Managers and Individual Employment Rights - Research Paper Example

Managers and Individual Employment Right Table of Content Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Role of Managers in Britain …………………………………………………………………2 Communication ……………………………………………………………………………....3 Participation in Decision-Making …………………………………………………………… 4 Contractual Agreement of Employment …………………………………………………….. 5 Trade Unions ………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Collective Bargaining …………………………………………………………………………5 Grievance and Disciplinary Policy and Practice …………………………………………….. 6 Qantas Dispute ……………………………………………………………………………….. 6 The New South Wales Teacher's Dispute ……………………………………………………8 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 References ……………………………………………………………………………………11 Introduction Managers play important role in carrying out the responsibilities of employers concerning individual employment rights under employment legislation. Employment relationship expands the study of industrial relationships, referring to the formal and informal interrelationships between managers and workers. High levels of relationship between workers and management are likely to be consistent with greater reliability of production and quality of productivity, which in turn would strengthen the organization's market position. Therefore, employment relation is one of the most important areas that need to be invested (Rollinson 1993). The state, organizations and managers play a vital role in employment relations, both directly and indirectly. The roles assumed by governments may be categorized into five components, including maintaining protective standards; establishing rules for the communication between the parties; ensuring that the results of such communication were consistent with the apparent needs of economy; providing services for labour and management such as advice, conciliation, adjudication and training; and as a major employer. Employment relation plays an important role in the success of an organisation. According to Bamber et al. (2004), there are a number of reasons why it is important to study analysing different employment relation systems and how they are managed. First, the study of comparative employment relations may use that knowledge for comparative functions with a view to applying the lessons of other systems to improve of the efficiency of British system. Second, an understanding of some of the complications of each one of the individual employment relations systems will be gained. Third, the uniqueness of a particular system and the direction of its likely future development can be argued in a logical way. Also, it can help to reach the conclusions on the significance of historical and cultural factors in the establishment and development of each system, as well as the possibility of all employment relations systems converging over time. In addition, it enables the discussion an informed way the future of the employment relations perspective of the question: 'what constitutes a good employment relations system?' and its relationship with the rest of society within the national context, and the rest of the human race, within an international context (Stewart 2005). Role of Managers in Britain The industrial relations system in Britain has a long history and has undergone much change in recent years. There are three phases in the development of employee relations since the World War-II, the third one being the partnership approach. Until 1979, employment relations were on the bases of collective bargaining and collective agreement aiming to determine and regulate, in varying degrees, the terms on which individuals will be employed (Flanders 1968), with a strong voluntarism encouraged extremely and informally. Trade unions had a lot of power and everything was negotiated through deals. In fact, a trade union, through collective bargaining can force managers to deal with labour as a collective identity, rather than isolated individuals and so, secure better the terms and condition of employment. However, when the conservative party came into power in 1979, everything changed. The new government introduced a lot measures to limit the role of trade unions. Furthermore, the new government introduced an enterprise culture in which individuals and organisations, rather than government, were to be held responsible for economic performance. Consequently, as well as rejecting the maintenance of full employment as a major policy objective, they in effect abandoned the commitment of their predecessors to voluntary collective bargaining as the most effective technique of determining pay and conditions. After that, there was a total break with the old work patterns but an explanation of this will be the economical context. In fact, after the war, there was a period of reconstruction that engendered a lot of work; manufacturing was the backbone of the economy, it was a period of full employment. Then, there was a wave of privatisation, many companies became multinationals, and there was an inter-nationalisation of business. As Britain is the candle of industrialisation, the country’s employment relations system has a long history. It is enormously important as it's the first system in the modern sense and thus other employment relations systems such as Australia’s, has been modelled on it (Marchington et al. 2004). For example, many trade unions can trace their roots back to the mid-19th century or earlier in Britain. The legislations and rules of employment relations in many countries are also modelled on the Britain's. Thus, studying the British employment relations system can help to know the history of the employment relations system and then can deeply understand the standard of the employment relations systems in other countries. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, innovation and growth in every field of human endeavour have served to transform industry, economics and society. The discovery of new and better ways of combining land, labour and capital enables the production of goods, determining technological development. Whether development has been embodied or disembodied it has facilitated economic growth from agricultural to industrial dominance (Heathfield & Russell 1992). Over the last about 15 years, however, the third or tertiary stage of productivity, that is the service sector, has become the focus of economic growth in Britain, outstripping the manufacturing sector. New kinds of profession have replaced old, new regions expanding, often at the expense of older industrial regions. “Growth implies change, a painful process for some” (Heathfield & Russell 1992, p19). The speed of change is accelerating beyond the capabilities of adjustment. This turn to Informationalism at the cost of industrialism, leading many to believe Britain has experienced a second industrial revolution. Managers have many tools which help them in functioning in relation to disputes over employment rights issues. Communication Communication is a two-way process giving an opportunity for a mutual interchange of ideas, feelings and opinions. Therefore, provisions should be made for upwards as well as downward communication. Managers use communication as tool to understand problems of employees and their concerns about their rights. Communication is very essential as it keeps employees informed about general matters affecting their work-role. It increases the understanding of management's actions, reduces misunderstanding arising from daily activity and improves confidence and trust between employers and employees. Communication in written methods is ideal as it is less liable to misinterpretation by providing detailed visible information. It includes newssheets, discussion documents, and leaflets in pay packets, posters and booklets. The employee's handbook is a particular important mean, as it contains helpful information about conditions of employment, rules and procedures. The oral methods of communication are best for communicating about views and exchanges, which may arouse strong feelings or concerns. Managers use work-team briefing groups, meetings or quality circles to resolve disputes and they are considered very useful means. Trade unions are regarded as a vital part of the communication process, by legitimizing management's decisions in the employee's mentality. As an alternative to dealing with individual employee or set up communication systems, trade unions can be helpful in issues relating to pay bargaining and grievance handling. Participation in Decision-Making To improve the involvement of employees, managers promote joint decision-making. It refers to the contribution of non-managerial employees in the decision-making processes. The main purpose was to strengthen competitive powers, and motivate employee commitment by extending the worker's influence in task-oriented issues. Large-size organizations will have long-term objectives and may priorities growth or sales rather than profits. Therefore, it will have more scope in the conduct of employment relationships, and are more likely to recognize unions and promote participation schemes. Obviously, companies that are maintaining growth and profitability in the face of intense competition in a depressed world market can only do so with full cooperation of their employees. Therefore, these companies will have an interest in employee participation, driven by their need to achieve high levels of employee commitment. Financial factors that influence the company are market powers, rate of profit, sales, growth, the degree of industrial concentration and competitive pressures. Thus, a firm struggling to survive will cut its labour force in order to reduce costs, and priorities profit making. As a result, the vital long-term thinking is displaced by short-term coping, and needs is dealt with in an ad-hoc piecemeal fashion. Inevitably the firm will continue to struggle through poor quality productions, and low moral. Contractual Agreement of Employment Employment contact is very important subject and managers often face disputes in matters of contractual agreements. This is a contractual matter defined in formal statements of obligations between two parties. The main terms of the contract will be expressed, and specific to the individual's status, and responsibilities. Any violation of the contractual agreement will result in legal actions. There are also an unrecorded set of expectations and professed terms of contract that allows employees to meet their needs, as well as provision of a high level of performance. These include their sense of self-esteem and worth, the need for work that is fulfilling, and opportunities to develop and grow. Violation of contracts has dire consequences. Therefore, individuals are provoked to question beliefs, values, codes of conduct and the integrity of the firm. Consequences of broken promises are significant, as it produces anger and erodes trust. This endorses de-motivation, intensify labour turnover and lack of advancements. Trade Unions Trade unions sometimes help managers in resolving issues and some create problems for them. They are developed to protect and promote the interests of their members. Trade unions are the associations of workers established to improve their economic and social conditions through the process of collective bargaining with managers. In Britain, trade unions are predominately craft based in which the membership is restrictive based upon the person's skills. Trade union movement has always been a tradition of voluntarism. Collective Bargaining Collective bargaining is the process of joint regulation of the employment conditions and procedures between management and employees. Bargaining assumes a difference of aims and intentions of each party. Collective agreements are the result of collective bargaining. Procedure agreements regulate the behaviour of the parties. It contains references to negotiating rights, representational arrangements, subjects for substantive bargaining, disputes procedures, redundancy arrangements etc. Substantive agreements usually deal with pay, incentives, bonus arrangements, manning, hours of work, holidays, sick pay, productivity etc. Grievance and Disciplinary Policy and Practice Complaints and disputes between employees and managers can be dealt with quickly and fairly by effective procedures. The process is preventive in nature, enabling the issue to be raised, and settled within the agreed time limits. To confirm justice is done, it is common to permit an aggrieved person to take a friend or trade union representative along. The presence of the representative helps to ensure fair play not only for the employee concerned, but also for the management. Though grievances are inevitable, the proportion can be minimized by maintaining effective communications between employee and manager. Well-motivated employees with adequate communication procedures will emanate modest quantity of grievances. Maintaining discipline in organizations is one of the important talks of managers. Disciplinary matter is initiated by management, and is a matter of general behaviour and specific behaviour. Whether the offence is the cause of disciplinary action will depend on the nature of the circumstances, on management's attitudes, and on the general organizational culture. Qantas Dispute On October 22, 2001, a dispute erupted between the employees and management of Qantas Airways. The conflict started with the offering of a new ‘enterprise bargaining agreement’. The industrial dispute occurred mainly because of two reasons, wage demands, and management policy. In both areas of conflict, there was contradiction between the aims of Qantas management and manufacturing employees. The wage demands occurred as a clash between two major stakeholders, employees and employers, as established in both plural and radical views on conflict. Qantas gave a proposal that all employees accept an 18-month wage freeze, in order to obtain bonus levels if profit margins reach certain targets. The management believed that this was in their best interests as the business had the objective of minimising costs in order to sustain international competitiveness. Competitors were entering the market with lower cost structures, which Qantas could not match, so they had to reduce costs, which in this case was wages. They justified their cause with the fact that 83 percent of unions accepted this. The manufacturing employees, on the other hand, wanted to maximise their salary. In this case, they desired only to maintain wage levels, demanding a 4 to 6 percent raise in wage levels in order to match the increase in cost of living. They argued that Qantas was unjustly asking them to take a pay cut, as they were highly skilled workers and the poorest paid. The second cause of the conflict was less significant though still vital - management policy. Qantas had already outsourced three Boeing 767 planes to Singapore for maintenance and proposed outsourcing another seven, costing $14 million. The unions opposed this, arguing that Qantas was exploiting cheap overseas labour and thus getting lower quality work. These were the two causes of the industrial dispute, which provoked stern negotiations as well actions over the next 10 months. Both parties believed they had a legitimate case, and neither would show flexibility from their original demand. The conflict would advance through four main stages over the course of its settlement — the negotiation stage, mediation, industrial action is taken, and then conciliation. The process took place within the confines of the law, in particular the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The first stage, negotiation, was the beginning of the conflict. After Qantas management proposed the new agreement, and staff rejected it, they began bargaining for a settlement. At this stage, external bodies cannot interfere, apart from the unions who bargain on behalf of employees. Negotiations eventually escalated until the chief executive offer (CEO) of the Qantas involved. Under the WRA 1996, this is where the main responsibility for settling the dispute lies. After it became clear that the fervent negotiations would not produce a resolution, both sides began using more intense methods. The first use of Industrial action by unions occurred on November 12, 2001, when workers observed a 48-hour strike, followed by rolling stoppages and work bans. On more than 10 occasions after that day, unions conducted overt industrial action. This included strikes, work bans, rolling stoppages, overtime bans, workers walking off the job, snap strikes, picket lines blocking the entrance to Melbourne Airport, and employees marching on Qantas' domestic terminal. The management responded with overt industrial action of their own on the February 1, 2002 by standing down 400 maintenance employees for saying no to work overtime. Industrial action escalated tensions between the two parties, and it continued throughout the entire process. The bitter Qantas industrial dispute between management and employees had massive and widespread after-effects on all stakeholders in the nationally significant industries. The conflict, which lasted 10 months as a result of pay disputes and conflict over management policy, involved a number of stakeholders directly but adversely affected a major proportion more. But the conflict was not all in vain, and the benefits can exceed the costs, if it was effectively consolidated and managed further down the track. The New South Wales Teacher's Dispute In 2004, a dispute erupted between New South Wales Teachers and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). The country stood poised for a major breakthrough in teachers’ wages and status as it waited for the significant announcement of AIRC. The NSW and Victoria faced consequences of the announcement and it was going to affect the whole Australia. The matter was not only the result of governmental policies regarding wages and conditions, but also from the differences in school funding along socially unfair lines. The initiator of the NSW Teachers conflict was the Vinson Inquiry of 2001 which condemned the state of public education in NSW, mainly in regards to teacher's wages and conditions of employment. However, the underlying triggers were the demands of the frustrated NSW teachers for a 25 percent salary raise and better working conditions, and their request for greater parity in salaries between the public and private sectors. There were a number of actors involved in the conflict, including New South Wales teachers, particularly those from the public sector, the union representative of NSW teachers (NSW Teacher's Federation), the current NSW State government, NSW Education Minister Andrew Refshauge, AIRC and the federal government. There were numerous key events, and varying actions undertaken by the industrial relations actors in this dispute. First, the seeds of the conflict were planted on April 11, 2004 by the federal government, when it gave an increase to the funding of catholic schools by 25 percent. This was followed by release of AIRC report on May 10, 2004 which confirmed that NSW teachers’ wages had fallen by 21 percent between 1988 and 2002 in relation to real salaries. Consequently, NSWTF organised a vote which was held on May 11, 2004 by NSW public school teachers and the decision was to embark on industrial action. After that, NSW Premier Bob Carr tried to curtail increasing teachers' wages by pressuring the AIRC. However, AIRC ended the state government's delay tactics on May 21, 2004, when it called for the final submissions from both parties. In spite of an impeding ruling, the NSWTF continued its push of industrial action and on May 27, 2004, over 60,000 public sector teachers observed a strike. As a result, they were joined the following day by Catholic school teachers. Strikes all over the country gathered in momentum under the organisation of the NSWTF, until finally on June 9, 2004, the AIRC made a ruling on the dispute and awarded a 6.5 percent wage increase, across the board to all NSW teachers. The NSW teachers’ dispute of 2003-2004, not only represented an important moment in Australian industrial relations, but it also provided proof of its systematic change. The role of managers in the NSW teachers’ dispute is very similar to the role of the state due to the issue being about public education at state schooling facilities. The state has conventionally been a large employer in order to carry out its many roles. Unfortunately the responsibility of the state as an employer has conflicted with the state's other responsibility of an economic manager (Deery, 2001). The teachers in the conflict are employed by the NSW government. The representative of the NSW government is the minister for education and training, Andrew Refshauge, who played role as a manager. The minister was at the centre of the dispute amongst teachers and their employers, the state. Premier Carr can also be labelled an employer as a representative of the government and due to his political power in this dispute. The interesting fact from this dispute in relation to Australian Industrial Relations was the way in which the government, the teachers' employer, put pressure on the Industrial Relations Commission to deny a fair hearing for the teachers. Premier Carr of NSW was said to be “seeking to intimidate the Industrial Relations Commission and bring political pressure to bear on the outcome of the teachers” wages case' according to Maree O'Halloran. This type of pressure comes from the fact that the teachers are dealing with the state government as their employer, who have powers over the IRC that many employers otherwise wouldn't in Australian Industrial Relations disputes. In May of 2004, NSW Premier Carr announced publicly and warned IRC not to grant teachers a wage increase. The impact that this has on Australian Industrial Relations is that is “threatens for all workers the arbitration system in NSW” and is an insult to the independence of the IRC. Such behaviour by the government is seen as harassing the IRC into minimizing any salary increases and benefits for teachers in the public sector. The dispute was settled with a 12 percent raise in salary awarded to teachers, but the outcome has been labelled a 'political increase'. During this conflict the IRC has effectively abandoned the talks according to the teachers' federation. The IRC announcement made it clear that if teachers wanted better pay and benefits then they might as well go about it with direct confrontation with the government. This brings into question the purpose of the IRC when dealing with a government employer. Conclusion Employment relationship is an economical exchange of labour capacity in return for productivity. High levels of cooperation between the employees and managers are likely to be consistent with greater reliability of production and quality of output. With the partnership idea, employees benefit from a family atmosphere with friendly policies. For example, they benefit from new working arrangements which allow a greater flexibility. There is a harmonisation of working conditions, policies and procedures for all employees. The partnership approach introduces a new salary structure: pay is monthly trough credit transfer, and the traditional annual pay is replaced by an objective formula. Furthermore, a reduction of the working week for manual and craft employees can be observed. However, the partnership approach introduces the notion of the individual worker. References Bamber, GJ, Lansbury, RD & Wailes, N (eds) (2004), International and comparative employment relations: globalisation and the developed market economics, 4th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crown Nest. Deery, S., Plowman, D., Walsh, J. & Brown, M. (2001), Industrial Relations: A Contemporary Analysis, 2nd edn, McGraw Hill, Sydney. Flanders A (1968), Collective bargaining: a theoretical analysis, British journal of industrial relations, vol 6, iss 3, pp 35-41. Heathfield, D & Russell, M 1992, Modern economics, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York. Marchington, M, Goodman, J & Berridge, J (2004), 'Employment relationship in Britain' in GJ Bamber, RD Lansbury & N Wailes (eds), International and comparative employment relations: globalisation and the developed market economics, 4th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crown Nest, pp. 36-66. Rollinson, D (1993), Understanding employee relations: a behavioural approach, Addison-Wesley, Boston. Stewart, G (2005), Study Guide: Managing the Employment Relationship, CQU, Brisbane. Read More