The Role That Governments Have Played in the Development of the Australian System - Essay Example

ASSESSMENT NUMBER: 1 ASSESSMENT TITLE: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN AUSTRALIA: THE ROLE OF GOVENMENTS COURSE CODE: HRMT19022 COURSE NAME: Comparative employment relations STUDENT NAME: HE MINTING STUDENT NUMBER: S0214758 ASSESSMENT DUE DATE: THURSDAY (12 APR 12) 01:00 PM AEST. Australia like many other countries of the world which had been colonized, had its own fair share of challenges. This was mostly experienced when transitioning from colonialism to independency. This is because as an independent government, Australia was expected to take charge of its own internal matters by enacting laws that will apply in various sectors of the independent government (Bray, Waring & Cooper 2011). Australia is a well grown economy with a relatively average population. The country’s population is well above 20 million with a GDP of over US$1 trillion. In many years, since the country got its independency from its colonial master Britain, the going has not been easy in terms of economic, social and political environment looks relatively stable. The country for example had to manage its key sectors of the great world economic recession of the 1980s in order to recover from the economic downturn (Australian Labor Party 2007, pp. 23). The key economic sectors that support the country’s GDP growth include: mining, agriculture, manufacturing and construction. However, with continuous economic growth, the labor market has also continued to experience serious hurdles which have to be overcome in order to reduce the unemployment rate and create fair working terms and conditions for all employees from all sectors of the economy. The enactment of various laws by the government has been used an initiative to build a stable labor market by looking into issues that have continued to generate industrial disputes between the workers and the employees. The enactment of these laws had started taking form from early 1980s (Stewart, 2011). It’s in the 1908s when the country managed to replace many of the Acts involving employee relations that had been left by the colonial master. When the labor government came into power in 1980, what it did first was to introduce the Industrial Relations Act of 1988. This is the Act that replaced the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904. At the same time the name was changed to Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC from the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission even though many of its functions remained the same (Catanzariti and Shariff 2005, pp. 186). The primary objective of enacting this law was to ensure that there was point of convergence between the employers and the workers following the increase in number of unions and employers associations. The Act was also a big intervention to the Business Council of Australia (BCA), which felt that the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) was not able to attend to their needs adequately because of its diverse background and large membership (Hall 2005, pp. 312). The members of the BCA included: the Metal Trade Industry Association (MTIA) and the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers (ACM), both who felt that each body was presenting his own interests and therefore they could have one common bargaining power. On the other hand, the industrial relations have been one of the key items of many governments in the country according to Richardson (2000, pp. 34). This is because of the need and the desire to enhance flexibility in the labor market which is considered by many as the key player to the country’s economy. However, this has not been easy since most of the governments have lacked the power and the mandate to enact certain laws. Nevertheless, this is without soliciting the support of the political party which in turn makes the process more political and very difficult to intervene (Bamber et al 2011, pp. 127). However, it’s under the leadership of the Labor Government that major changes were witnessed in the industrial relations. For example it’s during its reign that we find that the country was able to move from a highly system of industrial relations to a more decentralized system managed by the AIRC and some other State tribunals that were created by then (Donovan 2005, pp. 389). The aim was to move bargaining into the price level. This can be considered as a very big milestone in the systems governing industrial relations since it was easy to attend to individual and specific workplace such as low wages, poor working conditions and workers’ rights as argued by Read (2009, pp. 126). Previously presenting these views proved to be very difficult since different unions had different interests and therefore process was not steadfast in addressing industrials disputes and therefore workers’ actions were very common across the country as evidenced by Burrow (2008, pp. 67). The Hawke government had also contributed greatly into enhancing the cooperation with the trade unions for better and greater economic results. However, the government sought to enhance dialogue and consultation over and above any other process used in managing industrial actions (Hall 2005, pp. 327). During its time, the labor government had also commissioned Professor Keith Hancock and other professionals to reviewing the industrial systems in the country. The commission recommended that the centralized system be retained with major roles assigned to the AIRC (Bamber et al 2011, pp. 113). This is because it was assumed that the approach will better address issues of high levels of unemployment and inflation by coming up with one common policy that will be applied in managing industrial relations. In order to show its concern for the workers, the government years after the recommendations, it produced a Policy Discussion Paper which sought to enhance workers’ participation in making important decisions that involve industrial relations (Catanzariti 2000, pp.123). The objective of doing was to make sure that the workers had no excuse to go refute government decisions which they took part in. Finally, after the AIRC had maintained a major role in the centralized system, it made good use of the National Wages Case to develop a framework for deciding workers’ wages. In addition, in 1988, National Wage System designed a ‘structural efficiency principle’ which aimed at encouraging parties involved in disputes to reach a collective agreement. For example this was a blueprint for two major industries in the country namely the automobile manufacturing and the construction industry as presented in the (Workplace Relations Regulations 2006, pp. 67) Even though the labor government in the better part of 1980s has embarked in hastening change at workplace and fast tracking industrial relations reforms, the BCA which represent the better part of the employers’ in the country persistently maintained that the labor market to some level, it was over-regulated (Lansbury & Wailes, 2004). In order to promote competitiveness in the labor market, there was need to re-introduce the enterprise based bargaining even if the workers’ union is involved or not. Perhaps this was a strategy to promote the management of individual interests at organizational level. In addition, the BCA argued that enterprise bargaining would promote flexibility in the labor market (Hall 2005, pp. 296). Even though the BCA was criticized by various stakeholders on its move to have the enterprise bargaining it had the power to influence the labor government to reconsider its strategies on industrial relations. Even though this demand had been in place since 1986, the agenda came into being in 1990 through the National Wage Case when all the stakeholders including the government, the workers and trade unions presented to the AIRC that enterprise bargaining should be the main tool in increasing wages in future (Bamber et al 2011, pp. 124). The policy that had been greatly opposed by the employers previous was accepted later on at the time when various political parties were advocating for it. The AIRC was opposed to this system on the ground that it will give way for a more decentralized approach in managing industrial relations. This is because the AIRC feared that it could have to deal with more industrial complaints which may hinder its effectiveness in service delivery (Rathmell 2008, pp. 189). Because of pressure from various quotas, the labor government after its re-election in 1993, under the leadership of Paul Keating, managed to introduce several reforms to enhance the role of enterprise bargaining in the Industrial Relations Act of 1993. Even though the Act was enacted partly to comply with the International Labor Organization (ILO) requirements and recommendations that were geared towards enhancing employee protection and access to minimum entitlements it was also expected include some provisions that could be used to make sure that employers can reach agreements with their employees without necessarily involving the unions. Enterprise Flexibility Agreements (EFAs) as introduced in the 1993 reforms Act generated various reactions as no unions were to be involved in industrial relations according to Hancock (2011/2012). Several unions did not believe that was a good move with proper intentions. This is because the employees will be subjected to enter contracts with their employers individually and thereby weakening the role of unions. A good example was demonstrated in the case of the Rio Tinto mining company and the employee unions in the interior parts of Northern Australia. Even though the company was found to be on the wrong, it encouraged several disputes in the mining and industrial to occur through out the decade (Sappey, Burgess, Lyons, & Buultjens, 2006). The end result of this scenario is that employees were forced to enter into individual contracts even though they were not good for them. The trend is the one that resulted into the emergence of non-union agreements commonly referred as Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) as was introduced by the conservatism Coalition government which came into power in 1996. In contrast to the Rio Tinto Company, in the case of Optus by then a relatively telecommunication company that was established in 1991, the company used EFAs by paying close attention to the employee recruitment and selection process without subjecting the employees into entering into contracts unwillingly (Billing 2009, pp. 126). This was because the company was more interested in creating a culture where employees are committed to the company and if possible operate in union free environment (Robbins, 1995). Actually, this is a good example of what flexibility can do in eliminating disputes between employers and their employees at workplace. In 1996, the Liberal National Government under the leadership of John Howard stirred several industrial reforms which some of them are even witnessed up to today (Cooper 2009, pp. 268). It’s this government that decided to move the country’s industrial relations from collectivism culture where the unions and arbitration systems had a major role to play into a more fragmented approach where individual workers could bargain one on one with their employers. The introduction of the Workplace Act of 1996 dismantled almost completely the role of the unions and enhanced the powers of the AIRC. However, many could bear with the provisions of the Act something that led into introduction of the amendments by the Australian Democrats which is a minority party to have the Act amended to relax some of its provisions (Richardson 2000, pp. 42). The government was denied the chance by the Democrats in 1999 and 2000 to amend the Act further. This is because they feared some of the clauses could be introduced into the Act. A good example demonstrating how employers used the Act unfairly is the Patrick Stevedores one of the two waterfront companies in the industry according to Stewart (2009, pp. 89). The company publicly argued that the workers were overpaid and unions were enjoying extreme powers and after a series of disputes, Patrick decided to hire the administrator and further went to withdraw all the finances that had been remitted to the recruitment companies (Rathmell 2008, pp. 171). To my view, this is just one example that demonstrates can be if the employers are allowed to engage their individual employees directly without involving the unions. The Work Choices Act 2005 and Fair Work Australia 2009 are the major amendments that have been to the law by the Federal Government in the first decade of the 21st century (De Ruyter & Burgess 2003). The Work Choices 2005 several provisions to the Australian industrial relations systems which had been previously rejected by the former governments. The primary aim of this Act was to create one single national system that would be used to regulate the labor market. The Act also sought to expand the Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) in order to replace the use of rewards and at the same time and reduce the restrictions on the employee unions’ activities (Donovan 2005, pp. 407). This was particularly aimed at ensuring that all key stakeholders had a role to play in promoting the effectiveness of thee labor market. The Work Choices Act was also enacted to cut down the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as argued by Sappey, Burgess, Lyons, & Buultjens (2006). As part of its functions, the Act went further to establish the Australian Fair Pay Commission that would be used to determine and Adjust pay wages in order to determine all workers are paid fair salaries for small companies with less than a hundred employees (Bamber et al 2011, pp. 124). However, the powers of the Act were limited to managing and determining dismissals in these companies. However, the Act did not work well as it raised controversies and as a result caused by the then government to loose to the coalition parties in the 2007 general elections. Failure of the Act was accelerated by the unions’ movements which had launched a country wide campaign to oppose it. The campaign by the name, ‘Your Rights at Work,’ which was run both electronic and print media such as the television and magazines to petition the government on its move to enact the regulation (Cooney 2006, pp. 147). This is because the unions believed that the Act did not take into account their role in protecting employees’ rights at work. In addition, the Act had restricted the unions from organizing employees and negotiating on their behalf whenever they feel wronged or unfairly treated by the employer. The union campaign was also concerned about the employee rights on those who working in companies with less and their 100 workers who were only allowed to appeal if they fell that they were dismissed unfairly. This is because the employees from these companies were not allowed to join the workers’ unions and therefore the unions’ bodies were of the view that their rights were at stake according to Cooper (2009, pp. 261) However, the changing the Act required that the constitution about the industrial relations to be amended. Even though the Act was also seen to be against the constitution by the state governments since it could not address the plight of all employees, the High Court had defended it to exclude important laws from various states (Workplace Relations Amendment Act, 2006, pp. 46). The states believed that law did cover employees who working in non-trading and financial corporations. The federal government role was extended by the court decision to uphold the Act. On the other hand, in response to the lamentations that had made against the Work Choices Act, the Labor government in 2009, had managed to do extensive consultations with the other political parties and key stakeholders to revise the Act and come up with a more comprehensive Act that could take into account all the right of employees who are at work irrespective of the sector by Stewart (2009, pp. 89). The Fair Work Australia Act was passed in 2009. The Work of the Act was to regulate the employment relations by replacing all other bodies that were involved in managing industrial relations systems including the AIRC. The Act was also enacted with the objective of establishing the office of the Ombudsman that would be used to oversee the compliance with the provisions of the Act. In general, the Act was to be used to replace all regulations that were considered unfair both for the employees and trade unions in protecting their rights while at workplace as illustrated by Burrow (2008, pp. 32). In respect with the International Labor Organization (ILO), the government of Australia since 2011 is embarked on a mission to eliminate child labor completely. The government is working closely with the states and other territory governments in determining the best practices could be used to curb the problem of child labor. This has to agree with the policies and recommendations of ILO. In addition, to this, the government since 2011 is also working on developing a comprehensive Work Health and Safety Act (Kramar, et el 2011). This is to ensure that the employees’ rights are comprehensively taken care of by covering all aspects of their lives. This to ensure that laws that will apply uniformly across Australia (Zappone 2008). The law will also be used to replace the laws in the commonwealth and states as well as territories. In general, the various government regimes have contributed greatly to the revolution in the country’s industrial relations. Reference List Australian Labor Party 2007, Forward with Fairness Labor’s Plan for Fairer and More Productive Australian Workplaces, Sydney. Bamber, GJ, Lansbury, RD and Wailes 2011, 5th edn, International and comparative employment relations, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest. Billing, S 2009, Fair Work Act 2009: Fairer for Whom?’ Bray, M, Waring, P & Cooper, R 2011, Employment relations: Theory and practice, 2ndedn, McGraw-Hill Australia, North Ryde. Burrow, S 2008, Crisis Unions’ Watch: International Trade Union Confederation, Viewed 24 March 2012, http://www.ituc- si.org/spip.php?article3352&var_recherche=freedom%20of%20association Catanzariti J and Shariff, Y 2005, ‘Major Tribunal Decisions in 2004’, The Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 186-192, (Sage publications). Catanzariti, J 2000, ‘Freedom of association restrictions on outsourcing’, Law Society Journal, vol. 46, pp. 123-143, (Mendeley database). Cooney, S 2006, ‘Command and control in the Workplace: Agreement-making under Work Choices’, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, pp.147-165. Cooper R 2009, ‘The ‘New’ Industrial Relations and International Economic Crisis’, Journal of Industrial Relations, pp. 261-271, (JSTOR online) . De Ruyter, A & Burgess, J 2003, ‘Growing labour insecurity in Australia and the UK in the midst of job growth: beware the Anglo-Saxon model’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 9, no. 2, July, pp. 223–243, (Mendeley database). Donovan, G 2005, ‘Less Than They Bargained For: Union Bargaining Fees in Certified Agreements – A Matter of Law, Politics or Public Policy?’ Deakin Law Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 408-413. Hall, R 2005, ‘Australian Industrial Relations in 2005 – The WorkChoices Revolution’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 291-304, (JSTOR online) . Hancock, K 2011/2012, ‘IR and productivity uneasy bedfellows’, HR Monthly, December 2011/January 2012, p. 12, (JSTOR online) . Kramar, R, Bartram, T, De Cieri, H, Noe, RA, Hollenbeck, JR, Gerhart, B & Wright, PM 2011, Human resource management in Australia: Strategy/people/performance, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill Australia, North Ryde. Lansbury, RD & Wailes, N 2004, ‘Employment relations in Australia’, in GJ Bamber, RD Lansbury & N Wailes(eds),International and comparative employment relations: Globalisation and the developed market economies, 4th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest. Rathmell, A 2008, Collective Bargaining After Work Choices: Will 'Good Faith' Take Us Forward With Fairness? Melbourne University Press. Read, R 2009, ‘Recognition, Representation and Freedom of Association under the Fair Work Act 2009’, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations, The University of Melbourne. Richardson, S 2000, ‘Freedom of Association and the Meaning of Membership’, 22 Sydney Law Review 435, Australia. Robbins, B 1995, ‘A methodology for teaching comparative industrial relations’, in Current research in industrial relations: Proceedings of the 9th AIRAANZ conference: World Congress Centre: February 1995, ed. L Sonder, (pp. 387-395), Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand, CQUniversity Course Resources Online (HRMT19022). Sappey, R, Burgess, J, Lyons, M & Buultjens, J 2006, ‘Introduction to industrial relations’, in Industrial Relations in Australia: Work and Workplaces, R Sappey, J Burgess, M Lyons & J Buultjens, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, CQUniversity Course Resources Online (HRMT19022). Sappey, R, Burgess, J, Lyons, M &Buultjens, J 2009, Industrial relations in Australia: Work and workplaces, 2ndedn, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest. Stewart, A 2009, A Question of Balance: Labor’s New Vision for Workplace Regulation. Queensland. Stewart, A 2011, ‘Fair Work Australia: The Commission reborn?’ Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 563-577, CQUniversity Course Resources Online. Watson, K 2001, ‘Freedom of Association’, The Queensland Lawyer, Queensland, pp. 150. Zappone, C 2008, “Union membership on the rise”, The Age, Melbourne, Australia. Read More