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

2

concentrates on individual approaches to employment facilitation, involving self-

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

3

conditions and neurodiversity, is presented. The second section describes and

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

4

government at the May 2015 general election. The modernisation agenda also

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.

5

However, there have been critics of government attempts to modernise the

UK trade union movement. Such criticisms, for example, suggest government

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

6

to find in non-unionised workplaces. Moreover, Schur (2003) highlights how

unionised disabled employees are more likely to report a case of disability

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

7

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

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 non-

trade union sources, such as voluntary/campaign organisations or government-

funded 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,

9

dyspraxia impairs movement, ADHD impairs attention span and concentration, and

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

10

been adopted as a political organising tool for those with neurological impairments

such as Autism (Baker 2011).

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.).

11

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

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.

12

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

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.

13

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

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

14

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

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

15

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

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

16

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

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

17

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).

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).

18

[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

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

19

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:

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).

20

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:

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).

21

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

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

22

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:

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).

23

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

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:

24

… 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).

25

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:

26

… 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:

27

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).

28

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

29

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

30

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).

31

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).

32

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

33

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 would

34

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.

35

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

36

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

37

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.

38

Certification Officer (2004), Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Retrieved from http://www.certoffice.org/CertificationOfficer/media/DocumentLibrary/PDF/376T_2003.pdf

Certification Officer (2013), Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Retrieved from http://www.certoffice.org/CertificationOfficer/media/DocumentLibrary/PDF/376T_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.

39

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 Neo-liberal 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, 215-222.

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.

40

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.

41

TSSA (n.d.), Find Your Company. Retrieved from http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/Your-union/Your-company/company-pages/

TSSA (2011), Dyslexia and Neurodiversity Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/dyslexia-and-neurodiversity-initiative

TSSA (2013), Rule Book. Retrieved from http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/Your-union/TSSA-democracy/tssa-rulebook/

TUC (2014), Autism in the Workplace. Retrieved from http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Autism.pdf

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-uk-workplaces

Unison (n.d.), Dyslexia Awareness. Retrieved from http://www.unison.org.uk/for-activists/training/utrain/union-learning-representatives-courses/dyslexia-awareness

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.

42

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 impairment

9

Has family or friend with neurological impairment 32

Has other experiences of neurological impairments, e.g. through colleague or partner with education or health expertise

9

Represented neurologically impaired employees at work 11

No experience of neurological impairments in any situation 16

43

Table 2. Details of neurologically impaired participants.

Employee

Gender

Job title Interview disclosed impairment

1 M Data Analyst ADHD/Asperger syndrome2 M Project Manager Asperger syndrome3 M Electrical Engineer Asperger syndrome/undiagnosed

dyspraxia4 M Transport Engineer Asperger syndrome 5 M Track Quality Manager Asperger syndrome 6 M Middle Manager Dyslexia/undiagnosed dyscalculia7 M Senior Architect Dyslexia8 M Project Manager Dyslexia9 M Mechanical Engineer Undiagnosed dyslexia10 F Ticket Office Manager Dyslexia11 M Transport Engineer Dyslexia/undiagnosed Asperger syndrome12 M Software Engineer Undiagnosed dyslexia13 M Procurement Officer Undiagnosed ADHD14 M Engineering Manager Dyslexia15 M Workforce

Development SpecialistDyslexia

16 M Station Supervisor Dyslexia17 M Control Room Officer Dyslexia18 F Ticket Clerk Dyslexia/dyscalculia19 M Information Analyst Dyslexia/undiagnosed dyspraxia20 M Customer Service

AssistantDyslexia/Asperger syndrome

21 M Transport Planner Dyspraxia/undiagnosed dyslexia/ADHD22 M Support Engineer Undiagnosed Asperger syndrome

44