MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

prevent this space from being contested in all sorts of areas. In
the absence of a clear Rule Book prescription, perhaps it cannot
be defined without some kind of agreed code of practice defining
relative spheres of influence – and maybe the ‘shared zone.’
• Moveable boundaries
Boundaries that are not agreed are liable to move, depending on
contingent factors. In PCS, boundaries, it was suggested, can
move where lay members perceive that something has gone
wrong. So even if the subject of the error is one that is clearly
within a managerial sphere, lay members move over the
boundary in a belief that they can thus prevent the error
recurring. In the same union, where there has been conflict
between senior managers, it was suggested that the conflict
made it difficult for managers to defend their boundaries, so that
lay members were able to move over them. There was also
conflict between lay members themselves, which could have led
to the boundaries moving in the opposite direction. It could be
that boundaries are spanned in such conditions on a case by
case basis; where one party was united on an issue, boundaries
could be spanned by that party where a disunited party could not
defend them.
• Staff boundaries
Managers know well that key to their achieving the
organisation’s objectives is an effective appointments process –
having staff in place who can do the job. Lay members know this
also; they may also still hold to the rather naïve belief that
someone with appropriate political credentials can do the job
better. For whatever reason, there are histories of lay members,
either in Conference or on the NEC, trying to move boundaries
in the direction of more lay decision-making on staff matters, and
of managers trying to defend and define the boundaries. In
CWU, the issue was colourfully highlighted by suggesting to lay
members that hiring and firing went together and that none of
them wanted the latter, however much they wanted the former.
The issue of lay negotiator substitution, mentioned above, was a
particular example of unclear staff boundaries which affected
both managers and staff. In PCS, there is a suggestion that,
despite a formal appointments process which reflects good
practice in equal opportunities terms, political decisions may still
be possible. UNiFI has an extraneous agreement with unions
representing staff that is designed to facilitate managers defining
boundaries which have agreed elements of lay member
involvement but also contain good practice elements designed
to prevent bias. UNISON has similar processes but the issue
mentioned here was that some staff lobby lay members directly
– presumably, therefore, lay members allow themselves to be
lobbied – something which affects the boundaries between them
and managers.
375