Non-Union Employee Representation - Assignment Example

TOTAL 2468 WORDS Question 1 (611 words) Union representation has the role of defending the rights of employees in the face of employers. Unions are formed for this purpose of championing the interests of employees since many employers are never willing to grant the request, demands and rights of employees without a compelling force from somewhere. Building on this understanding it will not be right to reason that non union employee representation can play the role of the union exactly and in an even better way. However employers are different and not all of them behave the same way. Non ionized work places do not have the capacity to accommodate successful change in the work place. Dondon and Gollan (2007) on page 1190 quote Taras and Kaufman (1999:14) as saying that Non union representation of employees does not easily substitute unions and those employers who believe in it are deceiving themselves. The reason for this they say is that the employer’s interests easily mitigate the employee’s interests. It is therefore not easy for the employer to give priority to the interests of the employer in places where there is non union representation. The likelihood is that the employer will seek to oppress the employee and never be willing to improve the conditions at the work place. If such successful changes have to come then it would possibly happen with very few employers who are considerate. However such employers are not easily found and they will rarely act without compulsion. Since the management is no longer faced with the threat of industrial action, demarcation, stoppages and other retribution forms it is possible that any change that promotes the welfare of the employee could be suppressed. In Dondon and Gollan (2007) Kaufman and Tara go on to say that the management in the case of NER could make the employees to start viewing the world through the eyes of management. When this happens, then non union representation will no longer be effective in defending the employees. In fact the employees may fail to realize that the management has failed to provide to them what is rightfully theirs. The employees will no longer be conscious of their rights. If they do not care much about their rights then they will have no desire to demand for better things or changes in their working conditions. It is also possible that non union representation may result into demands for union representation. This happens in many cases because the employees are aware of their rights and are dissatisfied with the way they are being represented. In many non union firms especially the smaller ones exploitative employment conditions prevail. The use of non union representation in work places will only be expected to be leaning on the side of the management in case of choices to be made between the employee and the employer. In Britain for example it is a statutory requirement for employers to recognize unions. The possible reason for this is that without union representation employers are very sluggish in dealing fairly with their employers. In Dondon and Gollan (2007) is quoted arguing that non union representation can serve effectively as a way of consultation and communication but their effectiveness in representing employee interests and occupying the representation gap is very much questionable. It is therefore clear that non unionized work places could have a good level of communication between employers and employees but the employee stands to lose in the end since his interests can never be prioritized by the employer. Union representation has therefore been known to compel employers to follow the law and treat employees according to statutory requirements. Question 4 (612 words) Non union employee representation (NER) has the capacity to play the role of collective bargaining as much as a union or even in a better way. It has for along time been known that unions do better than any other kind of employee representation. However it is possible for NER to challenge this belief and in turn challenge the role of trade unions and also complement them in other circumstance. Since the role of the trade union is to represent the workers NER must endeavor to do this at all costs. Employees should reach the point of being satisfied with the NER so that they have no desire to look for union representation. Compromise should be avoided and the right course of action taken all the time. The relationship between the employer and the employee should be enhanced through proper communication and the demands of the employees taken care of promptly. In this the demands of both the employer and employee will be met in a win-win situation. NER can make use of managerial strategies which help to solidify the trust between the employer and the employers. Dondon and Gollan (2007 pp 1186) say that the effective voice of the employee should ensure that the employees are afforded the chance for developing their skills and knowledge in order to make contributions to those decision reserved for the management and support the demands of employers for enhancing productivity and change in the organization. In the United States Kaufman (2003) demonstrates that voice formalization gives employers a chance to fine tune the messages from management which makes non union forums more legitimate. When middle and line managers are avoided senior managers can easily communicate well with employees. Non union voice forums and arrangements render the use of a union useless because they complement other practices of high commitment. A strengthened employee voice where there is no union representation can consolidate the control of the management and frustrate the recognition of the union. In such cases NER can challenge the role of the trade union. The catch 22 face on non unionization which involves the implementation of non union channels of representation can be used to sideline unions. Workforce cohesiveness and the solidarity of employee teams can compel the management to act on their grievances. In this manner the goal is achieved the same way it could be achieved through the union. Informality at micro levels within a company can obscure formal arrangements with personal and close ties. It indicates individual voices which can legitimize and maintain the non union status Butler (2003). The non union voice arrangement should aim at fostering positive and cooperative employee relations. It should eliminate most or all of the circumstance that cause employees to look for external representation. Dual representation can be used in a good way where NER can complement to unions. In this case the union works alongside NER to represent the employees. Although in this hybrid arrangement their might be issues of bargaining and representation between the union and NER it is choice alternative for certain employers. The hybrid arrangement can allow NER to complement the work of trade unions because they can share the responsibility of representation in a single company. A good relationship and collaboration must be established between NER and the trade unions so that the issues they are dealing with are harmonized. The decision for dual representation however depends on the management. The trade union and NER must form interdependencies for them to be able to complement each other. They must be able to dovetail in function and form. Each of them should exist in its own domain to avoid being substituted. Question 5 (617 words) Treuren (2000) argues in favor of the state and against it as well when it comes to industrial relations. He says that the state has always been present in matters of industrial relations theory but when viewed analytically there is little to prove its presence. He wants the state to be recognized in theory and he goes ahead to describe what a theory that recognizes the state’s involvement in industrial matters looks like. According to him the state has had some macro theoretical absence and a presence in the literature of Australia as a descriptive entity. His argument helps us to understand the efforts that the state has made in trying to ensure good industrial relations. In the Fair work Act 2009 the state has given the Industrial Relations body Fair work Australia greater power to involve it in industrial matters and to intervene in related situations. These powers have been used to regulate the relationships between employers and employees especially where there may be disputes. The intervention is meant to work to the advantage of the workers. In the regulation of the employment relationships the state has played a major role for a long time and its involvement has taken place in various levels. It does this through the judiciary and legislature. Through this two the state is able to maintain and ensure the contract law and the common law rights of property that underpin the employment contract. The governments of the commonwealth and the state have in the past drafted laws to make dispute resolution to follow routine methods as well as the creation of employer-employee terms of relationship. Through legislation enactment the state has had to give Unions access to a system of dispute regulation and exclusive representation rights over groups of workers. The Work place Relations Act sponsored by the state totally transformed the legal, political and industrial terrain that employees, trade unions, employers and other institutions dealing with regulatory issues of compulsory arbitration. Tauren (2000) therefore argues that the state has been involved fully in industrial relations especially in matters of defending the employees. The state has also featured prominently in industrial relations literature in Australia. Treunen’s argument is relevant since it helps us to understand the role that the state has played in industrial relations in Australia through theory and in practical means. By alluding to the invisibility of the state in the industrial relations theory of Australia, Tauren (2000) means that the state has been analytically invisible at a macro level from the industrial relations in Australia. The state has therefore been invisible in industrial relations matters at times but at other times it has been present. In Australian literature the state has been present in terms of parliament operations, judicial system, tribunals and government department such as labor and others. The established state instrumentalities set, legislates, policies, implements and adjudicates besides making pronouncements. In the meso and micro level theory the state has also been present initially in the literature which describes the system and structures of industrial regulation. Secondly it does that in literature that gives the description and a discussion of the economic and social results of a tribunal system. There is another literature that clarifies work place bargaining studies or unusual regulation areas among other literature. Treunen argues to help us understand how the state has been involved in helping to regulate the employment relations in Australia. As outlined above there are many ways through which the state has intervened in these matters. The Fair work Act 2009 elaborates the ways through which the state is trying to get involved in solving industrial relations disputes by giving statutory guidelines for its people. Part B (622 words) Question 7; Company A In this case collective bargaining is appropriate and required in order to get the employer to act on the grievances of the employees. Some kind of collective bargaining is necessary whether the company is unionized or not. Non unionization in this case may mean the presence of a union that is not recognized or the absence of any union. Collective bargaining ensures that the employer is reminded to observe the interests and the rights of the employees which are very easily ignored by most employers. The dimension of the bargaining agent does not apply here because of the lack of unionization of the company. As a result collective bargaining can take place through a different arrangement or forum like works committee that does not involve the union. The level of bargaining that can take place between the employer and the union is not there. However if bargaining has to take place in a non unionized arrangement then collective bargaining is at the work place level. Workers need just to organize themselves and face the employer as a group. This can be done through organized forums such as works committees. The scope of bargaining in this company will have to include all the issues that can be raised by the employees both the permissive and the mandatory and any other. Therefore the dimension of scope bargaining applies. The number of employees in this company is very small. Therefore the dimension of coverage bargaining is not appropriate. The relevance of coverage in collective bargaining increases with the increase in the number of employees involved. The dimension of status of bargaining is not there in collective bargaining for this company because a bargaining agent or trade union is not involved Bray et al (2011). Status bargaining dimension would be used to refer to the status held in society by the trade union owing to the number of employees it represents and the influence it has on employers, the government and employees. Company B The company has a section of the employees being represented by a union while the larger percentage is not unionized. Nevertheless all the employees need collective representation for both the unionized and the non-unionized. Different dimensions will be required for the two categories. The customer service officers already have a union meaning the dimension of the bargaining agents is applicable to them. Their union will definitely present their interests to the employer. The other section of employees need collective bargaining but must use other means apart from a union. In their case bargaining agent dimension is inapplicable. The level of bargaining dimension which is the economy at which collective bargaining is done is also applicable. For the unionized staff since they work for a regional company their bargaining will take place at the national level in the individual nations where they work. The non unionized staff could have collective bargaining done at their work place levels since their immediate bosses are the ones who can understand their issues and present them to the higher authorities in the company. In this same company the dimension of scope of bargaining is applicable for all the employees since all the issues they have in totality need attention. Status of bargaining dimension arises only for the 90 employees under the union. Collective bargaining in this case depends on the status of the union and how well it can appeal to the employer about the issues of employees. Coverage of bargaining dimension does not apply to the company because the number of employees represented by the union is only 90. The coverage of representation is small and therefore collective bargaining does not go with coverage Bray et al (2011). TOTAL (2468 WORDS) Bibliography Butler P. (2009) Non union employee representation: exploring the riddle of managerial strategy, Industrial relations journal 40:3, 198-214; Blackwell publishing Ltd. Bryson, A. (2004) ‘Management Responsiveness to Union and Nonunion Worker Voice in Britain’, Industrial Relations, 43(1): 213– 41. Dundon, T. and Rollinson, D. (2004) Employment Relations in Non-union Firms London: Routledge. Dundon, T. (2002) ‘Employer Opposition and Union Avoidance in the UK’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33(3): 234– 45. Dundon, T., A. Wilkinson, M. Marchington and P. Ackers (2004), ‘The Meaning and Purpose of Employee Voice’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 6, 1149–1170. Dundon, T. and Gollan P. J. (2007); Re-conceptualizing voice in the non union workplace, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18:7, 1182-1198. Routledge. Treuren G. (2000), The concept of the state in Australian Industrial Relations Theory, Journal of labor and industry vol. 2 No. 2 Wooden M. (2000) The transformation of Australian Industrial Relations, Sydney, Federation press. Read More