THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CLIMATE ON DUAL

COMMITMENT AND INTENTION TO QUIT: EVIDENCE FROM FOOD

AND BEVERAGES INDUSTRY

Gayani V. Hewagama & Prasadini N. Gamage

Department of Human Resource Management

University of Kelaniya

ghewagama@gmail.com , prasadinigamage@yahoo.com,

ABSTRACT

Dual commitment of union employees to their unions and also to their

employing organizations is a research area hardly any empirical research

carried out in Sri Lankan context. Therefore the research issue of the study

was to empirically examine the association between industrial relations

climate, dual commitment and intention to quit the organization and union of

operational level employees in food and beverage industry in Sri Lanka. For

the purpose of data collection three large scale highly unionized organizations

in food and beverages industry have been selected. A structured 7-point

Likert scale questionnaire was administered to collect data from a randomly

selected sample of 135 operational level employees representing all firms.

Unit of analysis was at individual level. Scores obtained separately for

organizational commitment, union commitment, industrial relations climate

and intention to quit. Correlation was used to test the hypotheses of the study.

A significant positive correlation between the organization commitment and

union commitment was evidence the existence of dual commitment.

Industrial relations climate positively related with organization and union

commitment. Both organization and union commitment negatively correlate

with intention quit the organization. These findings revealed harmonious

industrial relations climate is a vital factor of existence of dual commitment

and will reduce employees’ intention to leave the organization.

Key Words: Dual Commitment, Intention Quit, Industrial Relations Climate

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of dual commitment (also

referred to as dual allegiance or dual

loyalty) has been a subject of intermittent

research interest over the last 40 years

(Gordon and Ladd, 1990). Early researchers

(Kornhauser, 1961; Barkin, 1950) argued

that employees’ commitment to the union

would compete with his or her commitment

to the organization hence inability to

display simultaneous commitment to both

union and organization. However early

work by such scholars as Dean (1954) and

Purcell (1960) insist on the possibility of

dual allegiance of workers towards their

union and management. Researchers sought

to question “can unionized employees

develop simultaneous commitments to their

unions and their employing organization?’’

a research area which is given less attention

in Sri Lankan organizational context.

Hence this study discussed the research

issue of dual commitment concept in

relation to harmonious industrial relations

2

climate and intention to quit the

organization and union.

The traditional adversarial relationship

between management and labour has begun

to change in Sri Lankan context. According

to the statistics of the department of labour

in Sri Lanka, there is a steady decline in the

number of strikes since 2000. In 2009

reported the lowest number of strikes,

lesser number of worker involvements in

strikes and lowest man-days lost with

compared to statistics of over 15 years

period. Further it was shown that trade

union functioning (2019 unions) and total

membership (322,472) have increased

while the rate of cancellation of trade

unions has decreased in 2009 (Department

of Labour Statistics, 2010).

Dual commitment is now viewed as an

essential ingredient in the success of

cooperative labour management relations

(Kochan, Katz and Mowrer, 1984).

According to Kochan, Katz and

McKersie(1986) the new era of industrial

relations is characterized by innovations

such as increased employee input into

decision making at the workplace and

strategic levels of the enterprise, new

production organization techniques

emphasizing teamwork and quality circles,

increased employment security, and new

collective bargaining methods such as

“win-win bargaining”. These new trends

encouraged by more employers in today’s

organizations as it encourage cooperative

management-labour relationships and

identifying workers and unions are

necessary partners in organizations (Iverson

and Kuruvilla, 1995).

There has been considerable interest in

the relationship between industrial relations

climate and dual allegiance (Gallagher and

Clark 1989; Barling, Wade and

Fullagar1990; Deery, Iverson and Erwin,

1994). The research on role theory (e.g.:

Rizzo, House and Lirtzman, 1970) clearly

relevant to the issue of dual commitment in

an organization. According to Deery et al

(1999) role theory suggests that, in a hostile

climate, the different goals of union and

management place incompatible

behavioural demands on employees where

these demands force employee to make an

either choice between the goals of two

parties. In such situations role conflict

would arise as an individual simultaneously

occupies two or more roles that make

incompatible demand; the role of union

member and organization member for

example. Dual allegiance is unlikely to

emerge in such a climate. As Deery et al

(1999) state when the industrial relation is

harmonious; those perceive role conflicts

are not obvious where dual commitment is

possible.

Substantial evidence from the literature

(Dean, 1954; Pucell, 1960; Angle and

Perry, 1986; Fullagar and Barling, 1991)

suggests that many individuals are highly

committed both to their union and their

employer, a phenomenon known as “dual

allegiance” “dual loyalty” or “dual

commitment”. Several studies on dual

commitment (Angle and Perry, 1986;

Gordon and Ladd 1990, Fullagar and

Barling, 1991; Iverson and Kuruvilla, 1995;

Deery et al, 1999) revealed that the

possibility of employee being dually

committed to both union and their

organization (employer/ company) in a

favourable industrial relations climate.

Findings of these studies suggest in spite of

the possibility that commitment to

employer and union might be considered as

conflicting, dual commitment is very

common particularly when industrial

relations climate is relatively harmonious.

However, in Sri Lanka there was hardly

any study carried out to investigate such

relationship. Therefore the main research

issue of this study was “Does dual

3

commitment exist in favourable industrial

relations climate in relation to operational

level employees in food and beverages

industry in Sri Lanka?”

In addition following issues have been

addressed in this study with relation to

operational level employees of food and

beverages industry in Sri Lanka;

1. What is the impact of industrial

relations climate on organizational

commitment?

2. How does the industrial relations

climate relate with union

commitment?

3. Is there a relationship between

organizational commitment and

union commitment?

4. How does the dual commitment

effect intention to quit the

organization?

Accordingly following objectives were

identified for the study;

1. To identify the impact of industrial

relations climate on organizational

commitment

2. To examine the effect of industrial

relations climate on union

commitment

3. To examine whether dual

commitment exist in the selected

organizations

4. To explore the effect of dual

commitment on intention to quit

the organization

2. RESEARCH MODEL

2.1. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

CLIMATE

The expression “industrial relations”

means relationship that emerges out of day

today working and association of labour

and management (Monappa, 2007).

According to Katz, Kochan and Gobeille,

(1983) the term “industrial relations

climate” has commonly been used to

describe the quality of labour-management

relations in the organization. It has been

seen as reflecting the perceptions of

organizational members about the conduct

and practice of union-management relations

within the enterprise (Blyton, Dastmalchain

and Anderson 1987). Number of studies

(Deery et al, 1999; Blyton et al, 1987;

Gamage & Hewagama; 2010) has identified

different factors that affect industrial

relations climate such as corporation, trust,

participative decision making, grievance

resolution, dispute settlement, policies and

actions of union officials etc. Employee

participation in decision making for

instance could contribute to the formation

of favourable attitudes about industrial

relations climate. Gordon and Ladd (1990)

believe that, once employees have

established positive perceptions about the

union management relationship, they are

more likely to engage in actions and

general outcomes that reflect the join goals

of both union and management. One such

possible outcome may be dual commitment

of employees to both their company and

union. Harmonious industrial relations

climate has been related to higher levels of

organizational commitment and union

loyalty (Angle and Perry, 1986).

2.2. ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT

Commitment has been described in

diverse ways; an affective attachment to an

organization (Buchanan, 1974); binding of

an individual to an organization (Gordon,

Philpot, Burt, Thompson and Spiller, 1980).

According to Porter, Steers, Mowday and

Boulian (1974) a committed employee: (a)

has a strong desire to remain a member of

his or her organization; and (b) internalize

the values and goals of that organization;

and (3) is willing to work extra hard on

behalf of organization. Thus, attachment to

4

membership derives not from economic

exchange, but from such processes as

identification and internalization (Kelman,

1958 as in Angle and Perry, 1986).

Deery et al, (1999) state that higher

organizational commitment may occur in

the context of a positive industrial relations

climate when management is seen as being

instrumental in providing employees with

valued outcomes. The new innovations in

human resource management practices such

as increased employee participation, team

based production systems, and total quality

management (few examples) were

predicted on the increased organizational

commitment of unionized and non-

unionized employees (Iverson and

Kuruvilla, 1995). A study done by Lee

(2004) found workers’ perceptions of the

industrial relations climate positively

affecting commitment to their company and

negatively affecting commitment to their

union. Deery et al., (1994) reported that

employee perception of a co-operative

industrial relations climate were associated

with higher employee commitment to the

company but lower commitment to the

union. By considering the above literature it

was hypothesized that;

H1: There is a positive relationship exist

between favourable industrial relations

climate and organizational commitment

2.3. UNION COMMITMENT

Union commitment describes the extent

to which members identify with and

internalize the goals and beliefs of the

unions. Gordon et al (1980) defined union

commitment as the extent to which an

individual(a) has a strong desire to remain a

member of the union; (b) is willing to exert

high level of effort on behalf of union, and;

(c) believe in and accept the goals of the

union. According to him, the union

commitment literature has essentially

transferred the notion of organizational

commitment into a union context. The

organizational commitment literature

concerning the relationship of the workers

with the employing organization offers a

theoretical underpinning for the

development of the model of union

membership (Newton and Shore, 1992).

The behaviour expected from a loyal

union member would be actively involved

in union activities by way of participating

industrial actions. This could probably lead

to a situation where he/she has to select

either to support union or the organization.

To avoid such situations it is important to

establish a harmonious industrial relations

climate. Several studies have reported

increased levels of organizational

commitment and union loyalty when the

industrial relations climate is seen as

cooperative (Angle and Perry, 1986; Deery

et al, 1999; Fullagar and Barling, 1991).

Accordingly following hypothesis has been

formulated;

H2: Union commitment positively

associate with favourable industrial

relations climate

2.4. DUAL COMMITMENT

Dual commitment has been viewed as a

combination of union and company

commitment, and has been operationalized

as “simultaneous commitment to employer

and to the union” (Iverson and Kuruvilla,

1995). Consistent with the previous

literature on organizational commitment

(Porter et al, 1974) union commitment

(Gordon et al, 1980) and dual commitment

(Angle and Perry 1986), dual commitment

could be explained as the extent to which

an individual (a) has strong desire to remain

a member of the company and union, (b) is

willing to exert high levels of effort on

behalf of the company and union, and (c) a

5

definite belief in and acceptance of the

values and goals of the company and union.

According to the literature there are three

main approaches in studying dual

commitment aspect. These are

“taxonomic”, “dimensional” and “parallel

models” (Iverson and Kuruvilla, 1995). The

“taxonomic approach” to dual commitment

categorized individuals into four groups:

dual allegiance (with high level of

commitment to both organization and

union), unilateral allegiance to either

organization and union, and dual dis-

allegiance (low commitment to both)

(Redman and Snape, 2006). One problem

of this approach is that cutoff points for

dividing scores into four groups are

arbitrary determined (i.e., median and

midpoint splits are commonly used),

making categorization problematic (Gordon

and Ladd, 1990). Therefore this approached

was not used in this study.

The dimensional approach, which is

more widely used (Angle Perry, 1986;

Conlon and Gallagher, 1987; Iverson and

Kuruvilla, 1995), focuses on the first-order

correlation coefficient as indicator of dual

commitment. According to Deery et al

(1999) Iverson and Kuruvilla (1995) if

organization commitment and union

commitment were significantly correlated;

indicates the existence of dual commitment.

This approach argues that the construct of

union and company commitment must

become more inter-correlated for dual

commitment to exist (Iverson and

Kuruvilla, 1995). Hence this approach was

used in this study to measure the dual

commitment between organization and

union.

Dean (1954) and Purcell (1960) revealed

that most workers show allegiance to both

union and management. Dean (1954) and

Purcell (1960) measure commitment to

employing organization and commitment to

unions separately and combined these

measures to show the extent of dual

commitment. Fukami and Larson (1984)

used the correlation between employees’

scores on union commitment and

organizational commitment to measure dual

commitment. Angle and Perry (1986)

reported the requirement of using

independent source to measure dual

commitment as a separate measure.

Organizational commitment and union

commitment also co-varied with labour

management relationship climate but in a

less monotonic manner than dual

commitment did (Angle and Perry, 1986)

hence suggesting that dual commitment

may be a feature of harmonious industrial

relations. Young, McHugh and Reed (1992)

examining 13 studies across Canada, Japan,

Sweden, and United States found, the type

of industrial relations climate (classified as

adversarial in Canada and the United states

and consensual in Japan and Sweden)

moderate the company and union

commitment. This suggests the following

hypothesis;

H3: Dual commitment exist in

favourable industrial relations climate

2.5. INTENTION TO QUIT THE

ORGANIZATION

One of the most common finding of

industrial relations climate literature is exit

voice theory (Freeman & June, 1980)

explains that non-unionized employees tend

to quit, but dissatisfied unionized

employees tend to remain in the

organization and make their complaints

through various voice mechanisms

provided by their trade unions. Guest and

Dewe (1991) confirmed that those showing

dual allegiance also indicated lowest

propensity to leave the company. The

previous research evidence suggests that

organizational commitment is associated

6

with lower levels of intention to quit (

Mayer, Stanley, Herscovitch and

Topolnytsky, 2002; Snape & Redman,

2006). Also union commitment has been

shown a predictive active participation in

union and intention to quit (Snapeand

Chan, 2000; Redman and Snape 2006). One

possible rationale for such relationship is

that an individual employee/ member

enjoys a social exchange relationship with

both employer and union, which is reflected

in commitment and reciprocated in the

form of discretionary citizenship behaviour

and an intent to continue the relationship

(Organ, 1990). Accordingly following

hypotheses have been formulated;

H4 : Organizational commitment

negatively associate with intention quit

the organization

H5 : Union commitment negatively

associate with intention quit the

organization

2.6. EXPLANATORY MODEL

Explanatory model specify the nature of the

hypotheses which set out in a diagrammatic

form in figure 01.

Figure 01: Explanatory Model of the

Research Framework

In the model it is predicted that co-

operative industrial relations climate will be

positively associated with organizational

commitment and union commitment. It is

expected that both organizational

commitment and union commitment

positively correlate in favourable industrial

relations climate evidence the dual

commitment. Organizational commitment

and union commitment negatively relate

with intent to leave the organization.

3. MEASUREMENT

A seven-point Likert-type scale format

(1= strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree)

was used to measure employees’ perception

of each item in the research model. The

industrial relations climate was assessed

using 10-item harmony scale of

Dastmalchian, Blyton and Adamson

(1991). Dastmalchain et al (1991)

explained the perceived IR climate asthe

degree to which parties have respect for

each other’s goals and settle problems

jointly. Porter et al (1974) 09-item short

form of the organizational commitment

questionnaire was used to measure

organizational commitment. This measures

the employees’ degree of loyalty towards

the organization. Gordon et al (1980)

questionnaire was used to measure union

commitment with modification. Union

commitment was measured by 12 items and

these were categories under four sub scales

as identified by Gordon et al (1980). These

were: union loyalty; responsibility to the

union; willingness to work for the union

and belief in unionism. The working

definition for intention quit is describe as

"how long employees tend to stay" (Meyer

et al, 2002). Intention to leave the

organization was assessed with three

questions: first, how frequently the

employee thinks about leaving his or her

current employer; second, how likely it is

that employee will search for a job in

Organizational Commitment

Intention to quit the

organization

Union Commitment

Industrial Relations Climate

7

another organization; and third, how likely

it is that an individual will actually leave

the organization within the next year. The

respondents’ answers were obtained by

using seven point Likert scale.

3.1. RESEARCH SETTING

Union membership is much higher in

public sector than in private sector and in

manufacturing than in service sector

(Bender and Sloane, 1998). In Sri Lankan

context trade unions are existed in every

state sector organization and those unions

are established based on different political

ideologies, category of employment, place

of birth, language speaking, ethnic group

etc. Most of the employees join trade

unions for their survival and have become

member of at least one of the trade unions

in those government institutions. The

setting for the research is a three large scale

highly unionized food and beverages firms

owned by private sector. All the three firms

are located in Western Province in Sri

Lanka.

The main reasons for selecting the

aforesaid sector for the study was

multiplicity of trade unions is a practice in

most of the large scale food and beverage

manufacturing firms in Sri Lanka. Also

food and beverages industry makes a

considerable contribution to the national

income of the country as well. The food

and beverage industry is an important

sector of Sri Lankan economy as total value

addition to industry sector was at higher

level (Central Bank Report, 2009). The

reason behind in selecting the Western

Province is that it is the geographical area

in Sri Lanka where most of the large scale

business organizations are located.

3.2. THE SAMPLE

The sample consists of 03 large scale

food and beverages companies located in

Western Province in Sri Lanka. The

selection of these three companies was due

to many reasons. In this sampled firms at

least there are three trade unions

representing different political parties. In

addition it is not compulsory to get

membership of inner trade unions in these

unionized settings. The most of the

operational employees tend to get

unionized than executive level employees.

Hence sample consists of operational level

employees.

210 questionnaires were distributed as

manual forms in the selected three

companies, 70 questionnaires for each

organization. 135 questionnaires were

received hence; the response rate was

64percent. It was ensured that all the

questionnaires were collected from

unionized employees. Data were collected

by administering a questionnaire based on

seven point Likert type scale. The data

analysis was entirely based on primary data

given by the employees by answering the

questionnaire.

3.3. STUDY DESIGN

This study was analytical or in

hypotheses testing in nature or purpose.

The researchers were interested in

investigating effect of favourable industrial

relations climate on organizational

commitment, union commitment and

intention quit the organization of

operational level employees in the food and

beverage industry in Sri Lanka. There was

no intention of establishing definite cause

effect relationship between the variables.

The type of the investigation of this study

was therefore correlation rather than causal.

Time horizon of the study was cross

8

sectional due to the reason that the data

collection was done in a single point in

time. The unit of analysis was individual

level; operational level employee.

3.4. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Reliability of measure is established by

testing both consistency and stability

(Sekaran, 1999). The internal item

consistency reliability was examined with

Cronbach’s alpha test. The Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient was calculated for

aggregate sample of 135 respondents. The

Cronbach’s alpha values for industrial

relations climate α = .84, organizational

commitment α =.89, union commitment

α=.86 and intention to quit the organization

α=.74.This indicates internal reliability of

the instrument was satisfactory. There are

three main kinds of evidence in support of

content validity and they are: (1) the

judgment of those who construct the

instrument or other experts familiar with

the subject area; (2) detailed definition or

conceptualization and operationalization of

the behavioural domain or universe of

interest; and (3) indirect way- high internal

consistency reliability (Sekeran, 2006). As

far as the variables (constructs) under this

study are concerned, meeting of these three

requirements was done satisfactorily

assuring content validity. All the

instruments had a high degree of internal

consistency reliability (alpha) which

support the content validity of the

instruments developed to measure the

variables.

The test-retest was done for estimating

external reliability by using 10 employees

with a two-week time interval between the

two administrations. The coefficients of the

test-retest indicate that each instrument

possesses a high degree of test-retest

reliability.

The questionnaires used to measure the

construct of industrial relations climate

(Dastmalchian et al, 1991; Deery et al.,

1999), organizational commitment (Porter

et al 1974; Deery et al 1999;Iverson and

Kuruvilla 1995), and union commitment

(Gordon et al. 1980; Gordon and Ladd

1990; Iverson and Kuruvilla 1995) were

tested questionnaires by many researchers

hence, reliability and validity was ensured.

4. RESULTS

The personal variables of age, tenure,

education and gender were measured using

single item. From the total respondents

85% belongs to more than three years’

experience in the existing organization.

84% of the respondents possess ordinary

level or advance level education

qualifications. 81% employees were male

whereas only 19% were female employees.

There were five hypotheses in the study.

The mean and standard deviation values

were calculated for all variables in the

research model. The mean value of seven

points scale was 04, i.e. (1+2+3+4+5+6+7)

/ 7 = 4. Hence, this mean value was taken

as the deciding factor, which determines

whether the respondents are in favour of a

particular variable or not. The average

score of a particular variable represent µ,

and if µ>4 it is a highly favourable level, if

µ=4 then it is a satisfactory level and if µ<4

it is unsatisfactory. According to the table

01 all the variables have mean above 04

(µ>4) which was highly satisfactory level

except intention to quit the organization

(µ<3.24). These results indicated that

industrial relations climate, organizational

commitment and union commitment were

highly favourable in the selected

organizations.

9

Table 01: Mean and Standard deviation

of the variable in the study (7-point

Liker scale)

Dimension Mean Standard

Deviation

Industrial Relations

Climate

4.78 0.83

Organizational

Commitment

5.12 0.88

Union

Commitment

4.77 1.05

Intention quit the

organization

3.24 1.61

Statistical measure of Pearson’s

correlation coefficient was used to

investigate the covariance between

variables of the study. Table 02 indicates

the correlation values of the variables of the

research model.

Table 02: Correlation analysis of the

variables of the study

IR

Cli

mat

e

Org

.

Com

mit

m

ent

Unio

n

Com

mit

m

ent

Inte

nti

on

to q

uit

the

org

aniz

ati

on

IR Climate 1 .52* .45* -.17*

Organizational

Commitment

- 1 .23* -.19*

Union

Commitment

- - 1 -.09

N= 135 * correlation is

Significance at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

As indicated in the table IR climate was

positively and significantly correlate with

organizational commitment (r = .52,

p<0.05) and union commitment (r = .45,

p<0.05). These results proved the first and

second hypotheses of the study as

favourable industrial relations climate has a

positive relationship with organizational

commitment and union commitment.

Further industrial relations climate has a

significant negative impact on employees’

intention to leave the organization where

they do not have any intention of leaving

the organization in a highly favourable IR

climate.

Third hypothesis of the study involved

in testing whether dual commitment exists

in favourable industrial relations climate.

As predicated both organizational

commitment and union commitment

positively and significantly correlated (r =

.23, p<0.05) which evidenced the dual

commitment exist in the selected

organizations. These findings suggested

that a more harmonious industrial relations

climate was associated with increased

loyalty to both the organization and union.

Fourth and final hypotheses related to

intention quit the organization. Intention to

quit the organization found to be inversely

related with organizational commitment (r

= -.19 p< 0.05) which was significant.

However union members’ intention to leave

the organization was negative associate (r=

-.09, p>0.05) with union commitment

which was not significant.

5. DISCUSSION

The findings were consistent with the

hypotheses of the study. Findings indicate

that fair and more cooperative labour and

management relationship has a positive

impact on organizational commitment and

union commitment. This showed that in

harmonious industrial relations climate

union members show dual loyalty towards

organization and union. When employees

perceive secure employment, being treated

fairly and equitably and believe they have a

career path in the organization result in

showing commitment towards the

organization and they do not have an

intention to leave the organization.

The positive relationship between

organizational commitment and union

10

commitment evidence of dual commitment

exists in favourable industrial relations

climate. These findings of the study

consistent with the research findings of

Deery et al (1999) and Angle and Perry

(1986) where in these studies emphasized

the possibility of existence of dual

commitment in ambient industrial relations

climate. Findings revealed the intention to

quit organization or union depends on their

commitment towards organization and

union. It was shown that there was adverse

relationship exist between union and

organization commitment with intention to

quit, Snape and Redman (2006) also

supported to this view. Iverson and

Kuruvilla (1995) agrees that the new HRM

policies that requires more employee

participation and high levels of employee

commitment to the union as well as to the

company, could not be rejected the

possibility that dual commitment may

empirically exist.

Deery et al (1999) indicate that

employees are more motivated to help the

organization to become more efficient and

productive in the circumstances where they

(1) view the work environment as fair and

justifying (2) believe that a co-operative

relationship exist between management and

the unions, and (3) perceive the union to be

effective and influential in the workplace.

In such environment there is likelihood of

simultaneous commitment to two

interacting systems such as a union and

employing organizations. According to

Angle and Perry (1986) it was important to

find out the factors that enhance or decrease

the likelihood that workers will develop

dual commitment. This research gives only

a partial solution as harmonious industrial

relations climate has a positive impact on

dual commitment. However there could be

other variable that could lead to such

situations as high performance human

resource practices, organizational justice,

leadership etc., suggested for future studies.

This study limited to food and beverages

industry in western province and to the

private sector. Since it is equally or more

important to extend this study in other

industries and do a comparison with state

sector employees as highest levels of

multiplicity of trade unions exist in public

sector in Sri Lanka.

6. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was to

examine whether dual allegiance underlies

union and organization commitment in a

harmonious industrial relations climate.

The results indicated the existence of dual

allegiance in harmonious industrial

relations climate also, indicated in such

environment union members showed higher

commitment towards their employing

organization than union. Further the dual

commitment negatively relate with the

intention to quit the organization. For the

mutual survival of both unions and

management it is important to encourage

dual commitment. Over 60 years back

Drucker (1949) wisely predicted that

management and union might someday

destroy each other unless they could

establish conditions under which their

shared members could be loyal to one

without having to abandon loyalty to the

other.

List of References

Angle, H. L. & Perry, J. L., (1983). Dual

Commitment and Industrial Relations

Climates. Academy of management

Journal, 29 (1), 31-50.

Barkin, S. (1950). A trade unionist

appraises management personnel

philosophy. Harvard Business Review,

28 (5): 59-64.

11

Barling, J. Wade, B. and Fullagar, C.

(1990). Predicting employee

commitment to Company and union:

Divergent models. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63: 49-61.

Bender, K.A. & Sloane, P.J. (1998).

Job Satisfaction, Trade Unions and

Exit Voice Revisited. Industrial and

Labour Relations Review, 51(2), 222-

245.

Blyton, P., Dastmalchain, A. and

Adamson, R. (1987). Developing the

concept of industrial relations climate.

Journal of Industrial relations, 29: 207-

216.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building

Organizational commitment: The

socialization of managers in work

organizations. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 34: 339-347.

Central Bank Report (2009). Central

Bank, Sri Lanka.

Conlon, E.J. and Gallagher, D.J. (1987).

Commitment to employer and union:

Effects of membership status. Academy

of Management Journal, 30: 151-62.

Dastmalchian, A. Blyton, P. and

Adamson, R. (1991). The Climate of

Workplace Relations. London,

Routledge.

Dean, L. R. 1954. Union activity and

dual loyalty. Industrial and Labor

Relations Review, 7: 526-536.

Deery, S. J., Iverson R.D., & Erwin P.J.

(1999). Industrial Relations Climate,

Attendance Behaviour and Role of

trade Union. British Journal of

Industrial Relations, 37(4): 533–558.

Deery, S. J., Iverson R.D., & Erwin P.J.

(1994). Predicting Organizational and

Union Commitment: The Effect of

Industrial Relations Climate. British

Journal of Industrial Relations, 32 (4):

581–597.

Drucker, P. F. (1949). The new society:

The anatomy of industrial order. New

York Harper & Row Publishers.

England, G. W. (1960). Dual allegiance

to company and union. Personnel

Administration, 23(2): 20-25.

Fullagar, C. and Barling, J. (1991).

Predictors and outcomes of different

patterns of organizational and union

loyalty. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 64: 129-43.

Fukami, C. V. and Larson, E. (1984).

Commitment to company and union:

Parallel models. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 69 (3): 367-71.

Freeman, R. B., (1980). The Exit-Voice

Tradeoff in the Labour Market:

Unionism, Job Tenure, Quits, and

Separation. Quarterly Journal of

Economics, XCIV, 643-73.

Gamage P.N. & Hewagama G.V.

(2010). The effectiveness of grievance

settlement practices and its impact on

improving industrial relations climate:

evidence from apparel industry.

Conference proceedings of the 5th

International Research Conference on

Management and Finance 2010,

University of Colombo.

Gordon, M. E., & Ladd, R.T. (1990).

Dual allegiance: Renewal,

reconsideration and recantation.

Personnel Psychology, 43: 37-9.

12

Gordon, M. E., Philpot, J. W., Burt, R.

E., Thompson, C. A, & Spiller, M. E,

(1980). Commitment to the union:

Development of a measure and an

examination of its correlates. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 65: 479-499.

Guest D.E. & Dewe P. (1991).

Company or Trade Union: Which Wins

Workers' Allegiance? A Study of

Commitment in the UK Electronics

Industry. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, 29 (1): 75-96.

Gallagher, D. G. 1984. The relationship

between organizational and union

commitment among federal government

employees. Proceedings of the

Academy of Management: 319-323.

Iverson, R., & Kuruvilla S., (1995),

Does dual commitment underlie

company and union commitment?

Evidence from Australia, Sweden, and

the US. Research and Practice in

Human Resource Management. 3 (1),

15-38.

Katz, H.C., Kochan, T. A. and Gobeille,

K.R. (1983). ‘Industrial relations

performance, economic performance

and QWL programs’ inter plant

analysis. Industrial and Labour

Relations Review.

Kochan, T. A., Katz. H.C. &

MacKersie, R, (1986), The

transformation of American industrial

relations. Basic Books, New York.

Kochan, T. A., Katz. H.C. & Mowrer,

N.R, (1984), Worker Participation and

American unions: Threat or

opportunity? Kalamazoo MI: Upjohn

Institute.

Kornhauser, A, (1961), Observations on

the psychological study of labour-

management relations. Personal

Psychology, 14, 241-249.

Lee J., (2004). Company and union

commitment: evidence from an

adversarial industrial relations climate

at a Korean auto plant. International

Journal of Human Resource

Management, 15 (8), 1463-1480.

Mayer, J. P., and Stanley, D. J.,

Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L.

(2002). Affective, continuance and

normative commitment to the

organization: A meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlate and

consequences. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 61:20-52.

Monappa, A. (2007). Industrial

Relations. Tata McGraw-Hill

Publishing Co. Ltd New Delhi.

Newton, L. A., & Shore L. M. F.

(1992). A model of union membership:

Instrumentality, commitment and

opposition. The Academy of

Management Review, 17 (2), 275-298.

Organ, D. W., (1990) The motivational

basis of organizational citizenship

behavior. Research in organizational

behavior, resource.udallas.edu.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday,

R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).

Organizational commitment, job

satisfaction, and turnover among

psychiatric technicians. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.

Purcell, T. V. 1960. Blue collar man:

Patterns of dual allegiance in industry.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

13

Quarterly Publications (Jan-March

2011), Department of Labour Sri

Lanka.

Redman, T. & Snape, (2006). The

Consequences of Dual and Unilateral

Commitment: Evidence from the Health

Service. ISSN: 1749-3641 (Online).

Sekaran, (1999). Research Methods for

Business; A Skill Building Approach,

4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Snape, E and Chan, A.W. (2000).

Commitment to company and union:

evidence from Hongkong. Industrial

Relations. 39 (3): 445-459.

Young, W R, McHugh, P P & Reed, C

S, (1992). A cross-national comparison

of company and union commitment: A

meta-analysis, Proceedings of the 44th

Annual Meeting of Industrial Relations

Research Association (pp. 549-561).