Industrial Relation & Workplace Change - Assignment Example

University of Western Sydney TAKE – HOME EXAMINATION QUARTER 3 2012 SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Student Family Name: Student Given Names: Course: Unit Name: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & WORKPLACE CHANGE Unit Number: 200719 Due Date: Wednesday 5 September 2012 Number of Questions: 6 QUESTIONS (Part A), AND 5 QUESTIONS FROM CASE STUDY (Part B) Lecturer’s Name: DR. BEN IMBUN Part A Question 1: Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an enterprise is made between employer and employees at an enterprise level and encloses some mandatory stipulations that create room for individual flexibility plans. The terms within enterprise agreements are supposed to be more beneficial to employee when compared to National Employment Standards (NES) and in general much better than appropriate modern award. For the approval of an agreement, it must first be checked whether it has met mandatory terms and its award must be better off than any modern award incorporated. It is the duty of duty of Fair Work Australia (FWA) to help in the establishment of such agreements and approving them, besides solving any dispute that may come up from the agreements (Glover & Patmore, 2010). There are three main enterprise agreements, namely, Single-Enterprise Agreement, multi-Enterprise Agreement and Greenfields Agreement. Single business agreements are initiated between a single employer and the workers. Multi-enterprise agreement could be made amongst several employers with common interest with their combined workers, like the case in franchise businesses. Greenfields agreements are initiated, before employing, amongst the employers and the trade unions which is well placed in representing those potential workers. There are two categories of terms that are enclosed in enterprise agreement; basic and mandatory terms. Basic terms relating to enterprise agreement include rates of pay, allowances, standard working hours, leave, overtime rates and penalty rates, and authorized deductions from wages. For mandatory terms, it’s a must for them to be enclosed in all agreements, they comprise of dispute resolution term, flexibility term, consultation term and coverage term. It is good for both employees and employers to comprehend the underlying terms of operations of flexibility clause in either the award or agreement so as to adhere to standard conditions, as this will help to minimize cases of disputes. For effective operation, award clause must be enforced where there are genuine agreement and genuine needs of both the employer and employee. The flexibility of the award clause arises when employee is better off than when the standard award was submitted. The agreement should be written down and sealed by the signature of both parties. The clause should not enclose any term that may be discriminatory to any employee, for example on grounds of age, race, and tribe, these helps in abiding by the international human rights framework (Buchanan and Watson, 2001). The enterprise agreement enhances flexibility through a number of ways in its operations, such as allows employee to appoint bargaining representative like a union. The clause also entitles an employee with a voting right, which is basic in international human rights framework. Similar to award clause it’s sealed by signatures of both employer and employees. In case one party feels aggrieved with the operation, may call for termination of the agreement. The flexibility arrangements may be terminated by a request in writing from either party. A notice on termination should be availed within 28 days to allow the other party to adjust to the change. Question 2: The employer’s managerial prerogative is a very vital tool in existing turbulent environment, and is mostly stipulated in Contracts of Employment Act. It gives employers the right to take full charge of working environment. The “right to manage” utilised by management is embedded in the ideology of “managerial prerogative”. The management is considered to posses some right to perform some industrial relations matters by issuing orders. As such, this provisions accord employer the right to order how performance of work should be carried out, besides the right to hire and fire. Several issues, ranging from workplace deregulation, technology change and globalisation have given management massive leverage to attack the working practices, skills and pay structures used by workers to their advantage in the past. The notion of employer’s managerial prerogative exists in two realistic dimensions. The first notion, regards the primary characteristics of the industrial relations as well as the agreement of employment it represent the direction cum supervision characteristics. This criterion restricts the practical implementation of labour legislations, thus violating the concept of fundamental right of employees. The second notion of practical application of managerial prerogative entails the most important and ancillary responsibilities of employees (Glover & Patmore, 2010). Despite the fact that employee’s core duty is to carry out work performance at workplace, there are some ancillary tasks that should be undertaken like duty of obedience and expansive loyalty duty. The duty of obedience implies that every employee must abide by any order issued by the management, based on authority vested in them (managers), concerning the way work is performed, its features and scope. The power of employer in adjusting some employment features contrary to the agreement of employee is mainly linked with duty of obedience. The leeway of temporary adjustments is reserved in managerial prerogative, and confers to the employer the right to make independent changes to employee’s job description. The concept of fundamental right in industrial relations revolves around the freedom of association and outright recognition of collective bargaining, the banning of any form of forced labour, provision of good working conditions, the abolition of child labour and the eradication of any form of discrimination in respect to employment or occupation. These have also been the issues which trade unions advocate for in employment relations. But because of uncertainty and changes that are being experienced globally have influenced management practices. This has forced a number of organizations to adopt strategies that suit their business activities and pose challenges to their competitors. Such interventions could sometimes infringe the fundamental right of employees as organisation exercises their “right to manage”. It’s in such instances that trade unions come in to safeguard employees. Question 3: The industrial relation policies on workplaces in Australia have greatly been influenced by the stipulations in the Fair Work Act. The work statutes like National Employment Standards (NES) have eliminated cases of exploitations in the labour market. The standards have also eliminated some interference on the labour market allowing the forces at the market to take their course. This efficiency and effectiveness in the Australian labour market has made it a “welfare state” because of its emphasis on equality of opportunity and social justice in its employment relationship policies and actions. Mostly, power, control and authority lies with the employers but will always be regulated by policymaker, which is the Federal State to avoid exploitative relations in the workforce. Work allocation and remuneration, together with its organisation and management are of significance importance, how these are carried out in any gainful employment are stipulated in NES and explains much more about the perceptions and ideals Australia embrace as a society. Similarly, labour unions in Australia are perceived as a prolific counterbalance to corporate power, besides fair mandated standards helping too against the misuse of the corporate power. Swepston (1998) refers to social justice is a key instrument for reducing social risks, curbing poverty and encouraging greater social unanimity in industrial relations. It is also perceived to be a contributing thing to employee’s quality life. The interventions by Australian federal government in social justice and social services have helped in the perfection of quality plans for both the employer and employee in industrial relations. The interventions have been through a number of issues like advocacy of better pay, licking welfare and work, encouraging suitable working environment, solving disputes between employers and employees and, formulation and implementation of sound industrial relations policies that suits investors to venture in Australian market, thus creating job opportunities for the jobless. In recent years Australian federal government implemented appropriate industrial relations policies such as freedom of association, collective bargaining, abolition of forced or compulsory labour, and equality of opportunity in employment (Glover & Patmore, 2010). Since it was founded in 1919, the issue of equality of opportunity has been the main fundamental objective of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). For Australia, equality of opportunity remain a key principle among those that are “of exceptional interest and decisive value” in industrial relations (Swepston, 1998). The country’s constitution as well as the Fair Work Act (FWA) give due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all employees. Recently, the government ordered all employers both public and private to apply the principle of equality of treatment to all workers and renounce any existing terms that might discriminate workers in terms of race, colour, nationality, tribe or religion. The clause on equality of opportunity in FAW insist that “workers, irrespective of race, creed or sex should be accorded right to pursue material well-being in terms of freedom and dignity, of social and economic security, and equal opportunity. It’s believed that achievement of these conditions helps to accomplish equality of opportunity which is both a national and international policy as stipulated in the ILO policies. This is manifested through provisions of equal and fair remuneration, promotion of equality between men and women at workplaces, Part B Question 1: Individual opinion on MailCo place of work MailCo place of work is bad because of poor working relations. First, the company has poor structure on capacity building, for example, during the introduction of flat mail optical character reader (FMOCR); their trainings were not inclusive as staffs were only trained in the area not on the entire floor. This is also pointed out by complain from mail officers who claims that trainings focused too much on teaching them how to use equipment, and not enough on other general skills. The poor working relations arise where concerns of the mail officers are not addressed, making them to get stuck in a job or with people they don’t like. Such happenings make employees to be ineffective in discharge of their duties and to unfriendly environment, thus affecting their output in work. Question 2: Employment relations rules (a) Formal and informal rules Some of the formal rules at MailCo regards management level, the firm people in different capacity, subordinate (mail officers) middle management (supervisors) and senior management (facility manager); stipulated responsibilities of each staff; collective bargaining, this are mostly initiated by the union to advocate for better working conditions. On the other hand, informal rules are like Saturday meeting that is always organized by the boss (b) Substantive and procedural rules Substantive rule illustrates the rights and responsibilities of each staff, it also ensures that fairness prevail in any employment relations, for example equal opportunity to train and equal share of work. Procedural rule determines the happenings at the workplace, such as how training are to be conducted, the way changes are going to be effected in the working system and so on. (c) The different ways in which rules are recorded In industrial relations rules are recorded or stipulated in writing and confirmed by signing or signature of those parties governed by such statutes. Some may be recorded in audio tapes and one could listen to them. Others are positioned in hanging frames on walls of the office like the objectives and mission statements. Question 3: Planning and implementing the introduction of teams Bill should pursue a number of consultations and formulate strategies to better understand the teams. The options will be, first to identify the features of effective and ineffective teams, second is to examine the key motivators of each team members, third option will be to consider team expectations and fourth one will be to identify unifying skills that make the team work together. Also he should comprehend well the needs of the teams; is it high wages, job security, promotion, good working conditions or interesting work. Question 4: Effect of new technology In general, new technology will pose different effects both to organisation and workers. For example, introduction of tea harvesting machines by Tea Cup increased the efficiency in the harvesting process and saved time. The use of machines meant that workers who had been employed in harvesting division will be rendered jobless. The trade union came in for a collective bargaining. This forced the organisation absorb energetic team to other divisions and retrench the old staffs. All this interventions by management was to enhance efficiency in its operation after acquiring new machines. Question 5: Management of work performance MailCo should roll out an open forum to join the workers and management on one platform of sharing their views and opinions on the general operation of the company. This helps in pin pointing issues that could hinder effective progress of the organisation. Such meetings could unite both parties as one team with a common goal, hence improving the overall performance of both the firm and the workers. References Buchanan, J. and Watson, I. (2001). The failure of the third way in Australia: implications for policy about work. ACIRRT, University of Sydney. Davis, M. (2008). Backbench Revolt Looms for Labour Over Building Watchdog. Sydney Morning Herald. August 22. Glover, D & Patmore, G (2010). The Future of Social Democracy, Pluto Press, Sydney. Gough, R. and Ogden, M. (2008). Partnership, Bargaining and Production in Liberal Market and Coordinated market Economies. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 39-59. Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (2001). Partnership at Work: Mutuality and the Balance of Advantage’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, June, pp. 207-236. Stotniki, T. (2004). First – Class Delivery, Business Review Weekly, 18 November. Swepston, L. (1998). Human rights law and freedom of association: Development through ILO supervision, International Labour Review, 137: 2, pp.169-194. Read More