not mentionedbelow if they were not found to have a significant effect on training outcomes.

Providing information/advice to members and arrangingtraining courses for members

Eighty-five per cent of ULRs provided information/advice to members in the past12 months and 59 per cent arranged training courses. The followingcharacteristics help explain whether ULRs provided information/advice tomembers or arranged training courses in the past 12 months (see also Table 6):

� more hours per week spent on ULR activity

� a learning centre at the workplace

� a learning needs assessment conducted in the past two years

� a formal learning agreement with the employer

� contact with any level of management to discuss training

� involvement in a Union Learning Fund project

� more years in the ULR post.

What works for ULRs?

This report has described a wide range of ULR characteristics andactivities, and the positive impact of ULRs on training activity inmany workplaces.


Provision of information and advice to members is probably one of the mostfundamental roles of a ULR. Even though only 15 per cent of ULRs report that theyhave not done this in the past 12 months, unionlearn and unions need to beaware that there may be actions that can be taken to reduce even this low result.In particular it is clear that three of the five characteristics which most facilitatethis activity are ones that are often enshrined in the fourth characteristic, theexistence of a formal learning agreement.

Regular conduct of a learning needs assessment also contributes highly to thelikelihood of ULRs giving information and advice. This characteristic is one that isunder the control of the ULR, but the relatively long period in between may leadto the activity being overlooked by some.

These characteristics also apply to the 41 per cent who have not arranged anycourses in the last 12 months, but this group would also benefit from experience:not just in terms of length of time in post, but through exposure to other ULRsand to full-time project workers while working on a ULF project.

Employer-funded training

Around two-fifths of ULRs reported increased participation in all categories ofemployer-funded training. ULRs who reported increased employee participationin employer-funded training were also more likely to report that:


� The employer negotiates or consults with unions on training.

� There is a learning centre in the workplace.

� More hours per week are spent on ULR activity.

� ULR cover 200 employees or fewer.

Table 6: Characteristics promoting positive impact on information and advice,and arranging training courses

Characteristics impact onInformation/advice provided Courses arranged

Hours per week spent on ULR activity � �Learning centre in workplace � �Learning needs assessment conducted � �Formal learning agreement in place � �Contact with management to discuss training issues � �ULF project �Time in ULR post �

The relevance of each of these elements to the different categories of training isshown in Table 7.

The two elements of this category of employer-funded training that have the mostrelevance to the Government’s skills agenda are vocational qualifications andbasic literacy and numeracy. These are also the two elements for which ULRsneed the most support in order to raise the levels of training. In both cases theexistence of a learning centre at the workplace is clearly beneficial, as is regularinformation, consultation and negotiation with the union by the employer andalso the perception of ULRs that they are valued by their managers. Where theselast two conditions prevail, there is also likely to be an increase in the provision ofunaccredited job-related training and personal interest courses supported by theemployer.

These results also suggest that increasing the take up of vocational qualifications ismost effectively achieved by a single ULR having relatively long hours to spend ontheir union learning activities, whereas for basic skills it is important that the ULR isresponsible for a relatively small number of employees.

Training not funded by employers

A significant proportion of ULRs (two-fifths) reported that their activity hadincreased the number of employees on training not funded by the employer,including nationally recognised vocational or academic qualifications, basicliteracy and numeracy skills training and personal interest/leisure courses.One-third of ULRs also reported increased participation in job-related training notleading to formal qualifications and funded by sources other than the employer.The following issues help explain whether ULRs had increased employeeparticipation in training not funded by the employer (see also Table 8):


� More hours per week are spent on ULR activity.

� There is involvement in a Union Learning Fund project.

� The ULR cover 200 employees or fewer.


Table 7: Characteristics promoting positive impact on training funded by employer

Vocational or Unaccredited Basic Personalacademic job related literacy and interest/leisure

qualifications training numeracy coursesHours per week spent on ULR activity �ULRs per number of employees �Learning centre at workplace � �Employer informs, consultsor negotiates with union ontraining issues � � � �Managers value ULR’s activities � � � �


Table 8: Characteristics promoting positive impact on training not fundedby employer

Vocational or Unaccredited Basic Personalacademic job related literacy and interest/leisure

qualifications training numeracy coursesHours per week spent on ULR activity � �* �ULRs per number of employees �ULF project � � � �Managers value ULR’s activities � � � �Note *10 hours or more

Three of these four characteristics have featured heavily in one or both of theother two sets of outcomes, but two things stand out in relation to learning notfunded by the employer. The first is that unaccredited job-related training is morelikely to take place when the ULR spends more than 10 hours per week on ULRactivities, suggesting that this is considered to be a relatively low priority of therole by most ULRs.

Secondly, it is with this group of outcomes that the role of the Union LearningFund comes fully into play. It was also an important feature in ‘arranging courses’(Table 6) and these two groups of results suggest that the ULF is playing animportant role in helping ULRs to find funding and courses for their memberswhen employers are unwilling to contribute.

ConclusionsAlmost three-quarters of ULRs reported that their activities contributed to anincrease in at least one type of training available at the workplace. In order toincrease that proportion there are a number of features of union learning thatneed to be in place for all ULRs, in particular:

� Managers should value ULR activities.

� Employers should negotiate or consult with unions on training.

� ULRs should have contact with any level of management to discuss training.

� A formal learning agreement should be in place with the employer.

� Sufficient time per week should be available to spend on ULR activity.

� ULRs should be encouraged and enabled to remain in post long-term.

� ULR constituencies ought to be no larger than 200 members.

� A learning needs assessment should be conducted every two years.

� A learning centre should be available in or near the workplace.

� ULRs should have support; if necessary through a Union Learning Fund project.

The final section of this report is unionlearn’s response to these initial findings.

Next steps

The conditions identified as essential for a ULR to be fully effectiveare all objectives for which unionlearn and the unions are alreadystriving. Nevertheless, the survey has highlighted a number ofactivities that should continue to be prioritised in the future workof the TUC, unionlearn and the unions. In this section the TUCaddresses the issues in the order they were listed at the end ofthe previous section.


Managers should value ULR activities.Some unions have already produced leaflets for employers about their specificlearning activity, but this type of material should be supplemented with moregeneric information. In order that all levels of management understand thebenefits that ULRs can bring to the workplace, unionlearn should work withrelevant employer-focused organisations, such as the CIPD and the sector skillscouncils, to produce up-to-date literature for employers that clearly explains theadded value of working with ULRs.

Employers should negotiate or consult with unions ontraining.The evidence of this survey should be used to enhance the TUC campaign thatthe Government should “incentivise employers and unions to negotiate ontraining by including it as a collective bargaining issue in the statutory unionrecognition procedure”. (2020 Vision for Skills, TUC 2006).

Union negotiators should be encouraged to introduce learning issues onto theagenda of their regular meetings with employers.

ULRs should have contact with any level of management todiscuss training.ULRs are already encouraged during their initial training to approach theirimmediate line manager to discuss training issues, but if the potential of unionlearning is not understood, managers are unlikely to initiate the contact. Inaddition to the work outlined above, this type of contact is easier to initiate if thefollowing are happening:


A formal learning agreement should be in place withthe employer.The setting up and implementation of learning agreements between unions andemployers needs to be a primary objective of union learning activity. Theseshould guarantee sufficient time off to ULRs, facilitate both formal and informalarrangements for training issues to be discussed between management andunion representatives and, ideally, give ULRs access to a learning centre.

Sufficient time per week should be available to spend onULR activity.Unionlearn welcomes the Government’s proposal that the issues raised in itsconsultation on facilities and facility time should be addressed in a revisedversion of the ACAS code of conduct. The application of the new guidelines willcontinue to be monitored in the biennial survey of ULRs.

When addressing issues of time off in learning agreements, unions should seekrecognition that time-off requirements of a ULR are likely to fluctuate, and thatthere should therefore be sufficient flexibility in the arrangements to allow forthis. Unions might also want to consider including provision for cover or reducedworkload for ULRs.

ULRs should be encouraged and enabled to remain in postlong-term.This survey has demonstrated that ULRs need to feel valued by their managers. Itis equally important that they are aware of being valued and supported by theirunion. Various forums are organised by unionlearn and by individual unionswhere ULRs are able to catch up on the latest developments and network withother ULRs, and they have access to a plethora of written support material, bothin print and on the internet. What is probably of at least equal value, however, issupportive contact from other union representatives at the workplace. Animportant catalyst for developing and enhancing this type of support is for unionlearning to be included on the agenda of all union meetings.

ULR constituencies ought to be no larger than 200members.When negotiating time off, unions need to be aware that improving the ratio ofULRs to members/ employees in a workplace should not be an alternative toincreasing the facility time of each ULR, and vice versa. If the employer hopes tosee increased take up of both vocational training and basic skills training, thenthey need to accept that both of these conditions are essential.

ULRs who are struggling to service constituencies of more than 200 members areencouraged to use the evidence provided by this survey to seek help from theirbranch to increase the complement of ULRs in the workplace.

A learning needs assessment should be conducted everytwo years.ULRs are busy people, usually with very little time to undertake all of theirresponsibilities, so it is not surprising that those which recur infrequentlysometimes get overlooked. Unions and/or unionlearn should investigate thepossibility of producing automated electronic reminders to repeat learning needsanalyses, on the biennial anniversary of ULR training courses. This might besomething that could be built into future iterations of the unionlearn ClimbingFrame.

A learning centre should be available at or near theworkplace.Learning centres available to ULRs can take many different forms, from theemployer’s own training facility to dedicated, fully equipped accommodationcontrolled entirely by the union. Unionlearn also has a network of learndirectlearning centres that are available for union learners, re-launched during 2008 as‘U-Net’. It would be timely for unionlearn to consider revising and re-issuingits guidance to ULRs on setting up and running learning centres.

ULRs should have support through a Union LearningFund project.Eventually the support for all ULRs will be provided directly by their unions, orindirectly through the core activities of unionlearn and/or the TUC. In themeantime an important criterion for ULF projects is, and should remain, thebuilding and strengthening of support networks for ULRs.

The ULF should continue to encourage unions to work in partnership with SSCsand employers to increase the impact of ULRs on the provision of employer-funded training, and to help raise the profile of union learning with employers.



References

ACAS, 2003 Code of Practice on Time Off for TradeUnion Duties and Activities

BERR, 2007 Workplace Representatives: A Reviewof Their Facilities and Facility Time. Governmentresponse to public consultation.

CIPD, 2008 Learning and Development AnnualSurvey Report

DTI, 2007Workplace Representatives:A Review of Their Facilities and Facility Time.Public consultation.

Kersley B, Alpin C, Forth J, Bryson A, Bewley H,Dix G and Oxenbridge S, 2006 Inside theWorkplace: Findings from the 2004WorkplaceEmployment Relations Survey Routledge, London

TUC, 2006 2020: A Vision for Skills

TUC, 2006 Focus on Health and Safety: TUCBiennial Survey of Safety Reps 2006

Unionlearn, 2006Making a Real Difference:A Survey of Union Learning Reps

All unionlearn publications maybe made available for dyslexic orvisually impaired readers, onrequest, in an agreed electronicformat or in accessible formatssuch as Braille, audio tape andlarge print, at no extra cost.

Published by unionlearnCongress HouseLondon WCB LS

Tel 020 7079 6920Fax 020 7079 6921www.unionlearn.org.uk

May 2008Designed by wave.coopPrinted by NewnorthAll photos by Simon Weller

opening doors to learning - ulr survey report 2008

Documents

todays ulrs

main survey

profile of current ulrs

representative survey

union efforts

employers20 training

training issues

trade union education