Contents Page: NZJER, 2015, 40(2)
Name

Title

Page
NumberJanet Sayers & Catherine Retention of skilled migrants in
1-23
Poulterthe New Zealand Dairy
IndustryPeter Schweder, Michael
Quinlan, Philip Bohle,
Felicity Lamm, and Andy
Ang, Huat Bin

Injury rates and psychologicalwellbeing in temporary work: A
study of seasonal workers in the
New Zealand food processing
industry

Ray Markey, Candice
Harris, Katherine
Ravenswood, Gay
Simpkin, David
Williamson
Marcus Ho, Diep
Nguyen, Karen Lo,
Cameron Mclean,
Stephen Teo

Employee participation andquality of the work environment:
Cases from New Zealand

Sue Ryall & Stephen
Blumenfeld

Research Note: The state of New
Zealand Union membership in
2014

Research Note: The state ofhuman resource (HR) competency
research: Charting the researchdevelopment of HR competencies
and examining the signals fromindustry in New Zealand

24-46

47-66

67-83

84-93

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Retention of skilled migrants in the New Zealand Dairy
Industry
CATHERINE POULTER and JANET SAYERS**
Abstract
The retention of skilled migrants is a key issue facing many industries. This study focusses on
factors that enable and hinder retention of skilled migrants in the New Zealand dairy industry.
A model was developed from existing literature containing four contexts for migrantexperience and five key migrant experience process stages. From this model, a selfcompletion questionnaire was developed and then distributed via four dairy organisations tothose migrants workers who were retained. Findings discuss the six most important retention
factors identified: pride in the industry; opportunities for career advancement; skill andknowledge enhancement; commitment to the industry; enjoyment of the job; and good work
relationships. Analysis of qualitative data showed where industry improvements could bemade: work practices and pay; a coordinated communication strategy from the industry; more
efficient government immigration processes, and coordinated policy around cultural andsocial integration. Two contributions – practical and theoretical – are provided.
Key Words: dairy farming; migrant workers; dairy workers, cattle workers, farm workers

Introduction
The New Zealand (NZ) dairy industry is NZ’s largest exporter, earning some NZ$14,576
billion in export revenue in 2012 and contributing approximately 3 percent to NZ’s grossdomestic product, according to the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) (2014). Over the
past decade, there have been significant structural changes to the industry due to an increasein corporate ownership of farms, conversion of commercial forests and sheep and beef
farmland to dairying, increased herd sizes and technological advancements in production,
animal health and genetics. There are now approximately 4.78 million cows in NZ in 11,891
herds, and approximately 26,577 people work in dairy farming (LIC, 2014). In NZ, there areapproximately 11,798 dairy herds with the average herd size of 402. Over the last two
decades, national production has increased by 77 percent (MPI, 2014). Inside these facts andfigures about NZ dairy farming is a human element: the increasing reliance NZ dairy farmmanagers have on skilled migrant labour to sustain these levels of productivity.
Dairy farming has long been considered a challenging and dangerous occupation, with highemployee turnover. An industry report in 2008 determined that a human resource crisis
existed in dairy farming (Wilson & Tipples, 2008) and since then the industry has undergone
a demographic transformation: skilled migrant labour is now essential to the sustainabilityCatherine Poulter, School of Management, Massey University
Janet Sayers, School of Management, Massey University**

1

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

and global competitiveness of the industry (Trafford & Tipples, 2012; Strack, Baier &Fahlander, 2008). This is reflected in the Dairy Industry Strategy for Sustainable Dairy
Farming 2013-2020 which states the following as one of its strategic objectives: “Talented
People: Attract, develop and retain highly skilled and motivated people throughout theindustry” (DairyNZ, 2013).
Migrant workers have always been essential to the NZ dairy industry (Rawlinson, Tipples,Greenhalgh & Trafford, 2012). Migrants have flowed into the industry throughout its
development, most notably with the influx of Dutch migrants in the 1950s. However, over the
past decade this reliance has accelerated, and over the past decade migrant workers haveoriginated from some 62 two source countries (INZ 2014a). Between 2009 and 2013, thesemigrants predominantly came from the Philippines, Fiji, South Africa, India and GreatBritain (INZ, 2014b). Over the past five years, an average of 1900 temporary work visas
have been approved annually to migrant workers for employment on dairy farms (INZ,
2014b). A number of these visas are re-issued to migrants currently working on farms in NZ
due to the ongoing need to renew visas upon expiration of the initial temporary work visa.
DairyNZ has estimated that 4,600 non-New Zealand born staff work on NZ dairy farms(Trafford & Tipples, 2012). This number is not an indication of the total number of Skilled
Migrant Dairy Workers (SMDW) employed on farms at any one time as temporary work
visas are issued for periods of up to three years.
NZ dairy farmers are competing globally in a number of areas; efficiency, product quality,
and increasingly, over the past decade, for skilled migrant labour. Migrant labour is anincreasing component of the labour markets of many economies (Preibisch, 2010) and global
competition for migrant skilled labour has intensified (Benson-Rea & Rawlinson, 2003;
Bürgelt, Morgan & Pernice, 2008, Khoo, McDonald, Voigt-Graf & Hugo, 2007). Around theglobe, workforces have become increasingly diverse, more educated and more mobile andretaining human resources is one of the most pressing challenges of businesses. Considering
the global nature of dairying, the decline in relative numbers of migrants compared to hostnation alternatives, such as Australia and Canada, should be of concern – see Figure 2 below.
Figure 1: Visas approved for Dairy Farming Occupations 2009 – 2013, Top 20 nationalities

2

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23
Figure 2: Comparison of Rates of Migration with Alternative Host Nations for SMDWs

As the competition for skilled migrant labour intensifies, human resource management(HRM) practices within the NZ dairy industry will need to ensure they are of the highest
standard (Khoo et al., 2007). Attraction to the industry will not continue if HRM practices areless attractive than those in alternative host nations. The dairy industry needs to retain skilled
and motivated people and because of the lack of NZ originating skilled dairy workers, andcompetition from other nations for skilled labour. The research questions are thus:
1. What are the challenges and opportunities encountered by skilled migrants who haverelocated internationally to work in the NZ dairy industry?
2. What are the most important factors in enabling migrant integration, settlement andretention in the industry?
This paper is structured as follows. First, existing literature is reviewed and a comprehensivemodel is presented. The model discusses factors that impact on retention of migrants andillustrates four distinct but interrelated contexts and five experiential processes. Methods,
findings, and contributions to practice and theory are then discussed.

Migrant retention modelThis section draws upon existing research to propose a comprehensive model of migrant
retention used as a basis for the development of the questionnaire used in this research.
Figure 3 below shows the model developed with four contexts and five key process stages:

3New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23
Figure 3: Retention of Skilled Migrants Model: Four contexts and Five Stages

This model is adapted from the Migration Process Stages Model formulated by Benson-Rea
and Rawlinson (2003). They investigated and analysed the migration process at five stages;
the pre-migration stage, the information search and migration decision stage, the migration
and arrival stage, the post arrival and early settlement stage and the settlement outcome stage.
Using a process stage model enables researchers to focus on migrant experience from theperspective of migrants themselves. Understanding the process in a holistic way as a processof retention means that the key points of tension and discomfort with cultural, social,
psychological, employment and key institutions can be identified and analysed. This
framework for understanding migrant experience considers migrants as valued employees ofboth the state and dairy industry. In Figure 3 above, two key stages have been added to theoriginal model: two interactions with Immigration New Zealand (INZ), initially through avisa processing branch associated with the home nation and following that, at least one, andsometimes multiple encounters, with INZ in the host nation. These stages are critical in theprocess towards settlement and retention.
Figure 3 above shows contextual factors impacting upon migrant experience. The firstcontext – the macro policy context – includes the external economic environment, policy andlegislative environment. This context includes the economic and lifestyle relativity of thesource nation and the host nation, and that of alternative destination nations as well as
immigration policy. Factors specific to the NZ dairy industry include macro-economic
factors, such as global dairy prices and farming income, exchange rates, the domestic
unemployment rate, aging populations and structural changes in the industry. Employing
migrant labour as a response to skill and labour shortages is an alternative to increasing
wages to compete for scarce domestic labour. Migrant skilled labour is attracted to a location
through two interrelated mechanisms; the view of labour being matched with economic
opportunity and, more recently, the view of labour being attracted to a location that provides
a range of lifestyle amenities (Gottlieb, 1995).
4

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

The second interrelated, contextual factor is the psychological context of the migrant prior toarrival and during settlement. To enhance the likelihood of migrants staying, it is essential togain an understanding of the social and psychological factors that contribute to enabling themto stay (Bürgelt et al., 2008; Carr, 2004). Carr (2004) suggests that people are motivated torelocate to work in another country because of five key reasons: 1. Economic factors –including the promise of better economic opportunities; 2. political factors – including
dissatisfaction with the political environment in the home nation; 3. career factors – including
career development opportunities; 4. cultural factors – including migrating to countries thatare culturally similar, or conversely, migrating to countries that provide opportunities forencountering diversity; and 5. family factors – including opportunities for family members.
However, the literature also suggests that the majority of self-initiated skilled migrants aremost concerned with accumulation of transferable skills which are valuable on the global
labour market (Stahl, Miller & Tung, 2002). Skilled migrants to rural NZ, who have enteredsince the onset of the skills and qualifications-based immigration policies, have in generalhigher levels of education than their host country counterparts. This has also been found tobe the case with migrants in rural Australia (Massey & Parr, 2012).
As well as accumulating human capital, skilled migrants are concerned, of course, with theirown psychological wellbeing and that of their families. Mähönen, Leinone and JasinskajaLahti (2013) use three indicators of psychological well-being in migrants; satisfaction withlife, general well-being and general mood. They suggest that in the pre-migration phase
information offered to voluntary migrants should create realistic expectations. If expectations
are too positive they will lead to disappointment when expectations are not met. Hostcountries need to live up to the image they portray to attract migrants.
The third interrelated context is social and cultural context of the host country. Long term
acculturation requires both psychological and sociological adaptation (Ward, Fox, Wilson,
Stuart & Kurs, 2010; Berry, Phinney, Sam & Vedder, 2006). Psychological adaption affects
a person’s sense of well-being and sense of life satisfaction within a new culture (Ward et al.,2010). Social adaptation involves a person’s ability to successfully participate in crosscultural encounters (Ward et al., 2010). In order for that brain gain to be retained, there needs
to be a fit between the level of talent and the surrounding social and cultural environment(Jackson et al., 2005). Non-alignment between these two factors can cause mental healthproblems in the migrant worker (Pernice, Trlin, Henderson, North & Skinner, 2009). Therecan also be negative social and economic consequences to not utilising talent because of
locally held prejudices or parochialisms (Coates & Carr, 2005). Bürgelt, Morgan and Pernice(2008) determined that migrants need resource structures before they embark on their selfinitiated relocation. Resources structures can include: realistic expectations of the hostnation, language competency, knowledge of the migration process, cultural awareness, andadaptation strategies. Individual skilled migrants select their destination location and firmbased on these and other conditions (Weng & McElroy, 2010). These resource structures
enable migrants to mitigate the social/cultural challenges they will inevitably encounter intheir host country. Migrants can experience significant challenges relating to changes in theirsocioeconomic status when they first migrate (Pumariega, Rothe & Pumariega, 2005). They
often experience dips in their standards of living, especially relating to relationships withsupervisors, co-workers and the community. Community infrastructure to support migrants is
critically important. Khoo et al. (2007) found that social networks were particularly important
for those migrants planning residency.
5

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

From migrant workers’ perspectives integration (not assimilation) is the ideal aim; workers
should feel ‘at home’ in their host country but they should be able to express their own
cultural rituals and relate to people with similar cultural values. From the host country’s
perspective, diversity brings many benefits (Berry, 1997; D’Netto & Sohal, 1999), as it has
positive economic implications (Florida, 2002), access to different knowledge bases andknowledge networks (Collings, Doherty, Luethy & Osborn, 2011) and diversity enhances
society’s adaptability (Berry, 1997). New Zealanders are generally strongly supportive of
diversity with a positive attitude towards migrants and multi-culturalism (Ward & Masgoret,
2008; Zimmermann, Bauer & Lofstrom, 2000). However, qualitative research tells us that
the NZ rural community is not so accepting of migrants (Rawlinson et al., 2012). Employers
play a vital role in the integration and thus retention processes (Chen, Ward & Coulon, 2013).
The fourth contextual factor, of most direct significance in the current research, is industry
contexts, which includes issues around about employment and employers as well as theindustry more generally. The macro policy context, psychological and social/cultural contexts
are all still relevant but the focus is more on direct consequences arising from theemployment relationship itself. Hausknecht, Rodda and Howard (2009) derived a set of 12
factors regarding employees’ reasons for staying within an employment setting. Job
satisfaction – the degree to which employees liked their job – was the primary retention
factor. People enjoy the intrinsic attributes of their work and thus are more likely to beretained by their employer, a factor borne out in other NZ-based research (Boxall, Macky &Rasmussen, 2003). Following job satisfaction, extrinsic rewards such as pay and benefits,
was the secondary retention factor (Hausknecht et al., 2009). Organisational prestige or the
degree to which an organisation was perceived to be well regarded and reputable also
affected an individual’s desire to stay. Having good relationships with supervisors and coworkers is also an important factor in retention, a factor which is also found relevant to NZ
employees (Boxall et al., 2003).
In the case of migrant dairy workers, the most relevant research on job satisfaction conductedin the United States measured four dimensions; feedback, autonomy, variety and task identity(Fogleman, Milligan, Maloney, Knoblaunch 1999). Poor feedback from employers had thegreatest impact on job satisfaction. This is especially relevant because feedback is something
employers can control. Dairy farm workers are usually aware of the requirements ofdemanding dairy farm work: there are often high workloads, time pressures, long hours andseasonal fluctuations. Good employer communication and feedback helps employees remain
motivated throughout the challenging circumstances of the work. These contextual factors
impact on migrants seriously considering returning to their source nation; episodic desires toreturn are interspersed often through the first five years of settlement and peaks occur atabout one and two years (Hartog & Winkelmann, 2003).
Employers have a direct impact on the experience of employment; but the industry also needs
to set standards in a responsible way. For instance, there should be opportunities to acquireand enhance skills. The primary reasons Australian employees stayed with their dairy farm
employers included opportunities to increase skills and knowledge and good working
conditions (Nettle, Semmelroth, Ford & Zheng, 2011) . Also, a sense of ownership, which isimportant to work’s meaningfulness, can be fostered. Most importantly, conditions of workand pay need to be monitored and managed. Another factor relevant to the industry as awhole is the importance of the industry reputation. Reputation depends on word-of-mouth
from migrants which emerge from general feelings migrant workers have about their work,
6New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

how valued their contributions are, and the extent to which they feel the industry cares about
their well-being (Boxall et al., 2003; Hausknecht et al., 2009). Other factors included
extrinsic rewards, feedback received for a job well done, and the availability of a mentor.
Employers can have a significant role in the retention and settlement of migrants (Chen et al.,2013). Examples of employer initiated support include inductions, cultural and diversity
awareness for domestic staff, settlement support, language support programmes, mentorship
schemes and ongoing training (Chen et al., 2013). However, Wuffl, Carter, Vineberg andWard (2008) contend that long-term retention of migrants to rural communities depends asmuch on non-work related factors as job related factors. Rural communities needing to retain
skilled migrants need well-planned and developed social support infrastructure to enablemigrants to build social connections to the community. Such infrastructure can provide
opportunities for individuals to participate in learning activities, join sports and religiousorganisations, socialise and develop trust with neighbours. It is through these activities thatskilled migrants can be integrated with their communities and retained for the long term.
Wulff and Dharmalingam (2008) also found that the settlement assistance migrants received
from their employers had an effect on their retention. Such assistance can include settlement
counselling, accommodation, information about the area, putting the migrant in contact with
community groups and general assistance with integration, not assimilation (Chen et al.,2013; Pernice et al., 2009). In NZ, Tipples, Rawlinson and Greenhalgh (2012)) havediscussed how the Filipino Dairy Workers New Zealand (Inc.) have responded to this need tofacilitate social integration in their community.
Favourable HRM environments for talent growth lead to increased attractiveness of a region.
The key to attracting and retaining self-selected migrant talent is based on providing andsustaining a conducive HRM environment. The HRM environment can be influenced at thenational government level, by local government, by industry associations and/or the firmlevel. An attractive HRM environment is essential to ensuring the retention of globally
mobile skilled labour (Weng & McElroy, 2010) .

Research design
The purpose of this research was to identify the factors that enable integration and retentionof skilled migrants who have moved to NZ to work in the dairy industry. A literature review
revealed the most likely factors impacting on integration and retention of SMDW, and thesefactors are represented in Figure 3. The survey was designed to gather information across a
broad range of possible factors that impact on migrant dairy workers’ experiences. Textual
fields were added to the survey to gain information from participants about their experienceswith migration and integration at key process stages. Collecting both quantitative andqualitative information enabled a comprehensive picture to be gained about the overall
experiences of retained migrants, as well as more specific information about where
improvements could be made.
The sample of skilled migrants was obtained from foreign born individuals who had beenworking in the NZ dairy industry for more than three years. Beine, Docquier and Rapoport(2007) define skilled migrants as foreign-born workers with university or post-secondarytraining. For the purposes of this research, retained skilled migrants were defined as foreignborn workers who migrated to NZ to work in the dairy industry, who hold a relevant
7New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

qualification or who had undertaken two years of work experience in a related job prior tocoming to NZ, and who had spent three years or more working on dairy farms in NZ. This
research did not identity migrant source countries and so cultural differences were notinvestigated. This is a possible area for further research.
Migrant dairy workers are a diverse and geographically distributed population. There iscurrently no unified professional body representing their interests. Consequently, thequestionnaire was delivered through social networks most likely to reach the target
population. The self-completion questionnaire was distributed through the following four
supportive organisations:
1. Federated Farmers of New Zealand via a direct email to members
2. The Primary Industry Training Organisation (ITO) via a link within their online
newsletter
3. The Filipino Dairy Workers of NZ incorporated society via Facebook
4. Settlement Services, a division of INZ, via a survey link within their online newsletter.
Participants were asked to forward the survey if they knew of migrant dairy workers who
might be interested in participating in the research. The survey was distributed in February
2014. In total, 98 responses were collected over three weeks. Seventy-three fit the criteria ofretained skilled migrant workers. The number of responses received enabled the data to besignificant; F(20, 1495) = 12.72, p<0.01.
The questionnaire comprised of 27 questions relating to integration and retention of SMDW.
Questions 1 and 2 determined the participants met the criteria of retained SMDW. Question
3 asked about motivation for migrating to NZ. Questions 4 to 26 related to the four contexts.
The final question 27 asked about season of arrival as previous research suggests this might
affect retention success at the arrival stage. The greatest demand for labour on NZ dairy
farms is during the months of July, August and September when work hours are longest andstress levels are highest amongst employers and employees. The majority of the questions on
the survey, questions 5-25 were answered on a Likert scale.
Qualitative data was thematically analysed in relation to five key process stages. In thefollowing discussion, we confine discussion to the six most important factors that impact on
retention revealed by the study. We use comments from the qualitative data to illustrate dairy
workers’ opinions about these factors. We then discuss suggestions for improvements using
comments where migrants note dissatisfaction or mixed feelings about their experiences.

Results and Discussion
Figure 4 below combines all 21 factors of retention identified from the literature and asked
about in the survey. The most important factor has the highest value mean and the least
important factor the lowest value mean.

8

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Figure 4: Mean Value of Factors of Retention for Retained SMDWs

The results identify that the six most important factors to SMDW in the NZ dairy industry
are, in order of importance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Having pride in the industry
Having career advancement opportunities
Having the opportunity to enhance skills and knowledge
Having commitment to the industry
Enjoyment of the job
Having good relationships with supervisors and co-workers.

Migrant farm workers in NZ indicate that the strongest factor impacting on their retention is
the pride that they feel as part of the NZ dairy industry. Ninety six percent of retained
migrants strongly agreed or agreed that they were proud to be working in the dairy industry.
The degree to which an industry is perceived to be well regarded and reputable is asignificant factor in retention (Hausknecht et al., 2009).
The second most important factor, which is also related to the third factor, is opportunities foradvancement. Eighty two percent strongly agreed or agreed that their economic status had
improved compared to that in their source country. Many respondents commented on theeconomic opportunities they had realised working in the dairy industry, progressing fromwaged migrants to farm ownership.
9

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

I came [...] to NZ in 2002. Worked myself from the bottom up as farm worker up to2005, being farm manager. Now I am farm owner in NZ and permanent residence
since 2005. We think it is very hard work here (with working in the early hours andgrowing numbers of cows) but very rewarding.
I have started at the bottom of the chain and worked myself up to become a landowner which would have been hard in the country I was born.
Huge opportunity to manage/control/supervise/involvement in NZ dairy farming.
I am lucky enough to find nice employers in my 5 years farming in Canterbury. I am
currently a 2IC [second in charge] and I would say I have fair opportunity to up-skill
and advance on the farm.
The third factor is opportunities to enhance skills and knowledge. This factor is closely
related to the second factor of opportunities for advancement. Ninety six percent of all
respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they had the opportunity to undertake training.
Respondents commented;… going to the ITO, helps to meet people on our industry plus making friends. I justfinished Ag ITO course level 3 supplied by my employer and he is permanently
training me. I am being paid very well.
New Zealand dairy industry help me to improve my career and other relatedorganisation help me by their helpful training.
Wonderful opportunities. Have already undertaken Level 3 ITO and am now doing
level 4.
An industry which promotes growth and enhancement of skills and knowledge will in turn
attract further talent (Weng & McElroy, 2010) and workers are more productive when they
are working with others who possess a high level of skill (ibid).
The fourth factor is commitment to the industry. The level of commitment to the NZ dairy
industry as an important factor in retention indicates that the high level of intrinsic motivationthat migrants bring to the dairy industry and the need for similar commitment from the dairy
industry to the migrants. Comments that indicate this commitment include:
Employees effective, efficient and with a serious work commitment seems to be a
surprise for kiwi employers.
I really enjoyed working on a farm here in NZ although DAIRY FARMING is a hard
work that requires dedication but there’s a lot of rewards. At the end of a long day,
we take great pride, we are happy knowing the worked we DO matters to so manyfamilies. This dairy farm experiences are the key to follow our dreams, to survive andto succeed in LIFE.
A more ambivalent comment about commitment was:
10New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

My employers have been supportive to me but they still trust local kiwi as managers
which unfortunately have always been unreliable and disappointed them.
The fifth ranked factor was job satisfaction. Even though job satisfaction was ranked fifth, it
was still at the 90 percent level. Shea (2009) argues that a dairy business’ successes are
directly related to their HRM practices. Personal relationships within the business, intrinsic
and extrinsic rewards, training and camaraderie all result in retention. Comments included:
I am very satisfied with my job experience with my employer here in NZ. They arevery supportive to us and very sensitive with our well-being, we are very grateful forthem.
Dairy farming in NZ is much more advanced than in my home country, more focused,and very particular to health and safety which actually is very good. I have learned a
lot and I am still willing to learn more.
The sixth ranked factor was having good relationships with supervisors and co-workers.
Positive relationships create support which leads to commitment and retention. Mentoring
programmes and “buddies” significantly enhance the likelihood of success (Collings et al.,2011; Nettle et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013). Relationships with employers are very important
to dairy workers because the employer acts as the primary gate keeper (Wulff et al., 2008).
In addition, the employee is often living on and in the employer’s property. Isolation also
intensifies the importance of the employer and co-workers. Many comments were maderegarding the assistance received from employers, and dairy workers were grateful andtouched by the efforts made by individual dairy managers to make them feel ‘at home’.
I am very satisfied with my job experience with my employer here in NZ. They arevery supportive to us and very sensitive with our well-being, we are very grateful forthem.
Our employer provided us a fully furnished home.
Awesome and great employment experience.
This initial positive experience on arrival significantly increases the likelihood of retention ofskilled migrants.
Other factors of significance to our discussion include the issue of lifestyle. Studies
investigating migrant motivations for migrating to NZ have showed lifestyle as the primary
motivator (Malinen & Johnston, 2011). Our results indicate that although lifestyle is still afactor for general immigration to NZ, for dairy workers other factors like career opportunities
are more important.
Another issue relates to extrinsic rewards. Hausknecht et al. (2009) determined that thesecond most important determinant for employees staying in their job was extrinsic rewards,
such as pay and benefits. However, the retained respondents of this study indicate that pay
and benefits was the 13th highest determinant for retention. Comments that express how the11New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

benefits of pay and compensation were weighed up against the benefits of advancement andlifestyle include:
Even if I can relocate internationally, I'd rather not think about it. I am very satisfied
with my job, my compensation, my family and life in NZ.
When we left […] in 2002 it wasn't a very popular occupation to be a farmer. In themeantime it has changed quite dramatically and now we see the opposite. Still we liketo stay in NZ.
Despite this seeming satisfaction, only 80 percent strongly agreed or agreed that their pay andbenefits received were better than in their home country. This does not necessarily mean that
respondents were happy with their pay and conditions as they were currently experiencing
them. When looking at the actual comments there was considerable dissatisfaction andambivalence evident about working conditions in the dairy industry.
I am not that satisfied with my career opportunity at the moment and if a better
opportunity comes along even outside NZ, I will grab it.
I heard that Australia and Canada are stricter about their labour hours.
They need to look into dairy […] workers future here because at the moment
residency visa is quite hard to have It’s not long from now when majority of us decide
move to Australia or Canada for a much more chance having security for their family
having residency.
These comments indicate that although the experience of SMDW in the dairy industry islargely positive in terms of comparison with their country of origin, there is some mixed
feelings and dissatisfaction evident amongst this population. Considering the competitive
nature of skilled migrant labour and the choices available to skilled dairy workers, thesecomments require further analysis in order to provide guidance for the NZ dairy industry as
to what they can do to improve their labour force’s experiences.

Areas for improvement
In this section, we discuss five areas of improvement suggested by our results. The first area
to which attention should be given is working conditions and pay. Rural migrant workers
sometimes exist in poverty despite being skilled, for example in the USA (Jensen, 2006). In
NZ, only 54 percent of retained respondents strongly agreed or agreed that their social status
had improved through migrating to NZ. Migrants often experience an initial decrease insocial status upon migration, but they should recover from this. Comments were made about
the long hours worked, poor working conditions and pay rates.
I think my employer treat us like machines, and just change it when it is broken.
We worked about 16 to 17 hours a day, and sometimes more hours if there was a
problem on the cows (this always happens during calving time). We thought that itwas normal working time in dairy farming. Then we had found out that the other12New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

farms had lesser hours. NZ dairy industry has no strict monitoring on their labour
hours.
We have had experience of the best and the worst of boss’ [sic] but we have always
taken the positive lessons from these experiences and learnt from them.
Though the pay is certainly better in dairy industry but when compared to what thefarmer/sharemilker/manager earns its relatively modest.
Long working hours (14-15), long roster days, less staff numbers, safety issues,
weather conditions does not justify the salary. I have worked in an urban distribution
workplace in New Zealand and right now working on a dairy farm and can compare
and say that working conditions are way better/safer/fair/ in urban centres than on adairy farm.
There should be more staff employed as the work involved is too much plus betterroster applied.
The working roster or hours in a day and number of staff (very less) on a farm in thedairy industry needs desperate attention.
One has to wake up at 3.30 am for milking then breakfast for 30 mins at 8.30 am thenlunch at 12 noon for 1 hour then again milking and end the day at 6 pm. It’s a lot ofphysical work and should be treated/compensated fairly in accordance. Wages needto raise.
My first job was terrible. I was treated in an unfair way in a lot of aspects. I wasyelled, hosed, psychologically stressed out etc. I used to be in a professional
environment as a teacher in my country. Then I started farming there for a while.
Now I am in a good place. The relationship with my supervisor and workmates is
good.
Evidence that employment conditions on dairy farms are becoming tougher is brought into
stark light when looking at recent dairying practices (Morrison, 2013). Technologicalimprovements mean increased efficiency due to introduction of automated drafting systems,
automated washers and cup removers, and other technological advancements. These
efficiencies have enabled an increase in the number of cows per dairy person working on
dairy farms between 1991 and 2013. Herd size increase accompanied by more staff should
improve rosters and work environments according to DairyNZ, but evidence for this isanecdotal. Work intensification is usually accompanied by decreases in employee well-being.
Figure 5 gives an indication of the trajectory of the cow to dairy farmer/worker ratio andFigure 6 demonstrates the increasing number of herds since 2008 in conjunction with theincreasing average number of cows per herd.

13

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Figure 5: Increase in Number of Cows per Dairy Farmer/Worker

Figure 6: Increase in Average Herd Size and Herd Numbers since 2008

Another indication of a problem is that, over the past decade, labour expenditure per kilogramof milk solids (unit of output) has not increased in the dairy industry. Labour expenditure wasat its highest in 2008 when the crisis in HRM was first identified by Wilson and Tipples(2008) and since then it has declined (DairyNZ, 2013) in relation to other ‘expenses’ such as
fertiliser and feed (ibid). These figures are represented in Figure 7 below.
14

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Figure 7: Operating Expenses per Kilogram of Milk-solids (Unit of Output)

The price per milk solid received over that same period has increased by 75 percent innominal, and 38 percent in real terms (LIC, 2014). These figures indicate the HRM crisis
identified in 2008 (Wilson & Tipples, 2008) has not yet been addressed. Industry datasuggests dairy farm employees are getting progressively less of the benefits from the dairy
industry, a point also noticed by DairyNZ (Morrison, 2013). It is important that the effects ofthe HRM crisis described by Wilson and Tipples in 2008 – isolation, burnout and low
remuneration for hours worked – are not merely transferred to the migrant dairy population.
The second related area where this research suggests practice improvements could be maderelates to the pride that dairy workers have in the industry as well as their strong motivations
to advance themselves. Dairy worker migrants are clearly highly motivated to do well in NZ
and very proud of their affiliation with the dairy industry. Sharing this pride would assist theindustry to communicate and share its best practices, but this strategy needs to be authentic.
Issues of work conditions and rewards need to be addressed at the same time. Migrants arehighly motivated to achieve (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999), but the industry and employers need tobe careful not to take advantage of higher motivation. As has already been discussed, it iswell-known that the hours of work in dairy farming are challenging (Wilson & Tipples, 2008;
Rawlinson et al., 2012; Tipples, Trafford & Callister, 2010; Trafford & Tipples, 2012).
Hours worked on the job have implications for both the employee’s well-being and economic
outcomes. It directly effects the remuneration from the job and a number of respondents
commented on this.
A third area for improvement relates to key stages in the migration settlement process whichis the INZ stages, which occur prior to arrival, but also at significant points during theemployment relationship. Some very positive responses were received in relation to dealings
with INZ.

15

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Immigration NZ is very supportive and understanding. Their decisions, so far, for myfamily with regards to processing our living here as well as to the granting of visitor
to my eldest son were for me just and fair. They also process applications quickly.
I had a good experience during renewal of my visa. 3 days to 2 weeks, my visa wasapproved.
However, 38 percent of the retained migrants in the survey did not experience a smoothprocess in their first encounter with INZ and 49 percent did not encounter a smooth processwith their following encounters. Migrant employees and migrants that had become
employers commented that INZ needs to make the immigration process more straightforward.
Respondents commented on the insecurity they felt through the process.
It was a horrible experience with lots of mistakes being made, (they even lost my
passport) changed officers all the time…
In my particular case, as the years tick along, when you get more experience at work,
more knowledge and more integrated with the society while receiving a very positive
feedback not only from employers but also from the community, it seems to be harderto deal with immigration when I would have thought it would get more simple.
There is lack of clarity about the roles, positions and what an applicant needs to have.
There is confusion among employers as well as employees. Frankly speaking there's
real pressure dealing with immigration and justifying our position and status.
In general, SMCW initially receive temporary work visas. Those with farm management
experience can apply for residency in conjunction with their visa application. Assistant Herd
Manager is a job title listed on the INZ Immediate Skills Shortage List (ISSL). A position
listed on the ISSL is deemed to be experiencing severe skill shortages, enabling the work visa
issuance process to be simplified. There are four dairy farming job titles currently listed on
the ISSL. These are the positions of Assistant Herd Manager, Assistant Farm Manager, Dairy
Herd Manager and Dairy Farm Manager. Most migrant dairy workers entering NZ for the
first time using the ISSL enter under the title Assistant Herd Manger. This is because theyneed to adapt their skills to the NZ dairying system before they can progress to higher
positions of responsibility. In 2012/13, only some 26 percent of migrants entering to work in
the industry received visas as Dairy Farm Cattle Workers (INZ, 2014a).
Poor experiences with INZ have also been indicated in previous research; difficulties withimmigration processing have been an ongoing theme (Wilson & Tipples, 2008; Rawlinson etal., 2012; Trafford & Tipples, 2012). There does seem to be some evidence that dairy
workers may not be being equally treated: 10 percent of all visa applications for migrant
dairy workers are declined (INZ, 2014a) whereas six percent of visa applications for the roleof Chef were declined, 0.2 percent for the role of Tour Operator, and seven percent ofapplications for the role of Café/Restaurant Manager were declined. Dairy Cattle Farmer isthe fourth largest occupation to be issued visas.
A fourth suggestion for improvement involves the implementation of communication
strategies to inform potential migrant dairy farmers, while still in their home country, of thechallenges and rewards of working in the NZ dairy industry. Ninety percent of the retained
16New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

migrants in the present study strongly agreed or agreed that their experience had met or
exceeded their expectation. Although this figure appears high, host countries should always
seek to continuously improve skilled migrants’ experiences. Understanding migrant’s
expectations is an important determinant in enabling retention (Malinen & Johnston, 2011)
and in ensuring that employers create conditions where both employer and employee
expectations are met (Trafford & Tipples, 2012). Migrants need resource structures such as
realistic information about the host nation prior to migrating (Bürgelt et al., 2008; Watts &Trlin, 2000). This is also related to issues with INZ. Several respondents commented on theirlack of success in terms of their progression towards residency. Defining the pathway toresidency through dairying, and making it more accessible to the migrant in the pre-migration
phase, would be beneficial to both migrant workers and employers. In this way, realistic
expectations can be set, which will improve the experiences of migrants and, therefore, thereputation of the NZ dairy industry.
A fifth and final suggestion for improvement includes developing industry-coordinated social
integration assistance. Creating support networks and having access to support structures is
crucial in the settlement process. Only 27 percent of retained migrants migrated to NZ with
their families. Consequently, policy development needs to be cognisant of both migrants
with families and those without. It is common practice for the primary migrant to come alone,establish themselves in the job and then bring their family to NZ. Being accompanied bychildren positively impacts on the socialisation process:My family are warmly welcomed in NZ, my kids are doing well in school and they
love it very much here.
Kids have a great time. I lack time to get involved in community due to work timeschedule. Being on rosters and milking times it’s hard to commit to club activities.
Respondents find NZ quieter than their home countries and commented on how they
integrated and the challenges they had with integration.
I became active with the Filipino community in the last 2 years where I have an
opportunity to work with my community and the local government agency that helps
migrant. We adjusted our activity time and make it farmer friendly so everyone cancome after work.
Every day off I joined the Filipino society for social gatherings. People in New
Zealand are very friendly that's why I've got a lot friends.
Getting connected to the local community is really important joining a Young
Farmers Club and going to the ITO, helps to meet people on our industry plus making
friends.
Social life is harder to build up as where we are it is very transient. But church life
helps us to connect. Being in the same area and winning [dairy] prizes several times
helped us to gain recognition.
A number of respondents commented on the inability to become involved in community
activities due to the lack of available time, or energy.
17New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Long working hours, fatigue and geographic isolation makes really difficult to build asocial life.
Working in the dairy and living on the farm house is not good from improving social
life point of view [ …] being so tired on the farm after the job it is also very hard to
think about social activities itself, especially if you live far from towns.
There are more career advancement/training on a dairy farm but the lack of time forenjoying life socially with family and friends sometimes demotivates of remaining in
the dairy long term.
A community with a limited sense of social cohesion will struggle to retain a workforce(McKenzie, 2011). As many migrants come from more densely populated source nations
than NZ particular attention needs to be paid to the social structures available to SMDWs. A
number of respondents referred to churches and community groups as a source of social
integration and support. Although employers can help to an extent, the nature and extent of
the problem indicates that a coordinated strategy from the dairy industry would assist
integration and, therefore, retention.

Contributions and Conclusions
The present study is the first to investigate retention of skilled migrant workers in the NZ
dairy farming industry. There are too few studies on the HRM factors on farms and thus thepresent research provides an important study in this area. Two areas for future research areindicated. The first is to find out why migrants not retained leave. The results of the present
research indicate areas of concern, but as we surveyed only retained migrants, our research islimited to migrants with more positive outcomes. Migrants that arrive, experience the dairy
industry and then leave again are obviously less likely to have such positive experiences. A
second area of research would be to investigate cultural differences that arise from country oforigin vis-à-vis working experiences on farms.
Tarique and Schuler (2010) suggest that an industry should develop a unique migrant value
proposition. They suggest implementing HRM practices and talent management policies thatfacilitate the industry becoming an “employer of global choice”. This is particularly
important for the NZ dairy industry with the forthcoming abolishment of European milk
production quotas in 2015 which will result in additional competition for globally mobile
dairy labour. With the increasing global need for a migrant labour force, there is a need forincreased employer accountability and monitoring of employment practices in dairying. Substandard employers are not only hurting migrants and their own reputations as dairy farmers
but they are also a serious threat to the reputation and subsequently competitiveness of theindustry. Boxall et al. (2003) suggests that regular measurement of employee attitudes
towards employment practices and policies and towards an organisation can be highly
beneficial to employers. NZ Dairy should routinely measure employee attitudes as part oftheir health and safety concerns as good employers and to minimise potential reputational
damage due to poor word-of-mouth stories.

18

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

In an increasingly competitive global environment, an industry’s success is dependent on its
ability to attract and retain talent. This research has investigated the experiences of migrant
dairy workers in the NZ dairy industry and the factors leading to their retention. It wasdetermined that ‘pride’ in the industry is the primary retention factor. Other factors werecareer advancement opportunities, opportunity to enhance skills and knowledge, commitment
to the industry, job satisfaction and good relationships within the industry. The importanceand uniqueness of these factors indicates that the dairy industry could develop concerted andtailored policies and practices to affirm and develop these positive associations. The key‘take-away’ from this research, however, is that communication messages will need to beauthentic and simultaneously developed alongside policies to assist farmers to ensure they are
doing their best to facilitate integration, fair pay, and safe working practices.
The majority of the respondents offered highly complementary data about their migration
experience, especially in relation to individual employers’ assistance and support with thesettling process. However, we have argued complacency should not be an outcome of thepresent research. Through discussing migrant experiences that are less than optimal we aim to
help the NZ dairy industry work on developing better quality relationships with SMDWs thatare now so intrinsic and important to an industry of iconic importance to all New Zealanders.
Best practice is currently largely practised in an ad-hoc way within the industry with thedevelopment of good-will and reputation of the industry left largely to individual dairy farmmanagers. However, issues facing the industry need to be addressed at the industry level andthese include: attempting to mitigate negative immigration process experiences, having acommunications strategy for the whole industry vis-à-vis migrant employment, overcoming
isolation and facilitating integration and social life; and finally and most importantly
addressing issues to do with safety and migrant well-being because of practices such as
extraordinary long hours of work.
As well as directly contributing to practice in terms of assisting the development of HRM
practice on dairy farms the present study also makes a theoretical contribution. This article
has developed a theoretical framework which can be adapted to other contexts to investigate
migrant experiences of farms, and in other countries. Considering recent events in NZ
regarding collapsing dairy prices and the general vulnerability of the national economy todairy practices, NZ needs to extend best practice in dairy management to include the people
that work on the farms.

References
Beine, M., Docquier, F., & Rapoport, H. (2007). Measuring international skilled migration: A
new database controlling for age of entry. The World Bank Economic Review, 21(2): 249254.
Benson-Rea, M., & Rawlinson, S. (2003) Highly skilled and business migrants: Information
processes and settlement outcomes. International Migration, 41(2): 59-79.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied psychology, 46(1): 534.

19

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Berry, J.W., Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L., & Vedder, P. (2006) Immigrant youth: Acculturation,
identity, and adaptation. Applied psychology 55(3): 30
Boxall P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in New
Zealand: The causes and consequences of leaving and staying with employers. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 41(2): 196-214.
Bürgelt, P.T, Morgan, M., & Pernice, R. (2008). Staying or returning: Pre-migrationinfluences on the migration process of German migrants to New Zealand. Journal ofCommunity & Applied Social Psychology, 18(4): 282-298.
Carr, S.C. (2004). Globalization and culture at work: Exploring their combined globality,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chen, E., Ward, R., & Coulon, A., (2013). Employers’ role and influence in migration: A
literature review. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants--settlement/employers%20role%20and%20influence%20in%20migration-lit-review.pdf
Coates, K., & Carr, S.C. (2005). Skilled immigrants and selection bias: A theory-based fieldstudy from New Zealand. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5): 577-599.
Collings, D.G., Doherty N, Luethy M., & Osborn, D. (2011) Understanding and supportingthe career implications of international assignments. Journal of Vocational Behavior 78(3):361-371.
Collings, D.G, Scullion, H., & Dowling, P.J. (2009). Global staffing: A review and thematic
research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6): 12531272.
D’Netto, B., & Sohal, A.S. (1999) Human resource practices and workforce diversity: An
empirical assessment. International Journal of Manpower, 20(8): 530-547.
DairyNZ. (2013). Dairy New Zealand Economic Survey 2011-12. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dairynz.co.nz/page/pageid/2145871201/DairyNZ_Economic_Survey#779
Florida, R. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American
geographers, 92(4): 743-755.
Fogleman, S.L., Milligan, R.A., Maloney, T.A., & Knoblaunch, W.A. (1999). Employeecompensation and satisfaction on dairy farms in the Northeast. Paper presented at theAmerican Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.
Gottlieb, P.D. (1995). Residential amenities, firm location and economic development. Urban
Studies, 32(9): 1413-1436.
Hartog, J., & Winkelmann, R. (2003). Comparing migrants to non-migrants: The case of
Dutch migration to New Zealand. Journal of Population Economics, 16(4): 683-705.
20

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Hausknecht, J.P., Rodda, J., & Howard, M.J. (2009). Targeted employee retention:
Performance-based and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying. Human
Resource Management, 48(2): 269-288.
INZ. (2014a) Immigration New Zealand, Immediate Skill Shortage List. Retrieved fromhttp://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/89185A40-27D3-41F4-84BE30129920411D/0/ISSL.pdf.
INZ.
(2014b)Immigration
New
Zealand
Statistics.
Retrieved
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/general/generalinformation/statistics/.

fromJackson, D.J., Carr, S.C., Edwards, M., Thorn, K., Allfree, N., Hooks, J., & Inkson, K. (2005)
Exploring the dynamics of New Zealand's talent flow. New Zealand Journal of Psychology
34(2): 110-116
Jensen, L. (2006). New immigrant settlements in rural America: Problems, prospects, andpolicies. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.
Khoo S-E., McDonald, P., Voigt-Graf, C., & Hugo, G. (2007) A global labor market: Factors
motivating the sponsorship and temporary migration of skilled workers to Australia.
International Migration Review 41(2): 480-510.
LIC. (2014). Livestock Improvement Corporation – New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2012/2013.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.lic.co.nz/user/file/DAIRY%20STATISTICS%202012-13WEB.pdf.
McKenzie, F.H. (2011). Attracting and retaining skilled and professional staff in remotelocations of Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 33(4): 353-363.
Mähönen, T.A., Leinonen, E., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2013) Met expectations and thewellbeing of diaspora immigrants: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Psychology,
48(3): 324-333
Malinen, S., & Johnston, L. (2011). Seeking a better work-life balance: Expectations andperceptions of work-related practices and attitudes of recent immigrants to New Zealand.
Asian and Pacific MigrationJournal, 20(2): 233-252.
Massey, S.J., & Parr, N. (2012). The socio-economic status of migrant populations inregional and rural Australia and its implications for future population policy. Journal of
Population Research, 29(1): 1-21.
MPI – Ministry for Primary Industries.
http://archive.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/pastoral/dairy(2014).

Dairy.

Retrievedfrom

Morrison, J. (2013). Making dairy farming work for everyone. Strategy for sustainable dairy
farming. Background supplement. (DairyNZ, 36). Hamilton, NZ. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/209789/Strategy-for-Sustainable-Dairy-Farming-2013-2020Background-supplement.pdf
21New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Nettle, R., Semmelroth, A., Ford, R., & Zheng, C. (2011). Retention of people indairyfarming
–
what
is
workingandwhy?
Retrievedfrom
http://www.thepeopleindairy.org.au/projects/retention.htm
Pernice, R., Trlin, A., Henderson, A., North, N., & Skinner, M. (2009). Employment status,
duration of residence and mental health among skilled migrants to New Zealand: results of alongitudinal study. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 55(3): 272-287.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J.F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. The Academyof Management Executive, 13(2): 37-48.
Preibisch K. (2010). Pick-your-own labor: Migrant workers and flexibility in Canadian
agriculture. International Migration Review, 44(2): 404-441.
Pumariega, A.J., Rothe, E., & Pumariega, J.B. (2005). Mental health of immigrants andrefugees. Community Mental Health Journal, 41(5): 581-597.
Rawlinson, P., Tipples, R., Greenhalgh, J., & Trafford, S. (2012). Migrant workers and thegrowth of dairy farming in Southland, New Zealand. (Report prepared for OneFarm). Centre
for Excellence in Farm Business Management: Massey University/Lincoln University
Shea, E. (2009). Are apples more important than milk?: Migrant labour turnover among
dairy farm workers: Insights from the Vermont migrant education program. Burlington, VT:
UniversityofVermont.
Retrievedfrom
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/Erin_Shea_Research.pdf
Stahl, G.K., Miller, E.L., & Tung, R.L. (2002) Toward the boundaryless career: A closer lookat the expatriate career concept and the perceived implications of an international assignment.
Journal of World Business, 37(3): 216-227.
Strack, R., Baier, J., & Fahlander, A. (2008). Managing demographic risk. Harvard Business
Review. February: 2-11
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R.S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45(2): 122-133.
Tipples, R., Rawlinson, P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2012) Vulnerability in New Zealand dairy
farming: The case of Filipino migrants. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations,37(3): 13-33.
Tipples, R., Trafford, S., & Callister, P. (2010). The factors which have resulted in migrant
workers being ‘essential’ workers on New Zealand dairy farms. Paper presented at the 14th
Labour, Employment and Work (LEW) Conference, Victoria University, Wellington.
Retrivedfrom
http://www.ruralemploymentrelations.org.nz/Documents/Rural_Employment_Relations/'Esse
ntial'_workers_on_NZ_dairy_farms_LEW14.pdf

22

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):1-23

Trafford, S., & Tipples, R. (2012). A foreign solution: the employment of short-term migrant
diary workers on New Zealand dairy farms. (Report prepared for OneFarm). Centre for
Excellence in Farm Business Management: Massey University/Lincoln University
Ward, C., Fox, S., Wilson, J., Stuart, J., & Kurs, L. (2010). Contextual influences on
acculturation processes: The roles of family, community and society. Psychological Studies,55(1): 26-34.
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.M. (2008). Attitudes toward immigrants, immigration, andmulticulturalism in New Zealand: A social psychological analysis. International Migration
Review, 42(1): 227-248.
Watts, N., & Trlin, A. (2000). Diversity as a productive resource: Employment of immigrants
from non-English-speaking backgrounds in New Zealand. Social Policy Journal of New
Zealand (15): 87-101.
Weng, Q., & McElroy, J.C. (2010). HR environment and regional attraction: An empirical
study of industrial clusters in China. Australian Journal of Management, 35(3): 245-263.
Wilson, J., & Tipples, R. (2008) Employment trends in dairy farming in New Zealand, 19912006.
Lincoln
University.
Retrievedfrom
http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/574
Wulff, M., Carter, T., Vineberg, R., & Ward, S. (2008). Attracting new arrivals to smaller
cities and rural communities: findings from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Journal ofInternational Migration and Integration, 9(2): 119-124.
Wulff, M., & Dharmalingam, A. (2008). Retaining skilled migrants in regional Australia: The
role of social connectedness. Journal of International Migration and Integration/Revue del'integration et de la migration internationale, 9(2): 147-160.
Zimmermann, K.F., Bauer, T.K., & Lofstrom, M. (2000). Immigration policy, assimilation of
immigrants and natives’ sentiments towards immigrants: evidence from 12 OECD-countries.
(Discussion Paper, no.187). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=251988

23

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Injury rates and psychological wellbeing in temporary work:
A study of seasonal workers in the New Zealand foodprocessing industry
PETER SCHWEDER*, MICHAEL QUINLAN**, PHILIP BOHLE***, FELICITY
LAMM****, and ANDY HUAT BIN ANG*****
Abstract
A growing body of research has examined the effects of job insecurity or different forms of
precarious work, such as temporary employment, on occupational health and safety (OHS). A
number of reasons have been proposed to explain the more mixed results with regard to studies
of temporary employment, including the diversity of these work arrangements, the health indicesused, and a number of other complicating factors. There have been very few studies of seasonal
work, as a specific form of temporary employment. In addition to addressing this gap, this study
provides evidence with regard to two other explanations of ‘mixed results’, namely the importanceof controlling for exposure and the possibility that associations differ depending on the particular
health indices/outcome measures selected. Findings highlight the importance of controlling for
exposure when comparing OHS outcomes for permanent and temporary workers, using multiple
health indices and the need for systematic research into different types of temporary work. Several
factors that may explain why seasonal workers experience higher rates of injury but appear tohave adapted positively to intermittent employment are identified. The study reinforces the needfor a more nuanced explanation of how temporary work can affect health and safety.
Key Words: temporary employment; injury; frequency rates; seasonal employment; job
insecurity; psychological well-being; occupational health and safety.

Introduction
Since the mid-1990s a growing body of research has been undertaken into the health and safety
effects of precarious employment (also known as contingent work), particularly the effects of job
insecurity/organisational restructuring (like downsizing) and temporary employment. Using anarray of methods and health indices, the vast majority of studies have found that precarious
employment is associated with adverse health outcomes (for reviews of this research Quinlan etal 2001; Virtanen et al., 2005; Cheng and Chan, 2007; Quinlan and Bohle, 2008, 2009).

* Peter Schweder, Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Research, AUT; **Michael Quinlan, School of Organisationand Management, Australian School of Business, The University of New South Wales (correspondence); *** Philip Bohle, Workand Health Research Team,Ageing, Work and Health Research Team, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney;****Felicity Lamm, Centre for OHS Research, AUT; *****Andy Ang, Huat Bin, Centre for OHS Research, AUT.

23

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Nonetheless, even in areas that have been the subject of comparatively more research, the findings
have identified inconsistent outcomes and issues requiring further investigation. This includes
understanding the mechanisms by which precarious employment affects health (the stressassociated with insecurity, irregular working hours, work intensity and vulnerability) and if theseeffects are uniform across a range of health indices such as injury, disease, mental health(Underhill and Quinlan, 2011). For example, there appear to be differences in the results forresearch into temporary work depending on the indices used. Adverse effects have most often
been found by studies using objective physical health measures (Benevides et al., 2000; Benach
et al., 2004; Virtanen et al., 2005) while studies measuring psychosocial conditions and workrelated injuries have been more mixed (Artazcoz et al., 2005; Saloniemi et al., 2004; Virtanen etal, 2005). This difference may be a reflection of the diversity of temporary employment or
differences in exposure (discussed below), or that temporary employment may have differentiatedeffects on particular health indices (or do so in particular circumstances).
Other complicating issues to emerge include spillover effects. For example, the presence of
precariously employed workers (like temporary agency workers or subcontractors) and theassociated reorganization of work can have impacts on the health and safety of non-precarious
workers in the same workplace or industry (Mayhew and Quinlan, 2006; Saksvik and Gustafsson,2004). Another dimension of spillover effects is that the low wages or poverty associated withmany precarious jobs can impact on living conditions like diet, drug use and accommodation (seefor example Lewchuk et al., 2008; and Muntaner et al., 2006).
Another complexity is the diversity of work arrangements that have been labeled precarious. For
example, temporary employment can take a range of different forms from short-term casual or
day labour to people engaged for months and years in the same job (but still hired essentially ona short term basis without job security), those employed directly or via a temporary employment
agency, those engaged under fixed term contracts, those working seasonally or continuously
throughout the year, those working part-time and those working full-time, including multiple job
holders (Louie et al., 2006; Saloniemi et al., 2004; Silla et al., 2005; Virtanen et al., 2003). Labourlaws governing temporary employment and particular subcategories of this or overlapping
categories like part-time work, can vary substantially between countries as can the degree ofenforcement, particularly with regard to vulnerable groups like young workers in small business,
undocumented immigrants or foreign workers (like students) working contrary to their visa
conditions (Kalleberg, 2000; Olsen and Kalleberg, 2004; Sargeant and Tucker, 2009; Toh andQuinlan, 2009). In short, treating temporary workers as a single group may mask importantdifferences between say immigrant day labourers, agency workers, temporary workers with longer
average tenure, part or full-time temporary workers and seasonal workers (see Arulampalam andBooth, 1998; Benavides et al., 2006; Dupre, 2001; Fabiano et al., 2008; Guadalupe, 2003;
Saloniemi et al., 2004; Seixas et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2010).
This paper seeks to help address three of the complexities just mentioned. First, it is a study ofseasonal temporary workers. Seasonality is an important aspect of work in industries where
weather precludes or influences activities (like construction, harvesting, slaughtering and related
food processing), or because there are seasonal shifts in consumer demand (eg manufacturing
peaks prior to major holidays or seasonal work in tourism).

24

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Seasonal temporary work is episodic, but in many cases fairly predictable, enabling workers toplan their activities outside the seasonal work cycle or to travel for it. Depending on the level ofpredictability of work (including recurrent hiring of the same groups of workers), the earnings
derived from it and the ability to dovetail it with other activities, seasonal work may not entail thesame level of job insecurity as temporary employment in some other industries, but nor will it
provide the possibility of working throughout the year, without changing jobs. This is very
different to temporary work where seasonality is insignificant, and work is relatively continuous
across the year, or where workers must deal with periods of employment and unemployment thatare unpredictable. Unfortunately, there have been few studies of health and safety amongst
temporary workers in seasonal industries like fishing, agriculture or food processing (see Dolan
et al., 2005, Neis et al., 2001; Parejo-Moscoso et al., 2013). Our study adds to this small body ofresearch on the OHS experiences of seasonal workers.
Second, another complicating factor this paper addresses is the variability in hazard exposure thatcan be associated with temporary employment. In measuring the health and safety effects of
temporary employment it is critical to take account of the number of hours actually worked ortime at work because this can often differ significantly from permanent/ongoing workers
undertaking the same tasks. Daily, weekly, or annual differences in working hours can produce
substantial variation in exposure to hazards even where permanent and temporary workers
undertake essentially the same tasks (Johnson and Lipscomb, 2006; Vegso et al., 2007). In thiscontext, comparison of the raw prevalence of injuries is likely to be misleading (Folkard andLombardi, 2006). While a number of studies comparing health and safety indices for temporary
and permanent workers do control for working hours, this has not been the case with all studies.
Smith et al., (2010) for example, acknowledged this as a limitation in reviewing claims data
extracted from the Washington State Workers Compensation Fund where working hours for
temporary workers were not recorded. A study of day labourers by Seixas et al., (2008), on theother hand, attempted to quantify day laborers’ exposures by estimating annual hours and used
the median to estimate full-time equivalent (FTE) numbers so as to draw industry comparisons.
Many temporary workers are engaged on a part-time basis and therefore are more likely to work
irregular hours or engage in multiple-jobholding (Louie et al., 2006). Seasonal work represents
another dimension of this because it means temporary workers are exposed to the hazards of work
only part of the year, while their permanent counterparts are exposed throughout the year.
Therefore, the exposure issue can be critical when comparing injury rates or indeed other OHS
indices like instances of bullying (Keuskamp et al., 2012). Our study provides an indication of theimportance this can make in the context of seasonal work, as well as highlighting the importanceof this issue more generally.
The third complexity addressed is the possibility that comparisons of the health, safety or
psychological wellbeing of permanent and temporary workers undertaking the same jobs may
yield different results depending on the OHS indices selected. In this study we are comparing bothself-reported injuries and psychological wellbeing as measured by the 12 item GHQ. Using
multiple OHS indices may provide a more nuanced insight into how temporary employment canaffect health and how specific circumstances or characteristics like seasonal work may shape this.
It may also assist in isolating those specific features of temporary employment that are mosthealth-damaging.

25New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

This exploratory study examines differences in injury frequencies and GHQ scores between
seasonal temporary workers and permanent workers in three New Zealand food processing plants:
meat, dairy, and produce (fruit and vegetables). Agriculture is New Zealand’s main export earner,
accounting for approximately 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Statistics New Zealand,2007) and employs around 15% of New Zealand’s workforce with agricultural products
comprising over half of all merchandise exports (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005). It istherefore a critical part of the New Zealand economy.

Seasonality associated with agriculture requires fluctuating labour levels. These are reflected inmarked differences between the annual working hours of permanent and seasonal workers. Thisflows through to the agricultural processing industries which are characterized by seasonal labor
fluctuations and where extensive use is made of temporary workers during periods of peakprocessing demand. Additionally, according to the British Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
the agricultural processing industries have amongst the worst injury rates in the manufacturingsector. The dairy industry was ranked second, meat processing third, and fruit and produce eighth(HSE, 1996, 1997, 1998). More recent rankings based on 2008/09 reports have the dairy industry
first, meat and poultry second, and fruit and vegetable processing eighteenth. Putting this inperspective, the food and drink processing industry has an injury rate 1.8 times higher than the
United Kingdom manufacturing average (HSE, 2011).
All participants in our study were involved in manual processing activities at speeds dictated byconveyors or automated machine cycles. Work in Dairy Co generally involved less labour
intensive activities although some areas involved continuous lifting in a hot and humid
environment and others in chilled areas. Meat Co activities in contrast were carried out in a cold,
wet refrigerated plant and involved continuous use of knives to process a carcass into various cuts.
Produce Co activities were a combination of those observed at the other two companies with fruitand vegetables being cooked or blanched before being blast frozen or canned.
This study’s primary aim was to compare seasonal temporary and permanent workers in New
Zealand’s food processing industry in terms of raw injury frequencies, frequency rates based on
exposure to workplace hazards, and psychological wellbeing as measured by GHQ scores.
Considering research on temporary status is a risk factor, we hypothesized:•

Hypothesis 1: There is a difference between seasonal and permanent employees in termsof injury and psychological wellbeing.

Methods used
Sampling Frame
This study was conducted in New Zealand at three food processing companies located in two
separate urban regions that are surrounded by rural areas. The companies were multinational,
multi-site employers but only the main site in each region was visited. Each worksite had been
operated by the respective company for over 20 years with each employing more than 100 process
workers. The permanent workforce is annually supplemented with seasonal temporary labour withseasons typically lasting between 8.5 and 10 months.

26

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

The workforce was unionized with collective employment contracts negotiated by the dominantsite union covering all waged employees (those paid an hourly rate). Pay rates were specified
according to the employee’s skills, experience, and activity classification, with temporary andpermanent employees and males and females occupying the same classifications and carrying out
substantially the same repetitive tasks. Permanent and temporary employees differed primarily intheir employment status and duration of employment rather than because they carried out different
activities or were exposed to different hazards.
The data came from a cross-sectional survey administered by one of the authors and compared
the self-reported OHS experiences of permanent and temporary employees. The questionnaire
included items on demographics, training, regulatory awareness, psychological wellbeing andinjury experience and had previously been used in Australian studies into precarious employment(Mayhew and Quinlan, 1999, 2002, 2006). All procedures and materials were approved by the
University of New South Wales Human Ethics Committee (Approval No: HRC 01039).
Before the study, company management briefed supervisors on the purpose of the study and asked
them to co-operate in releasing people. In addition a summary of the study’s purpose was provided
for display on company notice boards. The companies provided names of eligible employees, thatis, those covered by the collective employment contract and working in processing areas. The lists
identified all processing team locations and the employment status of individuals. Within eachsupervisor’s area, training, work tasks, and weekly hours were common across all members of thework team. Area supervisors were approached and asked to release a mix of temporary andpermanent employees from the list to participate in the study. Therefore supervisors determined
who would participate and may have biased selection by releasing team members who they knew
had experienced an injury, or those who were least critical to ongoing production requirements.
Therefore responses are from a convenience sample (purposive selection), based on individual
identification by area supervisors.
The collective employment contracts within the three companies defined part-time workers as
those working fewer than 32 hours per week. The survey instrument recorded how many hours
the respondent usually worked in categories, including 35-39 hours. To avoid including data frompart-time employees, responses from those who worked less than 35 hours per week were
excluded. This avoided the possibility of confounding part-time employment and multiple jobholding with permanent or temporary status. A similar approach was taken by Virtanen et al.,(2005).
The survey was carried out during working time over an 18-month period that coincided with theapproximate midpoint of each company’s processing season. Each interview lasted approximately
60 minutes. Company support allowed participants to be released from the monotony of theiractivities without having their pay affected. The researcher explained the purpose andrequirements of the study to prospective respondents individually. Ninety-eight percent of those
approached agreed to participate. Respondents were taken to a private area to complete theconsent form. They were read the questions by the researcher, with responses recorded directlyon the questionnaire, which was then assigned a number for subsequent identification andanalysis. At the end of the interview, respondents were provided with an information sheet.

27

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

There were several benefits of the face-to-face interviewing technique including establishingrapport and creating trust between the researcher and the respondents by providing reassurance
about the confidentiality and the use of the responses. This is likely to have contributed toachieving a higher response rate than would have been expected from an anonymousquestionnaire survey. This technique also overcame potential literacy issues by enabling verbal
clarification of questions and allowing observations to accompany responses.
Ascertaining Injury Experience
Injury experience data were derived from the following question: “Have you suffered any workrelated injuries in the last 12 months?” Respondents were offered three alternative answers: ‘yes’,‘no’, and ‘little things that don’t stop you working’. As the responses were not mutually exclusive,in nine cases (3.5%), respondents reported more than one injury (seven permanent and two
temporary employees). In these cases only the more serious injury was counted. For example, if
a respondent recorded two minor injuries only one was recorded. If a respondent recorded one
minor and one serious injury then the serious injury was recorded.
Self-reporting may have increased the effects of bias or unreliable recall so a check was carriedout to determine whether the respondent was employed with their current employer when the
injury occurred. This involved examining responses to the question, “If yes, describe your task
and workstation at the time”. This allowed only injuries and days worked during the respondent’s
current term of employment, or, in the case of permanent employees, within the last 12 months
and with their current employer to be included in the analysis. Self-reported injuries were
triangulated with company records and reported locations. Most serious injuries (those involving
days absence from work) were matched with company records. Some discrepancies were notedin comparing a random selection of minor injuries (bruises and minor cuts) where manyoccurrences could not be matched to company records. Respondents and company representatives
suggested that employees failed to notify or record minor injuries because they considered the
injury too insignificant to report, because they thought it may impact on their ability to get apermanent position, because no treatment was sought, or because no first aider attended them.
Calculation of Injury Frequency Rates
The self-reported injury frequencies of temporary and permanent employees were compared in
two ways. Initial comparisons were based on the raw numbers of workers in each group who
reported either an injury or a serious injury. ‘Serious Harm Injury’ has a legislative definition
within the New Zealand Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and covers a range of injuries
including serious laceration, unconsciousness, amputations, and death. Serious harm is commonly
understood to mean an injury that prevents a person from completing the normal range of theirduties, defined here as an injury requiring at least one day off work due to incapacitation.
Initial data analysis did not control for exposure. In subsequent analyses, injury frequencies wereconverted to frequency rates based on each worker’s exposure (weeks worked with their current
employer in the preceding 12 months). Temporary workers were employed for the same numberof hours per week as their permanent counterparts but not for a full year. Consequently, theyexperienced less total exposure to workplace hazards across the year. Specific data was notcollected on hours worked or overtime. However, responses indicated that both groups worked

28

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

similar weekly hours, that is, if overtime was required then all worked it. Total weeks worked wastherefore used as the denominator to calculate injury frequency rates. The calculation was basedon the following assumptions:
•

•

•

•
•

•

One path to a permanent job was through satisfactory performance in a temporary position.
Therefore, when permanent employees were asked about their length of service with thecompany, they were also asked if it included time on a temporary contract. Because of thetransition from temporary to permanent positions, most permanent employees hadcompleted more than one year of employment with the company. It is possible some of
their injuries occurred before the respondent was appointed to a permanent position.
However, in the analysis they were categorized as permanent.
In five cases, permanent employees had completed less than one year with the company.
In these cases, their injury rate was calculated using their length of employment in weeks,
the same method as adopted for temporary workers.
Permanent employees were estimated to work 47 weeks per year. This allowed for annual
leave (three weeks) and statutory holidays and sick leave (two weeks). However, an
unknown number of employees qualified for four weeks annual leave because of longservice. There are also 11 statutory holidays in New Zealand although not all are working
days. No questions were asked regarding sick leave and respondents may have taken lessthan the allowed maximum. No data was collected on the statutory holidays or sick leave
taken by temporary workers.
Exposure rates for temporary workers were based on the number of weeks they had been
employed by their current employer.
Checks were made to ensure reported injuries included only those incurred while on theircurrent employment term for temporary workers or with their current employer in the caseof permanent employees who had completed less than 12 months service.
Injury frequency rates for temporary workers were calculated by dividing the injury or
serious injury experienced by an individual by the number of weeks worked. Injury
frequency rates for permanent workers were calculated by dividing the injury or serious
injury experienced by an individual by 47 weeks worked.

It should be noted that while they were chosen to best reflect actual work exposure, theassumptions regarding holiday and sick leave for permanent and temporary workers were suchthat errors would tend to increase differences in working hours – and therefore exposure – between
the two groups. For example, temporary workers’ desire to secure a permanent position could
influence their decision to take sick leave (Aronsson et al., 2002).
Data Analysis
The questionnaire provided predominantly categorical data, Chi-square tests and one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to identify whether there were significant differencesin the sample, such as age or gender across the sample frame. Responses were analyzed using
SPSS Version 22 with a critical probability of 0.05 used throughout. Rates, with 95% confidence
intervals (95% CIs), were calculated for injured permanent and temporary workers for age groupand gender. The 95% CIs were calculated in accordance with the methodology used by Horsburgh
et al., (2001) in a study of work-related injuries in the agriculture sector and as defined byArmitage and Berry (1994).

29

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Psychological Wellbeing
Psychological wellbeing was measured using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) scores.
Instructions on the GHQ-12 asked respondents to report how they had felt over the last few weeks.
This point was emphasised to each respondent. Five respondents in Dairy Co had been employed
for less than one month, one had completed two weeks and four had completed three weeks. Meat
Co and Produce Co had one employee each who had been employed for less than one month(three weeks in each case). As the instructions asked respondents how they felt in the preceding
few weeks, an undefined time frame, and because psychological well-being is influenced byfactors other than work, all responses were included in the analysis.
The standard form of the GHQ-12 (Goldberg and Williams, 1988) is designed to evaluate a
respondent’s psychological state over the preceding four weeks. It has been used in a variety ofoccupational and community settings as a measure of psychological well-being (Banks et al.,
1980; Burvill and Knuiman, 1983) and has been widely validated for use within diverse
communities. Of relevance to this study are validations within the Pacific region of which threewere identified, two Australian studies (Tennant, 1977: Tait et al., 2003) and one New Zealandstudy although that validated the GHQ-28 for use with New Zealand women (Romans-Clarkson
et al., 1989).
The GHQ has been shown to be “appropriate for use in employment studies as an estimate of theseverity of psychiatric illness in groups or individuals” and is “sensitive to … differences in
employment status” (Banks et al., 1980:192). It has been used successfully in studies of
employment insecurity (Iwi et al., 1998; Sverke et al., 2002), downsizing and restructuring(Isaksson et al., 2002) and temporary workers (Aronsson et al., 2005; Mayhew and Quinlan, 2006;
Neis et al., 2001; Saloniemi et al., 2004; Sverke et al., 1999; Virtanen et al., 2005). It was therefore
considered appropriate for use in this study.
The GHQ-12 has been scored using two methods, the binary method described by Goldberg andthe Likert method (Tennant, 1977). Under the Likert method, each item is scored from 0 to 3,
yielding a maximum score of 36. A score of 11 may be considered to indicate a possible case of
impairment and higher scores may “serve as an index of the severity of neurotic impairment”(Tennant, 1977:393). The Likert method is the more widely used in research as it allows
parametric statistical testing (Norusis, 1998). Banks et al., (1980), for example, stated that
although the Goldberg GHQ scoring system was “adequate with respect to discriminating between‘cases’ and ‘normals’” (p.190), the Likert method was: “likely to produce a wider and less skewed
distribution of scores more appropriate for correlational analyses and intergroup comparisonsbased on parametric statistics” (p.190). Likert scoring is used in this study.
Given the inconclusiveness of previous studies that identify the factor structure of the GHQ-12,
the present study used confirmatory factor analysis to test for two-factor and three-factor
formulations (Kalliath et al., 2004). The relationships of the 12 items were analysed to determine
if the model was constructed on a two-factor or three-factor structure predetermined in theprincipal-components analysis (Bank et al., 1980; Politi et al., 1994; Werneke et al., 2000). Table
1 shows the GHQ has a strong structure, with factor loadings ranging from 0.52 to 0.76. Since
the two-factor loadings were greater than 0.5, the two-factor structure of GHQ-12 was established,

30

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

providing evidence of construct validity (Hair et al., 2006). These twelve factors accounted for
42.2% of the total variance to form the General Health Questionnaire-12 subscale (α = 0.77).
Table 1: Factor Loadings from Principal Components Factoring (Confirmatory Factor Analysis):
General Health Questionnaire-12 Factor loading
Scale Item
Factor 1
1. Feeling unhappy or depressed
2. Losing confidence in yourself
3. Felt constantly under strain
4. Thinking of yourself as a worthless person
5. Lost much sleep over worry
6. Could not overcome your difficulties
Factor 2
7. Face up to your problems
8. Feeling reasonable happy
9. Able to concentrate on what you are doing
10. Enjoy your normal day-to-day activities
11. Playing a useful part in things
12. Capable of making decisions about things
Eigen Value 5.0
Cumulative percent variance explained 42.2

1

2

0.76
0.74
0.64
0.64
0.53
063
0.65
0.64
0.61
0.56
0.54
0.52

Results
Demographics
The three companies employed 1102 permanent and 500 seasonal temporary employees. In total,
262 workers were sampled. Three declined to participate after they were briefed on the purposeof the study, two from Meat Co and one from Produce Co, resulting in the questionnaire being
completed by 259 respondents, almost evenly split between the companies Meat N=87, Dairy
N=89 and Produce N=79). Four responses were excluded as they were from part-time workers.
The final sample comprised 255 usable responses, 156 (61.2%) temporary and 99 (38.8%)
permanent employees, a response rate of 23.5%. The response ratio between temporary andpermanent employees was almost the inverse of their employment ratio. This was because thefocus of the study was on temporary workers’ OHS experiences and because the selection criteria
required in each processing area that a questionnaire be completed by a permanent employee, andat least one by a temporary worker. The high response rate is attributed to participation being
encouraged by management and respondents being provided with the opportunity for a paid breakof approximately one hour.
Table 2 shows the distributions of gender, age, and employment status of the sample. The genderdifference was statistically significant. For males (χ2 (5, N = 131) = 13.044, p<0.05) and forfemales (χ2 (5, N = 124) = 18.673, p<0.05).

31

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Table 2: Age, Gender, Work Injury by Employment Status (95% CI)
Gender

Permanent

95% CI

Temporary

95% CI

Total

95% CIMale
21 and Under
22-25 years
26-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
Total

n (%)
4(4)
7(7.1)
19(19.2)
11(11.1)
2(2)4(4)
47(47.5)

1.6 to 9.9
3.5 to 13.9
12.7 to 28.0
6.3 to 18.8
0.6 to 7.1
1.6 to 9.9
38 to 57.2

n (%)
23(14.7)
13 (8.3)
22 (14.1)
13 (8.3)
11 (7.5)
2 (1.3)84 (53.9)

10 to 21.2
4.9 to 13.7
9.5 to 20.4
4.9 to 13.7
4 to 12.2
0.4 to 4.6
46 to 61.5

n (%)
27 (10.6)
20 (7.8)41 (16.1)
24 (9.4)
13 (5.1)
6 (2.4)131 (51.4)

7.4 to 15.0
5.1 to 11.8
12.1 to 21.1
6.4 to 13.6
3 to 8.5
1.1 to 5.0
45.3 to 57.4

Female21 and Under
22-25 years
26-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
Total
Work Injury
Non-injury

1 (0.1)2 (2)13 (13.1)
18 (18.2)
15 (15.2)3 (3)52 (52.5)
49 (49.5)
50 (50.5)

0 to 0.6
0.6 to 7.1
7.8 to 21.2
11.8 to 26.9
9.4 to 23.5
0.1 to 8.5
42.8 to 62.1
39.8 to 59.2
40.8 to 60.2

13 (8.3)
13 (8.3)
17 (10.9)
19 (12.2)
9 (5.6)
1 (0.6)72 (46.2)
73 (46.8)
83 (53.2)

4.9 to 13.7
4.9 to 13.7
6.9 to 16.8
7.9 to 18.2
3.1 to 10.6
0 to 3.5
38.5 to 54
39.1 to 54.6
45.4 to 60.9

14 (5.5)
15 (5.9)30 (11.8)
37 (14.5)
24 (9.4)
4 (1.6)124 (48.6)
122 (47.8)
133 (52.2)

0.3 to 9.0
3.6 to 9.5
0.8 to 16.3
10.7 to 19.4
6.4 to 13.6
0.6 to 4.0
42.6 to 54.7
41.8 to 54.0
46.0 to 58.2

There was a statistically significant relationship between age and employment status (χ2 (5, N =255) = 22.774, p<0.05). There were higher percentages of young temporary workers (under 25
years) (n = 62, 39.8%) than permanent employees (n = 14, 14.1%). Temporary male employees
were over represented in the two younger age groups: under 21 and 26-34 years. Low percentagesof females in both under 25 year age groups were notable. There were decreasing percentages of
temporary employees in the older age groups, dropping to less than 2% of those aged over 55
years.
Gender differences were most apparent in the high percentage of male employees in Dairy Co andfemale employees in Meat Co. The Dairy Co difference was statistically significant (χ2 (1, N =89) = 0.98, p<0.05) although there was no statistically significant gender difference in the overall
sample, (χ2 (1, N = 255) = 0.98, p>0.05). Males and females performed substantially similar jobs
and were mixed throughout all processing areas. Therefore gender differences were not task
related.
Injury Experience
Those injuries considered serious (those that required time off work) were analysed. Threereported serious injuries without corresponding days off work were included in this analysis as
they occurred on the last day of a working week or before a public holiday. This meant theincapacitation occurred during a scheduled break. This rule was applied across all reported
injuries. For the purposes of calculations in the following section, days lost from work were basedon self-reported work injuries and individuals’ recall of the length of time they were absent fromwork. Initial calculations compared injury severity in terms of the number of individuals who
experienced a serious injury.

32New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Table 3: Number of days lost/year due to injury by employment status
Days off for injury
Less than 10 days
11-20 days
21-30 days
31-40 days
41-50 days
51-60 days
61-70 days
71-80 days
81-90 days
91-100 days
More than 100 days off
Total (n) (percentage)
Mean (standard deviation)

Permanent (n)
9
3
4
3
3
22 (43.1%)
4.1 (10.76)

Temporary (n)
11
6
4
2
2
1
3
29 (56.9%)
6.5 (23.8)

Table 3 shows the number of days lost per year due to an injury by employment status. In total,
permanent employees comprised 38.8% of respondents and suffered 43.1% of the total numberof serious injuries. Temporary employees comprised 61.2% of respondents and suffered 56.9%of the serious injuries. Temporary employees reported six injuries that accounted for over half ofall days lost (52.3%). The mean number of days lost due to injuries was compared using theindependent samples T-test. For permanent employees, the mean number of days lost was 4.1,
(SD = 10.76) and for temporary employees it was 6.5, (SD = 23.8). The difference was not
significant (t (253) = -0.927, p>0.05).
Injury Frequency Rates and Employment Status
To test the hypothesis that ‘Permanent employees have a lower injury frequency rate than
temporary employees after controlling for exposure’, the mean injury frequency rate wascompared using the independent samples t-test (equal variances not assumed as Levene’s test wassignificant, p< 0.05). For permanent employees the mean injury frequency rate was 0.014 injuries
per week, (SD = 0.015), and for temporary employees 0.039 injuries per week, (SD = 0.051). Thisdifference was significant (t (193.821) = -5.566, p < 0.05), indicating that temporary workers
experience injury, more frequently.
The hypothesis that ‘Permanent employees have a lower serious injury frequency rate than
temporary employees when exposure is controlled for’ was tested by comparing frequency rates
using the independent samples t-test (equal variances not assumed as Levene’s test wassignificant, p< 0.05). The mean serious injury frequency rate for permanent employees was
0.00665 serious injuries per week, (SD = 0.0157); for temporary employees it was 0.0133 serious
injuries per week, (SD = 0.0331). This difference was significant (t (236.928) = -2.160, p < 0.05.

33

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Psychological wellbeing as measured by GHQ Scores
GHQ responses were analysed using SPSS Version 22 with a critical probability of 0.05 usedthroughout. Preliminary analyses tested for differences in age and gender distributions withineach company and across the sample. There was a statistically significant relationship between
age and employment status (χ2 (5, N = 255) = 22.774, p<0.05), reflecting a higher proportion ofyoung workers (under 25 years) in seasonal employment (n = 62, 39.8%) than in permanent
employment (n = 14, 14.1%). Approximately 20% of all respondents had scores of 12 or more,suggesting a degree of psychological impairment. A one-way analysis of variance was used to testfor differences in GHQ-12 scores between companies. It revealed no significant differences (F (2,252) = 0.339, p = 0.713), suggesting that psychological well-being was not influenced byorganisational differences. Scores had a slight positive skew across both temporary and permanent
employees.
To examine differences between permanent and temporary employees, the mean GHQ-12 scores
were compared using the independent samples t-test (equal variances assumed). There was no
significant difference (t (253) = 1.569, p > 0.05), indicating employment status had no effect onscores in the sample overall however a significant difference was identified in Produce Co (t (79)
= 2.134, p < 0.05) where permanent employees scored significantly higher GHQ scores.
An independent samples t-test revealed no significant differences in GHQ-12 scores between maleand female respondents in the total sample (t (253) = 1.747, p > 0.05). To examine differences in
GHQ-12 between age groups, Likert scores were converted into two groups, cases and non-casesand cross-tabulated. In the 22-25 years old age group, almost 29 per cent of respondents had GHQ12 scores indicating possible impairment, although a chi-square test did not reveal a relationshipbetween age and psychological well-being (χ2 (5, N = 255) = 3.28, p > 0.05).
The GHQ-12 scores of approximately 20% of all respondents indicated possible psychologicalimpairment, with 23.3% of permanent employees and 17.9% of seasonal employees scoring inthis range. There was no significant difference (t (253) = 1.569, p > 0.05), indicating employment
status had no effect on GHQ-12 scores.

Table 4: GHQ-12 Score, Possible Psychological Impairment and Age GroupAge Bracket

No Problem(Number)

No Problem%

21 and Under
22-25 years
26-34 Years
35-44 Years
45-54 Years
55-64 Years
Total

39
25
60
55
30
9
218

17.9
11.5
27.5
25.2
13.8
4.1
100.0

Possible
Impairment(Number)
2
10
11
6
7
1
37

Possible
Impairment
%
5.4
27.0
29.7
16.2
18.9
2.7
100.0

Total
(Number)
41
35
71
61
37
10
255

34

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Discussion
Injury frequency rates
This study compared the injury experiences of permanent and seasonal temporary workers in threeof the more hazardous food processing sectors: meat, dairy, and produce. To our knowledge there
have been very few studies of seasonal work (for exceptions see Dolan et al., 2005; Neis et al.,2001) even though it is a longstanding form of temporary employment in industries such as
tourism, agriculture, fishing, and forestry. Therefore this study adds to the body of knowledge on
seasonal work and on the injury experiences of a sample of temporary workers.
The key finding from this study demonstrated that seasonal temporary workers in an integrated
team performing the same or similar jobs as permanent workers were more than twice as likely toexperience work-related injuries and serious injuries requiring time off work. These differenceswere only apparent when exposure was controlled by using injury frequency rates based on thenumber of weeks of work completed in a 12 month period with their current employer. The
evidence that differences were not apparent in comparisons of the raw frequencies of injury, offers
one explanation for the mixed results reported in previous studies of OHS and temporary work.
Spill-over effects from the working conditions of temporary workers to their permanent
counterparts may mask workgroup differences (Eiken and Saksvik, 2009; Mayhew and Quinlan,
2006). However, the integration of temporary and permanent employees within the same workgroups eliminated the potential confounding effects of different hazard exposures arising fromone group performing more or less dangerous work. When injury frequency rates were compared,
compensating for the reduced exposure of temporary workers due to the shorter periods of
employment, differences in the rates of minor and serious injuries became statistically significant.
The findings of this study are valuable due to the scarcity of research on seasonal work, except
day labor and harvest work. They are also likely to have broader relevance as seasonal temporary
employment is not only common in food production, but also in other cyclical industries, such as
tourism, forestry, and fishing.
This study highlighted four other important issues. First, seasonal employment differs
significantly from other forms of temporary employment such as casual and day labor, which
often involve short periods of engagement with multiple employers. It is therefore important not
to assume temporary workers are a homogeneous group and to carefully examine and describe
the employment conditions of the workers under investigation, particularly their working hours
so as to be able to systematically sample and compare workers according to a consistent definition(Virtanen et al., 2005). This will avoid masking effects due to the diversity of the sample, which
may give rise to more diverse OHS outcomes.
Second, finding that differences between the comparison groups were not significant until
variations in the duration of employment were taken into account indicates that such differences
should be carefully investigated. This is particularly important where it is likely that working
hours vary between comparison groups. The use of aggregate databases (medical or insurancedata), make it hard to control for specific job task factors, occupational clusters, individual hours,
and transitions between periods of employment and unemployment. These will all affect exposurelevels that may differentiate permanent and temporary workers’ experiences.

35

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Third, a common risk facing temporary workers is associated with short job tenure such as lackof familiarity with the workplace hazards and lack of organizational knowledge (Benavides et al.,2006). A growing body of research has highlighted the greater injury risks associated with short
job tenure (Breslin and Smith, 2006; Dupre, 2001). A recent Canadian study (Morassaei et al.,2013) which examined lost time injuries over a decade (1999-2008) found that injury rates weresignificantly higher amongst workers with shorter job tenure even after controlling for gender,
age, industry and occupation. The growth of temporary employment (including agency labour)
has contributed to shorter job tenure and for seasonal workers short job tenure is the norm even if
they are re-engaged on an annual basis. Future studies of OHS outcomes amongst temporary
workers need to take greater account of job tenure.
Fourth, while the study was unable to investigate the specific reasons why temporary workers
experienced a significantly higher rate of injury, the findings do raise some issues in this regard.
Unlike other temporary workers, these seasonal workers did not appear to experience a significant
level of job insecurity. In this study, 57% of temporary workers reported working more than one
season with their current employer with a typical season’s employment lasting between 8.5 and
10 months. Many workers interviewed, reported fashioning their lifestyle around seasonal
processing work (undertaking farming, fishing or forestry work at other times). Demand forprocessing work was fairly predictable over time and was not subject to erratic shifts in demandor long term decline experienced in some food processing industries (such as the North Atlantic
cod industry). This may be exceptional in terms of temporary work (including some seasonalwork). It may also help explain why there was no significant difference in the mental wellbeing(as measured by GHQ scores) for these temporary and permanent workers. The latter finding also
supports the possibility that comparing OHS amongst temporary and permanent workers will
yield different results for different OHS indices.
Further, another potential contributor to injury amongst temporary workers is the lower level oftraining they typically receive. However, here too the differences were less pronounced in ourstudy. Regular re-employment of seasonal temporary workers effectively reduces training
demands associated with hiring new workers, provides for better utilization of the temporary
employee across a wider range of tasks and improves the return on the training investment (Neiset al., 2001). Work-related training has been positively correlated with union presence, collective
bargaining, and organization size although individuals on fixed-term contracts have been
identified as receiving less work-related training “… because of the expected shorter post-training
period over which the investment can be amortized” (Arulampalam and Booth, 1998:527).
However, what was observed in this study was that at the commencement of the new season,
returning temporary employees were not retrained or reassessed but were assumed to becompetent and performing at the same level they were when their employment was terminated at
the end of the preceding season. This assumption is inherently risky as it relies on the individual
retaining knowledge between seasons and can potentially lead to strain injuries due to a lack of“match fitness” or other injuries due to changes in processes or equipment.
Training is carried out by supervisors or other workers considered proficient in that activity. With
the rapid ramp-up of labour at the season’s start, this situation contributed to anecdotes of slightly
more experienced workers training new starters, increasing the likelihood of variance in the

36

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

quality of the training or failure to communicate tacit knowledge. It should be noted that training
is a requirement of New Zealand’s OHS legislation, and it is also one of the most common
initiatives used to ensure safety whereby the knowledge and skills to perform the task safely are
imparted (Barling et al., 2003). As technology and work processes reportedly did not undergo
significant changes between seasons and the companies have extensive on-the-job training
programs, our findings do not appear to support lack of training as a primary reason for thedifferent injury experiences. Rather, broken job tenure or other factors not identified in this study
appear to explain the significantly different injury frequencies between seasonal temporary andpermanent workers.
Other potential explanations for the higher rate of injury amongst temporary workers include work
intensity or a weakening of OHS management systems (see Parejo-Moscoso et al., 2013). Our
study was unable to shed light on these. Nonetheless, it does indicate these and other explanations
require investigation along with the conditions that may mediate their influence.
The findings also help quantify workplace hazard exposure and injury experiences. While theexact hours that temporary and permanent workers worked, and therefore were exposed tocommon hazards and risks were not available, an approximation using weeks of employment was
made. Despite this limitation, the analysis of this data revealed that exposure is a key element thatshould be considered when undertaking any comparative study of precarious workers’ injury
experiences, particularly when studies involve looking at groups who are unlikely to be fully
employed.
Psychological wellbeing
The finding that there was no significant difference in the psychological wellbeing (as measured
by GHQ scores) of temporary and permanent workers may seem inconsistent with earlier research
indicating that workers in insecure positions exhibit higher GHQ scores (Ferrie et al., 1998; Iwi
et al., 1998). However, more recent research paints a more complex and nuanced picture,including higher levels of stress and work intensity amongst permanent employees which havebeen attributed to different levels of life satisfaction and demand and control (Benavides et al.,
2000; Bohle et al., 2011; Saoniemi et al., 2004; Virtanen et al, 2002). For example, while
temporary workers may exercise less control they may also have fewer demands placed on themthan their permanent counterparts. A reinforcing influence on psychological wellbeing is thepossibility of spill-over effects whereby the presence of temporary workers places additional
requirements on permanent workers in terms of workload, including the need to train andsupervise temporary employees (Eiken and Saksvik, 2009; Parker et al., 2002).
In our study, apart from a few exceptions, seasonal workers generally had fewer strain inducingrole demands in terms of training, supervision or responsibility for product quality/quantity.
Seasonal and permanent employees were carefully sampled to ensure that, due to their integration
into mixed work teams, there were very limited differences in training or work tasks and duties
performed. Specific data was not collected on hours worked or overtime. However responses
indicated that both groups worked similar weekly hours; that is, if overtime was required then all
worked it. Therefore, although seasonal workers were employed for the same number of hours
per week as their permanent counterparts, they were not employed for a full year. Consequently,
they experienced less total exposure to the work environment and routines across the year.

37New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Stresses arising from intermittent work and income also appeared less of an issue. Seasonal
workers in this study were engaged for relatively long periods, between 8.5 and 10 months, withan expectation of return work in subsequent seasons. This may be exceptional in terms of
temporary work as it offers seasonal workers the potential benefits to combine regular andpredictable income for much of the year that could be augmented by social security or alternative
work during the relatively short ‘off-work’ period thereby helping avoid the budgeting issues
identified by Aronsson et al., (2005). This allowed planning of activities around a regular cycle.
Consistent with this, a number of both male and female respondents commented on leisureactivities they wanted to pursue at the season’s conclusion including fishing, gardening andtravelling with still other respondents stating that they would not want to work anymore of theyear than the season requires as they were looking forward to the season ending so they could ‘dotheir own thing’. These comments were not universal, with some respondents indicating they
hoped good performance as a seasonal worker would result in a permanent job offer.
Responses suggest three possible explanations for failing to find support for the expected worse
GHQ outcomes amongst temporary workers. Firstly, it suggests support for the ‘voluntary
temporary worker’ (Isaksson and Bellagh, 2002) where temporary work is a preferred work option
for whatever reason. Secondly, for those seeking permanent positions, the knowledge that thethree companies recruit permanent staff from the ranks of temporary workers provides them with
an opportunity to achieve their employment goal thereby fitting with their preference and ambition(DeCuyper et al., 2009). Thirdly, the temporary nature of seasonal work allows temporary workers
a work life balance, not available to most in full time permanent employment. In short, many ofthese seasonal workers had a positive perception of their employment status due to the leisure andlifestyle opportunities it allowed them to pursue. This is in line with the Department of Labour
findings that reported that almost 60 per cent of temporary workers “preferred work in a temporaryjob” (2009:3).
Analysis of the relationships between company, employment status, gender and age grouprevealed no support for previous findings indicating that temporary workers are more likely to beolder (Louie et al., 2006; Vosko, 2006) with similar findings reported on Canadian seasonal
temporary workers (deRaaf et al., 2003; Neis et al., 2001). There are several potential
explanations for this finding. Firstly, it may reflect the effects of a social welfare benefit (The
Community Wage) which allows those who are unemployed and over 55 years to receive a benefit
slightly lower than superannuation (payable at 65 years), subject to them remaining available forwork and being annually income tested (MacKinnon, 1995). As those approaching retirement
may have less financial and family commitments, they may consider themselves to have retired
early and therefore not present themselves (Jackson, 1985). Secondly, it could be an example ofthe healthy worker effect where workers who are less fit or able, self-select out of the employment
market and onto social welfare benefits (Arrighi and Hertz-Picciotto, 1994; Choi, 1992). Thirdly,
it may reflect the population distribution within the region or recruitment bias within thecompanies. Therefore although age maybe “a critical variable in defining vulnerability to thepsychological consequences of unemployment” (Jackson, 1985:90), it was not apparent in thispopulation.

38

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

A link has been identified between fair treatment and positive psychological outcomes (Kochan
et al., 1994; Mauno et al., 2005; Probst, 2004). Positive perceptions of work and positive
psychological well-being amongst temporary workers have been linked to situations where work
related benefits and opportunities are comparable and temporary workers trust their employer toprovide them with opportunities to obtain a permanent position (Connelly and Gallagher, 2004;
DeCuyper et al., 2009; McDonald and Makin, 2000). These circumstances are also evident in ourstudy. Seasonal temporary workers were an integral part of each company’s workforce andprocessing requirements with no apparent difference in treatment, task allocation or pay. Seasonal
workers have the opportunity for re-engagement each season along with opportunities to obtain apermanent position. While a number of temporary employees indicated they would prefer apermanent job, their GHQ scores did not suggest psychological impairment. On the other hand,as noted earlier, a number of respondents commented positively about only having to work partof the year with breaks between seasons being seen as an opportunity to engage in preferred
activities.
An accommodation process or adjusted expectations have been identified by other studies of
temporary workers. For example Ferrie (2001) observed that workers “in this secondary labour
market regard job insecurity as an integral part of their work experience and consequently have arelatively stable set of beliefs about the labour market and their prospects” (p.71). Eiken and
Saksvik (2009) make a similar point, suggesting that temporary workers have limited expectationsof security making them somewhat immune to concerns of job finiteness and insecurity. This
response is most likely where workers accept a job knowing it is insecure and concerns about theloss of income arising from unemployment are mitigated by the operation of the social welfare
system along with the potential for employment in future seasons (Artazcoz et al., 2005;
Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005; DeWitte and Naswall, 2003; Pearce, 1998). Our study could not
determine whether respondent’s acceptance of periodic unemployment was an adaptation to thereality of their circumstances or reflected a pre-existing set of preferences. Nonetheless, our study
adds support to the view that employment insecurity may be an objective risk factor that is notuniversal across all forms of precarious employment or temporary work (De Cuyper et al., 2008).
As Benach et al., (2002) observe, perceptions of job insecurity “… its meaning and health related
impact may vary according to different labour market characteristics such as type of flexible work
contract, social class, race/ethnicity, age or genders” (p.405). More specifically, our study
provides empirical support for Virtanen at al.’s (2005) contention about the heterogeneity of
temporary employment. Temporary employment cannot be grouped as a single category but rather
more differentiated analysis of particular subsets of temporary work, such as seasonal work, isrequired (along with comparisons that take important contextual factors into account).

Limitations
Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, this study sampled workers fromthree large organizations involved in food processing in New Zealand. New Zealand’s accident
compensation, social welfare, and industrial relations legislation will differentiate this study fromother jurisdictions. Similarly the presence of industrial unions and a collective employment
contract providing minimum terms and conditions also differentiate these sites from otherorganizations. This convenience sample was employed in workplaces with formalized safety39New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

procedures and training programs (although their effectiveness was not assessed). These may not
be present to the same extent in smaller independent food processing plants. It also means
generalizing these results to other populations should be done with considerable caution.
However, this sample was particularly suited to comparing the injury experiences of temporary
and permanent workers exposed to common training and operating environments. Further, it
explores an under-researched area of temporary work, the seasonal employee.
Second, these findings are based on self-reports of injuries and employment duration and may
therefore be subject to inaccuracy due to recall error despite our efforts to mitigate this bytriangulating reports with company records. Additionally, any workers absent as a result of injury
or who had been so badly injured that they could not return to work would not appear in thesampling frame. However, while self-reported data have been found to underestimate injury
frequency and severity (Landen and Hendriks, 1995; Veazie et al., 1994), self-reports of serious
injury in this study closely corresponded with company records. Thus, this study has been
controlled for error variance associated with common scale formats by assessing injury records(Spector, 2006).
Third, the greatest numbers of days off work were recorded by temporary workers. Lost time has
been criticized as an indicator of injury severity because it is a function of injury seriousness, job
demands, workplace policies, and compensation criteria (Veazie et al., 1994). For example, losttime can be influenced by the implementation of enhanced rehabilitation programs or efforts to‘massage’ compensation claim costs by discouraging time off or re-arranging work schedules(Walters et al., 1995). Therefore, the observation in this study that temporary workers experienced
the most days absent from work due to injury, warrants further investigation.
Significant explanation was provided on how frequency rates were calculated. These relied onassumptions concerning working hours, holidays, and sick leave taken. In the absence of accessto individual time sheets to calculate exposures and therefore frequencies, the method of
calculation used in this study is likely to contain some inaccuracies.
Fourth, the sample was not randomly selected as supervisors determined who would participate
and may have biased selection by releasing team members who they knew had experienced an
injury or those who were least critical to ongoing production requirements. As respondents
reported to many different supervisors and the study was conducted in three companies, the abilityof any one supervisor to bias overall selection of the sample was limited. However, despite this,the results of a convenience sample cannot be generalized with confidence to the population.
Further, this study involved fewer than 1000 respondents thereby having a greater sampling error
than in larger studies. Notwithstanding these limitations, this exploratory study identified a pointof interest in the relationship between exposure and injury.
Fifth and finally, another limitation of the study was the failure to systematically consider the
impact of non-work issues or work/family balance on GHQ scores. Several respondents reported
non-work issues likely to impact on their psychological well-being although their results did notexhibit in the extreme category. This finding illustrates the difficulty in concluding a relationshipbetween psychological well-being and independent variables of company, employment status,
gender or age based on the self-administered GHQ, when other possible non work related
influences may be present.

40

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Conclusions
Results for studies of temporary workers OHS have been less consistent than those for other forms
of precarious employment. Several reasons for this have been suggested. These include thediversity of temporary work that may have either led to methodological problems that masked
effects or the diversity of the respondents may have given rise to more diverse OHS outcomes.
Previous research has noted the absence of frequencies in studies of adverse OHS in precarious
workforces (Johnson and Lipscomb, 2006; Smith et al., 2010; Vegso et al., 2007). Therefore, one
central objective of this paper was to account for systemic differences in working hours, andconsequently hazard exposure, when comparing the injury experience of temporary andpermanent workers. Controlling for exposure has been uncommon in previous studies of injury intemporary work. While it is widely acknowledged that temporary work is associated with irregular
working hours, the secondary datasets used in many studies preclude this factor being addressed
during data analysis. As a result, few studies have controlled for exposure while comparing the
injury experiences of permanent and temporary workers in workplaces where both groups performthe same, or very similar, tasks.
This study identified the presence of a higher likelihood of injury amongst temporary workers
when exposure was controlled for despite the workforce receiving similar training and carryingout similar tasks. These findings point to length of service being a factor that increases risk of
injury. Therefore, it is essential that temporary employees receive thorough integration andtraining to try and assimilate organizational knowledge, if higher injury frequencies for those withshort job tenure are to be avoided. This has implications for any new employees being employedin an organization. Further research that more accurately assesses hours worked to calculate
exposure when using objective injury data would be beneficial. This should also identify thecharacteristics of particular groups of temporary workers so they are clearly identifiable and avoid
the homogenization that has occurred in some studies involving large data sets.
Importantly, the study found that while there were significant differences in injury frequency rates
between seasonal and permanent workers, there were no significant differences in mental healthand wellbeing as measured by the GHQ. This finding raises a number of important issues
warranting further research. First, and most obviously it provides support for other studies whichhave found that health outcomes may not be worse for temporary workers (see Eiken and Saksvik,
2009; Keuskamp et al., 2012) which may help to explain the more ‘mixed’ results obtained bymeta reviews of temporary employment (see Virtanen et al., 2005) than has been the case withreviews of research into the OHS effects of downsizing/job insecurity and subcontracting. Second,
possible explanations as to why results are affected by the particular OHS outcome indices used
include that temporary work is more hazardous in terms of injury than mental health (perhaps
because in job strain terms, lower control is matched by lower demands). Another possible
explanation, which doesn’t necessarily exclude the last one, is that the very diverse character of
temporary employment (from fairly long term and predictable work arrangements to, at the otherextreme, very insecure and intermittent day labour) and the vulnerability of those undertaking it(especially recent immigrants or undocumented workers) has significant implications for healthoutcomes. In either case, there is a need for more nuanced studies which use multiple OHS indicesand take account of the particular type of temporary work being studied.

41

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Consistent with the last point, another key finding of this study is it identifies seasonal work as a
distinct form of temporary employment. There is a need for further research into seasonal work.
This can and should form part of research into the full array of temporary work arrangements,using a range of OHS indices, so that any distinctive features affecting health outcomes are better
understood. Such research could also constitute an important step towards understanding themechanisms by which precarious employment affects health.
Acknowledgements
We would like to record our thanks to the management and employees of Dairy Co, Meat Co, andProduce Co. Their co-operation and honesty in providing the responses enabled us to write thisarticle.

References
Armitage P, Berry G. 1994. Statistical methods in medical research, 3rd ed. Blackwell: Boston.
Arrighi HM, Hertz-Picciotto I. 1994. The evolving concept of the healthy worker survivor effect.
Epidemiology, 5(2): 189-196.
Aronsson, Gustafsson Dallner, M. 2002. Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sicknesspresenteeism, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54: 502-509.
Aronsson, G., Dallner, M., Lindh, T. Goransson, S. (2005). Flexible pay but fixed expenses: Personal
financial strain among on-call employees. Intl J of Health Ser, 35(3): 499-528.
Arulampalam W, Booth AL. 1998. Training and labour market flexibility: Is there a trade off? Br. J.
Ind. Relat, 36(4): 521-536.
Artazcoz L, Benach J, Borrell C, Cortes I. 2005. Social inequalities in the impact of flexible employment
on different domains of psychosocial health. J Epid Comm Health, 59: 761-767.
Banks, M. Clegg, C. Jackson, P. Kemp, N. Stafford, E. Wall, T. 1980. The use of the General Health
Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. J of Occup Psych, 53: 187:194.
Barling J, Kelloway EK, Iverson RD. 2003. High quality work, job satisfaction and occupational injuries.
J Appl Psychol, 88(2): 276-283.
Benach, J. Amable, M., Muntaner, C. (2002). The consequences of flexible work for health: Are welooking in the right place? J of Epid and Comm Health, 56: 405-406.
Benach J, Gimeno D, Benavides FG, Martinez JM, Torne MD. 2004. Types of employment and healthin the European Union – changes from 1995-2000. Eur J Public Health, 14(3): 313-321.
Benevides FG, Benach J, Diez-Roux AV, Roman C. 2000. How do different types of employment relate
to health indicators? Findings from the second European survey on working conditions. JECH, 54 (7):494-501.
Benevides FG, Benach J, Muntaner C, Delclos GL, Catot N, Amable M. 2006. Association between
temporary employment and occupational injury: What are the mechanisms. Occup Environ Med, 63: 416421.
Bernhard-Oettel, C. DeCuyper, N. Bernston, E. Isaksson, K. (2008). Well-being and organizational
attitudes in alternative employment: The role of contract preferences. Int J of Stress Mgt, 15(4): 345-363.
Bohle, P. Willaby, H. Quinlan, M. McNamara, M. 2011. Flexible work in call centres: Working hours,
work-life conflict & health, App Erg, 42(2): 219-224.
Breslin FC, Smith P. 2006. Trial by fire: A Multivariate examination of the relation between job tenure
and work injuries. Occup Environ Med, 63: 27-32.
Burvill, P. Knuiman, M. 1983. Which version of the General Health Questionnaire should be used incommunity studies. Aust and NZ J of Psyc, 17(3): 237:242.

42

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Cheng, GHL. Chan, DKS. 2007, Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review.
Appl Psyc, 57(2). 272-303.
Choi BCK. 1992. Definition, sources, magnitude,, effect modifiers and strategies of reduction of thehealthy worker effect. J Occup Med, 34(10: 979-988.
Connelly, C.E. Gallagher, D.G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research. Journal ofManagement, 30(6): 959-983.
Department of Labour. 2009. A profile of temporary workers and their employment outcomes.
Department of Labour: Wellington.
DeCuyper, N., deJong, J., DeWitte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T. Schalk, R. (2008). Literature review oftheory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model.
Int J of Mgt Rev, 10(1): 22-51.
DeCuyper, N., Notelaers, G. DeWitte, H. (2009). Transitioniong between temporary and permanent
employment: A two-wave study on the entrapment, the stepping stone and the selection hypothesis. J of
Occu Org Psyc, 82: 67-88.
deRaaf, S., Kapsalis, C. Vincent, C. (2003). Seasonal work and employment insurance use. Perspectives
on Labour and Income, 4(9): 5-11.
DeWitte, H. Naswall, K. (2003). Objective v’s subjective job insecurity: Consequences of temporary workfor job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries. Eco and Ind Democ, 24(2):149-188.
Dolan A, Taylor M, Neis B, Ommer R, Eyles J, Schneider D, Montevecchi B. 2005. Restructuring andhealth in Canadian coastal communities, Eco Health, 2: 195-208.
Dupre, D. (2001). Accidents at work in the EU 1998-1999. Statistics in Focus, Eurostat.
Eiken TE, Saksvik PO. 2009. Temporary employment as a risk factor for occupational stress and health.
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 7(2): 75-91.
Fabiano B, Curro F, Reverberi AP, Pastorino R. 2008. A statistical study on temporary work andoccupational accidents: Specific risk factors and risk management strategies. Safety Sci, 46: 535-544.
Ferrie, J., Shipley, M., Stansfeld, S. Smith, G. 1998. The health effects of major organizational change
and job insecurity. Soc Sci and Med, 46(2), 243-254.
Ferrie, J.E. (2001, Feb). Is job insecurity harmful to health. J of the Royl Soc of Med, 94, 71-76.
Folkard S, Lombardi D. 2006. Modelling the impact of the components of long hours on injuries andaccidents. Am J Ind Med, 49: 953-963.
Goldberg, D. Williams, P. 1988. A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Berkshire: NFERNelson Publishing Company Ltd.
Guadalupe M. 2003. The hidden costs of fixed term contracts: The impact on work accidents. Labour
Eco, 10(3): 339-357.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: New Jersey: Pearson International Edition.
Health and Safety Executive. 1998. HSE implementation sheet: Priorities for the fruit and vegetableindustry. Food Sheet No 5.
Health and Safety Executive. 1997. HSE implementation sheet: Priorities for health and safety in theslaughtering industry. Food Sheet No 14.
Health and Safety Executive. 1996. HSE implementation sheet: Priorities for health and safety in the dairy
industry. Food Sheet No 8.
Health and Safety Executive. 2011. Health and safety in the food and drink manufacturing industry.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/food/index.htm accessed 1 May 2011.
Horsburgh, S., Feyer, A-M., Langley, J. D. (2001). Fatal work related injuries in agricultural production
and services to agriculture sectors of New Zealand, 1985-94, J. Occup. Environ. Med, 58(8), 489-495.
Hipple S. 1998. Contingent work: Results from the second survey. Monthly Labor Review, 121 (11):22-35.

43

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Isaksson, K. Bellagh, K. 2002. Health problems and quitting among female ‘temps’. Eur J of Work and
Org Psyc, 11(1): 27-45.
Iwi, D., Watson, J., Barber, P., Kimber, N. Sharman, G. 1998. The self-reported wellbeing of employees
facing organizational change: Effects of an intervention. Occu Med, 48(6): 361-368.
Jackson, PR. (1985). Differential vulnerability and psychological health in unemployment. The
Statistician, 34(1): 83-91.
Johnson JV, Lipscomb J. 2006. Long working hours, occupational health and the changing nature of workorganization. Am J Ind Med, 49: 921-929.
Kalleberg A. 2000. Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work. Annu
Rev Sociol, 26: 341-365.
Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Brough, P. (2004). A confirmatory factor analysis of the General Health
Questionnaire-12. Stress and Health, 20 (1), 11-20.
Keuskamp, D. Ziersch, A. Baum, F. (2012) Workplace bullying a risk for permanent employees, Aust and
NZ J of Public Health, 36:116-19.
Kochan, T., Smith, M., Wells, J. Rebitzer, J. (1994). Human Resource Strategies and Contingent Workers:
The Case of Safety in the Petrochemical Industry, Human Resource Mgt, 33(1): 55-77.
Landen DD, Hendricks S. 1995. Effect of recall on reporting at-work injuries. Public Health Reports,
110: 350-354.
Lewchuk, W. Clarke, M. de Wolff, A. 2008,Working Without Commitments: Precarious Employment and
Health, Work Employ and Soc, 22: 387-406.
Louie A, Ostry A, Keegal T, Quinlan M, Shoveller J, LaMontagne A. 2006. Empirical study of
employment arrangements and precariousness in Australia. Relations Industrielles/ Industrial Relations
61(3): 465-489.
MacKinnon K. 1995. Doing away with unemployment benefit? Waikato Law Review, 3(185).
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Makikangas, A. Natti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed-term
employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. Eur J of Work and Org Psyc, 14(3):209-238.
Mayhew, M. Quinlan, M. 1999. The effects of outsourcing on OHS: A comparative study of factory-based
and outworkers in the garment industry, Int J of Health Services 29(1):83-107.
Mayhew, C. Quinlan, M. 2002. Fordism in the fast food industry: pervasive management control andoccupational health and safety risks for young temporary workers, Socio of Health and Illness, 24(3): 26184.
Mayhew C, Quinlan M. 2006. Economic pressure, multi-tiered subcontracting and occupational healthand safety in Australian long haul trucking. Employee Relations, 28(3): 212-229.
McDonald, D.J. Makin, P.J. (2000). The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job
satisfaction of temporary staff. Lead and Org Deve J, 21(2): 84-91.
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry. 2005. New Zealand agriculture, forestry and horticulture in brief, June
2005. http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/NZ-and-the-WTO/Improving-access-tomarkets/0-agriculturenegs.php#why accessed 30 September 2015.
Morassaei ,S. Breslin, C. Shen, M. Smith, P. 2013, Examining job tenure and lost-time claim rates in
Ontario, Canada, over a 10-year period, 1999–2008, Occ and Env Med, 70:171–178. doi:10.1136/oemed2012-100743
Muntaner,C, Yong Li, Y. Xued, X. Thompson, T.O’Campo, P., Chung, H. Eaton W. 2006, County levelsocioeconomic position, work organization and depression disorder: A repeated measures cross-classified
multilevel analysis of low-income nursing home workers. Health & Place, 12 688–700
Neis B, Grzetic B, Pidgeon M. 2001. From fishplant to nickel smelter: Health determinants and the healthof Newfoundland’s women fish and shellfish processors in an environment of restructuring. Research
Report. Sociology Department, Memorial University, St John’s.
Norusis, M.J. 1998. SPSS 8.0 Guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

44

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Olsen K, Kalleberg AL. 2004. Non-standard work in two different employment regions: Norway and theUnited States. J Work, Employment and Society, 18: 321-348.
Parker, S.K., Griffin, M.A., Sprigg, C.A. Wall, T.D. (2002). Effect of temporary contracts on perceived
work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 55(3): 689-720.
Parejo-Moscoso J., Rubio-Romero, J, Pérez-Canto, S. Soriano-Serrano, M. (2013). Health and safety
management
in
olive
oil
mills
in
Spain.
SafetyScience,
51:101-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.015
Pearce, JL. (1998). Job insecurity is important, but not the reasons you might think: The example ofcontingent workers. In C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behaviour.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Politi, PL., Piccinelli, M., Wilkinson, G. (1994). Reliability and validity and factor structure of the 12-item
General Health Questionnaire among young males in Italy. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, 90, 432–437.
Polivka AE. 1996, October. A profile of contingent workers. Monthly Labor Review, 10-21.
Probst, T.M. (2004). Job insecurity: Exploring a new threat to employee safety in J. Barling and M.R.
Frone (eds). The psychology of workplace safety. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Romans-Clarkson, S. Walton, V. Mullen, P. 1989. Validity of the GHQ-28 in New Zealand Woman. Austand NZ J of Psychia, 23(2): 187-196.
Quinlan M, Mayhew C, Bohle P. 2001. The global expansion of precarious employment, work
disorganization and consequences for occupational health: A review of recent literature. Int J Health Ser,
31: 335-414.
Quinlan M, Bohle P. 2008. ‘Under pressure, out of control or home alone? Reviewing research and policy
debates on the OHS effects of outsourcing and home-based work’. Int J Health Ser, 38(3): 489-523.
Quinlan M, Bohle P. 2009. ‘Over-stretched and unreciprocated commitment: Reviewing research andpolicy debates on the OHS effects of downsizing and job insecurity’. Int J Health Ser, 39 (1): 1-44.
Saksvik, P. Gustafsson, O. 2004, Early retirement from work: A longitudinal study of the impact oforganizational change in a public enterprise, Poli and Prac in Health and Safety, 2(2):43–55
Saloniemi A, Virtanen P, Vahtera J. 2004. Work environment and fixed-term jobs: are poor psychosocial
conditions inevitable? Work, Employment & Society, 18(1): 193-208.
Sargeant, M. Tucker, E. 2009, Layers of vulnerability in occupational safety and health for migrant
workers: case studies from Canada and the UK, Policy and practice in health and safety, 7(2): 51-74
Seixas N, Bleckler H, Camp J, Neitzel R. 2008. Occupational health and safety experience of day laborers
in Seattle, WA. Am J Ind Med, 51: 399-406.
Silla I, Gracia FJ, Peiro JM. 2005. Job insecurity and health related outcomes among different types of
temporary workers. Eco and Ind Democracy, 26(1): 89-117.
Smith CK,, Silverstein BA, Bonauto DK., Adams D, Fan ZJ. 2010. Temporary workers in Washington
State. Am J Ind Med, 53(2): 135-145.
Spector PE. 2006. Method Variance in Organizational Research; Truth or Urban Legend? Organizational
Research Methods, 9(2): 221-232.
Statistics New Zealand. 2007. New Zealand in Profile 2006. http://www.govt.nz/products-andservices/newzealand in profile.2006 accessed 15/3/2008.
Sverke. M., Hellgren, J. Naswall, K. 2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity andits consequences. J of Occu Health Psyc, 7: 242-264.
Tait, R. French, D. Hulse, G. 2003. Validity and psychometric properties of the General Health
Questionnaire-12 in young Australian adolescents. Aus and NZ J of Psyc, 37(3): 374-381.
Tennant, C. 1977. The General Health Questionnaire: A valid index of psychological impairment inAustralian populations. The Med J of Aust, 2: 392-394.
Toh, S. Quinlan, M. (2009), Safeguarding the global contingent workforce? Guestworkers in Australia, Int
J of Manpower, 30(5): 453-471.
Underhill, E. Quinlan, M. 2011, How Precarious Employment Affects Health and Safety at Work: The
Case of Temporary Agency Workers, Relations Industrielles, 66(3):397-421

45

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):24-46

Veazie M, Bender TR, Amandus HE. 1994. Epidemiologic research on the etiology of injuries at work.
Ann Rev Publ Health, 15: 203-221.
Vegso S, Cantley L, Slad, M, Taiwo O, Sircar K, Rabinowitz P, Fiellin M, Russi MB, Cullen MR. 2007.
Extended work hours and risk of acute occupational injury: A case-crossover study of workers in
Manufacturing. Am J Ind Med, 50: 597-603.
Virtanen P, Liukkonen V, Vahtera J,Kivimaki M,. Koskenvuo M. 2003. Health inequalities in theworkforce: The labour market core-periphery structure. Int J Epid, 32: 1015-1021.
Virtanen M, Kivimak, M, Joensuu, M, Virtanen P, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. 2005. Temporary employment
and health: A review. Int J Epid, 34(3): 610-622.
Vosko LF. 2006. Precarious employment: Towards an improved understanding of labor market insecurity.
In: Vosko LF, editor. Precarious employment: Understanding labor market insecurity in Canada. McGill:
Queeens University Press. p3-40.
Walters V, Lewchuk W, Richardson R, Moran L, Haines E, Verma D. 1995. Judgements of legitimacy
regarding occupational health and safety. In: Pearce F and Snider L. Corporate Crime. University ofToronto Press, Toronto. p284-301.
Winefield, H.R., Goldney, R.D., Winefield, A.H., Tiggemann, M. (1989). The General Health
Questionnaire:reliability and validity for Australian youth. Aust and NZ J of Psyc, 23, 53–58.

46

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Employee participation and quality of the work
environment: Cases from New Zealand
RAYMOND MARKEY*, CANDICE HARRIS**, KATHERINERAVENSWOOD***, GAY SIMPKIN****, DAVID WILLIAMSON*****
Abstract
The article reports on an investigation of the association between direct andrepresentative forms of employee participation and the quality of the work
environment, including the psychosocial work environment. A multi-method researchstrategy was utilized in eight organisational case studies across four New Zealandindustries: hotels, schools, aged care facilities and food manufacturing factories. The
study finds that workplaces with strong forms of participation displayed high levels ofwork environment quality, but that this association was mediated by the nature ofdifferent forms of participation and their relationship with each other, as well as byindustry characteristics. Representative participation plays a critical role, but in theabsence of union representation, JCCs or direct participation can also play importantroles. In other words, it appears to be either union or non-union participation but notboth, that is associated with positive QWE outcomes.
These results support previous research suggesting that non-union forms of employee
participation may displace or undercut unionism, but there is no confirmation that direct
participation was associated with poor QWE outcomes as suggested by some recent
literature. The research also contradicts European, particularly Scandinavian, evidence
regarding the complementary role of direct and representative participation, including
union representation, which may reflect the impact of differential national industrial
relations regimes. Further research is needed at this level to examine the differential
impact of various forms of employee participation on the full quality of work
environment, including its psychosocial aspects.
Key words: quality of work environment, employee participation, representative
employee participation, psychosocial work environment, workload and stress*

Prof Raymond Markey, Director of the Centre for Workforce Futures and Professor of Employment
Relations – Department of Marketing and Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia**
Candice Harris, Associate Prof, Department of Human Resource Management and Employment
Relations, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand***
Katherine Ravenswood, Senior Lecturer, Department of Management, Auckland University ofTechnology, New Zealand****
Gay Simpkin, Department of Management, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand*****David Williamson, Senior Lecturer, School of Hospitality and Tourism, Auckland University ofTechnology

47

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Introduction
A substantial literature links employee participation, especially in its representative
forms, to quality of the work environment (QWE) and related concepts such as job
satisfaction (see Markey & Knudsen, 2014). These connections, and a link between
both participation and QWE with productivity, have a strong tradition in Scandinavian
and socio-technical literature (Emery & Thorsrud, 1976; Gustavsen & Hunnius, 1981).
More recently, these three-way connections have been made in discussions of highperformance workplace systems (HPWS) (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg,
2000; Macky & Boxall, 2008; Boxall & Macky, 2009). In the Scandinavian and HPWS
literature, employee involvement or participation is generally attributed with impacting
positively on the work environment.
The concept of work environment is broad, including the physical, social andorganisational context of work. Originating in the 1970s in Scandinavia, the concept ofwork environment expanded the narrower concept of occupational health and safety
focusing upon physical work hazards, to encompass the “psychosocial work
environment” (Knudsen, Busck & Lind, 2011:379). The psychosocial work
environment designates how organisational job demands and social structures andinteractions impact upon employees’ psychological well-being (Hvid & Hasle, 2003).
This broader concept of QWE has gained currency as the recognition of psychosocial
workplace problems has increased, particularly stress-related conditions (Busck,
Knudsen & Lind, 2010).
The expansion of employee participation has been a contemporaneous trend in
workplaces. The influence in particular of modern human resource management has
fostered employee involvement, voice and “empowerment” through a variety of formsof work organisation that may be categorised as falling within the umbrella concept of
employee participation (Markey & Townsend, 2013). Generally, these forms of
employee participation can be characterised as direct or representative (Markey, 2001).
Direct participation is concerned with the task or job, empowering employees to exert
influence over their immediate work environment through job autonomy, task
delegation or teamwork. Representative participation may occur through trade unions,employee representation on boards and various kinds of workplace committees, suchas European works councils or joint consultative committees (JCCs) with employer andemployee representatives. Occupational health and safety (OHS) committees are
specialist forms of JCCs underwritten by legislation in New Zealand (Harris, 2004) andmost developed countries.
There is substantial evidence suggesting that employee participation and influence inworkplace decision-making can impact positively on the work environment (Blumberg,
1968; Heller, Pusic, Strauss & Wilpert, 1998; Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2000). In contrast,
recent research has suggested that employees may be motivated and empowered, but
simultaneously stressed by an increase in job complexity when more direct
participation is implemented (Kalleberg, Nesheim & Olsen 2009; Busck, Knudsen &Lind 2010). However, the research specifically analysing the impact of employee
participation on psychosocial aspects of the work environment is limited.

48

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

The effectiveness of participation and its impact on QWE is affected by a range of othervariables, such as whether it is “full” or “partial”, the type of participation and theindustrial relations climate. Both the scope of participative mechanisms, i.e., the range
of decisions that are open to employee participation, and the depth of participation, i.e.,the degree of influence allowed employees and/or their representatives, are significant
parameters. Employee participation may also be manipulated by employers in “pseudo”
forms (Blyton & Turnbull, 2004; Busck, Knudsen & Lind, 2010; Heller et al., 1998;
Pateman, 1970). Direct forms of participation tend to be managerially-driven to
improve productivity and profitability, and to be framed within a unitarist discourse of
employee relations. Representative participation has greater potential to be concernedwith broader strategic issues at an organisational or departmental level because of thestructures of representative bodies and their collective basis, although the depth ofparticipation varies in practice. Trade unions in particular operate within a morepluralist discourse acknowledging different interests between employers andemployees, and may interact with other forms of representation, direct andrepresentative, to extend their depth. However, research has strongly indicated in theliberal market Anglo countries that non-union forms of participation, such as direct
forms or JCCs, have been utilised by employers adopting HRM strategies to undermine
unionism (Markey, 2007; Wilkinson, Gollan, Marchington & Lewin, 2010; Dundon,
Wilkinson, Marchington & Ackers, 2004).
This study evaluates the impact of both direct and representative participation on QWE
in a range of New Zealand workplaces. The remainder of the article surveys theliterature on employee participation and its impact on the work environment, outlines
the research design and methodology, reports the research results, and draws
appropriate conclusions.

The Impact of Employee Participation on the Work Environment
The existing research indicates that the impact of employee participation on the work
environment varies between different broad types of participation. The evidence for apositive impact on the work environment is strongest for representative forms of
employee participation. British, Australian and Danish studies have found that worker
representation and consultation in OHS and other committees produced better outcomesin OHS than management acting alone (Eaton & Nocerino, 2000; Walters, 2004;
Walters, Nichols, Connor, Tasiran & Cam, 2005; Walters & Nichols, 2007). Similar
studies have also suggested that trade union presence and workplace organisation
positively impacts on OHS (Fairbrother, 1996; Bohle & Quinlan, 2000; Hasle, 2001;
Markey & Patmore, 2011; Saksvik & Quinlan, 2003; Walters & Frick, 2000).
Additionally, the presence of a broad framework of participative practice throughunions and works councils as exist in European countries, is likely to impact on theeffectiveness of specialised OHS committees (Harris, 2004; Knudsen, 1995). However,this body of evidence relates mainly to physical work hazards.
There is less evidence for a positive impact from representative employee participation
upon the psychosocial work environment. The issues may be more difficult to define,often have more long-term cumulative impacts, have therefore been slower in gaining
recognition, and potentially challenge managerial prerogative over work organisation,for example, over length of working hours and work intensity. Of course, employee
49

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

representative rights over physical work hazards also challenge managerial prerogative
over work organisation, but recognition of psychosocial problems extends thiscontested sphere of control. Traditionally, OHS committees have focused mainly on
physical hazards. Consequently, works councils in Europe may have taken up
responsibility for the psychosocial work environment in many cases. On balance theresearch suggests a positive impact on the work environment, including thepsychosocial work environment, from representative employee participation (Markey& Knudsen, 2014; Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
The evidence regarding direct participation is more ambivalent. Karasek and Theorell(1990) found health and well-being to be strongly associated with job control. However,a growing body of research now suggests that increasing influence at the task level is
not necessarily associated with QWE improvements. Greater job autonomy frequently
goes hand in hand with work intensification and increasing stress, team workers havebeen found to suffer greater stress than non-team workers, and high degrees of job
autonomy may lead to responsibility for psychosocial problems being transferred to theindividual worker (Busck, Knudsen & Lind, 2010; Kalleberg, Nesheim & Olsen 2009;
Hvid & Hasle, 2003). Some of the HPWS literature also indicates that high levels of
employee participation may lead to work intensification, fatigue and stress (Godard,
2001; White, Hill, McGovern, Mills, & Smeaton, 2003), or that a low road approachto HPWS may involve a bundle of workplace practices that simultaneously intensify
work and include employee participation or involvement (Boxall & Macky, 2009).
These results no doubt reflect that fact that direct participation is more directly tied to
management objectives for improving productivity and efficiency than is the case withrepresentative participation (Hyman & Mason, 1995; Markey, 2001).
Consequently, the relationship between direct and representative participation may be
important in determining the impact on QWE. In major studies in Europe the two formsof participation have been found to be complementary (Markey, 2001; Hagen &Trygstad, 2009). However, in recent years direct participation has tended to displace
representative participation in Britain and elsewhere (Kersley, Alpin, Forth, Bryson,
Bewley, Dix, & Oxenbridge, 2006; Markey & Patmore 2011).
Representative employee participation is well-established in New Zealand in the formof OHS committees, the only legislatively mandated form of workplace employee
representation. The Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002 required
either OHS committees or worker representatives in workplaces with 30 or more
employees, and smaller enterprises could have representatives if requested by workers
or unions (Harris, 2004). From April 2016 the new Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
exempts small workplaces from the requirement to appoint OHS representatives if they
employ fewer than 20 workers and are not in a high-risk sector (manufacturing, mining,
construction, utilities, transport) (Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, Subpart 2, 62,para. 4; Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Draft Regulations). This will have asubstantial impact because 30 per cent of New Zealand employment is in small
workplaces (StatsNZ 2015).
The jurisdiction of New Zealand OHS committees has been focused mainly upon OHS
and hazard prevention. This is similar to OHS committees’ jurisdiction in other Anglo
countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, in contrast with Scandinavian
countries where broader psychosocial and work environment issues are in the remit of50

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

committees (Markey & Knudsen, 2014), although this potential for effective
representative participation often remains under-developed even in Scandinavia (Bruhn& Frick 2011; Frick, 2014). However, New Zealand legislation at the time of theresearch did include unacceptable behaviour, such as workplace bullying, in thejurisdiction of OHS representatives. The research design took account of bullying as apotential impact on the work environment.
Other forms of representative participation in New Zealand are more weakly based,
although there is variation between sectors. Union membership density and collective
bargaining coverage in the workforce as a whole are about 19-20 per cent. Both areconcentrated in the public sector, where they represent about 49 per cent of theworkforce, compared with 9 per cent in the private sector. Most collective bargaining
occurs at an enterprise level, with multi-employer agreements covering only 20 per centof workers covered by collective agreements, mainly in the public sector, especiallyeducation and health (Blumenfeld, 2010).
In a recent survey 40 per cent of employees reported coverage by JCCs of some kind,including OHS committees. This is a relatively high figure given the importance of thesmall business sector. However, general (non OHS) JCCs have no legislative base, andvary greatly in role and effectiveness. Often they appear to be established unilaterally
by management, with employee representatives chosen by employers in over a quarterof instances (Boxall, Haynes & Macky, 2007). This managerial impetus, together with
its frequent association with undermining unions, and union traditions of a “single
channel” focus on representative participation through collective bargaining or state
conciliation and arbitration systems, has created a lack of union trust in extra union
forms of participation in the liberal market Anglo countries (the UK, Australia, New
Zealand, the USA) (Firth, Keef & Mear 1987; Markey 2007). The New Zealandnational regime of participation is far removed from European experience, where works
councils have a legislative basis, are frequently associated with productive workplace
relationships, and have collaborative relationships with trade unions for their mutual
benefit (Markey, 2007; Rasmussen & Lind, 2003)
This overview of representative participation in New Zealand suggests that generally
its scope and depth, and therefore, its impact on the work environment, is limited,
although there are considerable variations at sectoral and workplace levels.

Research Design and Methodology
We adopted a multi-method case study approach, based on two organisations in eachof four industries: hotels, education (schools), aged care, and food manufacturing.
These sectors were chosen to cover a range of blue and white collar, and public versus
private sector workplaces. Fieldwork was undertaken in 2009. Three sources of data
were gathered from each case:• Organisational documents relating to structures of participation, OHS working
hours and shiftwork;• Interviews with the chief executive officer, human resource manager whereappropriate, a senior employee OHS representative, and one other employee
51

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66•

representative from union, JCC or OHS committee depending on whether there
was a union presence or JCC;
Survey of a sample of employees from each workplace.

Surveys were administered on site during work breaks. The survey response rates varied
between 1 and 87 per cent for each workplace. The schools achieved the highest
response rates. One of the food manufacturing sites had the lowest response rate
because of a high proportion of casual part-time staff, shift work, short breaks andlanguage difficulties which hindered reaching a larger sample. Some of these issues
also hindered a stronger response rate at one of the aged care facilities. Lower response
rates may have detracted from representativeness of the sample, but the results were
triangulated with the other sources.
Quality of work environment in the survey was measured by 15 questions indicating
four dimensions of:• total work environment –one question:• Are you satisfied with the safety and comfort of your working
conditions? (yes/no);• physical work environment -3 questions:• Have you suffered a work related injury or illness in the last three years?
(yes/no),• How often have you experienced violence at work in the last three years?
(always/often/sometimes/rarely/never or almost never),
• How
often
have
you
felt
threatenedatwork?
(always/often/sometimes/rarely/never or almost never);• workload and stress, 6 questions with the same 5-point scale(always/often/sometimes/rarely/never or almost never)• Do you have more work than you can accomplish?
• Are you required to work overtimes?
• How often have you felt really tired from work?
• Does your work put you in emotionally distressing situations?
• How often have you felt stressed at work?
• Do you think your work takes so much of your energy that it effects yourprivate life? And• job satisfaction –5 questions:• My work is appreciated by management (strongly agree/agree/neither agree
nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree),• Thinking of all the changes to your job in the past 12 months or less, do you
think you are generally better off or worse off than before? (better off/about
the same/worse off),• Do you agree with the statement that ‘your workplace is a good place towork’? (yes/no/unsure),• Do you agree with the statement that ‘I often think of leaving my job’?
(yes/no/unsure),• Has your satisfaction with your job changed during the past 12 months?
(increased/no change/decreased).

52

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

A score out of 40 was calculated for each dimension. For responses on a 5-point scalescores of 40, 30, 20, 10 and 0 were allocated for each response, with 40 being the mostpositive and 0 the most negative response, and the total was divided by the number of
responses. For responses on a 3-point scale the scores were 35, 20, 5. And for one
response requiring a yes/no answer the scores were 30/10. From these scores an index
was created for each dimension and from that an overall index for QWE. This method
follows the practice of the Danish National Research Institute for the Work
Environment (Kristensen et al. 2005). As higher scores in general indicate a morepositive work environment, scoring for workload and stress questions was reversed
since the most positive response was ”negative” (e.g. the most positive response to thequestion about feeling stressed was ‘never/almost never’). The same method wasapplied to direct participation, OHS committees and JCCs.

Direct participation
The degree to which employees felt empowered by direct participation was measured
by the following six questions:• Do you have possibilities to learn new things in your job? (always/often/now
and then/rarely/never or almost never),• Do you have significant influence on how much work you do?
(always/often/now and then/rarely/never or almost never),• I have significant influence on how my work is done (strongly
agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree),• I should have more influence at my place of work (strongly agree/agree/neither
agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree),• I get information on important decisions in due time (strongly
agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree),• If your work changed in the past 12 months, were you consulted about thechanges? (yes/no/unsure).

OHS representation
OHS representation was measured on the basis of four questions:• Is there a health and safety committee at work with employee representatives?
(yes/no),• How are employee representatives chosen? (everyone votes 40/employees
volunteer 30/ management decides 0/other 10),• If you have raised an issue with the OHS committee was it dealt withsatisfactorily? (yes/no),• If you have raised an issue with the OHS committee how quickly was it dealt
with (immediately/in 1 month or less/2-4 months/more than 4 months/not dealtwith).

Other representative committees
Effectiveness of non-union and non-OHS representative participation was evaluated on
the basis of four questions identical to those for OHS committees.

53

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Union representation
Union representation was not a subject of the survey, but data regarding union
membership density was elicited from interviews. A score out of 40 was also allocatedon the following basis:• 90%+ workplace membership40• 70-85% workplace membership30• 50-70% workplace membership20• <50% workplace membership10• <10% workplace membership
0.

Cases
Schools A and B were co-educational state secondary schools that were highly
unionised. School A was large with 1,000 students and 60 teachers, based in the major
city of Auckland. School B was smaller, with 650 students and 45 teachers, based in asmaller town.
Management at the two schools manifested different styles. Both schools had joint staff
management forums, such as staff and department meetings. However, at School A
there was a greater range of forums and management was committed to participativedecision-making, with the timetable and class sizes determined by staff. At School B
decision-making was more management led and initiated.
In terms of OHS representation, management and staff at both schools exhibited a poor
understanding of the HSE Act. At School B the OHS committee had not met for morethan a year. In contrast, at School A the OHS committee had previously resolved a
dispute through a hazard notice, and it was considered more important than the union
at workplace level.
The aged care facilities were both run by charitable trusts, with boards of trustees,
female general managers, and active unions. Rest home A was located in a small city,
and Rest home B in a small town. Each organization employs 75-80 mainly female caregivers. Rest home A, however, has a higher proportion of registered nurses, and Rest
home B a higher proportion of management positions. When interviewed, the generalmanager at Rest home A only had twelve months experience, compared with elevenyears for her equivalent at Rest home B.
OHS committees at both aged care facilities predate the 2002 Act that made them
mandatory. This stems from the nature of the industry, whereby auditing of aged carefacilities is required for external accreditation upon which public funding is dependent.
Auditing of risk management is also required if these facilities seek to reduce employer
levies for OHS. Both committees include staff from all departments, and have a strong
hazard focus.
However, as with the schools, different management styles impacted on effectivenessof representative participation. The Rest home A manager was very supportive of theunion, and manifested an inclusive decision-making approach through the union, OHS
committee and other committees, such as staff and department committees. The OHS
committee had a high profile, a significant degree of autonomy and longstanding54

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

members. In contrast, at Rest home B, the OHS and other committees tended to deferto management and to have a primarily communication focus.
The food manufacturing workplaces also differ in a number of important respects. Both
had ethnically diverse workforces, but Food manufacturing A was a relatively small
New Zealand owned operation with 65 employees, whereas Food manufacturing B wasa foreign owned subsidiary with 1,900 employees, 350 of whom were casual. Food
manufacturing A was non-union, whereas Food manufacturing B was 70 per centunionised. Direct participation was strong as each workplace as a result of teamwork,
though this was more extensive at Food manufacturing B. At Food manufacturing A
the OHS committee representatives were chosen on the basis of the job position, rather
than being elected. Other committees operated at both sites, but Food manufacturing
B’s were more structured, operating at department and site levels.
Both hotels are part of large international chains, with overseas owners in France andthe US, regional offices in Australia, and hierarchical management structures. Hotel A
is based in the city of Auckland, and hotel B in the capital, Wellington. Both hotels arein the upper end of the sector: Hotel A is rated 5 star, and B is 4 star. Hotel A had astaff of 90, whereas Hotel B had 330. These hotels had typically high labour turnover
characteristic of the sector: Hotel A, had an annual labour turnover rate of 45 per cent,and Hotel B of 50 per cent in 2009. These compared with at least 60 per cent for thesector generally, although this has since trended downwards to 33 per cent because of
the recessionary environment (NZTRI, 2007; Markey, Harris, Knudsen, Lind, &Williamson 2014: 9).
In terms of non-union forms of representative participation, both New Zealand hotels
have reasonably effective OHS committees, but with narrow jurisdictions and some
limitations to accountability and representativeness. Although numerically dominatedby employees, the Hotel A committee includes the Chief Engineer and HRM manager.
The Hotel A employee representatives are a mixture of volunteers and nominees, often‘shoulder-tapped’ for the role according to the HRM manager. The Hotel B OHS
committee seems more representative, in that employee nominees are called for andelected by staff. Interviewees indicated that there was no issue with getting people tonominate, although the General Manager considered that some ‘shoulder-tapping’occurred. The Hotel B committee is also chaired by the executive secretary to theGeneral Manager. The jurisdiction of both committees is confined essentially to hazard
identification and reduction, but both management and employee representatives
considered them effective in this sphere. For both New Zealand hotels OHS committee
staff representatives are paid to attend meetings outside normal hours, and committee
membership is viewed by employees as an opportunity for networking and access tomanagement. Hotel B has more extensive training opportunities, during introduction to
the committee, and an online training module for all staff. Both hotels also operate a
range of other committees focused on quality improvement and social activities. These
committees tend to be organised either around specific functions such as sales or frontline reception, or they are cross-functional, drawing managers and employees fromthroughout the hotel, for example, environmental committees and exchangecommittees.

55

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Survey Data
The scores based on employee responses regarding quality of the work environment are
shown in Table 1. Separate scores are shown for total work environment, physical work
environment, workload and stress and job satisfaction, with an overall index scorecomprising all these factors. The workplaces are ranked according to their overall QWE
index score.
Overall, the QWE index score indicates strong trends on an industry sectoral basis. The
rest homes and hotels scored in the top four, and their scores for all components of theindex were consistently high. The schools and food manufacturing workplaces were in
the bottom four. The schools scored lowest by far for workload and stress, and thisdrags their overall QWE index score down.

Table 1: Quality of Work Environment (QWE)
Workplace
Total PhysicalWorkload &WE
WE
stressRest home A
30.0
35.6
24.5
Hotel A
30.0
35.9
23.0
Rest home B
28.9
26.4
25.5
Hotel B
28.0
28.7
20.3
Food
25.0
26.4
22.3
manufacturing B
School A
28.3
27.0
15.2
School B
22.8
26.4
11.3
Food
21.7
24.9
17.3
manufacturing A

Jobsatisfaction
31.0
31.3
28.1
25.0
21.5

QWE
index
30.3
30.1
27.2
25.5
23.8

N.

24.4
23.1
18.1

23.7
20.9
20.5

23
26
17

6
9
19
20
13

Table 2 indicates scores based on employee responses regarding aspects of direct
participation, with an overall index. The workplaces are ranked according to theiroverall index score. These results are very mixed between the workplaces. The hotels
again score highly in the overall index; highest for Hotel A and third for Hotel B. Rest
Home B also scores highly overall again, ranking second. School A scores fourth in theoverall index, whilst the Food manufacturing workplaces occupy the two lowest
positions.
However, there was considerable variety in the components of the index for direct
participation. Hotel A scored highest for learning possibilities, influence on workorganization, consultation regarding organisational change and equal highest forreceiving information from management and. It also scored second for influence on
workload and needing more influence (i.e. second lowest proportion of employees
needing more information). Hotel B was ranked first for influence on workload, andSchool A ranked highest for influence on workload. Food manufacturing B scoredlowest on learning possibilities, influence on workload and work organisation, andsecond lowest on receiving information from management.

56

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Generally, the scores for influence on workload were low for all workplaces, and higher
for influence on work organisation in all cases. The scores for needing more influence
were also relatively low across the board, indicating that all workplaces had substantial
numbers of respondents desiring greater influence; Rest home A scored most positively
in this regard, i.e. fewest employees desired more influence.
Table 2: Direct Participation
Work
Learning
Influence Influence Needplace
possibilities on
on work more
workload org’n
influence
Hotel
A
Rest
home B
Hotel B
School
A
Rest
home
A
SchoolB
Foodman. A
Food
man. B

37.8

21.3

35.6

16.7

Information
from
m’gmt
30.0

Consult
rechange

Inde
x

31.7

28.9

36.3

19.4

27.9

16.1

31.1

26.7

26.3

30.5
31.3

24.5
24.8

30.0
27.4

12.5
14.4

27.0
24.8

26.3
26.4

25.1
24.9

26.7

20.0

31.7

20.0

30.0

20.0

24.7

29.6

20.4

31.9

13.8

25.0

16.6

22.9

27.7

23.6

27.5

16.4

16.2

22.5

22.3

20.6

18.8

26.9

14.7

22.4

21.8

20.9

Results for OHS representation are shown in Table 3. The index indicates how effective
OHS representation through committees was according to employees, with theworkplaces ranked by score. The first column records results from a question as towhether an OHS committee existed in the workplace. Interviews indicated that they
existed in all cases except School B, which scored lowest here. However, where they
existed each case should have scored 35. The fact that none did indicates varying
degrees of uncertainty amongst employees, and some limitation to the effectiveness ofthe committee. In the second column the highest scores were attained for committees
whose employee representatives were elected, and the lowest where management chose
them. From interviews we knew that representatives were elected in most cases,
although a degree of shoulder tapping also occurred. Where employee representatives
were elected the case should theoretically have scored 40, but none did. This indicatesthat elections may not always have been the sole source of employee representatives
and that there was a degree of uncertainty amongst employees, both of which detractfrom the committees as representative forms of participation. The other questions
relating to dealing satisfactorily and in a timely manner with issues are morestraightforward.
Food manufacturing B, Hotel A, Rest home A, and School A all scored highly overall.
Food manufacturing B scored very highly for the method of choosing employee
representatives and had the highest overall score. This no doubt reflected the well57

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

developed committee structure at site and department levels. Hotel A and Rest home A
scored highly in all categories except the method of choosing employee representatives,
which dragged down their overall index scores. In Hotel A this confirms the selectionof employee representatives through “volunteering” or “shoulder tapping”, as indicatedin interviews. In Rest home A it may be an indication of long term lack of change inthe composition of the OHS committee. School A’s overall index score was dragged
down only by how satisfactorily the committee dealt with issues according toemployees. Hotel B and Rest home B had relatively low scores for how employee
representatives were chosen, dragging down their overall index, even though interviews
indicated an election for representatives at Hotel B. Food manufacturing A scored lowly
in terms of satisfactorily dealing with issues and timeliness, and School B naturally
scored lowly across the board.
Table 3: Occupational Health and Safety Representation
Work
OHS
How
OHS Dealing
Timeliness
place
C’tee
representatives satisfactorily dealing
chosenwith issues
with issues
Food
28.8
35.7
27.1
28.8
man. B
Hotel A 30.0
26.7
30.0
32.5
Rest
30.0
24.0
30.0
35.0
home A
School
30.0
30.0
26.4
31.0
A
Hotel B 28.0
25.0
28.3
30.0
Rest
24.4
20.7
31.4
31.4
home B
Food
28.2
28.3
20.0
20.0
man. A
School
15.0
21.0
15.0
10.0
B

Index of OHS
representation
30.1
29.8
29.8
29.4
27.8
27.0
24.1
15.3

In Table 4 the same analysis occurs for JCCs. Hotel A, School A and Food
Manufacturing B all again scored highly overall for the index of effective JCC
representation, as did Rest home B. The last two workplaces in terms of effective JCC
participation retain the same rank order by score as with OHS participation, with School
B the least effective in both incidences. The combined index for representative
participation was highest for Hotel A, Food manufacturing B, School A and Rest homeA, closely followed by Rest home B.
Table 5 shows the ranking of workplaces on the basis of the level of union membership.
The schools were clearly the most unionised, in a sector where overall union
membership density is about 90-95 per cent. The other sectors were far less unionised
and more mixed in the degree of unionisation, with one workplace in each sector being
more unionised than the other. Hotel A and Food Manufacturing A had no union
members.

58

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Table 4: Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) Representation
Work
place

JCC

How
reps.
chosenDealingsatisfactorily
with issues

Timelinessdealingwith issues

Index of JCC
representation

Hotel A
Rest
home B
SchoolA
Foodman. B
Hotel BRest
home A
Food
man. A
School
B

30.0
30.0

21.3
23.6

30.0
26.7

30.0
30.0

27.8
27.6

Combined
index ofOHS &JCC rep’n
28.8
27.3

24.3

23.3

30.0

32.5

27.5

28.5

26.3

28.3

26.0

28.0

27.2

28.7

24.7
30.0

24.2
12.5

23.3
30.0

30.0
30.0

25.6
25.6

26.7
27.7

22.7

30.0

20.0

16.7

20.4

23.2

20.0

19.1

14.0

20.0

18.3

16.8

Table 5: Union representation by membership density
Workplace
School A
School B
Rest home A
Food manufacturing B
Rest home B
Hotel B
Hotel A
Food manufacturing A

Index score
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0

Rank
1
2
3
3
5
5
7
7

Discussion
Taken as a whole the results are complex, but some clear trends do emerge at the levelof individual workplaces and industry sectors. In the first instance, the relationshipbetween various forms of representative participation is interesting. In half theworkplaces there was a substantial degree of similarity in rankings for all forms ofrepresentative participation. School A and Food Manufacturing B were in the upper
half of rankings for all forms of representative participation, hence their combined
representative participation scores were the highest, as shown in Table 6. This indicateswhat has been described as relatively “democratic” workplaces in terms of employee
participation (Markey & Knudsen, 2014). In contrast, Food Manufacturing A and HotelB were consistently ranked in the lower half of workplaces for all forms ofrepresentative participation; overall Table 6 shows that Food Manufacturing A was thelowest ranked for representative participation and Hotel B was ranked third lowest. In
each of the other cases two of three forms of representative participation were similarly
or identically ranked. These results may indicate a degree of mutual support between
different forms of representative participation.
59

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Table 6: Ranking for QWE, Direct and Representative Participation
Workplace
QWE rank
DP rank
Combined
REP rank
Rest home A
1
53
Hotel A
2
1
7
Rest home B
32
5
Hotel B
4
3
6
Food manufacturing B 5
82School A
6
4
1
School B
7
6
6
Food manufacturing A 8
78

In the workplaces where only two forms of representative participation were similarlyranked there may have been a trade-off between union and non-union forms ofparticipation. Hotel A and Rest Home B were both ranked highly for representative
participation through JCCs (and in Hotel A’s case also for OHS representation), butthey were ranked lowly for union representation. Rest Home A and School B wereranked highly for union representation, but lowly for JCCs. OHS committee
representation ranking was not consistently associated with high or low rankings for
JCCs or unions, but unlike them OHS committees have a statutory basis. Since both
union and JCC representation are largely a matter for management strategic choice, it
is more likely that they may contrast in their viability in different workplaces.
Similar observations may be made concerning the relationship between direct andrepresentative forms of participation. In most cases the overall ranking for thesedifferent forms of participation bore an inverse relationship to each other. Only School
A ranked in the top four for all forms of participation, and Food Manufacturing A
ranked lowly for all forms of representative and direct participation. On the other hand,
Food Manufacturing B ranked in the top four workplaces for all forms of representative
participation, but ranked lowest for direct participation. Conversely, Hotel B ranked
third for direct participation, but in the bottom four for all forms of representative
participation.
In the remaining four workplaces it was principally union representation which
contrasted with the level of direct participation, and the level of non-union forms ofrepresentative participation were similar to those for direct participation. For example,
Hotel A and Rest Home B ranked highest for both direct participation and JCC
representation (and also second for OHS representation in Hotel A’s case), but wereranked in the bottom half of workplaces for union representation. Conversely, in Rest
Home A and School B the level of union representation was comparatively high, butboth JCC and direct forms of participation were comparatively weak. These results tend
to suggest that direct participation and non-union representative participation may
complement each other.
There were significant associations between QWE and participation, but they were also
not straightforward. The top four ranked workplaces in terms of QWE were also ranked
in the top four for either direct or overall representative participation, but not both.
Conversely, the two bottom ranked workplaces for QWE were also near or at the bottomof rankings for both direct participation and overall levels of representative
60

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

participation. Direct participation was more important in terms of its association withQWE in three of the four highest ranked workplaces for QWE, and only at Rest Home
A was the high overall ranking for representative participation associated with a high
QWE ranking. In two cases, Food Manufacturing B and School A, low rankings for
QWE were associated with high rankings for overall representative participation; at
School A the direct participation ranking was also high.
Looking more closely at the components of representative participation in each
workplace, high rankings for JCC representation were more likely than high levels of
trade union representation to be associated with high levels of QWE. As with direct
participation, three of the top four ranked workplaces in terms of QWE were also the
top ranked for JCC participation. Only Rest Home A was highly ranked for all formsof representative participation, and QWE.
However, the picture changes somewhat if we focus on the sectoral industry level ofanalysis. At an industry level there are strong associations between high ranking for
QWE and participation, especially representative participation. In three of four sectors
the higher ranked workplace for QWE was also more highly ranked overall for
representative forms of participation: rest homes and food manufacturing on the basisof union and OHS representation, and schools on the basis of all forms of representative
participation. The higher ranked hotel for the level of QWE was also ranked higher for
direct participation and JCC representative participation.
Both participation and QWE outcomes displayed patterns based on industry sector. The
schools were by far the most unionised workplaces, and the hotels were both highly
ranked for direct participation. The hotels were also highly ranked for QWE, whereas
the schools ranked lowly for very poor workload and stress scores affected by generalindustry trends.
These patterns indicate that industry characteristics strongly influenced outcomes forboth participation and QWE at the workplace level. Both rest homes and both hotels
are in the top four ranked workplaces for QWE, in contrast with both schools and food
manufacturing workplaces being more lowly ranked. It is not entirely clear why rest
homes would score relatively highly for QWE, and this warrants further study. The low
rankings for QWE at both schools are mainly a result of very low scores for workload
and stress, or psychosocial work environment, although one is ranked highly for all
forms of participation. Changes in work practices in schools have been acknowledged
to contribute to high levels of workplace stress, regardless of participation (Knudsen,
Markey & Simpkin, 2013). Bearing in mind that our measures are based on subjective
evaluations, the surprisingly high assessments for QWE and participation given by
employees in the hotel industry may reflect low expectations for QWE as well as nonunion forms of participation. The sector is known for its rather tough working
conditions, and a substantial part of the jobs are occupied by young temps and parttimers (NZTRI, 2007); perhaps they experience that jobs in the industry are better thanthey had feared. Thirdly, the food manufacturing workplaces are by their physicalnature likely to offer poorer work environments, and seem to be prone to more direct
management control of work processes which limit employee discretion in direct
participation. Food manufacturing A also had a very low score for psychosocial work
environment.

61

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Conclusions
Overall this study finds that workplaces with strong forms of participation tend to
display high levels of work environment quality, but that participation is not the only
factor influencing QWE. A number of complexities were revealed in this association.
In particular, the association between participation and QWE was mediated by thenature of different forms of participation and their relationship with each other, as well
as by industry characteristics.
The incidence and practice of direct and representative forms of participation tended tovary inversely; where representative forms overall were strong direct forms were
weaker, and vice versa. Only a couple of workplaces had wide scope and depth ofparticipative practices; notably School A where all forms of representative and direct
participation were strongly practiced. However, there was a stronger link between direct
participation and JCCs, which tended to coincide where unionisation was weak. This
indicated strategic management choice between union and non-union forms ofparticipation, either as a result of deliberate union avoidance or an attempt tocompensate for lack of employee voice in the absence of unions. In a couple of cases,
notably food manufacturing and to some extent with rest homes, the degree of unionism
varied significantly between individual workplaces in the sectors, indicating the
likelihood of management’s strategic choice. In other cases, however, the level ofunionisation reflected a sector wide trend; towards high union membership density inschools, and low union membership in hotels. To some extent these results support
previous research suggesting that non-union forms of employee participation may
displace or undercut unionism.
The forms of employee participation also appeared to have a differential association
with QWE, but it is necessary to recognise the importance of industry characteristics inmediating the relationship between participation and QWE, the type of participationand the ranking of QWE itself. If we focus on results within industry sectors, substantial
representative participation was usually associated with better QWE. Union
representation was particularly important at a sectoral level in determining better QWE.
The one exception to this trend, in hotels where union representation is very weakgenerally in the sector, non-union JCC representation as well as direct participation
were associated with good QWE.
Most importantly, at an industry level there is confirmation of an expectation that agood QWE is associated with a high degree of participation. Representative
participation plays a critical role, but in the absence of union representation, JCCs or
direct participation can also play important roles. In other words, it appears to be either
union or non-union participation, but not both, that is associated with positive QWE
outcomes.
This result is significant for two reasons, although it is not possible to generalise froma collection of case studies. First, there is no confirmation that direct participation was
associated with poor QWE outcomes as suggested by some recent literature. Second,
the research contradicts European evidence regarding the complementary role of direct
and representative participation, including union representation. This suggests theimportance of national regimes of employment relations. Further research is warranted
to explore these relationships.
62

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

References
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing
Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca, ILR Press.
Blumberg, P. (1968), Industrial Democracy: The Sociology of Participation, London,
Constable.
Blumenfeld, S. (2010), ‘ Collective Bargaining’ in E. Rasmussen (ed.), Employment
Relationships. Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand (2nd ed.) (pp. 40-55)
Auckland, Auckland University Press.
Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004),. The Dynamics of Employee Relations, Basingstoke,
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bohle, P. and Quinlan, M. (2000), Managing Occupational Health and Safety: A
Multidisciplinary Approach, Melbourne, Macmillan.
Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2009), Research and theory on high-performance work
systems: progressing the high-involvement stream, Human Resource Management
Journal 19(1): 3-23.
Boxall, P., Haynes, P. and Macky, K. (2007), Employee voice and voicelessness in New
Zealand, in R Freeman, P Boxall, & P Haynes (eds) What Workers Say. Employee Voicein the Anglo-American Workplace, (pp. 145-165). Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press.
Bruhn, A. & Frick, K. (2011), Why it was so difficult to develop new methods to inspect
work organization and psychosocial risks in Sweden, Safety Science, 49: 575–581.
Busck, O., Knudsen, H. and Lind, J. (2010), The transformation of employee
participation: consequences for the work environment, Economic and Industrial
Democracy 31(3): 285-306.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004), The meanings andpurpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
15(6): 1149-1170.
Eaton, A. and Nocerino, T. (2000), ‘The effectiveness of Health & Safety committees’,
Industrial Relations, 39(2): 265-89.
Emery, F. and Thorsrud, E. (1976), Democracy at Work, Nijhoff, Leiden.
Fairbrother, P. (1996), Organize and survive: unions and health and safety - a case studyof an engineering unionized workforce, Employee Relations, 18(2): 5-88.
Firth, M., Keef, S., and Mear, R. (1987), Some preliminary evidence on employee shareownership schemes in New Zealand listed companies, New Zealand Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 12(1): 23-30

63

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Frick, K. (2014), The 50/50 implementation of Sweden’s mandatory systematic work
environment management, Policy and Practice in Health and Safety (12)2: 23-46.
Godard, J. (2001), High performance and the transformation of work? The implicationsof alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work, Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 54(4): 776-805.
Gustavsen, B. and Hunnius, G. (1981) New Patterns of Work Reform. The Case of
Norway, Oslo, Oslo University Press.
Hagen, I. and Trygstad, S. (2009), Local Flexicurity: Resolving the conflict between
direct and representative participation, Transfer, 15(3-4): 557-77.
Harris, P. (2004), From Health and Safety to Employee Participation? The Impact of
the New Zealand Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act (2002),
International Employment Relations Review, 10(1): 1-12.
Hasle, P. (2001), Sikkerhedsorganisationens lange vej, Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 3(2):95-110.
Healthand
Safety
at
Work
Act
2015,
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976660.html.
Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Draft Regulations, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/infoservices/employment-skills/workplace-health-and-safety-reform/document-andimage-library/policy-decision-regulations-paper-b.pdf.
Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., and Wilpert, B. (1998) Organizational Participation,
Oxford, Oxford University Press,.
Hvid, H. and Hasle, P. (2003), Human Development and Working Life, Aldershot,
Ashgate.
Hyman, J. and Mason, B. (1995) Managing Employee Involvement and Participation,
London, Sage.
Kalleberg, A., Nesheim, T., and Olsen, K. (2009), Is participation good or bad forworkers? Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in
Norway, Acta Sociologica, 52(2): 99-116.
Karasek, R. and Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and theReconstruction of Working Life, New York, Basic Books.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G., and Oxenbridge, S.
(2006), Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment
Relations Survey, London, Routledge.
Knudsen, H. (1995) Employee Participation in Europe, London, Sage.

64

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Knudsen, H., Busck, O. and Lind, J. (2011), Work environment quality: the role ofworkplace participation and democracy, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 25(3):379-396.
Knudsen, H., Markey, R. & Simpkin, G. (2013), Work Environment and Participation:
the case of teachers in Denmark and New Zealand, Industrial Relations Journal, 44(1):38-56.
Kristensen, T.S., Hannerz, H., Høgh. A. and Borg, V. (2005), The Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire – a tool for the assessment and improvement of thepsychosocial work environment, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health, 31(6): 438-449.
Mackey, K. and Boxall, P. (2008) High-involvement work processes, work
intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences,
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1): 38-55
Markey, R. (2001), Introduction: Global Patterns of Participation in R. Markey, P.
Gollan, A. Hodgkinson, A. Chouraqui, and U. Veersma (eds) Models of Employee
participation in a Changing Global Environment: Diversity and Interaction, (pp. 3-22)
Aldershot, Ashgate.
Markey, R. (2007), Non-Union Employee Representation in Australia: A Case Studyof the Suncorp Metway Employee Council Inc. (SMEC), Journal of Industrial
Relations, 49(1): 187-210.
Markey, R. and Knudsen, H. (2014), Employee Participation and Quality of Work
Environment: Denmark and New Zealand, The International Journal of Comparative
Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 30(1):. 105-26.
Markey, R., Harris, C., Knudsen, H., Lind, J. , and Williamson, D. (2014), Exploring
employee participation and work environment in hotels: Case studies from Denmarkand New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 39(1): 2-20.
Markey, R. and Patmore, G. (2011), Employee participation in health and safety in theAustralian steel industry, 1935-2006, British Journal of Industrial Relations 49(1): 14467.
Markey, R. and Townsend, K. (2013), Contemporary Trends in Employee Involvement
and Participation, Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(4): 475-87.
Meyer, J. and Topolnytsky, L. (2000), Building and maintaining employee
commitment: implications for HRM policy and practice in A. Travaglione and V
Marshall (eds), Human Resource Strategies: An Applied Approach, (pp. 335-66)
Sydney, McGraw-Hill..
NZTRI: New Zealand Tourism Research Institute (2007), Food and Beverage Service
Sector Productivity Study. New Zealand Department of Labour, Auckland.
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory, London, Cambridge
University Press.
65

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):47-66

Rasmussen, E., and Lind, J. (2003), Productive employment relationships: European
experiences, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 28(2): 158-169.
Saksvik, P., and Quinlan, M. (2003), Regulating systematic occupational health andsafety management: comparing the Norwegian and Australian experience, Relations
Industrielles, 58(1):33-56.
Statistics New Zealand (2015), Enterprises by business type and employee count size
2000-15,
accessed
26
Novemberat:
2015http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7610#.
Walters, D. and Frick, K. (2000), Worker participation and the management of OHS:
Reinforcing or conflicting strategies in P. Frick, M. Quinlan, & T. Wilthagen (eds)
Systemic Occupational Health and Safety Management, (pp. 43-66.) Oxford, Elsevier
Walters, D. (2004), Workplace arrangements for worker participation in OHS in E.
Bluff, N. Gunningham and R. Johnstone (eds) OHS Regulation for a Changing Worldof Work, (pp. 68-93) Sydney, Federation Press..
Walters, D., Nichols, T., Connor, J., Tasiran, A. and Cam, S. (2005), The role andeffectiveness of safety representatives in Influencing workplace health and safety,
Research Report 363, London, UK Health and Safety Executive.
Walters, D. and Nichols, T. (2007), Worker Representation and Workplace Health and
Safety, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C. and Smeaton, D. (2003), High-performance
management practices, working hours and work-life balance, British Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 41(2): 175-195.
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., & Lewin, D. (2010). Conceptualizing
Employee Participation in Organizations in P. J. Gollan, D. Lewin, M. Marchington,
and A. Wilkinson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations, (pp.
3-28) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

66

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83

Research Note: The state of human resource (HR) competency
research: Charting the research development of HR competencies
and examining the signals from industry in New Zealand
MARCUS HO, DIEP NGUYEN**, KAREN LO***, CAMERON MCLEAN****,STEPHEN TEO*****Key Words: Human resource professionals, human resource competencies, strategic humanresource management, signalling theory and recruitment

ABSTRACT
Human resource (HR) competencies for HR professionals have been implicated as anindicator of organisations’ pursuit of strategic human resource management (SHRM).
Utilising signalling theory, this research note charts the development of HR competency
research and examines the signals given by organisations in the recruitment of HR
professionals in New Zealand. This research note reports on the signals that organisations
recruiting HR professionals give in their job advertisements. Findings indicate that thedevelopment of HR competency research has progressed to more strategic concerns andfocused on the management of competencies by organisations. In contrast, signals byorganisations appear to emphasise functional rather than strategic competencies.
Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Introduction
In the last few decades there has been an increasing strategic orientation for human resource
management (HRM) function (Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade, & Drake, 2009;
Lepak, Liao, Chung, Harden, & Joseph, 2006; Marler, 2012). Despite this, there has been
criticism that the literature on strategic human resource management (SHRM) has failed tomake an impact on the everyday practice of organisations (Kaufman, 2012;Yeung, 2011).
Such evaluation is surprising considering the enormous impact that SHRM initiatives havefor the organisation (Jiang , Lepak, Jia, & Baer, 2012). Scholars suggest that this lack ofproliferation rests squarely in the human resource (HR) competencies of the HR professional(Han, Chou, Chao, & Wright, 2006; Ulrich, Younger, Brockbank, & Ulrich, 2013).
Empirical research on the HR competencies of the HR professional demonstrate theimportance of their credibility and the HR function to employees (Graham & Tarbell, 2006);
as well as the importance of leadership competencies in mobilising HR strategy (McDermott,Conway, Rousseau, & Flood, 2013). Such is the importance of competencies for the HR
professional that professional associations such as the Human Resource Institute of New
Zealand (HRINZ, 2013) and the Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI, 2013) haveadvocated competency standards for their members.


Marcus Ho, AUT, **Diep Nguyen, AUT, ***Karen Lo, AUT, ****Cameron Mclean, *****Stephen Teo, AUT

67

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
However, there has been little systematic review of the overall HR competencies literature toassess the development of HR competencies for HR roles. Aside from Ulrich and colleagues(Ulrich et al., 2013) which utilised professional associations, practitioners and thought leaders
as the basis for their study (Ulrich, Brockbank, Johnson, Sandholtz, & Younger, 2008b;
Ulrich, Brockbank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995; Ulrich, Younger, Brockbank, & Ulrich, 2012), we
have very little knowledge about how much of the research literature on HR competencies
have impacted on the development of HR competencies required by industry. Such criticalassessment of the development of HR competencies research and the way in which HR
competencies are signalled by organisations has the potential to bridge the micro and macro
aspects of the HR function including highlighting the gaps through which organisations areable to develop their HR readiness and competence (Huselid & Becker, 2011). Utilising
signalling theory, we aim to investigate how HR competencies for HR roles have developed
and assess the HR competency requirements on job advertisements. This research note is thefirst step in a wider research stream on HR competencies and their development for the
professionalisation of HR professionals. Our research question therefore asks, “What do
New Zealand organisations signal in their HR competency requirements of HR
professionals?”This research note is structured as follow, we begin with a theoretical background of how HR
competencies for HR roles in research has developed with an emphasis on recruitment
information as signals to HR professionals. In the methodology section, we then chart thedevelopment of HR competencies for HR roles research highlighting the prominence ofdifferent HR competencies throughout the years. Secondly, we analyse the HR competencies
that industry signals through their recruitment of HR professionals. Results are presented in
the next section including findings from the content analysis based on published articles and aquantitative analysis based on job advertisements. In the final section of this research note,
we discuss some important findings and its implications for theory and practice.

Background
The importance of human resource (HR) competencies has been researched in the literaturefor over 20 years. Beginning with the seminal work by Ulrich and associates at theMichigan school of business, the general consensus was that the development of HR
competencies had the ability to promote the HR function by adding value to the businessthrough proficiencies and through strategic partnership (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich, 1998). Thus, as
the HR function became more strategic, the impetus for the professionalisation of HR roles
and specialised knowledge too became critical (Baill, 1999; Kochan & Dyer, 1993; Lawson& Limbrick, 1996). In a recent review, Ulrich, Younger, Brockbank and Ulrich (2013)
identified six domains of competencies that are as critical for the HR profession including
strategic positioner, credible activist, capability builder, change champion, human resource
innovator and integrator, and technology proponent.
Their categorisation of HR
competencies was identified from surveys of HR professionals (Ulrich et al., 2013).
Proclaiming that the HR profession has arrived, the authors go on to suggest that HR
standards should impact “hiring, orienting, promoting, training and assessing HR
professionals” (p.468). However, such assertions are rarely straightforward. The authors
themselves have noted the changes in the HR function and competencies associated with the
HR roles since their initial data gathering wave beginning in 1988/1989 (Ulrich, Brockbank,& Yeung, 1989; Ulrich et al., 1995). However, the context for these changes have not beensystematically assessed.
68New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83

Several authors have argued convincingly that HR’s strategic contribution should encompass
more functional competencies such as negotiating trust and fairness as these competencies are
far more critical in managing multiple stakeholder perspectives important for sustainable
performance (Graham & Tarbell, 2006; Han, Chou, Chao & Wright, 2006). Moreover, others
have argued that HR’s contribution was not a function of its strategic contribution per se, but
as a function of its effectiveness in operational activities (Teo and Rodwell, 2007). Thesestudies highlight the need to evaluate how HR competencies have evolved over time alongwith the changing strategic role of the HR function. Despite the literature distinguishing
between strategic and functional HR competencies in the alignment of HR value with theorganisation (e.g., Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997), evidence suggests that HR
practitioners are still spending more time on operational HR activities (e.g. providing support
to line managers and HR transactions), than making a strategic contribution (Kulik, Cregan,Metz, & Brown, 2009; Ramlall, 2006). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that HRcompetencies in organisations may continue to evolve in organisations (Guest & Conway,
2011; Soderquist, Papalexandris, Ioannou, & Prastacos, 2010). Legge (1995) suggests thatthe rhetorics of HRM and the realities of practice in HR have further muddied the waters.
Taken together, these studies suggest that the adoption of HR competencies for HR
professionals has significant complexity.
One area that has not received much attention despite its importance for organisations is therecruitment of HR professionals. This is surprising considering the importance oforganisational attraction in ensuring human capital advantage (Den Hartog, Caley, & Dewe,2007; Marques, 2006). As such the focus on how organisations recruit HR professionals
should provide insights into the importance organisations place on HR competencies for their
HR professionals. In addition, the messages used in recruiting such as job advertisements
provide information about the role and the organisation (Rynes & Barber, 1990). Recently,
signalling theory has been described as gaining momentum in the management literature(Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). Signalling theory is based on information
economics research on the outcomes of information asymmetries in markets (Spence, 1973).
Spence’s (1974) theory presented the hiring of employees by organisations as a central
problem. In this case, organisations wanting to employ productive individuals and potential
employees wanting a monetary exchange for their abilities employ signalling mechanisms(such as education as a proxy for their abilities) to surmount information asymmetries
between the potential hiring organisation and the potential employees. Within thisframework, concepts such as immutable attributes (such as gender and sex) are known as
indices while alterable attributes are named signals. In addition, the framework recognises
the reduction of uncertainty, costs of equilibrium, and perception as important processes in
the interpretation of the signals (Karasek & Bryant, 2012). Based on this premise, signallingtheory has been used to explain acquisition premiums (Reuer, Tong, & Wu, 2012),
promotions (DeVaro & Waldman, 2012), recruitment (Celani & Singh, 2011), and selection(Bangerter, Roulin, & König, 2012). Signalling theory provides an important insight into theexchange between actors in the employment relationships and the role of HRM (Cadsby,
Frank, & Maksimovic, 1990; Kirmani & Rao, 2000).
In terms of recruitment, the way in which the organisation signals to potential applicants of ajob role represents the beginning of the relationship between two agents such that as potential
psychological contract begins with the signals transmitted via websites or job advertisements(Rynes, 1991; Suazo, Martínez, & Sandoval, 2009). Recruitment begins with the sole
purpose of identifying and attracting potential employees (Barber, 1998). Therefore, job
69

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
advertisements provide a fruitful avenue to examine the signals that organisations make about
the required competencies and roles (De Cooman & Pepermans, 2012; Dineen & Williamson,2012). Thus in order to assess the dissemination of HR competencies utilised byorganisations, assessment of the job advertisements used to recruit HR professionals is an
important step.

In summary, while studies exist of what HR competencies required (e.g., Ulrich et al., 2013),
there is little examination of the context of these changes. Therefore, it is timely to assess theevolution of HR competency research since the 1990s in order to understand how
competencies for HR roles has evolved. Thus, we report on the development of the HRcompetency literature through automated content analysis. In addition, we report on an
analysis of job advertisements of HR professionals in order to assess the competency signalsthat organisations in New Zealand have for HR professionals.

Methods
The research design of this research note utilised a quantitative approach in both analysing
the development of HR competency research as well as the analysis of the job
advertisements. We charted the changing concepts in the HR competency literature using
content analysis aided text-mining software (www.leximancer.com) as a research tool. In
this research note, we utilised articles about competencies for the HR function from abusiness database (Business Source Premier). Moreover, we analysed job advertisements of
HR roles collected from an online database (www.seek.com). These methods are briefly
described in the following section. For the purposes of this research note, we distinguish theconcept of HR competency from the concept of HR practices. HR competency refers to thepersonal characteristics and behaviours required of an individual HR practitioner to achieveeffective performance in his/her job (McEvoy et al., 2005; Ulrich et al., 2008b). Whereas HR
practices refer to a set of interrelated activities aimed to ensure the management of employees
contributes to effective organisational performance (e.g. recruitment & selection) (Delery &Doty, 1996; Schuler & Jackson, 1987).
HR competency research development: Journal articles 1990-2012
In order to chart the movement of concepts in HR competency research, we collectedscholarly, peer-reviewed articles published on HR competencies in Business Sources Premier
database from 1990-2012. Business Source Premier is one of the top business researchdatabases, featuring the full text for more than 2,200 journals in all business disciplines,
including HRM. Pdfs of the articles were downloaded as a unit of analysis. Utilising theentire article as data for analysis allowed a much deeper analysis of the content and scope ofthe HR literature on competencies for the HR function. We utilised “human resourcecompetencies” as a general search term in the Business Source Complete database. In
addition, we limited the search to scholarly (peer reviewed) journals. A total of 141 articles
were obtained from this initial search term. However, from this initial set of articles, 26 were
excluded because they were non-specific HR roles (such as line managers), 37 were about
competencies for non-HR organisational level functions (such as logistics), 12 were excluded
as miscellaneous articles (such as non-management, book reviews, research reports, researchreviews or news articles), seven were about generic competencies for organisational strategy,
and finally, eight were excluded because they were non-English articles. The final dataset
70

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
yielded 51 articles. The results of the database search were rated by the co-authors to ensureinter-rater reliability resulting in 97% agreement for the final dataset for analyses (agreement
on 137 out of the 141 articles).

Leximancer (ver. 4) was utilised to analyse the content themes and concept relationships in
the articles. The automated content analysis utilises word frequency and co-occurrence ofdata that is then aggregated to identify families of words and terms that are used together inthe data. Two phases of co-occurrence information extraction is performed that uses both astatistical algorithm (examining semantic and relational features of the data) and nonlinear
dynamics and machine learning (Cretchley, Rooney, & Gallois, 2010). By utilising
automated content analysis in this research note, researcher bias is eliminated as a priori
identification of words and terms are identified automatically. The automatic generation andco-occurrence data that occur frequently from the data are then treated as concepts. Concepts
are then clustered together (denoted as themes) and this can be displayed in a concept map foran overview of the structure and content of the data. Each theme is named after the mostprominent concept in that group which is also indicated by the size of the dot in the concept
map. Further analyses are available including rank-ordered concept list, concept frequency,
total concept connectedness (in a hierarchical order of appearance), direct inter-concept
relative co-occurrence frequency and total (direct and indirect) inter-concept co-occurrence(shown as proximity of one concept to another in the map).
The reliability and validity of Leximancer has been demonstrated by it stability,
reproducibility, correlative validity and functional validity (Smith & Humphreys, 2006).
Minor data cleaning was performed at each analytical step of the analyses. These steps
included automatic merging of plural and singular words (such as organisation andorganisations), and removing common function words and general terms (such as “et al”,
“results”, etc) from the concept seeds. A growing number of publications have alsoestablished Leximancer as a rigorous research tool (Campbell, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2011;
Cretchley et al., 2010; Cummings & Daellenbach, 2009; Gapp, Fisher, & Kobayashi, 2008;
Middleton, Liesch, & Steen, 2011).
We conducted a second analysis utilising Leximancer with a semantic comparison of each
decade in the dataset. Concept maps were also created for each decade for comparative
purposes for this research note. These separate analyses allowed a much greater detail to be
examined about the conceptual nature and concept relationships in each individual period
without relational forcing in the overall analysis (Cretchley et al., 2010). We assessed twotime periods (1990-1999 and 2000-2012) by creating data subsets of 10-year periods. The
two separate time periods consisted of 20 articles for the 1990-199 time period and 31 articles
for the 2000-2012 time period. These two decades were selected because the competencies
approach were analogous to changes in the HRM movement from HRM to SHRM (Boxall &Purcell, 2003; Lundy, 1994). In addition, HR competencies were widely disseminated in
HRM culminating in several seminal books by Ulrich distinguishing a model of competencies
and HRM in the late 1990s (Teo, 1998; Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich, 1998). This provides a natural
point (1990-1999 and 2000-2012) to assess the direction and dissemination of competencies
in HRM over the two decades. Leximancer provided an identification of where each decade
was situated in relation to the overall landscape of the dataset. This allows an examination of
the semantic focus of each period and highlight changes over time.

71

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83

Analysing industry demands of HR competencies: Job advertisements for HR professionals
Job advertisements were collected between December 2012 and February 2013 from NZ’s
most widely used online job site (www.seek.com). The search term of “human resources”
and “New Zealand only” search limiter was used to gather job advertisements for HR roles.
The initial search results gleaned 1,000 results. However, job advertisements which were notfor HR roles (e.g., general administrator, sales representative) or limited term (e.g., part time,casual) were eliminated from this initial search resulting in 111 Job advertisements. Each job
advertisement was scanned, marked with a reference number and filed into an excel database
based on the type of role (HR Manager, HR Director). Job advertisements were then broken
down into semantic categories and identified competencies categorised into knowledge,
skills, and abilities (KSAs). For example, from the job advertisement (semantic category) “delivery of exceptional operational performance through engagement of people andleadership”, we categorized as “leadership” under knowledge (KSA category).
Along with the competencies, we also recorded some relevant demographic and job data suchas name of the advertising company and work conditions. Manual input of each job
advertisement into KSAs were performed by one of the researchers and verified by another.
Descriptive analysis and frequency analysis of the competencies from the job advertisements
were then performed. A total of 793 competencies were identified from the job
advertisements. Frequencies (%) were calculated on the number of KSAs competencies
identified from the overall dataset. Frequencies for specific HR roles were calculated on eachHR role total competencies. In addition, we further categorised the KSAs identified into
Ulrich et al’s HR (2008a) competencies domain to allow for further comparisons. Utilisingthese categories is important as professional bodies such as the Human Resource Institute of
New Zealand (HRINZ) have used Ulrich et al.’s (2012) seven HR competencies domains as
the basis for their standards (HRINZ, 2013). Thus, the focus on signals that organisations
give can be understood in the context of these idealised competency requirements.

Results
The Leximancer analysis of the 51 articles shows the most frequently occurring concepts.
Figure 1 presents the overall map of concepts and themes, with decades indicated (seeAppendix). As can be seen from the concept map, HR is one of the most central themes (HR,business, professionals, role, and managers; theme connectivity=100%) indicating that therole and utilisation of HR is a central theme in the HR competencies literature. Associatedwith the concept of HR is the link towards competencies with the strategic aspect of businessand research. In addition, competencies (competencies, model; theme connectivity=67%)reflected the importance of competencies and competency models. The third most important
theme is that of Organisation (organisation, resource, people; theme connectivity=50%)
which specifies organisational features and resources in HR competencies. Overall, theconcept map displays that competencies were associated with aspects of training anddevelopment, the job itself and performance. These concepts were associated with the72

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
increased need to contribute to the performance of the organisation including its role in
SHRM.

Table 1. Top ten concepts from HR competency journal articles 1990-2012
Word-like
Competencies
Business
Organisation
Management
Professionals
Resource
Performance
Model
Role
Knowledge

Count
1564
502
476
460
457
387
385
351
334
323

Relevance (%)
100
32
30
29
29
25
25
22
21
21

In addition, the top ten concepts based on their frequency from the literature can be identified(refer to Table 1). The top concepts include business, organisation and management while
the lowest ranked concepts (not shown) were customer, activities and capabilities. Of the top
ten concepts, Competencies (100%) of the literature specifying the competencies required for
HR roles while model (22%) specifies competency models for HR roles, five (business,organisation, management, resource and performance) were about the relationship ofcompetencies with the organisation, and three (professionals, role and knowledge) were about
the individual aspects of HR competencies. We further specified comparative analysis of thedecade changes in concepts in the HR competencies literature (refer to Figure 2, see
Appendix).

Table 2. Ranked concepts by decade (1990-1999 and 2000-2012)73

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83

Figure 2 displays a table of the top ten concepts by decade (1990-1999 and 2000-2012). The
quadrant map allows a visual comparison of the changes in concept centrality of theliterature. In addition, Table 2 displays the list of top ten concepts according to decade. Oneof the main findings is the significant increase in the concept of management from 10th place
to 1st place over the two decades (prominence from 0.8 to 1.1). In summary, the main
findings from the analysis of the research literature revealed the move towards strategic
contribution of HR competencies for HR professionals. Moreover, the change over the
decades saw a move towards more strategic competencies for the organisation including theneed to find new ways to manage HR competencies for SHRM.
The analysis on job advertisements revealed the specific competencies that are signalled to
HR professionals. With regards to the KSAs identified for all HR roles, there were somesimilarities and differences between the HR roles. Overall, there were more knowledge andskills described while little information about abilities (except for creativity) was mentioned
for HR professionals. Generally, all HR roles demanded knowledge of HRM operational
activities such as recruitment (5.42%), performance management (3.66%), learning anddevelopment (4.79%), remuneration (1.89%), and employment relations (3.28%). In terms ofskills, communication (7.57%) and leadership (3.92%), as well as IT skills or computer
literacy (3.40%) were important competencies requested. Table 3 summarises thecompetencies associated with the HR roles identified by Ulrich and HRINZ (HRINZ, 2013;
Ulrich et al., 2008a).

Table 3. Sample of competencies identified from job advertisements

74

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
Prominent competencies of HR professionals acrossadvertisements
Competence
Percentage
elements
Recruitment
5.42%
Performance
3.66%
Knowledge
Learning and Development
4.79%
Remuneration
1.89%
Employment relations
3.28%
Communication
7.57%
SkillsLeadership
3.92%
IT skills or Computer literacy
3.40%

job

In terms of specific HR roles, HR director competencies were the least represented in job
advertisements (4.79%). The most common HR roles advertised were HR advisor (25.85%)
followed by HR manager (20.68%) and other HR (20.30%; other HR included
administrative/focus roles in HR including HR training and development and employment
relations focus). This was followed by HR Admin and Entry level HR (13.37%) andSpecialist HR (15%; Specialist HR included categories such as HR consultants or recruitment
consultants). As Table 3 demonstrates, the job advertisements reveal that competencies for
HR roles varied across the different HR positions in organisations: the higher position, thefewer operational priorities and the more strategic capabilities required.
Categorising the KSAs identified from the job advertisements around the six dimensions
developed by Ulrich and his associates (Ulrich et al., 2008a), reveal that HR director’competencies were prioritised around leadership, organisation culture and strategy (Table 4).
Specifically, the categorisation of KSAs from the job advertisements showed that operational
executors (55.24%) was highest, followed by culture and change steward (39.46%); talentmanager/organisational designer (42.09%) and strategy architect (39.46%). For the HR
manager roles, a significant proportion of competencies requested were as an operational
executor (73.20%). Similarly, competencies of HR Advisor, Other HR, Other Advisor and
HR Admin were associated with the role as operational executors (HR Advisor=84.94%;
Other HR=95.61%; and Other Advisor=84%; HR Admin=96.23%). To summarise,competencies signalled by organisations in their recruitment of HR professionals were far
more functional than strategic. All HR roles required knowledge or functional competencies.
In addition, senior roles signalled far more strategic and change management competencies
and stakeholder and relationships building competencies.

Discussion
Our first discussion deals with the development of HR competency research. Overall, it canbe observed that as the strategic imperative for HRM has also extended to understanding how
HR competencies contribute to this change (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009; Teo, 1998). In
particular, the search for the role of HR competencies in organisational performance
dominates the development of HR competency research. This is in line with current thinking
that the black box of performance in the HRM-performance link remains little understood(Guest, 2011). Additionally, there is increasing attention that these performance links lies inunderstanding the role of HR competencies (Guest & Woodrow, 2012; Morris et al., 2009).
75

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
Analysis of the changes from 1990-1999 to 2000-2010 demonstrate that concerns regarding
management perception, skills and people around competencies are an imperative forpotentiating HRM for performance (Campion et al., 2011; Heneman & Milanowski, 2011).
Additionally, our initial analysis of the signals from industry show that HR competencies for
HR roles in NZ are focused on functional rather than strategic competencies. The HRcompetencies in NZ appear to be fixated on the operational aspects of the function withgreater emphasis on competencies as operational executors. Looking further into thesecompetencies the results show that senior HR roles (HR director and other advisor) weremore strategic than the other roles and were far more focused on stakeholder management(credible activist and business ally). In terms of the competencies of Ulrich et al.’s (2008a)
dimensions, the signals that job advertisements give tend to emphasise systems and processes
rather than relationships or strategy (Kulik et al., 2009). HRM in NZ therefore appear to be
at focused on operational efficiencies and not on the strategic dimensions. One potential
explanation is that HR professionals in NZ are more focused on operational and functional
aspects of HRM, which some authors have argued is the way HR departments can be more
effective (Teo & Rodwell, 2007). This is counterintuitive to the development of HR
competency research that demonstrates increasing need for strategic orientation for HR roles.
This suggests that intuitively the role of HR competencies and professionals play in SHRM is
far more complex. An additional implication for the lack of strategic competencies in signal
from job advertisements, especially for senior positions have real implications for the
recruitment of a potentially strong pool of HR professionals (Gruber, MacMillan, &Thompson, 2012; Wright & McMahan, 2011). Increasingly organisations utilise the job
advertisement as a powerful tool for attracting employees with high potential (Edwards,
2010; Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen, & Schoonderbeek, 2013; Lievens, 2007; Martin, Gollan,& Grigg, 2011). These signals may form the basis of the organisation’s competitive
advantage (Johnson, Winter, Reio, Thompson, & Petrosko, 2008).
This research note has a number of implications for the organisation and HR professionals.
Firstly, the results indicate that all HR roles require operational competence and be efficientin HR systems and processes. Senior level HR roles are associated with a stakeholder focus
and may contribute to the roles’ credibility and professionalisation. Such stakeholder focus
can be explained by the NZ employment relationships framework requiring more interaction
with unions as well as the importance of relationships building with internal stakeholders(Haworth, 2011; Macky, 2004). However, as many professional bodies (e.g., HRINZ, AHRI,
Society of Human Resource Management, etc) continue to develop accreditation for the HR
professional based on the Ulrich model, the changing nature of the HR function will continue
to be advanced by further research and the changing nature of professional practice. As more
research evidence becomes available, HR competencies and their outcomes will be at theforefront of accreditation from these professional bodies.
This research note demonstrates that the evolving role of HR competencies require a focus on
the evolving nature of HRM contributions to organisational performance and the ability oforganisations to signal the minimal competency standards for the HR professionals. Our
research note suggests further improvements could be made with regards to how HR
competencies are utilised and signalled to the HR community (Barber, 1998; Heneman &Berkley, 1999; Rynes, 1991). This brings up two possibilities that could be part of the wider
discussion on the value of HR competencies. Firstly, in assessing the contribution thatassociations such as HRINZ make about providing the competency level quality for juniorlevel roles and secondly to focus on the contribution that such associations can make for the76

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
strategic competencies of its members. The findings on the junior and administrative level
HR roles suggests that organisations seek HR professionals at this level as an entry level
position or that organisations are tasked at providing training for these competencies.
Regardless, this has implications for the role of professional associations in managing theprofessionalization of the function with future efforts focused on providing the developmentof operational and functional efficiencies to gain credibility.

Conclusions
This research note has charted the development of HR competency research and assess thestate of HR competencies that organisations signal to potential HR professionals. As thestrategic nature of HRM demand more strategic competencies, this research notedemonstrates that the relationships between HR competencies and SHRM is far more
complex than just the need to accumulate and exploit the potential of strategic competencies
in people. Based on signals that organisations signalled in this research note, HR
professionals in New Zealand are expected to focus on operational efficiencies rather than on
strategic dimensions. Such findings reiterates the need to examine the ways in which HR
competencies, particularly strategic ones are utilised and perceived in organisations. Thissuggests that NZ organisations can use job advertisements as a powerful tool to attract
potentially qualified HR professionals.

We acknowledge that this research note has some important limitations which limit thegeneralisability of findings. Firstly, while we have attempted to be inclusive by using aprominent research database for article search, this has limitations in that our search only
produced articles that are indexed by this database. In addition, our use of job advertisements
was limited to the past 3 months in the Australasian summer which may limit the
representativeness of job advertisements as this period may have less activity. Future
research could examine a larger scope of articles (by including more journal databases e.g.,
ABI/INFORMS and broad search terms such as “competencies”) and job advertisements overa longer time frame (for example, a year). Therefore, a future research direction is todetermine the adoption and dissemination of HR competencies as they are driven by thecontextual and organisational processes (Yeung, 2011). All things being equal, substantial
gains can be made for the role of HR competency development for both the individual andthe organisation (Shaw, Park, & Kim, 2013).

References
AHRI. 2013. Model of excellence.
Baill, B. 1999. The changing requirements of the HR professional--implications for the developmentof HR. Human Resource Management, 38(2): 171.
Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. 2012. Personnel Selection as a Signaling Game. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 97(4): 719-738.
Barber, A. E. 1998. Recruiting Employees: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. 2003. Strategy and human resource management. New York: Macmillan.
Cadsby, C., Frank, M., & Maksimovic, V. 1990. Pooling, separating, and semiseparating equilibria in
financial markets: some experimental evidence. Review of Financial Studies, 3(3): 315-342.
77

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. R. 2011. Understanding consumer conversations
around ads in a web 2.0 world. Journal of Advertising, 40(1): 87-102.
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. 2011.
Doing competencies well: best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology,64(1): 225-262.
Celani, A., & Singh, P. 2011. Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review,40(2): 222-238.
Chadwick, C., & Dabu, A. 2009. Human Resources, Human Resource Management, and theCompetitive Advantage of Firms: Toward a More Comprehensive Model of Causal Linkages.
Organization Science, 20(1): 253-272.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. 2011. Signaling Theory: A Review andAssessment. Journal of Management, 37(1): 39-67.
Cretchley, J., Rooney, D., & Gallois, C. 2010. Mapping a 40-Year History With Leximancer: Themes
and Concepts in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 41(3): 318-328.
Cummings, S., & Daellenbach, U. 2009. A Guide to the Future of Strategy?: The History of Long
Range Planning. Long Range Planning, 42(2): 234-263.
De Cooman, R., & Pepermans, R. 2012. Portraying fitting values in job advertisements. Personnel
Review, 41(2): 216-232.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. 1996. Modes of Theorizing In Strategic Human Resource Management:
Tests Of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurations. Performance Predictions. Academyof Management Journal, 39(4): 802-835.
Den Hartog, D., Caley, A., & Dewe, P. 2007. Recruiting leaders: an analysis of leadershipadvertisements. . Human Resource Management Journal, 17: 58–75.
DeVaro, J., & Waldman, M. 2012. The Signaling Role of Promotions: Further Theory and Empirical
Evidence. Journal of Labor Economics, 30(1): 91-147.
Dineen, B. R., & Williamson, I. O. 2012. Screening-oriented recruitment messages: Antecedents andrelationships with applicant pool quality. Human Resource Management, 51(3): 343-360.
Edwards, M. R. 2010. An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review,
39(1): 5-23.
Elving, W. J. L., Westhoff, J. J. C., Meeusen, K., & Schoonderbeek, J.-W. 2013. The war for talent?
The relevance of employer branding in job advertisements for becoming an employer ofchoice. Journal of Brand Management, 20(5): 355-373.
Gapp, R., Fisher, R., & Kobayashi, K. 2008. Implementing 5S within a Japanese context: an
integrated management system. Management Decision, 46(4): 565-579.
Graham, M. E., & Tarbell, L. M. 2006. The importance of the employee perspective in thecompetency development of human resource professionals. Human Resource Management,
45(3): 337-355.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. 2012. From Minds to Markets: How Human Capital
Endowments Shape Market Opportunity Identification of Technology Start-Ups. Journal ofManagement, 38(5): 1421-1449.
Guest, D., & Conway, N. 2011. The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a 'strong HR
system' on organisational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 22(8): 1686-1702.
Guest, D., & Woodrow, C. 2012. Exploring the Boundaries of Human Resource Managers'
Responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1): 109-119.
Guest, D. E. 2011. Human resource management and performance: still searching for some answers.
Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1): 3-13.
Han, J., Chou, P., Chao, M., & Wright, P. M. 2006. The HR competencies-HR effectiveness link: A
study in Taiwanese high-tech companies. Human Resource Management, 45(3): 391-406.
Haworth, N. 2011. A Commentary on Politics and Employment Relations in New Zealand: 20082011. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 36(2): 23-32.
Heneman, H. G., & Berkley, R. A. 1999. Applicant attraction practices and outcomes among small
businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(1): 53-74.
78

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. 2011. Assessing human resource practices alignment: A casestudy. 50: 45-64.
HRINZ. 2013. Competencies.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. 2011. Bridging Micro and Macro Domains: Workforce
Differentiation and Strategic Human Resource Management. Journal of Management, 37(2):421-428.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1997. Technical and strategic human resourcesmanagement effectiveness as determinants of firm performance, Vol. 40: 171-188: Academyof Management.
Jiang , K., Lepak, D. P., Jia, J. U., & Baer, J. C. 2012. How does human resource management
influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(6): 1264-1294.
Johnson, A., Winter, P. A., Reio, J. T. G., Thompson, H. L., & Petrosko, J. M. 2008. Managerial
recruitment: the influence of personality and ideal candidate characteristics. Journal ofManagement Development, 27(6): 631-648.
Karasek, R., & Bryant, P. 2012. Signaling theory: Past, present, and future. Academy of Strategic
Management Journal, 11(1): 91-99.
Kaufman, B. E. 2012. Strategic Human Resource Management Research in the United States: A
Failing Grade After 30 Years? Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2): 12-36.
Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. 2000. No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling
Unobservable Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2): 66-79.
Kochan, T. A., & Dyer, L. 1993. Managing transformational change: the role of human resource
professionals. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(3): 569-581.
Kulik, C. T., Cregan, C., Metz, I., & Brown, M. 2009. HR managers as toxin handlers: The buffering
effect of formalizing toxin handling responsibilities. Human Resource Management, 48(5):695-716.
Lawson, T. E., & Limbrick, V. 1996. Critical Competencies and Developmental Experiences for Top
HR Executives. Human Resource Management, 35(1): 67-85.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. S., & Drake, S. 2009. Strategic humanresource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review,
19(2): 64−85.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., Harden, E. E., & Joseph, J. M. 2006. A conceptual review ofhuman resource management systems in strategic human resource management research.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,, 25: 217−271.
Lievens, F. 2007. Employer branding in the Belgian Army: The importance of instrumental andsymbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees. Human
Resource Management, 46(1): 51-69.
Lundy, O. 1994. From personnel management to strategic human resource management.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(3): 687-720.
Macky, K. A. 2004. Organisational Downsizing and Redundancies:The New Zealand Workers
Experience. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 29(1): 63-87.
Marler, J. H. 2012. Strategic Human Resource Management in Context: A Historical and Global
Perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2): 6-11.
Marques, J. F. 2006. The new human resource department: A cross-functional unit. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 17(1): 117-123.
Martin, G., Gollan, P. J., & Grigg, K. 2011. Is there a bigger and better future for employer branding?
Facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17): 3618-3637.
McDermott, A. M., Conway, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Flood, P. C. 2013. Promoting Effective
Psychological Contracts Through Leadership: The Missing Link Between HR Strategy and
Performance. Human Resource Management, 52(2): 289-310.
McEvoy, G. M., Hayton, J. C., Warnick, A. P., Mumford, T. V., Hanks, S. H., & Jo Blahna, M. 2005.
A competency-based model for developing human resource professionals. Journal ofManagement Education, 29(3): 383-402.
79

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
Middleton, S., Liesch, P. W., & Steen, J. 2011. Organizing time: Internationalization narratives ofexecutive managers. International Business Review, 20(2): 136-150.
Morris, S. S., Wright, P. M., Trevor, J., Stiles, P., Stahl, G. K., Snell, S., Paauwe, J., & Farndale, E.
2009. Global challenges to replicating HR: The role of people, processes, and systems.
Human Resource Management, 48(6): 973-995.
Ramlall, S. J. 2006. HR competencies and their relationship to organizational practices. Performance
Improvement, 45(5): 32-43.
Reuer, J. J., Tong, T. W., & Wu, C.-W. 2012. A Signaling Theory of Acquisition Premiums: Evidence
from IPO Targets. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3): 667-683.
Rynes, S. L. (Ed.). 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new
research directions. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. 1990. Applicant attraction strategies: an organizational perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 15: 286-310.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Linking Competitive Strategies with Human Resource
Management Practices. Academy of Management Executive (08963789), 1(3): 207-219.
Shaw, J. D., Park, T.-Y., & Kim, E. 2013. A resource-based perspective on human capital losses,
HRM investments, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(5):572-589.
Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. 2006. Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural
language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2): 262-279.
Soderquist, K. E., Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., & Prastacos, G. 2010. From task-based tocompetency-based. Personnel Review, 39(3): 325-346.
Spence, A. M. 1974. Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3): 355-374.
Suazo, M. M., Martínez, P. G., & Sandoval, R. 2009. Creating psychological and legal contracts
through human resource practices: A signaling theory perspective. Human Resource
Management Review, 19(2): 154-166.
Teo, S. 1998. Changing Roles of Australian HRM Practitioners. Research and Practice in Human
Resource Management, 6(1): 67-84.
Ulrich, D. 1997. Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and deliveringresults. Boston Harvard Business School Press.
Ulrich, D. 1998. Delivering Results: A New Mandate for Human Resource Professionals. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School, Press.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., Sandholtz, K., & Younger, J. 2008a. HR competencies:
Mastery at the intersection of people and business. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human
Resource Management.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., Sandholtz, K., & Younger, J. 2008b. Human resourcecompetencies: mastering at the intersection of people and business. Alexandria, VA:
Society for Human Resource Management.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., & Yeung, A. 1989. Beyond Belief: A Benchmark for Human Resources.
Human Resource Management, 28(3): 311-335.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A. K., & Lake, D. C. 1995. Human Resource Competencies: An
Empirical Assessment. Human Resource Management, 34(4): 473-495.
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. 2012. HR from the Outside In: Six
Competencies for the Future of Human Resources. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. D. 2013. The State of the HR Profession.
Human Resource Management, 52(3): 457-471.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 2011. Exploring human capital: putting 'human' back into strategic
human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2): 93-104.
Yeung, A. 2011. Celebrating 50 years: How robust and relevant is our HR knowledge? Human
Resource Management, 50(4): 451-453.

80

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83

Figure 1. Theme and concept map of HR competency journal articles 1990-2012

81

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83

Figure 2. Concept centrality and frequency by decade (1990-2012 and 2000-2012)82

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):67-83
Table 4. Summary of HR competencies for HR roles
Percentage of HR Professional’s competencies (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other characteristics)
Positions
HR Director
HR Manager
HR Advisor
HR AdminOther HR
Frequency (overall)
4.79%
20.68%
25.85%
13.37%
20.30%
Credible
31.57%
21.35%
8.80%
14.15%
5.59%
Relationships
Activist
55.24%
73.20%
84.94%
96.23%
95.61%
Systems
and Operational
Executors
Processes
Business Ally
36.83%
24.40%
18.57%
0%0%
Talent42.09%
26.84%
16.12%
0%0%Manager/
Organisational
Designer
Organisational
Cultureand 39.46%
23.79%
14.18%
0%14.28%
capabilities
ChangeStewardStrategy
39.46%
23.18%
18.07%
0%12.41%
Architect

Other Advisor
15%
12.60%
84.00%
33.60%
35.28%

34.44%

34.44%

83

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Research Note: The state of New Zealand Union membershipin 2014
SUE RYALL* and STEPHEN BLUMENFELD**The Centre for Labour, Employment and Work (CLEW) has collected data on union
membership each year since enactment of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991. Inthat time, there has been a dramatic decline in the share of New Zealand’s workforce
that belong to a trade union, as well as a concomitant shift in the composition andstructure of union membership in New Zealand. While declining union membershipover the past three or four decades is an international phenomenon and much has been
written on the impact of this on employment conditions and the rise of social andincome inequality, the drop in trade union membership and density experienced in New
Zealand in the first few years of the ECA 1991 was far more precipitous than in virtually
any other country around the globe.
Within the labour movement and amongst academics in the field of industrial relations,
there has been much discussed and written on the need for union ‘renewal’ and‘revival’. Unions have attempted to address this pressing need by taking a broader
approach to organising new members, often manifest in terms of a shift away fromcollective bargaining as the primary means of achieving better pay and conditions forunion members. The ‘Living Wage” (SFWU), the movement to end ‘zero-hour’contracts (Unite), and that to promote gender equity in pay (NZPSA and SFWU) are
but three examples of such campaigns, which reflect attempts by organised labour toextend unions’ influence and support base to workers who may feel disenfranchisedfrom traditional bargaining relationships.
So what does union membership in New Zealand look like in 2014?

CLEW Survey
The union membership survey conducted by CLEW is distributed to all registered tradeunions in New Zealand in late March of each year with a target closing date of 30 April.
That survey asks those unions to account for their membership numbers as at 31
December of the previous year. At September 2015, the time of initial processing of
CLEW’s latest union membership survey, 78 of the 137 registered unions had returned
completed surveys to CLEW. Union membership data for a further 48 registered unions
was sourced from the Registrar of Unions. All unions have a statutory obligation tosubmit a return to the Registrar by 1 June each year of their membership numbers at 1st*

Sue Ryall, Centre Manager, Centre for Labour, Employment and Work, Victoria University of
Wellington**
Stephen Blumenfeld, Director, Centre for Labour, Employment and Work, Victoria University of
Wellington

84New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

March in that year. This leaves 11 registered trade unions for which union membershiptallies for the year ending 31 December 2014 are unknown.
For the purposes of interpreting our data it is important to note the following:
1. One union, in education and training, has changed the way it categorises‘membership’ for the purposes CLEW’s survey.1 That union now includes only
financial members in their survey return, whereby they had previously included
other categories of membership – student members and ‘suspended’ memberships– in its tally. This change in practice has resulted in an apparent reduction of close
to 5000 members in CLEW’s accounting for December 2014 and a discrepancy ofaround 3000 from that returned to the Registrar of Unions for March of this year.
2. Across the 48 unions for which membership data was sourced from the Registrar,
the distribution of total membership across sectors has been estimated from past
survey returns or assumptions based on the industry coverage area, as indicated in
the Register of Unions.2
3. Where unions did not allocate 100% of their membership to an industry or where
no industry was indicated on the union membership return to CLEW, thosemembership numbers have been added to the category ‘no industry’.

Total union membershipWith these caveats in mind, total union membership in New Zealand appears to havecontinued its decline since the beginning of the global financial crisis (GFC) andrecession (see Table 1). To this end, there appears to have been in excess of 20,000
fewer union members in New Zealand at the end of 2014 than six years prior, at the endof December 2008. Noteworthy in this regard is that that drop in union membership did
not occur during or immediately after the GFC (2008-2010), when overall employment
in New Zealand fell. But, rather, New Zealand trade union membership declined,
instead, between 2011 and 2013, hence commencing nearly two years after the end of
the GFC and recession in New Zealand.
Also important to note in this regard is that the precipitous decline in union membershipsince 2011 has slowed in the year to December 2014, notwithstanding that there wasalso a concomitant increase of around 4 percent in both total employment and wage andsalary earners in 2014. Nonetheless, as employment has increased during the economic
recovery, union membership numbers have been virtually static. One possible
explanation for this phenomenon lies in the age distribution of union members. That is,some have suggested that unions have failed in the past several years to attract young
people to their ranks to replace older members as they retire and that union membershipis, therefore, effectively aging faster than both the workforce in general and thecountry’s population.

1

In this regard, CLEW asks respondents to its survey to account for their ‘total financial membership’.
MBIE, on the other hand, ask for ‘total membership’ by industry (at level 1 ANZSIC) and gender.
CLEW further asks for the composition of the membership (as a percentage) by gender, by industry (atlevel 2 ANZSIC) and by ethnicity.
2
See http://www.societies.govt.nz/cms/registered-unions/register-of-unions.

85New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Although similar data is not currently available for New Zealand, recent data publishedby the Australian Statistics Bureau3, which includes a breakdown of age structure ofunion membership and union density, suggests it is more likely that those inemployment aged 55-64 are trade union members than is the case for younger workers
across the ditch. To this end, whereas more than one-fifth (21 percent) of employed
Australians in the 55-64 age group belong to a union for their main job, only 15.7
percent of Australian workers in the 35-44 age group and 11 percent in the 25-34 age
group are union members. Moreover, while the union density is higher in the older agegroups, more than one fifth (22 percent) of trade union members are aged 20-34 years,
and half of Australian trade union members are aged 35-54.
Table 1: Trade Unions, Membership and Union Density 1991-2014
Year

Number ofUnion membershipunionsPotential union membership
Total
Wage and
employedsalarylabour force²
earners²

Union Density(1) / (3)(1) / (4)%%

Dec 1991
Dec 1992
Dec 1993
Dec 1994
Dec 1995
Dec 1996
Dec 1997
Dec 1998
Dec 1999
Dec 2000
Dec 2001
Dec 2002
Dec 2003
Dec 2004
Dec 2005
Dec 2006(1)514325428160409112375906362200338967327800306687302405318519329919334783341631354058377348382538

(2)
66
58
67
82
82
83
80
83
82
134
165
174
181
170
175
166

(3)
1509400
1514200
1545400
1612000
1686600
1741200
1750600
1739300
1766400
1800000
1846100
1906500
1955900
2024100
2084800
2134700(4)1199000
1190500
1215300
1269600
1331700
1375100
1401700
1387000
1395600
1425200
1482200
1540100
1579700
1637900
1702100
1759700

(5)
34.1
28.3
26.5
23.3
21.5
19.5
18.7
17.6
17.1
17.7
17.9
17.6
17.5
17.5
18.1
17.9

(6)
42.9
36.0
33.7
29.6
27.2
24.7
23.4
22.1
21.7
22.3
22.3
21.7
21.6
21.6
22.2
21.7

Mar 20081
Dec 2008
Dec 2009
Dec 2010
Dec 2011
Dec 2012
Dec 2013
Dec 2014

373327384777385280386276372891369200365927361419

147
141
145
145
134
133
126
125

2173000
2175900
2147000
2156600
2188200
2183500
2226900
2305300

1792000
1798000
1791800
1804100
1819100
1817000
1881400
1951600

17.2
17.7
17.9
17.9
17.0
16.9
16.4
15.7

20.8
21.4
21.5
21.4
20.5
20.3
19.4
18.5

Source:Notes:HLFS - Persons Employed by Sex by Employment Status (Annual-Dec) Table reference:
HLF005AA; Centre for Labour, Employment and Work Survey 2014.
¹The 2007 figures are from the DOL Union Membership Return Data.
²Figures in column 3, 4, 5, & 6 are different from those reported in previous years due to the
population rebase by Statistics New Zealand to take account of the latest census results.
The large decrease in membership overall is largely a result of one Union changing the w ay they
categorise 'membership' so that only 'financial' members are reported, a reduction of approx. 4000 members.

3
Australia Bureau of Statistics Characteristics of Employment, Australia, August 2014, Cat. No.
63330DO010_201408. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6333.0

86New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Industry Spread of trade union membership
Union membership remains predominantly in the public sector and community services
industries with 62 percent of union members employed in these parts of the economy(see Appendix Table 2). A quarter of union members in New Zealand work in healthcare or social assistance, and just over a fifth (22 percent) work in education andtraining. Outside of these predominantly public sector industries, union membership
remains highest in manufacturing, and transport, postal and warehousing, all of which
represent a far smaller share of the economy than was the case three decades ago.
Furthermore, with the exception of education and training, the largest numeric drop inunion membership in the year to 31 December 2014 has occurred in healthcare andsocial assistance, and professional, scientific, technical and administrative services(business services). Construction also experienced a large drop in union membership(11.2 percent) in 2014, despite employment in the industry growing 12.6 percent overthat 12 month period.
Despite these trends, a number of industries saw growth in union membership in theyear to 31 December 2014. Union membership in the wholesale trade industry, forinstance, grew by 70 percent, albeit off a very small level of membership and low
industry union density (approximately 1 percent). The ‘utilities’ industries andinformation media and communications industry group – at 16.8 percent and 13.9
percent, respectively – both experienced substantial growth in union membershipduring 2014, and both of these increases are at a greater rate than the growth in
employment in these parts of the labour force. This was also true for a number ofindustries located in the private sector, including manufacturing, retail trade andaccommodation, financial and insurance services, and rental, hiring and real estateservices. Nevertheless, public sector union membership decreased over that period,
during which time the number of people employed in the sector increased, hence
resulting in a fairly substantial decline in public sector union density in the 12 months
to the end of December 2014.

Union density
Overall, union density in New Zealand fell from 19.1 percent to 18.5 percent of wage
and salary employees in the year to 31 December 2014, after sitting at 20 percent two
years earlier, at the end of 2012 (see Tables 3 and 5). The country’s public service still
maintains the highest levels of union density with close to two-fifths of employees inthat sector belonging to a union. However, over the last five years, union density in
New Zealand’s public sector has fallen, as growth in employment has outstripped thatin union membership.
Furthermore, the only private sector industry that comes close to matching public sector
union density is transport, postal and warehousing (38 percent). Mining (26.5 percent),
manufacturing (21.5 percent), and utilities services (20 percent) are the only other partsof the private sector where union density is greater than one in ten. It is also of concern
for unions that their areas of greatest numbers are those where total employment is, infact, decreasing. For that matter, it is this, rather than an increase in union membership,that is driving increased density in those parts of the labour force. In order to keep paceoverall, therefore, unions will need to grow their membership numbers at least at thesame pace as employment in the growing technology and service industries.
87

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Table 3: Change in union density across industry groupings 2013-2014
Indus try Group
Agriculture, Fores try and Fis hing
MiningManufacturing
Electricity, Gas , Water and Was te Services
Cons truction
Wholes ale Trade
Retail Trade and Accom odation
Trans port, Pos tal and Warehous ing
Information Media and Telecommunications 1
Financial and Ins urance Services
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services
Prof'l, s cientific, technical, adm in. and s upport s erv's
Arts , Recreation and Other Services
Public and com munity s ervices
Pub lic Administration and Safety
Education and Training
Health Care and Social Assistance
Overall Density

Approx. dens ity Approx. density
2013 (%)
2014 (%)
2.9
2.6
29.3
26.5
21.2
21.4
19.9
20.0
5.2
4.1
0.6
1.0
6.2
6.2
36.2
38.1
7.2
8.6
5.2
6.1
1.1
1.3
3.1
2.6
8.1
7.5
41.4
43.2
41.5
39.8
46.5
43.8
41.4
40.1
19.1

18.5

Source: Centre for Labour, Employment and Work Union Survey 2013 and 2014.
HLFS 2013 and 2014 (Decemb er quarter)

Table 4a: Public, private and not for profit union membership,
Sector2014

2013

Change 20132014 (No.)

Change 20132014 (%)

Private Sector

149536149807-271

0%Public Sector

204351209465-5114-2%

Not for profit
7122
6144
978
Source: Centre for Labour, Employment and Work Survey 201416%

Table 4b: Historical Union Membership by Sector
Private Sector Public Sector
2000

1532001653002001

159577170342

2002

1581051766782003

160208181423

2004

163927190131

2005

175415

201933

2006

185143

197395

2008

184066200711

2009

1716172119082010

176049210227

2011134444238447

2012

1563672123502013

155952156658209465204351

2014
Source: Centre for Labour, Employment and Work Survey 2000-2014

88New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Despite this gloomy picture for its unions, New Zealand is not alone in experiencing adeclining trend in trade union density. Of the four countries that we monitor for tradeunion membership levels (Australia, UK, USA and Canada), only Canada has
maintained union density (30.5 percent) across the last five years. Australia, where
union density among wage and salary workers currently stands at around 16.7 percent,has experienced a similar rate of decline in union membership and density to New
Zealand over the past three years.

Union membership in the public and private sectors
Underscoring the fact that union membership in New Zealand – much like in most otherOECD countries – remains primarily a public sector phenomenon, 59 percent of wageand- salary employees in the country’s public sector belong to a trade union, while only
12 percent of private sector employees are unionised (see table 5). Also, as in 2013, 57
percent of trade union members in New Zealand work in the public sector, despite a fallof 2 percent for total union membership in that sector.
The higher level of union density in the public sector is common across the four
comparator countries to which we refer in Table 5. Canada has the highest
concentration of union members in the public sector, with three quarters of such
employees in that country belonging to a union. As for Australia, a media releaseaccompanying the August 2014 release of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’
Characteristics of Employment in Australia notes, “...a higher proportion of public
servants were trade union members in their main job (39 percent) compared to those in
the private sector (11 percent).” Only the USA has fewer union members who work in
the public sector than in the private sector. But, for the other countries in ourcomparison, there is 30- 40 percent more public sector union members than private
sector.

Table 5: Public/private sector union density – international comparisons 2014
Country

Union density
18.5%
16.7%
25.0%
11.1%

Public sector
59.0%
n/a
54.3%
35.7%

Private sector Public/private ratio6
12.0%
1.30
n/a
n/a
14.2%
1.39
6.6%
0.97
1.42
16.5%

New Zealand1
Australia2
UK3
USA4
Canada5
30.6%
75.8%
Sources:¹Statistics NZ, QES, Table QEX018AA Dec 2014 - Filled jobs by sector by status in employmen t;
HLFS - Persons Employed by Sex by Employment Status (Annual-Dec 2014) Table HLF005AA; CLEW Survey 2014;²Australia Bureau of Statistics, Characteristics of Employment, Australia, August 2014. (uses the denominator 'total employees').
³Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Trade Union Membership 2014: Statistical Bulletin , June 2015.
4

United States Department of Labour, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Economic News Release: Union Members 2014, 23 Jan 2015
Statistics Canada, Table 282-0077: Labour force survey estimates (LFS), employees by union coverage,

5

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), sex and age group, unadjusted for seasonality,
CANSIM (database) June 2014.
6This ratio is the total public sector union membership divided by the private sector union membership.

89

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Size of Unions
There is very little change in the spread of union membership across different size ofunions in New Zealand from that which we last reported for the year to 31 December
2013 (see Table 6). One union that had previously reported a membership of more than
10,000 members is now just under that figure, thus increasing the proportion of unions
who have a membership in the range 5000 to 9999.
Table 6: Membership by union size 1991 – 2014, selected years
Membershiprange

Dec 1991#

Members

Dec 1999%#

Members

Dec 2005

Dec 2013

Dec 2014%#

Members%#

Members%#

Members

%

19436

5

93

16811

5

92

16434

5

56801

15

21

47237

13

21

48117

13

Under 1000

4

2750

1

48

12703

4

140

1000 - 4999

39

87119

17

22

43709

14

23

5000 - 9999

9

76489

15

3

19669

7

4

30050

8

2

13746

4

3

23981

7

75

8

27106172

1028813379

927288776

175377348126365927125 361419

2904

2891

10000+

14

347967

Totals66514325

Av. Size

7793

68

9

226324823024053688

2156

Source: Industrial Relations Centre Surveys 1991, 1999, and 2005; Centre for Labour Employment and Work Surveys 2013 and 2014.

While the average size of a New Zealand trade union, based on those who returned
surveys, is 2891 members, the median is only 145 members. It would have to bequestioned, though, as to how unions with such a small membership are able to sustain
a level of service to their members such as is required in today’s workplace. Forty-fiveunions (36 percent of the total) have a membership of under 100 members, 31 of which
are private sector unions, 10 are in local government and local government tradingorganisations, and 4 are in central government. Many of these small unions are clearly
only operating in one workplace or with one employer. It is also likely that most are
reliant on the goodwill of volunteers to service their membership or that the union exists
only to ensure the continuation of a collective agreement.
Despite the significant number of relatively small unions, 83 percent of union members
in New Zealand belong to one of twelve unions. This implies that the vast majority of
employees who belong to a union in this country are members of unions with a solid
membership base and which are likely to be well-resourced organisations. As would be
expected from the earlier discussion of dominance of the public sector with regard tounion membership, of the four unions with a membership greater than 30,000 members,
only one is in the private sector.
Union amalgamation is also likely to continue as a trend in the face of declining overall
union membership. In the past few years the Tertiary Education Union was formed withthe amalgamation of the unions for university staff and polytechnic staff; FIRST Union
was formed from the FINSEC and NDU amalgamation; and the Engineering, Printing
and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) merged with the NZ Building Trades Union.
Although not covered in our 2014 survey year, in 2015 the NZ Public Service
Association has merged with Southern Local Government Officers Union and E Tū wasformed from the amalgamation of the Service and Food Workers Union and the EPMU.
Preparations are also well underway for the Flight Attendants and Related Services
Association (FARSA) to join E Tū and bring its membership to more than 50,000.
90

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

GenderAs has been the case for more than a decade, a majority of union members in New
Zealand (57.5 percent) are female (see Table 7). Nevertheless, female membership islargely concentrated in the three large state sector unions – the Public Service
Association, the NZ Nurses Organisation (NZNO) and NZEI (primary teachers union).
These are also the three largest unions in New Zealand at 31 Dec 2014, and among
them is 60 percent of the total female union membership in the country. In addition,
smaller unions tend to have higher male membership. Only twenty-four of the eightyfour unions with less than 500 members have a majority of female members, and only
35 percent of the total membership in unions with less than 500 members is female. In
contrast, eight of the fourteen unions with more than 4000 members have a majority offemale members and 61 percent of the total membership of these unions is female.
Table 7: Female union membership 2004-2013
Year%Female

2004

52.0

2006

54.9

2008

55.3

2009

55.5

2010

56.9

2011

58.8

2012

57.0

2013

57.8

2014
57.5
Source: Industrial Relations Centre Surveys 2004 to
2012. Centre for Labour, Employment and Work
Survey 2013 & 2014

NZ Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) affiliation

The number of unions affiliated to the NZCTU has also decreased in the past year, as
has the percentage of union members who are affiliated (through their union) to the
CTU (see Table 8). However, the change in reporting of the NZCTU-affiliatededucation union’s membership has impacted these figures. The NZCTU affiliatedunions tend to be the larger unions. Of the 84 unions with less than 500 members only
seven are affiliated to the NZCTU and three of those affiliated unions have more than
400 members. With the exception of one union, all the unions with membership over
4000 (a total of 14 unions) are affiliated to the CTU.
Finally, with many of the recent union amalgamations happening amongst NZCTU
affiliated unions, it seems that future amalgamations are unlikely to impact small
unions. That is, it will likely be the mid-sized and larger unions which look toamalgamate in the foreseeable. But, if the NZCTU is looking to maintain union
membership, it may need to work with the smaller unions, whether they be affiliated ornot, to form stronger, better resourced unions through amalgamation.

91

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Table 8: NZCTU affiliation 1991 – 2013Year

NZCTU Affiliate
unionsMembers

Percentage of total
m'ship in CTU affiliates

4344511686.5
1991
33339261
79.2
1992
33
32111975.8
1993
2729695978.91994
2528438378.5
1995
2227846382.2
1996
2025357877.4
1997
1923826277.7
1998
1923574478.0
1999
2627357085.9
2000
3228973287.8
2001
3429346687.7
2002
3629744087.1
2003
3831045187.7
2004
3733339588.4
2005
3934028188.9
2006
2830356983.9
2007
3734301789.4
2008
4134163789.4
2009
3934745390.0
2010
3433395689.6
2011
3532675389.6
2012
3632541288.9
2013
33
31586787.4
2014
Source: Industrial Relations Centre Surveys 1991- 2012; Centre forLabour Employment and Work Survey 2013.

92

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 40(2):84-93

Appendix 1: Table 2
Table 2: Distribution of union members and employees across industry sectors at December 2014
Union
Union
Change inChange inmembership membership
membership
membership
2014
2013
2013-2014 (No.) 2013-2014 (%)

Industry grouping

Change in wage
and salay
Wage & salary Wage & salaryearners 2013- earners 2013 earners 20142014 (%)
(000)
(000)

Union
density

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

2151

2445

-294

-12.0%

-0.9%

84.4

83.6

2.6%

Mining

1749

1816

-67

-3.7%

6.5%

6.2

6.6

26.5%

Manufacturing

47677

47313

364

0.8%

-0.6%

223.7

222.4

21.4%

20.2%

19.4%

17

20.3

20.0%

127.3

143.3

4.1%

Electricity, gas, water and waste services

4062

3379

683

Construction

5834

6572

-738

-11.2%

12.6%

70.1%

9.6%

78.9

86.5

1.0%

-0.3%

-0.9%

314.1

311.4

6.2%

Wholesale trade

835

491

344

Retail trade and accomodation

19265

19328

-63

Transport, postal and warehousing

34283

33939

344

1.0%

-3.9%

93.8

90.1

38.1%

Information media and telecommunications

3280

2825

455

16.1%

-2.6%

39.2

38.2

8.6%

Financial and insurance services

3832

3754

78

2.1%

-5.0%

65.8

62.5

6.1%

Rental, hiring and real estate services

305

280

25

8.8%

-2.8%

25

24.3

1.3%

Prof'l, scientific, technical, admin. and support serv's

5161

6162

-1001

-16.2%

0.8%

200

201.5

2.6%

Arts, recreation and other services

8587

8689

-102

-1.2%

7.3%

107.4

115.2

7.5%

Public and community services

223586228359

-4773

-2.1%

2.3%

528.3

540.7

41.4%

49325

48828

497

1.0%

5.3%

117.6

123.8

39.8%

82174

86135

-3961

-4.6%

1.3%

185.1

187.5

43.8%

92087

93396

-1309

-1.4%

1.7%

225.6

229.4

40.1%

813

63
0.3%

1946.6

1951.618.5%

Pub lic Administration and Safety
Education and Training

1

Health Care and Social AssistanceNo industry 2
TOTAL

-3996
-1.1%
361419365415
Source: HLFS 2013 and 2014 (December quarter); Centre for Labour, Employment and Work Union Survey 2013 and 2014.

Note: 1 The large decrease in membership overall and in education in 2014 is largely a result of one Union changing the way in which they categorise 'membership'.
2

Union Members not allocated to particular industries on the Union Survey return

93