Negotiation Exercise and Group Presentation on Behalf of Cowells Amusement Park - Assignment Example

Employee Relations and Engagement In the current study, I will be developing an individual reflection on the negotiation exercise and group presentation on behalf of Cowells amusement park. Mainly, I learned about the collective bargaining exercises in order to maintain higher industrial relation with the employees. Negotiation will be increasing the employee relationship and operational (Cervai, Kekale and Claxton, 2014). I have been involved in the negotiation process with the help of the systematic and synchronised process. The collective bargaining process stated chronologically. Firstly, the LOU/IS (Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services) demanded several policies and strategies for the welfare of the employees involved in the amusement industry. Then we inquired the organisational management in order to gain the insight on existing situation and effects of the collective change (Bates and Weighart, 2014). We took a 5 minute break before the Cowells management responded in the negotiation process. Cowells management provided with their own set of proposals that will aid them in increasing their employee engagement and negotiation strategies. Then Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services enquired their queries to the organisational members. The negotiation process included a break of 5 minutes. Finally, the collective bargaining process among the two parties Cowells and Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services will be continued until suspension. Moreover, total three recesses were offered to the parties during the negotiation meeting. I observed that the group working continued till any sort of further collective bargaining or negotiation process (Crump, 2011). On the contrary, I observed that no such bargaining or consultation communications are observed among the two sides. I have observed that second week meeting reached to the agreement. Mainly, our negotiation process will be aimed to increase the efficiency of employee engagement and employee relation policies in the Cowells amusement firm. Cowells provides amusement service in the Northern segment with the help of the M25. Natural attractions of the surroundings are increasing competition for the Cowells (Berens, 2013). We conducted the negotiation or collective bargaining process in order to maintain smooth transition. Our negotiation process included certain consideration for the virtual authenticity and knowledge and skill development in maintaining talent base of the firm. In addition, I observed that the Cowells have higher capital liability for loan, which needs to be repaid within ten years. The group have earned fair enough profits during the previous years. I also observed that the marketing policy of Cowells are concentrating on the North London and surrounding areas in order to increase the possibility of generating more profit. Thus, to meet the competition with the local travelling and touring operators, service quality needs to be increased. Effective employee relations can be developed with the help of positive association with Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services or LOU/IS. Our negotiation process will be aimed to increase the welfare of 250 employees of the firm. Moreover, we have segmented the employees and put some of them out of the collective bargaining. 50 members of the organisation who are the members of family, administration and medical support staff are not covered by collective bargaining (Lewin, Kaufman and Gollan, 2011). Our collective bargaining process covered 200 people like the 40 Engineers whose average salary have been set as 20000 £pa and total salary will be 800000 £pa. On the other hand, 160 operational and service personals were provided with the average salary of 15000 £pa and total salary of 2400000 £pa. In addition, collective bargaining is offering total payout of 16000 £pa as the average salary of 200 persons and £pa 3200000 as the total salary. However, our demographic analysis stated lower differences among employees. We also observed that the engineers and operational employees are having same feelings and criteria for compensations and salaries. Employees salaries are developed on the basis of annual working hours and performance levels (Ibrahim and AlFalasi, 2014). Our negotiation process also contrasted the performance of the Cowells groups. Our negotiation team have observed that before six years Cowells faced lowest competition related challenge and earned increasing rate of the profit. However, Bruce’s amusement park which is situated within ten miles neighbouring area are reducing the scope of profitability from the tourists (Lewin, Kaufman and Gollan, 2011). Our negotiation process aims to control the yearly hour’s agreement. During our research, it has been observed that during the last four years, Cowells are in the break even stage as per their income. Meanwhile, in the last financial year, Cowells reported with lower loss. It is the first loss reported till the incorporation of amusement firm and reason of such loss can be interrogated as the investment in the “Wow Factor” segment. Our negotiation process predicted that the firm must make their investment in the segments like technology, game instruments and employees training. These investments are increasing the competency of the employees and firm in the UK amusement segment. I observed such attributes will increase the complexity in annual negotiations (Karanges et al., 2015). Bargaining history of the Cowells reported that these unions and management have tried to patch up the welfare of the firm. Negotiation process was achieved fair amount success in the past (Rodriguez, 2012). Cowells and Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services have been facing difficulties during past three or four years regarding wages. Compensation management is tough for the currency exchange fluctuation and economic crisis. I observed that inflation and recession related challenges are increasing the complexity in setting up compensation packages (Smythe, 2013). Employee management and industrial relation demands proper remuneration and benefits. In the current bargaining schedule, we will be conducting yearly negation of the employee’s demands. In the negotiation process, administration members and Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services will be setting up agenda in terms of meeting the potential employee’s related challenges in the future (Romer et al., 2012). Such agenda will be including discussion for increasing salary. From the history of negotiation, I observed that major negotiation process requiring discussion or bargaining on the employee assistance programme, holiday entitlement, union’s extra item and management’s extra item (Rodriguez, 2012). Being the part of the negotiation process, I admire that such predetermined attributes are going to help in achieving constructive solution. Thus, in our collective bargaining process we will be maintaining proper roles and responsibility of the negotiators, Cowells administrative and LOU/IS members so that expectation and perception. Our collective bargaining process aimed to increase benefit for both Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services and Cowells. As the result of negotiation, it has been observed that both the parties have certain level of demands. Firstly, the union demanded 10% salary increase. They also denied that Cowells must provide their employees with housing support that included as an extra piece of employee assistant program. Moreover, an in-house counsellor must be appointed to increase employee engagements. In the initial negotiation process, free vacations or holiday entitlement leaves are asked by the union and extra maternity and paternity leaves were demanded (Lewin, Kaufman and Gollan, 2011). Negotiation process continued after a break and chairman of our management asked for a justification of the demands of the trade unions. It has been observed that union members are demanding 10% increase on the basic salary of all the group of employees. Union have demanded with nearly 5 working days during the winter time, which increases the flexibility of free vacations. They also demanded with low interest employee loans, health support or psychiatrist treatment for employees. Union also demanded with an increase of 2 extra paternity and 5 maternity leaves which are paid in full. After the justification, our negotiation process took another break in order to discuss the needs of union purposefully and according to firm’s compatibility (Cervai, Kekale and Claxton, 2014). I have to contrast the demands of Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services. However, I observed that the management took the strategy of minutely listening and accommodating some demands of the unions. In the second stage of the collective bargaining, we offered the Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services with no increase in salary, whereas, 20% discount was provided to the staff and their family members for a accommodation. 10 days free entry pass are provided to the employees offering free amusement facility to the employees. Management also offered the union with integrated career and skill development programs to develop employees. Our management have offered loyalty development programs to 50 staff along with extra facilities. I think this will increase the redundancy among the employees. Our negotiation process also offered 29 days statutory leaves for the employees. Management offers during the negotiation period was highly denied by the Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services (Bates and Weighart, 2014). After a 3 minute break for consultation, they refused the offer. According to the union representatives, discounting offers are freebie as they already offered with 10 days pass. In addition, 50 redundancy cuts were also refused by the union. On the contrary, they are looking for money values. They are demanding that if the money values are not provided then the 10 days pass must be increased to 12 days. Finally, first negotiation season created argument instead of coming to any decisions (Crump, 2011). Leisure Operatives Union for the Industrial Services threatened to go on strikes unless their demands got fulfilled. In order to increase the success of the negotiation process, variant information required. Mainly, statistics and other threat related information will be increasing the strengths of the firm. Mostly, from my point of view, financial information is one of the crucial one that are controlling the negotiation process. In the future, collective bargaining members like management, LOU/IS and negotiators can use the sources of information as to make proper forecast of the future trend. In addition, past negotiation reports are helpful in developing proper outcome from negotiation process. Financial and historical negotiation cases are the potential source of information that provides insight on the “Retail Price Index, Levels of settlements and Average earnings” (Ibrahim and AlFalasi, 2014). In our negotiation process, we can use such reports in order to conduct effective negotiation of remuneration of employees. Moreover, from the negotiation process, I have gained an insight on the demands of the employees and trade unions and I learned about the complexity of retaining experienced employees (Crump, 2011). Reference list Bates, S. and Weighart, S., 2014. Executive Presence: The X Factor in Employee Engagement. Employment Relations Today, 41(3), pp.47-52. Berens, R., 2013. The Roots of Employee Engagement-A Strategic Approach. Employment Relations Today, 40(3), pp.43-49. Cervai, S., Kekale, T. and Claxton, J., 2014. Employee Engagement. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Crump, L., 2011. Negotiation Process and Negotiation Context. International Negotiation, 16(2), pp.197-227. Ibrahim, M. and AlFalasi, S., 2014. Employee loyalty and engagement in UAE public sector. Employee Relations, 36(5), pp.562-582. Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A. and Lings, I., 2015. The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 17(3), pp. 101-117. Lewin, D., Kaufman, B. and Gollan, P., 2011. Advances in industrial and labor relations. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Rodriguez, E., 2012. Managing employee relations. Boston: Aspatore. Romer, M., Rispens, S., Giebels, E. and Euwema, M., 2012. A Helping Hand? The Moderating Role of Leaders Conflict Management Behavior on the Conflict-Stress Relationship of Employees. Negotiation Journal, 28(3), pp.253-277. Smythe, J., 2013. The velvet revolution at work. Farnham, Surrey: Gower Pub. Ltd. Read More