Research on union renewal has addressed how the way in which worker representatives relate to their constituents affects the legitimacy of worker representation bodies and the support they receive. Worker representatives with a higher “capacity for representation” stand out for their proximity with workers, which strengthens their credibility, and for their capacity for building a coherent group of representatives (Dufour and Hege, 2013). In the area of occupational health, the subject of how worker representatives act and safeguard workers’ interests, and to what extent this contributes to encouraging greater participation of the workers in health and safety issues has been scarcely studied. In this paper, we present the results of a study conducted in Catalonia (Spain) analyzing the relationship between workers and worker representatives in occupational health from the workers’ perspective.

Promoting and maintaining health and safety in the workplace has always been one of the primary functions of worker representative action and, also, one of the main concerns of workers (International Labour Office, 2002). Accordingly, the first legally recognized form of worker representation corresponded to workers’ representatives in occupational health (Thébaud-Mony et al., 2015: 514). Currently, a wide variety of forms of worker representative participation in occupational health exist around the world. In Europe, it is estimated that the most widespread form of representative participation in occupational health are health and safety representatives (HSRs), workers with the mandate to represent the workers’ health and safety interests at work. However, this role can be developed either by general mechanisms for worker representation (e.g., shop stewards or works councils) or by specialized representative bodies in occupational health and safety (e.g., HSRs or Health and Safety Committees, a joint representative body with HSRs and management representatives, see Menéndez et al., 2009).

Considering the national employee thresholds for the right to worker representation in occupational health, in 2015 HSRs were estimated to be present in 58% of establishments in the European Union’s 28 member states (EU-28, (see European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2015); and in 50% of establishments in Spain (INSHT, 2015). These employee thresholds vary throughout Europe. In Spain, there must be a health and safety representative if there are six or more workers on site and a mandatory Health and Safety Committee if there are 50 or more workers. HSRs are most frequently appointed by and from among the worker representatives, although the Spanish Act on Prevention of Occupational Risks allows for other forms of designation if set by collective agreement. Theoretically, any worker may be designated as an HSR. In practice, unions play a central role in workplace representation and the vast majority of HSRs carry out their tasks under the auspices of a union (Menéndez et al., 2009). The existence of worker representatives in occupational health is highly dependent on the firm’s size—being more common in large firms—but also on the sector of the firm, with a higher prevalence in sectors such as public services or manufacturing (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2015; INSHT, 2015).

The action of worker representative participation in occupational health has proven beneficial for workers’ occupational health. For instance, it has been associated with a reduction in work-related diseases and injuries, the provision of more and better information on occupational health and safety for workers, and better enforcement of the rules (Coutrot, 2009; Mygind et al., 2005; Reilly et al., 1995). However, many factors can alter the effectiveness of HSRs (Menéndez et al., 2009), one of which is the interaction that exists between workers and HSRs.

By interaction, we mean the relationship that workers and their representatives establish with each other throughout a wide range of processes: from information or consultation on occupational health-related matters to collective action. There is much evidence on the macro-level context within HSRs perform their function and how it shapes their interaction with workers. The de-collectivization of labour relations has weakened worker collective power and eroded occupational health and safety standards (Johnstone et al., 2005); the spread of flexible employment policies has given rise to groups of workers facing difficulties (or impossibility) in being involved and protected by the action of worker representatives (Quinlan and Johnstone, 2009); and the growth of non-pluralist management approaches in health and safety is marginalizing worker representatives’ action and vision, whilst increasing workers’ direct participation and responsibility in occupational health issues (Walters et al., 2016; Walters and Wadsworth, 2019).

However, the study of interaction processes between representatives and their constituencies alludes to the implementation of everyday practices at the micro level to build and maintain a representative link (Dufour and Hege, 2013) and it has been highlighted as a source of strength for collective representation bodies to regain their legitimacy (Dufour and Hege, 2010). In the field of occupational health, there is less research devoted to this topic, although it is starting to receive attention as a resource for collective action in health and safety issues (Baril-Gingras and Dubois-Ouellet, 2018). Pieces of evidence suggest that worker-HSR interaction affects HSRs’ knowledge of workers’ problems, workers’ awareness of hazardous work conditions and rights, and ultimately, workers’ support for their representatives (Carpentier-Roy et al., 1998; Granaux, 2012; Hall et al., 2016; Ollé-Espluga et al., 2014; Walters et al., 2016).

Some studies in Canada (Carpentier-Roy et al., 1998; Simard et al., 1999) showed that workers’ support was linked to how effective they perceived the representatives’ actions to be and how their representatives interacted with them (i.e. to what extent representatives took on board and solved their demands, and provided feedback on activities carried out). In this regard, the way representatives perceive and fulfill their role has an influence on the amount and scope of interaction they have with workers. Higher levels of interaction with workers have been observed among HSRs with a “knowledge activist” perception of their role. These HSRs spend significant time dealing with workers on health and safety-related problems and complaints, providing them with health and safety training, as well as building and organizing worker support. Knowledge activists differ from other HSRs in that they are more likely to mobilize information, education and research in order to effect change in the workplace (Hall et al., 2016; Walters and Wadsworth, 2019). In contrast, HSRs with a technical-legal understanding of the role and its duties have a more a restricted view of occupational health and limited interaction with workers—for instance, in Spain, they confine interaction with workers to providing information and requesting feedback regarding identification of occupational hazards (Ollé-Espluga et al., 2014), and in Canada, they invest less time in providing health and safety training to workers (Hall et al., 2016).

With respect to interaction processes led by workers, data would indicate that workers tend not to address complaints about their working conditions to their representatives but rather to their superiors (TNS Political and Social, 2014; Walters and Haines, 1988b). This is so because workers tend to regard management as the most capable actor to solve their problems (Olsen, 1993: 278-279). Factors stopping workers from addressing these types of issues include: the perception of work-related problems as being minor or an inevitable part of the job; the fear of negative repercussions on their job and the priority of keeping their job rather than airing health and safety grievances; and the view that the worker is generally to blame for health and safety problems encountered in the workplace (Bluff, 2011; Gunningham, 2008; Olsen, 1993; V. Walters and Haines, 1988b). Other factors that can hinder collective action within firms—for any kind of grievance—are workers’ negative views on labour unions, endangering their legitimacy (Murray, 2017), and the overall economic context, for instance, unemployment rates (Badigannavar and Kelly, 2005).

Given the lack of studies analyzing the relationship between workers and HSRs, in this paper we explore workers’ knowledge and opinions on HSRs, the circumstances in which workers interact with HSRs, and their determining factors in Barcelona and Girona—two provinces in Catalonia (Spain)—in the period 2013-2014.

In this study, the workers who are aware of the existence of a worker representative in occupational health in their workplace fall into two different categories: firstly, those who are aware of the existence of HSRs (in some cases, knowing them personally and interacting with them, and in others, knowing they exist but not knowing them in person) and secondly, those who are aware of the existence of worker representatives, yet do not associate them with the figure of a HSR, but rather with the figure of a union representative devoted to occupational health issues (again, having interacted with them in some cases and not in others). For this reason, the results section is separated into two sub-sections, one on knowledge of the figure and another on interaction processes with worker representatives.

This paper analyzed workers’ views on the relationship between workers and their representatives in occupational health and its influencing factors. One striking result is the widespread lack of knowledge and misconceptions surrounding HSRs and their functions. Due to this, we also explored the interaction processes in occupational health matters between workers and those they identified as union representatives. Interaction between workers and their representatives is very scarce and restricted to those few workers who meet personally with them, whereas the rest know neither who they are nor what their role is in the firm. In contrast, workers tend to be aware of the existence of unions at their workplaces, yet worker-union interaction regarding health and safety matters still appeared to be rather limited. Moreover, most workers tend not to raise grievances with the health and safety or union representative in cases of occupational health-related problems and when they do so, it is as a last resort as found in (Gray, 2011; Walters and Denton, 1990). We observed only a slight difference in content depending on whether interaction concerns health and safety or union representatives: while workers’ interaction with—both health and safety or union—representatives is mostly associated with information sharing or help requests, some worker-union interaction processes also emerge (though to an extremely limited extent) in health and safety-related mobilizations and decision-making processes (Figure 1).

As for determining factors of the interaction between workers and -health and safety or union-representatives, these emerge strongly in relation to representatives and workers and, in a more diluted way, with regard to the labour relations context or the firm (Figure 1).

The opinions of workers as well as those of HSRs (Ollé-Espluga et al., 2014) point to the fact that the way representatives (inter)act seems to feed into a circle of workers’ having scant knowledge of HSRs and little interaction. Thus, workers’ unawareness is not only a consequence of a limited interaction with HSRs, but also a main factor influencing workers’ interaction with HSRs. This is because representatives tend to interact with workers and encourage their participation at the information level and, to a lesser and more restricted degree, consultation level. From the ‘participation ladder’ perspective—where the higher the rung, the more control there is over decisions taken—information and consultation are intermediate rungs that do not ensure that workers’ views are taken into account (Arnstein, 1969). Secondly, because workers’ voices are mainly sought for the identification of occupational health problems and are largely excluded from decisions on how to act on problems. Finally, the sense of remoteness may be reinforced by representatives mostly resorting to some form of problem solving, such as negotiation with management or assisting the Labor Inspectorate (Ollé-Espluga et al., 2014), in which workers can only participate in a passive way, by being informed about the outcomes.

This finding is relevant because, from the workers’ perspective, it does not seem that HSRs are implementing successful practices leading to deliberative vitality. In the literature of union renewal, deliberative vitality is part of the power resource corresponding to internal solidarity and it refers to the existence and regularity of mechanisms and procedures that allow the relationship with members, the existence and effectiveness of communication channels, or the existence of policies and programs to integrate new members (Lévesque and Murray, 2010: 338). On the contrary, the interaction practices undertaken by HSRs could be leading to a lack of visibility of worker representatives and a poor knowledge of their existence and functions among workers, as well as it does not promote an informative conduit (or at least does not succeed in reaching workers) on occupational health matters, as also found in Dugué et al., 2012. As a consequence, this could widen the gap between representatives and workers by shaping the amount and type of workers’ knowledge on HSRs’ existence, on occupational health, as well as their perception of risks and rights.

Workers’ awareness of HSRs has been associated with being more protected by preventive action (Ollé-Espluga et al., 2015) and with a greater knowledge of occupational health and safety legislation (Walters and Denton, 1990). In our interviews, workers reported that most of the information they receive about health and safety topics comes from management, and relevant gaps in awareness of risks were observed, for instance, not regarding psychosocial working conditions included in the domain of occupational risks. Whilst workers describe company campaigns and actions to promote occupational health, they do not report that these made them aware of the role of the HSR. Nor do they describe situations in which the HSRs introduced themselves in person. If HSRs do not develop an informative function, they give way to the spread of a more traditional technical-scientific vision of health and safety, which could result in workers being unaware of issues that they and their representatives can act upon. This is all the more important given the general context of spread of direct communication between workers and management regarding occupational health and the promotion of occupational health conceptions increasing personal accountability described by Walters and Wadsworth, 2019.

In addition, the spread of a traditional vision of health and safety could influence the way in which workers conceive of the HSRs’ role and their source of legitimacy. In our studies, we observe a prevailing non-collectivistic, technical-scientific paradigm of health and safety that is influencing both workers and HSRs. At the same time, the close connection between unions and HSRs can affect workers’ inclinations to resort to HSRs, curtailing their interaction with them. In accordance with the socio-political climate in the country at the time the study was undertaken, in our results unions have been subjected to several criticisms and, for some workers, this very link with unions compromises the HSRs’ technical legitimacy. On a more optimistic note though, if trade union crisis is a matter of legitimacy that can be regenerated through the construction of relations of representativeness at the workplace level as suggested by Dufour and Hege (2010), encouraging worker-representative interaction might be a way of reversing this crisis (for a further analysis on how unions frame health and safety issues, see Baril-Gingras and Dubois-Ouellet, 2018).

Despite emerging less strongly than in the study with HSRs’ opinions (Ollé-Espluga et al., 2014), some of the worker-related factors affecting the interaction with their representatives also reflect the context of unequal power relations in which worker representation in occupational health occurs. The spread of job precariousness and the fragmentation of the workforce weaken the power of workers on both the individual and the collective level. In Spain, while workers such as self-employed or informal workers, or employees in small firms cannot have HSRs due to legal impediments (Calderón and López, 2010), other groups of workers—e.g. subcontract labor, teleworkers or temporary workers—may have the collective representation right but their employment situation hinders their possibility of raising occupational health issues to safety representatives, or being aware of their existence (Johnstone et al., 2005; Alós, 2014: 7). In our results, most workers do not address health and safety issues due to reasons such as feeling that their working conditions cannot be changed, fear of reprisals, or the result of weighing up costs and benefits when no serious problems are perceived, as observed in other studies (Gunningham, 2008; Walters and Denton, 1990; Walters and Haines, 1988a). All of this signals the existence of an ever growing segment of workers—in our study, those in unstable employment—who despite having the right to representation, in practice have difficulties exercising it, especially within the context of massive unemployment, increasing devaluation of labour rights and deterioration in employment and working conditions in which the study was undertaken. While unemployment fuels workers’ fears and hampers their propensity to take action, the spread of employment precariousness limits the action of organized labour in the workplaces (e.g. by dividing the workforce and its interests or by introducing job instability and, thus, making it more difficult to get involved, see Johnstone et al., 2005; Dufour and Hege, 2010). As a result, workers perceive themselves as powerless while their representatives, at best, are seen as necessary but unable to effect change (and at worst, fall short of legitimacy among the workers).

A last set of factors determining interaction seem to suggest that some firm-specific characteristics have a role to play. For instance, workers in industry and construction, which are more associated with “traditional” and serious/imminent occupational hazards, are the most aware of processes involving interaction with trade unions regarding health and safety matters. In a similar vein, results from a study in a hazardous industry such as the coalmines showed a context in which workers interacted with their representatives by addressing concerns and complaints despite the uncooperative labour relations environment (Walters et al., 2016). On the other hand, establishing a close relationship with workers is particularly difficult in some firm contexts. Although HSRs are legally entitled to paid time off to perform their tasks, they face communication difficulties when the firm is very large, it has several work centers or subcontracting (Ollé-Espluga et al., 2014; Johnstone et al., 2005). Conversely, workers employed in small firms tend to have a greater awareness of the HSRs’ existence due to close relationships with the representatives, although other characteristics emerge in relation to awareness of HSRs such as friendship, having an occupational health-related job or having a union background