Beyond Union Avoidance? Exploring the Dynamics of Double-Breasting Voice Regimes in Ireland

A recent element in the battery of employer tactics to de-unionise labour relations is the notion of ‘double-breasting’. The term itself refers to those instances where an employer recognises a union at an older plant, while developing a non-union voice regime at another, newer, one (Lipsky and Farber 1976, Beaumont and Harris 1992). Historically, the practice is rooted in the US construction industry, where it served to describe an explicit avoidance strategy undertaken by unionised employers so as to curtail union influence (see also Moody, this volume). The term has now become somewhat broader in scope, although the assumption of an anti-union animus remains embedded in contemporary formulations (Gunnigle et al. 2009, Cullinane et al. 2012). Much of the contemporary research has focused on quantitative studies, charting the growth of the double-breasting phenomenon, often in the context of employment practices of multinational corporations establishing operations in different countries (Beaumont and Harris 1992, Gunnigle et al. 2009, Marginson et al. 2010, Lavelle et al. 2010). However these types of studies tend to be confined to identifying the incidence of double-breasting practices rather than what has actually occurred within them. Virtually no assessment has been made on the internal dynamics of double-breasting in terms of why employers decide to opt for such schemes or how they are played out in practice.