Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

The Labour Management Partnerships Program (LMPP) is a contributions program that was launched in December 1991. This program supports joint labour-management initiatives and projects that are designed and implemented in the workplace, or at sectoral or national levels, to foster and improve the labour-management relationship. The program's budget was about $1.8 million in 1996-97 and was $1.6 million in each of the subsequent years.

The LMPP's objective is pursued through specific types of priorities and funded projects. The program offers financial support, on a cost-shared basis, to employers and unions for three types of projects:

• Workplace projects: joint labour-management "pilot’ projects designed to promote productive, fairer, more accessible workplaces and improved labour-management
• Conference projects: on key labour-management issues; and
• Research projects: aimed at improving labour-management relations.

Individual projects may be funded up to a maximum of $100,000 and may have a duration of up to two years.

LMPP was previously evaluated in 1997. That evaluation concluded that the program provided good value and should be better marketed. The current evaluation is for the period 1997 to 2002, and the focus is on examining the degree of program success and the mechanisms of success (i.e., how positive results are achieved).

Evaluation Methodology

This report highlights the statistical and qualitative data from three lines of evidence:

• Descriptive statistics from a survey of over 200 LMPP participants (i.e., senior managers in industry and other sectors; union officials; researchers; and others in participating organizations) involved in one of the 120 LMPP projects during the evaluation period;
• 21 Case studies drawn from 120 LMPP projects conducted during the evaluation period (i.e., 11 workplace projects, seven conference projects, and three research projects); and
• A total of 16 key informant interviews with business leaders, leaders of organized labour, academics, and LMPP and other HRDC staff.

Main Findings

Nearly all LMPP Projects met the goals outlined in their project proposals to HRDC and contribution agreements, with few shortfalls.

Nearly all projects were successfully completed. The participants' survey indicated that:

• 87 percent of management, labour and other participants assessed their project as achieving most or all of the expected results;
• another 5 percent assessed their project as achieving some of the expected results; and
• only 8 percent indicated that their project achieved few or no results.

Only three of 21 case study projects did not fully achieve their goals.

Qualitative and quantitative analyses indicate that LMPP projects had a number of positive impacts.

Nearly all LMPP projects had a positive influence on labour-management relations at the workplace level and in general. The participant survey indicated that LMPP projects were considered to have produced substantial benefits (60 percent) or some benefits (34 percent) on labour-management relations. Almost all of the case studies had positive effects on building trust, opening lines of communication, and reducing long-standing difficult or tumultuous relationships.

The evidence also indicated that LMPP projects helped to improve productivity and performance of employees in the case of workplace projects (reported by 86 percent of those interviewed), along with reduced absenteeism and increased worker participation in decision-making. LMPP projects were also found to add to the existing body of knowledge: specifically, positive impacts of LMPP projects on the body of knowledge were noted by 96 percent of the project participants surveyed. The evidence also indicates that LMPP projects aided in the avoidance or settlement of labour disputes.

Another positive impact of the LMPP was that it was credited with aiding the prevention or resolution of ongoing and imminent labour disputes. For example, 77 percent of survey respondents indicated that LMPP projects benefited the settlement of labour disputes. In case studies, LMPP was credited for renewing labour relations, avoiding impending disputes, reducing the number of grievances, and in one case implementing a new dispute resolution process.

A number of factors were identified as contributing to the LMPP's positive impacts.

This evaluation identified five mechanisms/activities that occurred with LMPP workplace projects and that helped to improve/facilitate better labour-management relations:

1. working towards the common goal(s) of the LMPP project;
2. meeting regularly as a joint committee for the purposes of the LMPP project;
3. information sharing and understanding one another's position;
4. meeting in a neutral setting; and
5. implementing practical workplace policies, programs and guidelines.

These types of experiences under the LMPP project appeared to result in a variety of positive workplace changes.

Mechanisms cited as helping to increase productivity included increased information sharing, reduced absenteeism, better morale, reduced injury rates, and improved labour-management relations (a feedback loop).

The evaluation data indicated that only a small 5 percent of the projects would have gone ahead in their full form without LMPP funding.

Managers in industry and public sector agencies and union representatives alike indicated that most of the projects would not have proceeded at the same level or at all without LMPP funding. The participant survey indicated that half of all projects would not have proceeded at all without LMPP, and that more than 44 percent would have been limited in scope without LMPP funding.

Cost-sharing requirements of LMPP were generally regarded as reasonable by all parties, but labour participants argued in certain circumstances for more support and a more flexible approach.

Labour participants were less likely than management participants to regard the cost-sharing model as reasonable. They argued for more support and a flexible approach, for example, to facilitate worker participation. They were also more likely to feel that the scope of their projects was limited by the cost-sharing requirement (see also below).

The evaluation data indicated that LMPP funding levels were adequate for most projects, but that funding levels were insufficient for some types of projects.

Most participants (67 percent) indicated that the funding was sufficient for their project's goals, but in approximately 25 percent of cases, participants indicated that the scope and impact of their project were limited by the amount of funding. The case study analysis indicated in particular that the project funding cap of $100,000 is not sufficient for larger scale, high-cost projects.

The evaluation evidence suggests that the LMPP would benefit from being marketed more proactively to increase awareness of the program and reach more workplaces and other organizations.

The need for more marketing was evident in the high ratio of approved to rejected applications and concerns expressed about "repeat users" of LMPP. The evaluation noted that 16 organizations (mostly research bodies or research consortia) were multiple users of the program.

The assessment of program awareness indicated that participants became aware of the LMPP through a variety of avenues. For example, the case study analysis indicated that four of the case study projects cited their longstanding relationship HRDC as their reason for becoming aware of the program. Sponsors of four other projects became aware of the program through collective bargaining and union events. The remainder of the case study participants became aware of the program through corporate contacts, other government programs, previous involvement with LMPP, HRDC conciliators, or the LMPP web-site.

In recent years, the annual program budget has not been fully used, with the unused portion being returned to general funds each year. This indicates that more projects could be funded within the current budget and/or some projects could be funded at a higher level in conjunction with additional criteria aimed at enhancing program outcomes.

Some suggestions for improving awareness are noted in the report, such as more aggressive marketing on the Internet, by HRDC staff, etc. As a more comprehensive market strategy generates more interest and more applications for LMPP funding, it will probably be necessary to develop a way to refine the current set of program funding priorities to direct LMPP funding towards a more select range of labour-management projects. By giving the priority development process a profile and involving labour and management groups, such a process could also be used as a way to increase the awareness and reach of the LMPP.

The sustainability of project results was an area of concern for participants.

Although the evidence indicates that nearly all workplace LMPP projects had positive impacts, nearly half of the LMPP participants surveyed indicated that the sustainability of project results was an area of concern.^* In terms of funding, the issue of sustainability of results was the most common concern that emerged from the case study projects. Participants noted that projects seemed to lose their impact after the "pilot" phase ended, and some project results diminished over time.

^*The issue of sustainability was mentioned by 64 percent of labour, management and other project participants who completed the telephone interview survey, suggesting the importance of this issue. A supplementary survey confirmed this finding. Because of the salience of this issue, 30 workplace participants were re-contacted in late November to ask them a structured question on sustainability. When asked "How would you describe the sustainability of benefits of the LMPP project in the workplace?," responses were 13 percent "short term," 27 percent "medium term," 27 percent "long term," 17 percent "permanent," and 17 percent "could not answer."

The report includes some possible suggestions for increasing the sustainability of project benefits: for example, emphasizing the need for workplace projects proposals to include a plan for sustaining project benefits; replacing the two-year time limit on projects with a more flexible time limit: and, possibly, allowing for a sliding contribution rate that is clearly linked to sustainability.

The dissemination of knowledge and lessons learned were identified as areas for strengthening the LMPP.

The case study analysis indicates a need to establish and strengthen mechanisms to better disseminate knowledge arising from LMPP projects. Also, the evidence points to a need to develop a process to better identify and share lessons learned regarding the factors that contribute to project success.

Strategic changes could allow HRDC to achieve more with the LMPP.

The evaluation findings to date indicate that, although the LMPP is highly effective, its potential is much greater and could be more fully attained through a more strategic approach in key areas:

• marketing the program more effectively and widening its reach to more workplaces;
• reducing unwarranted repeat use of the program;
• improving the sustainability and permanence of impacts; and
• improving the dissemination of project results and lessons learned to more of Canada's workplaces.