Different Legal Systems, Same Normative Contents? Collective Bargaining at Apple, Ikea and Tiffany Stores in Australia and Italy

Drawing on responsive regulation theory, this article analyses how the nature and legal setting of collective bargaining regulation in Australia and Italy influence the regulatory space of multinational corporations (MNCs) in shaping working conditions. We aim to identify how these two systems of collective labour law have operated in practice, by highlighting the normative outcomes of bargaining through comparison of agreement clauses in the same three MNCs — Apple, Ikea and Tiffany — with operations in both Australia and Italy. The comparative analysis shows that although the result of firm-level bargaining involves the implementation of flexibility-enhancing measures, efficiency clauses are generally traded-off with wage increases and/or welfare measures, thus preserving a normative balance between efficiency and equity. Despite the similarities observed, they cannot be described in terms of standardisation of collective bargaining systems. In both countries, trade union power and statutory rules played important roles in mediating power relationships at firm level and in preventing market failures in the form of unfair bargaining outcomes. Even when collective bargaining was explicitly used for efficiency purposes, it still (for the most part) remained a driver for a controlled or ‘socially embedded’ model of normative flexibilisation. Overall, the traditional function of statutory regulation and national systems of collective bargaining — to keep wages and working conditions out of competition — is preserved, even if the agents of firm-level bargaining include MNCs on the employers’ side. The evidence drawn from our study of the Australian and Italian retail operations of three MNCs confirms the importance of looking beyond the dichotomy between regulation and deregulation of labour law. Between these two processes, MNCs can engage in responsive regulation via firm-level bargaining to adapt (rather than derogate from or bypass) central rules in a way that makes them sustainable both in economic and social terms.