Trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled employees: The case of the
UK's Transport Salaried Staffs' Association Neurodiversity project
The paper contributes to debates on trade unions as employment facilitators for
disabled employees, as well as adding to current knowledge of and insights to trade
union disability practices. This is achieved through an analysis of a government
funded trade union project designed to facilitate employment for neurologically
impaired employees working in the UK transport industry. Little attention has been
given in the HRM literature to an analysis of trade unions as facilitators for disabled
employees, especially in the case of employees impaired by dyslexia, dyscalculia,
dyspraxia, ADHD and Asperger syndrome. Using primary data gathered from a range
of trade union stakeholders, the paper provides in-depth insights into trade unions
involvement in disability practices. The main findings suggest trade unions, even in
times of declining memberships, ongoing employer resistance and government
intervention in employment relations, retain a capacity to provide both
traditional/collective and specialised/individualised employment facilitation for
disabled employees. However, this capacity is threatened by the likely withdrawal of
important government funding for projects that can play a critical role in the
facilitation of employment for disabled employees.
1
1.
Introduction
Research suggests disabled employees have more negative experiences of
employment than non-disabled employees (Fevre, Robinson, Lewis and Jones 2013;
Jones 2013). Disability continues to be viewed in organisations as an individual
problem requiring individualistic interventions (Foster 2007). In addition, disabled
employees are disproportionately affected by the growth of emotional labour in
service organisations (Wilton 2008) and often grow to accept medical and neo-liberal
discourses surrounding disability, which can lead to disabled employees seeing
themselves as unable to compete and to take part in society as full-worthy and
active citizens (Holmqvist, Maravelias and Skålén 2012). However, research also
points towards improved employment prospects for disabled employees (Jones and
Wass 2013), with recent disability legislation having a positive impact on HRM
practices (Woodhams and Corby 2007) and disabled employees more involved in
activism surrounding employment issues (Schur 2003). Within this context, disabled
employees are more likely than non-disabled employees to be members of a trade
union (Jones 2013). Further, trade unions represent a key source of information for
disabled employees (Schur 2003). As such, given the often negative employment
experiences of disabled employees, and the already key role of trade unions, further
research is needed to understand how trade unions can support disabled members
and facilitate positive employment experiences.
Individualistic approaches to employment facilitation appear to dominate the
fields giving most attention to such matters. Indeed, medical and disability literature
concentrates on individual approaches to employment facilitation, involving self2
advocacy (Meyer 2001), self-efficacy (Munir, Randall, Yarker and Nielsen 2009),
HRM/occupational health professionals (Coole, Radford, Grant and Terry 2012), line
managers (Haafkens, Kopnina, Meerman and van Dijk 2011) and external specialist
campaign organisations (Nesbitt 2000). Yet it is trade union, or collective facilitation
practices, that attract most attention in the HRM literature (e.g. Schur 2003; Moore
and Wright 2012). While it is questioned whether trade unions are structurally
compatible with the interests of disabled members (Humphrey, 1998), more recent
research suggests trade unions have been successful at getting disability issues on to
wider organisational agendas (Bennett 2010; Foster and Fosh 2010). However, the
extent to which trade unions are able to collectively represent disabled employees
whose needs are varied remains unclear.
Even though trade unions are the most commonly cited employment
facilitators for disabled employees in the HRM literature, such literature is scarce
and often subsumes disability into broader equality and diversity agendas. The
contribution of this paper, however, is to add to current knowledge of and insights
to trade union disability practices and in doing so contribute to current debates on
trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled employees.
This paper presents an analysis of a government funded trade union project,
namely the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association's (TSSA) Neurodiversity project,
established to facilitate employment for neurologically impaired employees. The
paper is organised as follows. Firstly, a review of literature on recent trade union
modernisation initiatives, trade unions and disability practices and neurological
conditions and neurodiversity, is presented. The second section describes and
3
discusses the methodological approach adopted for the current research, namely
focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders within the Neurodiversity project.
The third section provides an overview of the case, that of the TSSA and the
Neurodiversity project. This leads to an analysis of the findings, identifying key
benefits of trade unions involvement in traditional and specialised disability
practices, as well as identifying the realities of such ventures. The final section is a
discussion of the findings and the contribution of the paper, how even in times of
continued trade union decline, trade unions can make a unique and positive
difference to the working lives of an historically neglected disability group.
2.
Trade unions, disability and neurodiversity
2.1
Trade union modernisation and disability
Understanding the trade union disability practices that form of focus of the current
research requires a discussion concerning recent government attempts to
"modernise" the UK trade union movement. The UK trade union modernisation
agenda relates to the creation of the Union Learning Fund (ULF), which began in
1998 and has paid out in excess of £100m to trade unions since its inception (Stuart,
Cook, Cutter and Winterton 2011). The aim of the ULF is to support unions in
encouraging learning by workers and to support workers who wish to learn more
through work (Findlay and Warhurst 2011). However, the future of the ULF is
currently in doubt, especially if the UK elects a majority Conservative Party
government at the May 2015 general election. The modernisation agenda also
4
relates to the Union Modernisation Fund (UMF), which ran from 2005 to 2010, and
provided trade unions with a further £7.2m of funding to 'support innovative
projects to help speed unions’ adaptation to changing labour market conditions'
(Stuart, Martínez Lucio and Charlwood 2009, p. 25). The modernisation agenda is key
to the current research, in that the trade union in question has built their
Neurodiversity project on funding from both initiatives.
The trade union modernisation agenda is said to have come with a range of
significant benefits. While a range of research related to the ULF and UMF focus on
trade union revitalisation (e.g. Findlay and Warhurst 2011; Heyes and Rainbird
2011), a further crop of research points towards the benefits of such initiatives to
vulnerable groups. Such initiatives are said to bring broad benefits, including
enhancing trade union relevance in the contemporary workplace (Forrester 2004)
and providing trade unions with 'new tools to win old arguments' (Heyes and
Rainbird 2011). The initiatives are also said to bring more specific benefits for
vulnerable employees, including the creation of opportunities for trade unions to
form alliances with new actors in employment relations (Mustchin 2014). In addition,
such projects allow trade union representatives to take on roles that no one in the
HR department does (Cassell and Lee 2007), as well as create important 'safe havens'
for members (Cassell and Lee 2009).
Taken together, it appears government
initiatives have the potential to make important differences to how trade unions can
facilitate employment facilitation for disabled employees.
However, there have been critics of government attempts to modernise the
UK trade union movement. Such criticisms, for example, suggest government
5
orchestrated trade union modernisation initiatives are covert attempts by
governments to de-collectivise UK employment relations (Stuart, Martínez Lucio and
Robinson 2011) and further dilute the historical regulatory functions of trade unions
(Ewing 2004), In addition, it has been suggested that such initiatives concern support
for short-term agendas that employers are unlikely to seriously engage with
(Forrester and Payne 2000), or employer attitudes to such projects is likely to put
significant constraints on their outcomes (Wallis, Stuart, and Greenwood 2005).
Generally, it has also been suggested trade union modernisation agendas are to the
longer-term detriment of the labour movement (McIlroy and Croucher 2013). Such
criticisms are of relevance to the current research as the realities of trade union
modernisation initiatives are likely to undermine the uniqueness of what trade
unions can contribute to employment facilitation for disabled employees, that of
politicising the disabled and integrating the concerns of disabled employees into
wider organisational agendas (Foster and Fosh 2010).
2.2
Disability and contemporary trade unions
The research related to trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled
employees provides similarly mixed accounts of relevance and impact. For instance,
disabled employees are more likely to be in a trade union than non-disabled
employees (Jones 2013), as such indicating the key role trade unions have for
representing disabled employees. Further, trade union membership and recognition
exposes disabled employees to information and support networks they are less likely
to find in non-unionised workplaces. Moreover, Schur (2003) highlights how
unionised disabled employees are more likely to report a case of disability
6
discrimination than non-union disabled employees and the non-employed disabled.
Research also indicates trade unions to be proactive in terms of representing
disabled employees in the workplace, leading to disabled employees being less
passive to poor treatment (Foster and Fosh 2010).
It has been demonstrated that trade unions also directly affect the facilitation
of employment for disabled employees. Bennett (2010), for example, found
managements to actively seek help on disability practices if a trade union
representative with disability expertise is at hand. Bacon and Hoque (as cited in TUC
2010), moreover, found disability practices to be the most common activity of
equality representatives. This research indicated equality representatives spend
more time on developing disability practices than any other equality practice, have a
greater sense of impact on disability practices than other equality practices, spend
more time per week on disability practices than other equality practices, and report
higher levels of contact with management on disability over any other equality
practice.
There are, however, a range of problems noted with trade union involvement
in disability practices. For instance, disabled employees may have higher levels of
trade union membership than non-disabled employees, yet disabled employees
employed by unionised organisations continue to have less than equal promotion,
training and pay opportunities (Schur 2003). Research indicates employers are least
likely to have a committee or forum for disability practices compared to other
equality practices (Bacon and Hoque as cited in TUC 2010). Equality representatives
also report a range of problems with disability practices. Moore et al's. (2012), for
7
example, reported on equality representatives having problems dealing with
disability discrimination, as disability commonly intersected with other forms of
discrimination, such as, age, sexual orientation and gender. A further study by
Moore and Wright (2012), moreover, found the notion of equality representatives to
be problematic. The key issue is that equality representative activism is based on
broad concepts of equality and justice, rather than specific identities or categories,
with broad forms of activism negating against specialised forms of self-organisation.
Foster and Fosh (2010) provide a particularly extensive critique of the
disability practices of contemporary trade unions. They found the widespread
informal nature of disability practices in UK organisations led to an ambiguous status
for disability trained trade union representatives. The reality of informality is that
disability trained trade union representatives found it difficult to get employers to
appreciate the efforts involved in leveraging disability practices on to wider
organisational agendas, as well as appreciating the reality of representing disabled
employees in individual cases. Foster and Fosh also noted how trade union
representatives found disability law difficult to understand and to put into practice.
The findings also point to trade union representatives undermining the collective
nature of trade unionism campaign by seeking advice on disability law from nontrade union sources, such as voluntary/campaign organisations or governmentfunded agencies.
8
2.3
Neurological impairments and neurodiversity
The five neurological impairments (dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, ADHD and
Asperger syndrome) to be covered in the current research are recognised by the
UK's Equality Act 2010. The focus on this particular range of neurological
impairments relates to the funders of the current research (TSSA and the ULF) and
the trade union project that is analysed in this paper. Each is a life-long impairment
that has substantial effect on both everyday and working life. It would be unlawful,
as such, for a UK employer to deny a dyslexic employee reasonable adjustments
based on the impairing qualities of the employee's dyslexia. From a theoretical
standpoint this paper draws distinction between impairment and disability.
Following the social relational model of disability (Thomas 2004), disability reflects
an oppressive social relationship between those designated (or diagnosed) with
impairments and those without such impairments. This important theoretical
distinction allows for an analysis of the practices and processes which can ‘disable’
employees with impairments. In line with the social model, which also underpins UK
legislation (The Disability Discrimination Act and more recently the Equality Act,
2010), this paper refers to disabled employees, rather than employees with
disabilities. Doing so recognises that disability does not reside within the individual,
rather it is the consequence of the broader environment, including HRM and line
management practices.
Each of the five impairments noted above come with unique and common
qualities. For instance, dyslexia impairs reading, dyscalculia impairs numeracy,
dyspraxia impairs movement, ADHD impairs attention span and concentration, and
9
Asperger syndrome impairs social interaction. Further, common qualities found
across such impairments include poor memory and organisation skills. However, it is
common for individuals to have co-occurring neurological impairments (Hendrickx
2010), there is overlap between each medical description (Portwood 2000), and all
are widely known as "invisible" impairments. It is estimated that nearly 10 per cent
of the UK adult population has a neurological impairment (Butterworth and Kovas
2013), indicating a high degree of relevance to HR and diversity management
practice.
Neurological impairments have in recent times been related to the emergent
concept of neurodiversity. Advocates of neurodiversity challenge the conventional
notion of simply seeing dyslexia, for example, as a cognitive impairment (Krcek
2013). Advocates of neurodiversity also tend to subscribe to the social model of
disability, which recognises the disabling role of the environment (Carter and
Markham 2001). As such, advocates of neurodiversity call for neurological
impairments to be conceptualised as part of normal human variation (Paletta 2013),
and to be recognised in wider debates about human variation that currently
emphasise race and gender (Waltz 2013). A range of criticisms have, however, been
aimed at the concept of neurodiversity. For instance, the concept remains widely
unrecognised and unknown (Baker 2011). Neurodiversity is also criticised for
representing an idealistic take on very real medical problems (Herrera 2013). In
addition, it can also run the risk of biological essentialism. However, the term has
been adopted as a political organising tool for those with neurological impairments
such as Autism (Baker 2011).
10
There is a limited range of literature on employment facilitation for
neurologically impaired employees, for example, Moody’s (2009) work on dyslexia,
dyscalculia and employment, Howard’s (2009) on dyspraxia and employment, Carnes
and Holloway’s (2009) work on ADHD and employment, and Hurlbutt and Chalmer’s
(2004) work on Asperger syndrome and employment. However, such literature is
largely of an advisory nature and untested in an empirical setting. The literature is
also typically descriptive and bereft of reference to trade unions and debates about
trade unions as employment facilitators. The paper moves to a description of the
study undertaken, beginning with a presentation of the details of the study context.
3.
Study context: The TSSA and the Neurodiversity project
The TSSA is a small trade union with approximately 22,000 members, of which 70 per
cent are male (Certification Officer 2012). The TSSA has lost a third of its
membership in the past ten years, down from 33,000 members in 2004 (Certification
Officer 2004). The TSSA represents highly skilled transport employees, such as,
administrative, clerical, supervisory, managerial, professional, technical, research,
executive and allied grades (TSSA 2013). The TSSA has recognition agreements with
approximately 100 variously sized transport organisations operating in the UK (TSSA
n.d.).
The Neurodiversity project began in 2011. However, it is predated by a TSSA
project based on dyslexia called Lost for Words (TSSA 2011). Lost for Words was
funded by the final round of the UMF that focused on vulnerable employees, with
11
the TSSA receiving a grant of £30,000 to set up and run the project (Stuart and
Martínez Lucio 2014). The impetus for this project came from anecdotal reports of
members not taking up learning, development and promotion opportunities, as well
as difficulties arising from undiagnosed, unsupported impairments. Stuart and
Martínez Lucio's research highlighted how the UMF allowed the TSSA to develop a
full time equality officer, embed equality issues within TSSA's wider structures, as
well as change employer practice towards dyslexic employees.
The TSSA Neurodiversity project began in late 2011. Since 2011
approximately 40 Neurodiversity Champions have been trained by the TSSA, with
around 20 Neurodiversity Champions active as of June 2014. Neurodiversity
Champions are trained by two part-time employed NOs. Beyond training required of
a Union Learning Representative, becoming a Neurodiversity Champion involves
three days of training about neurological impairments, including general hidden
disabilities screening training. A further training day is set aside for applying this
specialist knowledge in the workplace, in a trade union context. The Neurodiversity
project was set up by one of the current NOs and the TSSA's EDO. Then on, the two
NOs, both with pre-existing knowledge and experience of neurological impairments,
have managed the Neurodiversity project, with periodic input from the EDO and one
RO.
A key difference between the dyslexia and the Neurodiversity project, other
than a widening of impairments, is the move from two pilot studies to a national
campaign raising awareness, supporting individuals and wherever possible
attempting to get neurodiversity included in bargaining agendas. The UK trade union
12
movement has other projects related to neurological impairments, such as, Unison
(n.d.) and dyslexia and the TUC (2014) and autism, but the Neurodiversity project is
the only one of its kind in the UK at the present time. External funding for the
Neurodiversity project is expected to end in March 2015. The end of funding is likely
to include the loss of the two NOs, with the responsibility for the Neurodiversity
transferring to the wider Union Learning TSSA organising team.
4.
Research methodology
4.1
Research approach
Qualitative research was determined to be an efficient approach as little is known
about the issue under investigation (Gilbert 2008). This approach allows researchers
to be flexible and pragmatic, as well as conduct a broad and thorough form of
research (Davies 2006). Within this broad approach a case study approach was
adopted, as it was expected that the findings would be shaped by the complexity
and particular nature of the setting (Stake, 1995). Further, this approach allowed for
data to be collected from a range of key stakeholders and informants of the project
under evaluation.
4.2
Methods, fieldwork and ethics
A range of research methods were deployed in order to gain a wide, yet in-depth
understanding of the TSSA Neurodiversity project. The intention, wherever practical
to do so, was to build such insights over time, avoiding wherever practical to do so a
13
snap-shot of events and viewpoints. Aside for a need for some secondary research to
establish details of the origins of the TSSA Neurodiversity project, the main methods
involved primary data captured from various trade union stakeholders, via focus
groups and interviews. All participants were recruited through email and via the
TSSA membership database.
Fieldwork began with focus groups involving trade union members, with the
over-arching aim to reveal membership attitudes to the TSSA Neurodiversity project.
Focus groups took place in July and August 2012. Focus groups were used to
examine ways in which people in conjunction with one another construe the topics
in which the researchers are interested (Bryman and Bell 2011). Six focus groups
were conducted in London and one in York, involving a total of 44 UK transport
employees (see Table 1 for a full breakdown of focus group participant
demographics). Focus group participants were 27 to 63 years of age, with an average
age of 49 years. Each focus group was limited to one hour. The topics discussed in
the focus groups followed a wider spread of topics than the current paper, yet
included a range of discussion points on various angles of employment facilitation.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Between October 2012 and May 2013, twenty-two telephone interviews
were conducted with neurologically impaired transport employees. Semi-structured
interviews were used because they allow major questions to be asked and such
questions can be asked out of sequence if need be (Fielding and Thomas 2008).
Telephone interviews were used because the sample was spread out in geographical
14
terms, with working patterns of transport employees representing a further barrier
to face-to-face interviews. Interviewees were 27 to 70 years of age, with an average
age of 50 years. Full details of interviewee impairment, gender and job titles are
viewable in Table 2. Interview topics were wide-ranging with a focus on employment
facilitation. Interview length varied from 30 to 60 minutes, averaging approximately
40 minutes per interview.
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
The third and final stage of the fieldwork involved semi-structured interviews
with four TSSA Union Learning Representatives, or "Neurodiversity Champions"
(referred to in the Findings section as NC1, NC2, NC3, NC4), and four TSSA
organisers. TSSA employees interviewed include the TSSA's Equality and Diversity
Organiser (EDO), one Regional Organiser (RO), and the two TSSA Neurodiversity
Organisers (NO1 and NO2). All of these interviews took place in TSSA offices during
May and June 2014. These eight interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and
averaged out at approximately 75 minutes each. Six of the eight participants in this
instance disclosed a neurological or suspected neurological impairment when
interviewed. All Neurodiversity Champions were male and three of the four TSSA
organisers were female. Neurodiversity Champions were asked questions principally
about frontline experiences of being a Neurodiversity Champion, including
awareness raising, servicing members, working with managements and the future of
the Neurodiversity project. TSSA organisers were interviewed about the origins of
the project, how the project was run, the status of the project at the TSSA, what
15
aspects of the project have been working well and not so well, and the future of the
project.
Steps to protect the interests of all research participants were taken at all
times of the fieldwork exercise. For instance, information sheets, consent forms and
information on specialist support relating to neurological impairments, was provided
in relation to the focus groups and interviews with neurologically impaired
employees. Extra steps were taken given that it is not possible to fully anonymise
Neurodiversity Champions and TSSA organisers. In such instances, participants were
sent copies of interview transcripts to verify and authorise for use. TSSA Organisers
were also sent working drafts of the paper to verify and authorise for use.
4.3
Data analysis
All seven focus groups and thirty interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim
by a professional transcription service. Following transcription, the data was
manually coded by the lead author of the current paper. Template analysis was used
because it allows for a priori codes to be identified from the literature and the
incorporation of post-hoc codes arising from the data (King 2004). Template analysis
is also useful for managing large qualitative data sets of both interviews and focus
groups (Berta et al. 2010). All codes related to the overarching theme of
employment facilitation for disabled employees. However, apriori codes included,
for example, trade union facilitation practices and employer/management
resistance. Post-hoc themes, included, for example, details of facilitation practices
16
and employee experiences of facilitation practices prior to the beginning of the
Neurodiversity project.
5.
Findings
The following section presents an analysis of both the focus group and interview
data, organised around the key themes of the support that a trade union can provide
for members and their managers, trade union and employer partnership, the
tensions that arise between traditional roles of trade unions and servicing disabled
members, the realities of activism and disability practices, and the sustainability of
the Neurodiversity project.
5.1
Support for neurologically impaired employees and their managers
Focus groups with trade union members revealed widespread positive sentiments
towards the idea of their trade union running a project to facilitate employment for
neurologically impaired employees. The data suggests that both employees and line
managers felt that the trade union could help support neurologically impaired
employees. In terms of positive or supportive sentiments, several issues emerged
from focus group discussions. The first of such sentiments is that facilitating
employment for neurologically impaired employees was received as a natural
extension to traditional forms of trade union representation:
From the point of view of the employee, union rep or a colleague would be first
person you would go to. (Focus Group 2).
17
Interviews with neurologically impaired employees provided a unique range of
perspectives on the Neurodiversity project. On the whole the responses were
positive towards TSSA attempts to put in places practices to support neurologically
impaired employees. Several of those interviewed had already experienced
individualised supported from the TSSA:
I've had a very good local rep ... he was very good. He supported me. He said to
me, this is what we're going to do ... He's quite a young chap, but he knew his
subject ... he actually admitted that he had Aspergers as well. (Employee 2).
Yeah, I’ve just spoken to my union guy and he’s been very good, you know. He
came along to the hearing with me and he put up an argument and he was
negotiating for me. (Employee 22).
Many of the interviewees reported being aware of the TSSA Neurodiversity project:
I have actually [heard of the Neurodiversity project]. ... I came off a week’s leave
and I found that Loss for Words booklet left on my desk ... left [by a] colleague
who has dyspraxia. She had received this information from the TSSA. (Employee
15).
[I saw a poster with] who I could call and I have been told, you know, that there is
somebody available for that. (Employee 18).
Further, there was a belief amongst respondents that the trade union represented a
trustworthy source of support, in contrast to line managers or HRM professionals
within employing organisations. Respondents reported a belief that representatives
18
of the employers could not be trusted to look after the interests of neurologically
impaired employees. As the quote below illustrates, the trade union was seen not
only as a more suitable source of support, but also with a greater engagement with
the broader diversity agenda:
Yes, talking to your line manager is what we are told to do, but I don’t currently
have a great opinion of mine. I think I will find out who my union rep is! They are
defenders of equality. (Focus Group 7).
In addition, managers reported that the trade union could support their work,
through the provision of specific guidance in relation to supporting neurologically
impaired employees:
As a manager, knowing you have someone specific to go to would make all this so
much easier. I think the company doesn’t know a lot about it. Someone who
specialises in it would be a big relief, having that support behind you. That is what
the role of the union is. (Focus Group 4).
5.2
Working in partnership with employers
How the TSSA should approach the issues raised above was an important discussion
point with many taking the view that the TSSA should go beyond representing
individuals and providing information on issues related to neurodiversity. A common
response in interviews concerned how the TSSA should approach the Neurodiversity
project:
19
I think there could be a role [for the TSSA in relation to neurodiversity] ... I can see
that there can be a role in terms of ... provid[ing] a good example to the
practice ..., they can take on with the HR department and occupational health
department ... I suppose the union should be there to represent its members and
actually kind of doing that because, you know, taking your problems and pushing
them forward, and helping out, they should be on the side of the employee.
(Employee 21).
The view, moreover, was that the TSSA should go further than providing
individualised employment facilitation:
As I said ... they're a union ... they could suggest to the companies, whether it's
Network Rail or any other company, just say: “Well, if somebody declares they've
got dyslexia, then straightaway they should be given these facilities ...."... that's
what I think the union should be pushing for, in my view ... (Employee 6).
I think the [TSSA's] role should be much more high profile than it is. I think the
union have the role of sweeping up, sort of clear up the damage formations. I
think the union should be much more out front, involved in the workplace.
(Employee 22).
Interviewees and focus group participants also revealed that TSSA members would
like to see their trade union working in partnership with employers on practices
related to neurodiversity and how such partnerships would be good for the TSSA in a
range of ways:
20
I think [employment facilitation] should be a combination of things ... there
should be a neurologically different specialist in every union and every HR
department ... So it could be someone from the union; it could be someone from
HR. But it should really, ideally, be both. (Employee 19).
I think [employment facilitation] is about partnerships. If the union becomes
specialised in working with neurodiverse people, they can say we can help you get
the best out of your employees, who have great skills, but might find it hard with
their managers. Provide the resources and training for managers, so everyone is
happy. More productive workforce. There are so many win-wins that you could
get out of this. (Focus Group 5).
Further, there was a perception that the trade union should draw on additional
sources of support outside of the employment relationship, for example, campaign
organisations:
You say: what could the union do? I think I’d like them to use Prospects [Asperger
syndrome and autism employment facilitation organisation] more. Because they
really are the experts in Aspergers ... [but] they’ve got reduction in funding, so
they can’t do it for nothing. So, it’s always money. (Employee 2).
Many focus group discussions, however, reflected on how employer attitudes and
behaviour may undo much of the ideas or efforts surrounding the Neurodiversity
project. Examples here include widespread perception of poor line management
skills, trade unions lacking influence on everyday HRM practices, and trade unions
21
having difficulties influencing the attitudes and behaviour of smaller sized
employers:
... you put your employees into the hands of [line managers] who are going to
drive [neurologically impaired employees] round the bend, because they don’t
understand how human beings work. Please, educate the managers properly, in
these additional aspects ... (Focus Group 5).
[HRM professionals] don’t do anything, and they are the blocker if you want to
advance yourself or apply for a post. You have to go through them. Trying to get
past them is hard ... all HR will look for is just the qualification. They are not
interested in the rest of your CV. (Focus Group 6).
Focus group discussions also brought to attention how the state of past and present
relations between the TSSA and employers may mitigate against TSSA attempts to
build a constructive agenda surrounding disability practices:
There is some historical baggage protecting workers from unfair treatment and
discrimination ... There has been a bit of a tendency of our union to support
workers and regard managers as the bad people. (Focus Group 6).
5.3
Neurologically impaired employees and trade unions
The focus groups revealed a historically tense relationship between neurologically
impaired members and the trade union, specifically a perception of having been
denied support from their trade union before the advent of the Neurodiversity
project:
22
I have always felt on my own. Nobody there for us. You could say the union will
back me. The help is not there. (Focus Group 6).
These tensions appear to exist with the contemporary relationship with members.
Some participants also displayed reservations towards the TSSA facilitating
employment in such situations. Reservations were typically based on mixed previous
experiences of seeking support from the TSSA.
... I mean, I’ve tried to speak [to someone at the TSSA] once or twice tried, but
kind of gets brushed aside, if you know what I mean ... I tell them about
something and then they don't do anything about it. And I just have to carry on.
(Employee 1).
[The TSSA haven't] got back to me yet. It has happened to someone else though,
and apparently, they want to take my case back. Waiting for them now ... They
ask me what they can do to change [my situation]. I said ‘I don’t know? How am I
meant to know? I don’t think they understand what it is fully about, I don’t either.
(Employee 17).
The interviews also uncovered cynical attitudes towards the TSSA, in that there was
scepticism of how much the Neurodiversity project would take precedence in
relation to wider and more conventional trade union interests:
I suppose that potentially the trade unions could be taking interest in this and if
somebody is not happy they could go and speak to their union rep and the union
could provide a dyslexia test. But unfortunately trade unions are only interested
23
in the greater glory of trade unions and if it was costing them money ... the trade
union is mostly interested in its own survival. Looking after its members comes
second. (Employee 11).
However, the project appeared to have facilitated more positive relationships with
neurologically impaired members, for example, several interviewees were inspired
to become more active in the TSSA on hearing of the Neurodiversity project.
Specifically respondents reported a belief that their trade union was providing
tailored support for their needs:
And I thought, well, that’s something [Neurodiversity information session] I can
go and do. And they’re organising, so I’ll go along. It’s not a lot of time … I think
everyone in that room had, at the session I was at, had some … neurodiverse
condition, and for all I know was actually sitting there thinking the same thing as
me. (Employee 8).
In addition one participant in the project had been inspired to take on a role which
could provide support for colleagues and the employer:
… I mean, with the idea of Neurodiversity Champions within the workplace, I
think, is fantastic. It really is ... I’m going to become a Neurodiversity Champion.
[My manager was like], “Oh, brilliant! That would be really good.” It’s a win-win
for the union and with the company ... Employee 15).
24
5.4
Neurodiversity activism
Interviews revealed a wide-range of ways by which Neurodiversity Champions could
play a part in the employment facilitation of neurologically impaired employees.
Neurodiversity Champions attempted to improve employment experiences for
neurologically impaired employees through utilising existing approaches, including
supporting and representing neurologically impaired employees:
... I’ve been called in a couple of times to go [to] meetings with the members of
staff. Just to sort of, just to sort of help out, really. I don’t know, I have mixed
results, won a couple and lost a couple. (NC1).
Further, these trade union actors provided a role beyond supporting individual
members with concerns. The role of the Neurodiversity Champions also involves
raising awareness of the neurodiversity project in the work setting:
I’ve got a couple of things ... putting up things on the wall, posters, makes it clear
that I’m a rep. And people ask what you do and I tend to wear the badge on my
jacket, so if I wear that jacket they could see it and they query it and I’ll explain
what it is. (Neurodiversity Champion3).
However, most notable was that Neurodiversity Champions were able to raise
awareness of the Neurodiversity projects by encouraging employees to be screened
for dyslexia:
25
… in my area, I suppose, I’ve must have screened [for dyslexia] maybe between 15
and 20 people in just my area. I know there are other people that want me to
screen them that I haven’t actually got around to doing (NC1).
It was evident that Neurodiversity Champions were active in terms of building the
neurodiversity agenda through organisational forums based on disability or equality,
which were often attended by senior and HR managers:
... the best thing I did was join this staff network disability group ... It can be
sharing stories. It can be getting a guest speaker in ... you'll have someone from
senior management ... You’ll have someone from HR who'll come in ... And then,
everyone comes in and they can talk about their disabilities. (NC2).
It was also evident that Neurodiversity Champions were taking activism related to
neurodiversity to a higher level and beginning to shape policy and practice in
transport organisations:
... [my organisation] seems to be reasonably open to accepting what we’re saying
in building the [neurodiversity documents]. (NC4).
Neurodiversity Champions, moreover, reported a sense of making an impact on
organisational agendas with their activism surrounding the Neurodiversity project.
Neurodiversity Champions measured successes, for example, in terms a sense of
pushing employers back on such matters, servicing members in a unique manner, as
well as working with individual managers on understanding neurodiversity:
26
I think our strategies are starting to chisel away the boundaries that are there ...
it’s been a lot harder than I thought it was going to be ... but I think my own
strategy started getting through to them and making a difference. (NC4).
... I see myself as really somebody in the middle that spreads information, if you
like. I'm in a fairly fortunate position in that I can talk to managers and I can talk
to staff and liaise in both cases to see where I can help ... I can help a manager to
understand what the condition means. (NC3).
As the quote from NC3 indicates, these Neurodiversity Champions are both
employees and trade union representatives. They felt this enabled them to speak to
both employees, but also to more senior members of staff to shape the disability
agenda in relation to neurologically impaired employers.
Neurodiversity Champions believed, however, that little could be achieved without
support from TSSA organisers. The sense of support was articulated in a general
sense, as well as in terms of being supported by NOs through the use of social media:
I’ve got good, brilliant support. Really is good support from [NO2 and NO1]. And,
you know, the work they do is phenomenal ... And if we need to rely on them,
they do look after us … we’re really well looked after. (NC4).
... it's just clever, it's clever use of social media [TSSA neurodiversity Facebook
page] ... There's no commentary ... It's just [NO1] sharing a link ... it's my only
source of neurodiversity news. I don't go anywhere else ... I'm not a big Facebook
user, but I do always look on those. (NC2).
27
However, the role of Neurodiversity Champions is complex with, a range of
difficulties associated with attempts to facilitate the employment for neurologically
impaired employees. Employer resistance to the Neurodiversity project, for example,
was a feature of Neurodiversity Champion interviews:
My line manager said, “Yeah, that's fine.” I just filled in a form. And he was about
to sign. He said, “I just need to forward [the Union Learning Representative form]
to the HR department.” And they came back and said, “No, it's not, it's not
company based.” And we get a lot; I get a lot of resistance from the people there,
the human resources ... (NC2).
Interestingly, Neurodiversity Champions reported on how the wider campaigning of
trade unions, related to pay, conditions and job cuts conflicted with Neurodiversity
project activism:
Mostly, I think people see a union rep as somebody who sort of takes on
management and fights for a better pay and that kind of thing. And I tend to
explain, "Well, actually no. It’s not what I do." There's not a great deal of
awareness of what a learning rep does. (NC3).
Neurodiversity Champions, moreover, reported worries and concerns about the
uncertainty of the ULF and how the end of the ULF is likely to mean an end to
specialised neurodiversity training, information and advice:
There’s no reason we can’t carry on with the screening ... but I guess, everything
will be affected if [NO2] and [NO1] aren’t there to call and to ask for advice, that
28
sort of thing ... I guess the Facebook page will get closed down ... [NO1] puts a lot
of information on there. (NC1).
5.5
Sustainability of the project
During the interviews TSSA organisers were keen to stress the positive impact of the
Neurodiversity project. The examples below demonstrate a sense of impact in terms
of their project being recognised by fellow trade unions, employers and HRM
professionals:
I know that we’re leading the way in terms of what’s happening with a lot of the
other unions, because I’ve spoken to them. (RO).
... when we did that exercise [Neurodiversity Champions discussing in groups their
experiences] at the start of the project [early 2012] there was only ever one
company that was doing anything, it was TfL [Transport for London], because they
have a dyslexia unit. When I did it a couple of months ago [early 2014] ... about
50 per cent of the room said their employers were doing something or had heard
of it ... to me that is a success ... (NO2).
So I think, I think it is beginning to make a difference. And I mean last week, I met
with two HR people and they’re now looking at how they incorporate it in their
strategies and diversities, so I think it’s, it’s slowly getting there. (NO1).
Insights provided by TSSA organisers revealed details of key factors relating to the
long term success of the Neurodiversity project. The first key finding relates to the
nature of the project itself, with interviews detailing the freedom of the organising
29
team to make decisions, to divide up roles, as well as to experiment with organising
tools:
... there’s no performance management here. So basically people can do what the
hell they like and it’s about whether you get called on it. (NO2).
We support each other ... throw ideas about ... we’re developing ideas all the
time, so yeah. And we also try and split up jobs so you know [NO2] ... likes
doing ... the research, you know the academic side. I kind of like doing the
teaching side. So we kind of looked at sort of where our strengths are and work
that way. (NO1).
However, the long term success of the project was also linked to external political
forces which include the sustainability of UK government funding for trade unions, in
the role of providing workplace learning. A further key finding concerns creating a
legacy due to the expected end of financial support from the ULF.
I think it might be too soon to say it’s totally embedded in what everyone does at
the moment ... But ... we always knew that to a certain extent, that's why we put
quite a lot of effort into producing materials that would last longer than the
individual workers. (EDO).
We just want to make sure that our current Champions are okay and sort of know
what they should be doing and feel confident and empowered in their roles. …it’s
really an exit strategy that we’re working towards at the moment. (NO2).
30
In addition, there was a perception that the general decline in trade union
membership was a key threat to the project’s long term success. The problems of
the project related to internal and external factors. An important internal factor was
TSSA losing members, with membership loss an evident destabilising matter:
We’re at a situation where ... we’ve lost lots of members. We had to go for a
reorganisation to be able to continue as a trade organisation. (RO).
Further internal problems were also identified in the interviews, in that the
organising team felt that the Neurodiversity project was a low priority for senior
TSSA officials:
So there probably is some line in [the Bargaining Guide], somewhere a line in
there about neurodiversity, or how to negotiate around neurodiversity, or some
request ... the only thing anyone ever cares about is the percentage pay, so all of
that stuff can get lost very easily ... it's lip service. (EDO).
... I don’t think that senior management views it seriously, or as sort of part of the
serious business of the trade union. (NO2).
The loss of members and reorganisation of the TSSA also suggested the legacy of the
Neurodiversity project was under threat:
There’s no job roles created for anyone else to be able to deal with the fantastic
work that those individuals have done. So I see it eventually just all being lost.
(RO).
31
The organising team also reported a range of external constraining factors. Two
constraining external factors stood out, however. The first being employer resistance
to the Neurodiversity project:
I mean I’ve had, I’ve had one company where I have to really argue to get time off
for the reps and there’d been cases where [the Neurodiversity Champions] had to
just come in, in their own time. You know we’ve had to reimburse them the
salaries because we just can’t get [employers] to agree [to time off]. [Employers
are] not seeing the wider picture. (NO1).
I think once senior managers see “£ signs” ... [they] won’t engage with the
project, think it’s distracting. (EDO).
A further external constraining factor concerns problems trying to work with
campaign organisations that specialise in neurological impairments. The organising
team reported a range of problems, with the example below suggesting campaign
organisations to be at odds with the collective nature of trade union disability
practices and how trade unions view disability:
…it’s a very individual level. [Dyslexia campaign organisations are] not linking it up
with the bigger picture. They’re not linking it to the diversity and inclusion
agenda. They’re not linking it to anything, any sort of organisational practice.
They’re just dealing with it in terms of individuals ... they all had agendas and it
was to sell their services ... [ADHD trained psychiatrists] just took a completely
medical line ... you know and the solution to all these ... medicate them ... it was
32
interesting even the language they used because we really try to not use the
language of suffering as an individual ... (NO2).
6.
Discussion and conclusions
The main aim of this paper was to add to current knowledge of and insights to trade
union disability practices in the UK and in doing so contribute to current debates on
trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled employees. The study was an
analysis of an innovative attempt by a UK trade union to develop disability practices
to aid employment facilitation for highly skilled, neurologically impaired transport
employees. In order to achieve this aim, data was gathered from a range of trade
union stakeholders on the topic of trade unions as facilitators for disabled
employees.
The findings from the case study are supported by much of the limited extant
literature on trade unions as facilitators for disabled employees. Most obvious was
how the trade union in question was evidently proactive on a range of specialised
disability issues (Foster and Fosh 2010). The findings also provide evidence of
employee representatives experiencing high levels of contact with managers on
disability issues (Bacon and Hoque as cited in TUC 2010), as well correlating well with
studies that found managers willingly seeking out advice from employee
representatives who have disability expertise (Bennett 2010). There was strong
evidence, moreover, that the Neurodiversity project exposed neurologically
impaired employees to a range of disability information and support networks that
33
would otherwise be unavailable (Jones 2013). There was evidence, but perhaps of a
more indirect nature, that pointed towards neurological impaired employees being
more likely to report discrimination at work, or being less passive to poor treatment
at work (Schur 2003; Foster and Fosh 2010), since the Neurodiversity project began.
The findings, however, also link in well with previous studies that have pointed out
the problematic side of trade union involvement in disability practices. For instance,
despite being Union Learning Representatives, TSSA Neurodiversity Champions had
an ambiguous status in transport organisations, with employers, in some instances,
unappreciative of the work of the Neurodiversity Champion (Foster and Fosh 2010).
However, the findings depart from previous studies that suggest trade union
representatives rely on non-trade union support in relation to disability practices
(Foster and Fosh 2010). In this instance, Neurodiversity Champions reported high
levels of satisfaction in terms of being supported by their trade union. Such support
came directly from NOs, as well as via the creative use of social media.
Government attempts to modernise UK trade unions through ULF and UMF
initiatives sets an important context to these findings. For instance, it seems unlikely
that the trade union in question, a trade union with high and ongoing membership
losses, would have self-funded the Neurodiversity project. The UMF and more
recently the ULF have enabled the TSSA to recruit specialised and motivated
organisers. Such organisers have, in turn, used their high degree of autonomy to
skilfully and creatively equip a cohort of employee representatives with specialist
disability expertise.
34
These findings, as such, link with research that suggest government attempts
to modernise the UK labour movement enhance the relevance of trade unions in the
contemporary workplace (Forrester 2004), provide trade unions with new tools to
win old arguments (Heyes and Rainbird 2011), fill gaps left by HRM departments
(Cassell and Lee 2007) and create new and appreciated havens for vulnerable
employees (Cassell and Lee 2009). The case in question correlates well with such
findings, in that the Neurodiversity project increased the relevance of the TSSA to
both current and potential members. Government funding also allowed the TSSA to
develop new ways to tackle historical problems with disability facilitation, train
employee representatives with a level of disability expertise unlikely except in the
best equipped HRM departments, and provide settings where neurologically
impaired employees can seek confidential advice and specialist support on
employment and disability-related problems.
However, the study findings did not point towards the forging of project
enhancing alliances between trade unions and campaign organisations, as was the
case with a UMF project aimed at precarious employment (Mustchin 2014). There
was also little evidence in relation to the case in question that trade union
modernisation initiatives are, as has been recently argued, to the detriment of the
long term future of the UK labour movement (McIlroy and Croucher 2013). Although
some resistance was perceived by respondents, the findings did not back up previous
assertion of employers being overly resistant to government funded trade union
projects (Forrester and Payne 2000; Wallis et al. 2005). However, further work with
employers is needed to understand the dynamics of these relationships. The
35
findings, moreover, suggest despite being conducted in far from ideal circumstances,
the Neurodiversity project aided employment facilitation for a historically neglected
disability group, as well as offering wider organising opportunities for the TSSA.
While the findings suggest the Neurodiversity project is unlikely to fulfil its
ultimate goal - to become a self-funded part of the trade union and an embedded
part of relations between the TSSA and UK transport organisations. The analysis of
Neurodiversity project has provided an important contribution to current debates on
trade unions as employment facilitators for disabled employees. In terms of
knowledge and insights, the study's research methodology has effectively exposed
the complex, hidden and typically unappreciated work that trade unions do in
relation to disability practices, and also highlighting the many obstacles trade unions
face in order to achieve such objectives. In terms of a more academic contribution,
the current study adds to debates by further confirming trade unions as effective
facilitators for disabled employees. However, the current study extends such
debates as the findings demonstrate trade unions, even in times of declining
memberships, ongoing employer resistance and government intervention in
employment relations, retain the capacity to make a positive difference to the
working lives of disabled employees. A key question, however, is how sustainable is
this position should an anti-trade union political party be elected to govern the UK at
the next general election? A further important question is how would such a political
scenario impact on employment facilitation for disabled employees?
These questions and the limited scope of the current study indicate ample
opportunity for more research on trade unions as employment facilitators for
36
disabled employees. For certain, there appears to be a clear need for similar studies
to be conducted on a domestic and international basis, focusing in particular on
different sized trade unions and different intersecting membership demographics.
The findings also suggest a need for more longitudinal studies, which would allow an
even more extensive evaluation of trade unions as facilitators for disabled
employees.
References
Baker, D. (2011), The Politics of Neurodiversity: Why Public Policy Matters, Boulder
CO: Lynne Rienner.
Bennett, T. (2010), 'Exploring the Potential of the Union Equality Representative,'
Employee Relations, 32, 5, 509-525.
Berta, W., Teare, G., Gilbart, E., Ginsburg, L., Lemieux-Charles, L., Davis, D., and
Rappolt, S. (2010), ‘Spanning the Know-do gap: Understanding Knowledge
Application and Capacity in Long-term Care Homes’. Social Science &
Medicine, 70, 9, 1326-1334.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011), Business Research Methods (3rd Ed.), Oxford: OUP.
Butterworth, B. and Kovas, Y. (2013), 'Understanding Neurocognitive Disorders Can
Improve Educational For All', Science, 340, 300.
Carnes, B. and Holloway, M. (2009), 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
in the Workplace, Graziadio Business Report, 12, 2, 1-6.
Carter, J. and Markham, N. (2001), 'Disability Discrimination: The UK's Act Requires
Health Services to Remove Barriers to Access and Participation,' BMJ: British
Medical Journal, 323, 7306, 178-179.
Cassell, C. and Lee, B. (2007), 'Re-vitalising Learning and Development? Exploring the
Role of the Trade Union Learning Representative', Personnel Review, 36, 5,
781-799.
Cassell, C. and Lee, B. (2009), 'Trade Unions Learning Representatives: Progressing
Partnership?' Work, Employment & Society, 23, 2, 213-230.
37
Certification Officer (2004), Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Retrieved from
http://www.certoffice.org/CertificationOfficer/media/DocumentLibrary/PDF/3
76T_2003.pdf
Certification Officer (2013), Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Retrieved from
http://www.certoffice.org/CertificationOfficer/media/DocumentLibrary/PDF/3
76T_2012.pdf
Coole, C., Radford, K., Grant, M. and Terry, J. (2012), 'Returning to Work After Stroke:
Perspectives of Employer Stakeholders, a Qualitative Study,' Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, December.
Davies, P. (2006), 'Exploratory Research,' in The Sage Dictionary of Social Research
Methods, e.d. V. Jupp, London, Sage, pp. 110-111.
Ewing, K. (2005), 'The Function of Trade Unions,' Industrial Law Journal, 34, 1, 1-22.
Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Lewis, D. and Jones, R. (2013), 'The Ill-treatment of
Employees with Disabilities in British Workplaces,' Work, Employment &
Society, 27, 2, 288-307.
Fielding, N. and Thomas, H. (2008), 'Qualitative Interviewing,' in Researching Social
Life (3rd ed.), e.d. N. Gilbert, London: Sage, pp. 245-265.
Findlay, P. and Warhurst, C. (2011), 'Union Learning Funds and Trade Union
Revitalization: A New Tool in the Toolkit?' British Journal of Industrial Relations,
49, 1, 115–134
Forrester, K. (2004), '‘The Quiet Revolution’? Trade Union Learning and Renewal
Strategies, Work, Employment & Society, 18, 2, 413–420
Forrester, K. and Payne, J. (2000) 'Trade Union Modernisation and Lifelong Learning,'
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 5, 2, 153-171
Foster, D. (2007), 'Legal Obligation or Personal Lottery? Employee Experiences of
Disability and the Negotiation of Adjustments in the Public Sector Workplace,'
Work, Employment & Society, 21, 1, 67–84.
Foster, D. and Fosh, P. (2010), 'Negotiating 'Difference': Representing Disabled
Employees in the British Workplace,' British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48,
3, 560-582.
Gilbert, N. (2008), 'Research, Theory and Method,' in Researching Social Life (3rd
ed.), e.d. N. Gilbert, London: Sage, pp. 21-40.
Haafkens, J., Kopnina, H., Meerman, M. and van Dijk, F. (2011), 'Facilitating Job
Retention for Chronically Ill Employees: Perspectives of Line managers and
Human Resource Managers,' BMC Health Services Research, 11, 104.
38
Hendrickx, S. (2010), The Adolescent and Adult Neuro-diversity Handbook: Asperger
Syndrome, ADHD, Dyslexia and Dyspraxia and Related Conditions, Gateshead:
JKP.
Herrera, C. (2013), 'What's the Difference?' in Ethics and Neurodiversity, C. Herrera
and A. Perry, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp XXX.
Heyes, J. and Rainbird, H. (2011), 'Mobilising Resources for Union Learning: A
Strategy for Revitalisation?' Industrial Relations Journal, 42, 6, 565–579
Holmqvist, M., Maravelias, C. and Skålén, P. (2012), 'Identity Regulation in Neoliberal Societies: Constructing the 'Occupationally Disabled' Individual,'
Organization, 20, 2, 193-211.
Howard, S. (2009), 'Dyspraxia: Problems and Solutions,' in S. Moody (ed.), Dyslexia
and Employment: A Guide for Assessors, Trainers and Managers, Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Humphrey, J. (1998), 'Self-organise and Survive: Disabled People in the British Trade
Union Movement,' Disability & Society, 13, 4, 587-602.
Hurlbutt, K., and Chalmers, L. (2004), 'Employment and Adults with Asperger
Syndrome', Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 4, 215222.
Jones, M. (2013), 'Disability and Perceptions of Work and Management,' British
Journal of Industrial Relations. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1111/bjir.12043
Jones, M. and Wass, V. (2013), 'Understanding Changing Disability-related
Employment Gaps in Britain 1998-2011,' Work, Employment & Society, 27, 6,
982-1003.
King, N. (2004), 'Using Templates in Thematic Analysis of Text,' in Essential Guide to
Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Cassell, C. and Symon, G.
(eds), London: Sage, pp. 256-70.
Krcek, T. (2013), 'Deconstructing Disability and Neurodiversity: Controversial Issues
for Autism and Implications for Social Work,' Journal of Progressive Human
Services, 24, 1, 4-22.
McIlroy, J. and Croucher, R. (2013), 'British Trade Unions and the Academics: The
case of Unionlearn,' Capital & Class, 37, 2, 263–284
Meyer, R. (2001), Asperger Syndrome Employment Workbook: An Employment
Workbook for Adults with Asperger Syndrome, London, JKP.
39
Moody, S. (2009) (Ed.), Dyslexia and Employment: A Guide for Assessors, Trainers
and Managers, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Moore, S. and Wright, T. (2012), 'Shifting Models of Equality? Union Equality Reps in
the Public Services,' Industrial Relations Journal, 43, 5, 433-447.
Moore, S., Wright, T. and Conley, H. (2012), Addressing Discrimination in the
Workplace on Multiple Grounds – The Experience of Trade Union Equality Reps,
London: ACAS.
Munir, F., Randall, R. Yarker, J. and Nielsen, K. (2009), 'The Influence of Employer
Support on Employee Management of Chronic Health Conditions at Work,'
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19, 4, 333–344.
Mustchin, S. (2014), 'Union Modernisation, Coalitions and Vulnerable Work in the
Construction Sector in Britain,' Industrial Relations Journal, 45, 2, 121–136
Nesbitt, S. (2000), 'Why and Why Not? Factors Influencing Employment for
Individuals with Asperger Syndrome,' Autism, 4, 4, 357-369.
Portwood, M. (2000), Understanding Developmental Dyspraxia: A Textbook for
Students and Professionals, London: David Fulton.
Schur, L. (2003), 'Employment and the Creation of an Active Citizenry,' British Journal
of Industrial Relations, 41, 4, 751-771.
Stake, R. (1995), The Art of the Case Study, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stuart, M., Cook, H., Cutter, J. and Winterton, J. (2011) Evaluation of the Union
Learning Fund and Unionlearn: Final Report, London: TUC.
Stuart, M. and Martínez Lucio, M. (2014), Union Modernisation Fund: Round Three
Evaluation – Broadening the Role of Unions for an Increasingly Vulnerable
Workforce, London: BIS.
Stuart, M., Martínez Lucio, M. and Charlwood, A. (2009), The Union Modernisation
Fund – Round One: Final Evaluation Report, London: BIS.
Stuart, M., Martínez Lucio, M. and Robinson, A. (2011) ''Soft Regulation' and the
Modernisation of Employment Relations Under the British Labour Government
(1997–2010): Partnership, Workplace Facilitation and Trade Union Change',
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 18, 3794-3812.
Thomas, C. (2004), ‘Developing the Social Relational in the Social Model of Disability:
a Theoretical Agenda,’ in Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory
and Research, Barnes, C., Mercer, G. (eds), Leeds: The Disability Press, 32-47.
40
TSSA (n.d.), Find Your Company. Retrieved from http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/Yourunion/Your-company/company-pages/
TSSA
(2011), Dyslexia and Neurodiversity Initiative. Retrieved
http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/dyslexia-andneurodiversity-initiative
TSSA
(2013), Rule Book. Retrieved from
union/TSSA-democracy/tssa-rulebook/
TUC
(2014),
Autism
in
the
Workplace.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Autism.pdf
from
http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/Your-
Retrieved
from
TUC (2010), Equality Reps Make a Real Difference to UK workplaces. Retrieved from
http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality-issues/equality-reps-make-real-difference-ukworkplaces
Unison (n.d.), Dyslexia Awareness. Retrieved from http://www.unison.org.uk/foractivists/training/utrain/union-learning-representatives-courses/dyslexiaawareness
Wallis, E., Stuart, M. and Greenwood, I. (2005), ''Learners of the Workplace Unite!'
An Empirical Examination of the UK Trade Union Learning Representative
Initiative,' Work Employment & Society, 19, 2, 283-304.
Waltz, M. (2013), Autism: A Social and Medical History, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wilton, R. (2008), 'Workers with Disabilities and the Challenges of Emotional Labour,'
Disability & Society, 23, 4, 361-373.
Woodhams, C. and Corby, S. (2007), 'Then and Now: Disability Legislation and
Employers' Practices in the UK,' British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45, 3,
556-580.
41
Table 1. Details of focus group participants.
Focus group detail
Per cent
Male
79
Female
21
Average length in current job
8
Has neurological impairment
27
Works with someone with neurological impairment
30
Has neurological impairment and works with someone with neurological 9
impairment
Has family or friend with neurological impairment
32
Has other experiences of neurological impairments, e.g. through colleague or 9
partner with education or health expertise
Represented neurologically impaired employees at work
11
No experience of neurological impairments in any situation
16
42
Table 2. Details of neurologically impaired participants.
Employee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Gender
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
16
17
18
19
20
M
M
F
M
M
21
22
M
M
Job title
Data Analyst
Project Manager
Electrical Engineer
Transport Engineer
Track Quality Manager
Middle Manager
Senior Architect
Project Manager
Mechanical Engineer
Ticket Office Manager
Transport Engineer
Software Engineer
Procurement Officer
Engineering Manager
Workforce
Development Specialist
Station Supervisor
Control Room Officer
Ticket Clerk
Information Analyst
Customer
Service
Assistant
Transport Planner
Support Engineer
Interview disclosed impairment
ADHD/Asperger syndrome
Asperger syndrome
Asperger syndrome/undiagnosed dyspraxia
Asperger syndrome
Asperger syndrome
Dyslexia/undiagnosed dyscalculia
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
Undiagnosed dyslexia
Dyslexia
Dyslexia/undiagnosed Asperger syndrome
Undiagnosed dyslexia
Undiagnosed ADHD
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
Dyslexia/dyscalculia
Dyslexia/undiagnosed dyspraxia
Dyslexia/Asperger syndrome
Dyspraxia/undiagnosed dyslexia/ADHD
Undiagnosed Asperger syndrome
43