Managing Employee Relations - Essay Example

ESSAY QUESTION-MANAGING EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Introduction   UK employee relation has seen significant changes over the last 30 years. The nature and character of UK’s industrial relations system itself has changed dramatically over the twenty years. The wages and employment conditions are no longer so dependent on arbitrated industry. The present day government is thus currently in the process of designing a range of new legislative measures intended to facilitate what it describes as a plan to modernize UK’s workplace relations system But it represents a case of the organization of industrial relations without collective bargaining. This is quite surprising because post-war system of industrial relations emerged within the broader context of an industrializing competitive market economy and a British colonial political system that granted freedom to workers to organize unions. Here, the industrial relations might have been expected to evolve towards a system characterized by a growing volume of procedural and substantive rules governing labour market transactions as an outcome of institutionalized bargaining among organizations representing employees and employers at enterprise, industry and/or national levels .It poses a problem for analysts of industrial relations since this scenario did not materialize. Ackers, P. (2002) ‘Reframing employment relations: the case for neo-pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33 (1): 2-19. Union Orientations The union orientation has its own impact in both countries. The permissive and non-interventionist approach to labour relations has both reinforced, and been reinforced by, the orientation and character of the trade-union movement. Despite its eventual failure, the last general strike of the Government Employees, it has focused both public and governmental attention on thorny problem of government's relations with its employees. The government is expected to be a model employer, and it is its duty to devise suitable machinery for resolving the grievances of its civil servants. We shall discuss this problem under the following heads: (1) Right of Association, (2) Right of Strike, and (3) Machinery for Negotiation and Settlement of Disputes. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION Three problems are involved here: (1) Can public servants form their associations? (2) Can these associations be affiliated to trade unions outside? (3) Can they join a political party? The practice differs from country to country. Civil servants in U.K. are absolutely free to form service associations and to continue to be members of such associations, whether they are recognized by the Government or not. Any such association can become part of the wider trade union movement by resolution of its Annual Meeting or by a ballot of its members. Between 1927 and 1946, however, the Trade Disputes Act forbade a permanent civil servant to belong to a union which had affiliation to an outside trade union, or any political party. The Labour Government of 1945 repealed the 1927 Act in 1946. This was followed by the re -affiliation of some Civil Service Unions to the Trade Union Congress. These included the larger Associations representing postal, clerical and similar other workers, but bodies representing professional, executive and administrative civil servants have remained aloof. As regards links with political parties, only the Union of Post Office Workers is affiliated to the Labour Party. None is affiliated to any other party. There are specific rules and conditions laid down for it. Civil Service Associations must go through a prescribed procedure before being able to join a political party. Again, unions are forbidden to use any general funds for political purposes. Edwards, P. (2003) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Read in particular chapter 20, pp. 513-521. In some areas the federal employees have the right to be members of any service organization or association subject to the condition that such a body does not impose upon them the duty to go on a strike against the Government. As a matter of practice, the civil servants' unions have voluntarily restricted their membership to certain well-defined categories of workers. Thus, there are separate unions for (1) machinists, carpenters and others of the skilled trades; (2) different occupational groups within the postal services, such as, letter-carriers, clerks and postal supervisors; and (3) the federal white-collar workers. Thus, the unions, to which white-collar civil servants belong, confine their membership to employees in that group only. Similarly, membership of the Federation of Government Employees or the National Association of Letter-Carriers is restricted to government servants. However, these bodies are affiliated to the Federation of Labour which is made up of unions belonging to private section. "This has been done by the repudiation of the strike clause in the constitution of the affiliating bodies." But, there are several unions which are unaffiliated. Heery, E. (2002). ‘Partnership versus organising: alternative futures for British trade unionism, Industrial Relations Journal, 33 (1): 20-35. But in some other areas, the present position in this respect in our country is that the civil servants cannot join or continue to be members of any service association which has not either been recognized by the Government within six months of its formation, or the recognition to which has been refused or withdrawn. Recognition of such associations is subject to the following conditions: (1) that no person, who is not a Government servant, is connected with the affairs of the Association ; (2) that the executive of the Association is appointed from amongst members only; (3) that the Association shall not espouse or support the cause of individual Government servant; and (4) that it shall not maintain any political fund or propagate the views of any political party or politician. The rules regarding non-railway industrial staffs and railway staffs (constituting 70 per cent of the total staff under the Government) are more liberal. For example, their Associations are not prohibited from maintaining a political fund. It is clear from the above description that the right of civil servants to form Associations is hedged in by stringent conditions. Thus, membership of an unrecognized Association is a disciplinary offence . Constitution confers on all citizens the right to form Associations or unions. Why should public servants be denied this right, then? Why should disciplinary action be taken against them merely because they are members of unrecognized Associations? Again, the Government is free to grant or withhold recognition in its discretion. The Government recently used this power to withdraw recognition of such Associations as took active part in the last strike. Sometimes the Government may refuse recognition to an association on the ground that an Association of the same class of employees with a large membership already exists. Oxenbridge, S., Brown, W., Deakin, S. and Pratten, C. (2003) ‘Initial responses to the statutory recognition provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 41(2): 315-334 As regards recognition of Associations, the rules framed by the Government appear to us to be rather stringent. Reasonable conditions for recognition are essential for successful working of service Associations. We, therefore, consider it necessary that the rules of recognition should be conceived and recognition granted in a liberal spirit. RIGHT TO STRIKE There is no law prohibiting demonstrations or strikes by civil servants. In other words, if a civil servant goes on strike, he commits no penal offence. Striking is, however, a disciplinary offence, and the Government is free to take any disciplinary action that a strike situation may demand. In practice, the civil servants do not go on strike or even threaten to do so. But in many other countries the civil servants are prohibited by law to engage in strikes. The Labour Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act 1947 makes it unlawful for any employee of the Government of the United States or any of its agencies including government corporations to resort to strike against the Government. The penalty provided for was discharge from employment, forfeiture of civil service status, and ineligibility for reemployment for three years. The ban has been made more sweeping and stringent by law enacted in 1955 (Public Law 330—84th Congress), which provides "that no person shall accept or hold office or employment in the Government in the United States or any agency thereof, including wholly-owned Government corporation, who participates in any strike, or asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or such agency, or is a member of an organization of Government employees that asserts the right to such strike." Violation of this provision is a felony punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment. The fact that Trade Union legislation excludes federal employees may mean that the legal protection of the rights guaranteed to labour does not extend to Government servants. In the province of Quebec strikes are prohibited in all circumstances. France seems to be the only important country of the western world which permits the right to strike. The position here is a strike by Government servants is not prohibited by law; it only constitutes a breach of discipline. Thus, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, forbid a Government servant from participating in any demonstration or resorting to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service. The provision applies to non industrial staffs constituting about thirty per cent of the total staff under the Government. However, no such restriction is applicable to industrial staffs, except those under the Railways and Railway staffs, both industrial and non industrial, constituting seventy per cent of the total strength. Two issues arise here for consideration: (1)Should Government servants be free to participate in a demonstration or to resort to a strike in connection with matters pertaining to their conditions of service? (2)Should a legal ban be, imposed on such strikes? Divergent views have been expressed on this issue; and it is but to be expected. There have emerged three viewpoints on this matter. The first favours the grant of full Trade Union rights to civil servants including the right to strike. The second recommends a total ban on strikes by public servants. Between the above two opposing views comes the third school which would prohibit only certain types of strikes. The first view has been supported by eminent writers like W. F. Mosher according to whom "the prohibition of strike by Civil Service Regulations cannot be justified either in logic or in political philosophy To deny to any group of employees the right to strike against intolerable conditions is to reduce them to a form of slavery." Secondly, there should be no distinction between the Government employees and the employees of private enterprises. The employees of Government, like other employees, should have the right to demonstrate in order to arouse public conscience about their grievances, and to secure public support for their redress, and they should have the ultimate sanction of a worker to withdraw his labour. It is, thus, argued that there is no valid reason why Government servants should not have all the rights of other employees or the Government should not have the limitations of other employers. A distinction should be made between the State as an employer and the State as a sovereign body. The opposite viewpoint has also been supported by substantial arguments. In the first place, it is argued that the State, being free from the profit motive, and being itself responsible for preventing exploitation of any section of the community, can be relied upon to be fair to its own employees. Secondly, as pointed out by B. Shiva Rao, "A general strike of Government employees, howsoever it might be described by its leaders, is a political weapon. Its success must mean the collapse of the administration and that no Government can permit a strike by civil servants is a pistol aimed at the very people whom they are supposed to serve. Thirdly, it should be remembered that civil servants in India, particularly those serving the Union Government, already belong to a privileged class as compared to millions of unemployed but, more or less, equally qualified persons or even the employees of State Governments, nothing to say of those serving the local governments. Even on the basis of the simple law of demand and supply there should be no incentive for a civil servant to go on strike. Government service is a package deal and must be accepted in Toto including its privileges and disabilities. Fourthly, it is sometimes pointed out that such extreme and militant means are not meant for the civil servants. Referring to the use of this right by the civil servants in Britain, Douglas Houghton said in a lecture delivered at the Institute of Public Administration: "In the Civil Service no one seriously thinks of strike action. Civil servants are inhibited by fear of the consequences (such as, loss of a safe job and of accrued pension rights); also by a spirit of self-sacrifice in a common cause. Civil servants had never chosen the path of martyrdom ... Civil servants liked to get results by peaceful means. We have chosen a more civilized way of communication of desires. The American point of view in this matter was well brought out by President Franklin Roosevelt in the course of a letter to the President of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937 : "Particularly I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal Service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities. The obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied, Such action, looking towards the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." The third group would make a distinction between employees engaged in the public utility and strategic services and those employed on industrial operations under Government; the former, they think, should not have the right to strike, but the latter may have. The viewpoint of this school of thought was well expressed by Leonard White: "A strike that would bring direct, immediate, certain and serious danger to a primary interest of the community should be prohibited by law." The considered opinion on the right to strike is as follows: "We are definitely of the view that it is wrong that public servants should resort to strike or threaten to do so; and that persons entrusted with the responsibility for operating services essential to the life of the community should seek to disorganize and interrupt those services in order to promote their interests. Apart from these moral aspects, there is little doubt that in conditions, in which there is often a possibility of eruption of indiscipline in an ugly form in one section of the community or another, a strike or even demonstration by government servants cannot but be a factor making for indiscipline generally."' The Administrative Reforms Commission set up by the Government, recommended complete prohibition of strikes by civil servants. It observed: "We wish to record as our considered view that strikes arc out of place in government departments. A government servant holds a special position in society in that he is a part of the machinery—the administration—on whose uninterrupted and efficient functioning depending to the well-being of society, nay, and its very survival. In whatever situation he may be functioning, his work and conduct have a direct effect on the people. This places him in a privileged position from which he exercises power and commands respect. Society can, therefore, rightly expect of him in return to behave as a model citizen who will not place its welfare in jeopardy by any action of his. In these days, when the effect of Government's activities is all pervasive, a stoppage thereof, be it even for a short period, will cause widespread distress to the community. So, whatever grievances a govern­ment servant may have, either as an individual or as a member of a group of government servants, redress must be sought invariably through suitable machinery for negotiation and in no case through recourse to coercive measures that disrupt the smooth functioning of the administration. A person who enters government service should, therefore, be clear in his mind that resort to strike is not a method open to him for achieving any objective. In order that this idea may be well-implanted in his mind, he should, at the time of his entering upon service under government, make a solemn declaration that he will not resort to strike. Reference 1. Ackers, P. (2002) ‘Reframing employment relations: the case for neo-pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33 (1): 2-19. 2. Edwards, P. (2003) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Read in particular chapter 20, pp. 513-521. 3. Heery, E. (2002). ‘Partnership versus organising: alternative futures for British trade unionism, Industrial Relations Journal, 33 (1): 20-35. 4. Kersley, B., et al. (2005) Inside the Workplace: First findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. 5. Millward. N. Bryston, A., and Forth, J. (2000). All Change at Work? British Employment Relations 1980-1998, as Portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series. London: Routledge. 6. Oxenbridge, S., Brown, W., Deakin, S. and Pratten, C. (2003) ‘Initial responses to the statutory recognition provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 41(2): 315-334. 7. Waddington, J. (2003). ‘Annual review article: Heightening tension in relations between trade unions and the Labour government in 2002’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 41(2): 335-358. 8. "Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration" Trade Union Archives. 9. "Centenary of Federation and the Court/Commission” Industrial Relations Commission. 10. Chen, E.K.Y. et al., Labour-Management Relations in the Asia-Pacific Region, HK University Press, 1992 Read More