Issues Regarding Industrial Relations as well as the Employment Law in Australia - Coursework Example

Name Tutor Course Date Introduction The revolutionary transformation of the Australian industrial and employment relations in the previous two decades has been not only central to the political debate, but also economic debate. This transformation has been perceived by some as complex and multi-faced, while some claim that it is a contradictory process where the national government derives new power sources for wrestling the authority from regional states while decentralizing the practices of industrial relations to workplace levels. The initiation of the enterprise bargaining process came from Hawke Labour government around late1980’s, where there was the cooperation of the union government with the main aim of decentralizing the system of employment relations. This paper focuses on the issues regarding industrial relations as well as the employment law in Australia, while also critically assessing the claims about its focus transition from the collective rights to individual rights of employees in Australia. Australian industrial relations and employment law Just like most countries, Australia’s working class had been continuously struggling not only to improve the working conditions for workers, but also for its collective action to be perceived as legitimate. There was hence a great struggle to enhance the living standard of the workers so that the workers could live comfortably. Around the 1970s, however, unfavorable movements in trading terms, coupled with shocks from the oil prices significantly reduced the Australian economy’s capacity of sustaining the rising standards of living without experiencing chronic problems related to balance of payment. This forced the successive governments coming in to introduce a variety of reforms aimed at improving the competitiveness of the Australian industries internationally. The reforms adopted, including tariff reductions, floating of Australian dollar, as well as elimination of controls of the foreign exchange, all led to an increase in Australian openness to the foreign competition. With such a highly competitive environment facing Australia, transformations to the institutions of labour market became inevitable. As such, this process resulted in arrangements in the industrial relations giving primacy to the bargaining at enterprise level as well as workplace level. This is in opposition to the previous centrally-determined pay, along with the working arrangements that were centrally determined. The changes in industrial relations and employment law Australian industrial relations and employment law has undergone unique developments in the past two decades, hence distinguishing this from the industrial relations and employment laws from the other jurisdictions speaking English. From the initial phase, the transformation process took places in two phases, eventually leading to and concluding with fair work Australia. The two phases are the work choices (2006) and fair work Australia (2009). The initial phase The Australian labour law played a major role during this phase. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been passed in 1904 and mandated conciliation as well as the arbitration for preventing and settling industrial disputes existing beyond a given state. Also, in cases where dispute involved any given company in any single state, then the industrial organization or even the union was to rope them basically into the federal award with arguments that they belong to an industry having disputes extending past limits of a single state. Incase there was no covering of the company by the federal Award, and then the commissions of the industrial relation had to form the award of the industrial rule. Since 1993, federal government of Australia has increasingly employed the corporation power in enacting the legislation of the labour law. This has allowed the parliament to enact laws with regards to trading corporations and financial corporations. Further, in 2005, John Howard’s government announced plans to advance the use of the same power so as to override the systems of the state in its Federal umbrella. These changes as well entailed introducing commission of the Australian Fair Pay which will be independent and will set the wages. These changes also implied increased power for the Employment Advocate’s office with a corresponding minor role and responsibility for the Australian commission of Industrial Relations. Work Choices The work choices started operating in the year 2006 after the Howard government passed it in 2005, giving the federal government a significant control of over three quarters (85%) of the system of the Australian labour law. It resulted from the need to better the employment levels as well as the national levels of performance. This was to be carried out through dispensing the unfair laws of dismissal surrounding certain companies. It removed tests that were carried out to prove disadvantages in a company hence ensuring that legislation changes do not negatively affect the workers. It as such increased individual efficiency while also ensuring the submission of certified agreements to Workplace Authority, as opposed to the usual submission to Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Work choice also significantly paralyzed the ability of the workforces to legally partake in strikes and other union activities. This required the workers to strongly bargain for those previously guaranteed conditions with no collectivized representation. It greatly restricted the trade union activities as well as recruitment on work sites. The legislation’s constitutional validity with regards to workplace choices was later challenged in the Australia’s high court (New South Wales & Ors v Commonwealth). It was later decided that there was validity to all the reforms. This case became an important decision of the constitutional law in this area of the Federal-state relations. The work choices eventuated basically in the end of John Howard’s 11 years government. A significant defeat in elections with regards to this issue indicated that John Howard pushed more on the issue than the electorate of Australia would accept comfortably (Dabscheck 77-78). Fair Work Australia Fair Work Australia was established primarily by Australia’s federal Labour government in order to make crucial transformations to the federal industrial laws that existed. Forsyth (2009, pp 120-141) indicates that the anticipated changes to the existing federal industrial laws were a representation of the next rational steps to a flexible, simple and also fair system of workplace relations. Mitchell and Fetter also argue that the human resource management often takes place within the context of change (320). Due to this, its evolution has greatly been influenced by the dual pressures of both public policy as well as collective bargaining. According to Coorey (2011) Australia’s labour government announced a reversal of the workplace laws that seemed controversial, while reacting to the extensive dissatisfaction of the community. The need for these changes basically relied, ironically, on the corporations’ authority within this constitution to essentially increase the coverage mainly with the idea of developing a single system of national industrial relations to be extended so as to cover all constitutional corporations along with employees. As such, the Fair Work Act brought about transitional provisions to shift employers, workers as well as organizations from the previous Workplace Relations Act of the year 1996 system to the new one. On top of this, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) ensured the making of significant amendments to commonwealth legislation which is elemental to the Fair Work Act 2009 operations, an instance being the development of the Fair Work Divisions of the Federal Court as well as the Federal Magistrates Court. According to Dabscheck (2006, pp 83-91) and McCrystal (2010, pp21), the work choices legislation fundamentally and completely brought changes to the structure and also the regulation of work relations within Australia. The campaign regarding rights at work, conducted before Australian Federal election of 2007, as well lead to the establishment of the Fair Work Australia. This campaign was actually a union and a community-based response to the work choices; hence it productively mobilized an increase in community resistance basically towards the radically anti-union Work Choices employment relations legislation (2005). This positioned the work relations essentially at the center of the election debate. It entailed an exceptional commitment of the relevant union resources with the primary objective of creating changes. The most obvious manifestation were several countrywide rallies making use of the Australian news media like the satellite television hook-ups; public events like the rock concerts and several television advertisements. These were aimed at drawing the voters’ interest to the work choices impacts on the workers along with their families, rather than just on it’s potential to stagnate the major union functions (Waring and Burgess 77) High hopes had been evident considering that establishing this body would eventually usher in a new system related to good faith workplace relations and make sure that the defenseless employees’ also access the enforceable labor rights. It also provided support for collective bargaining. After the 2007 elections, widespread public opinions were raised claiming that this body would successfully solve the problem related to Work Choices. Hence, as per the Coorey (2011), Your Rights movement of 2007 was with no doubt quite effective in attaining both electoral changes and also eradicating the possibility of re-emergence of Work Choices. The Fair Work Australia establishment therefore resulted in a number of essential new concepts in the place of work relations law and the practices. This included a comprehensive set of the national minimum standards, modern awards as well as good faith bargaining in view of the enterprise agreements. Discussion The development process of the Australian industrial relations and employment law are a great indicator of the direction of attention as concerns individual rights and collective rights. Several authors have raised varied concerns on these changes, citing various positions with regards to individualism and collectivism. Briggs and cooper state that even though the unions had previously had a significant role in Australia’s industrial relations, such has been sidelined mainly by the non-union agreement (22). These agreements have enabled the employers to undermine activities of unions as they are potential instruments for stemming the organizing drives and pre-empting collective bargaining of unions. This has also presented unions with opportunities of leveraging the organizing activities by the collective process enabled by the stream making non-union agreements. According to Cooper and Ellem and for over a decade, the Australian government had been up to the agenda of neoliberal industrial relations while anticipating breaking with various structures having their basis on the collective bargaining as well as trade unions (532-535). With choice as well as deregulation being the driving force, it had unique state intervention altogether with prescription levels, leading to Work Choices. Following the government’s defeat in 2007, however, the extent of restoring collective bargaining as well as regaining trade union voices has been cited as problematical. The introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009 modernized awards and ceased operations of Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). According to Hepworth and Ewin the business community of Australia has criticized Fair Work Act stating that unions used the law for their strategic advantage including threats of suing for victimization basically under the wide-ranging law provisions, which should have otherwise been amended (56). This is in addition to upholding workers’ rights to have protected action prior to bargaining. This move has been viewed by opponents as the Liberal Party’s idea of reintroducing significant Work Choices sections. Coorey has also stated that the Fair Work Act’s individual agreements emphasized that employees were to be better compared to under the enterprise or award system. Due to this, there have been complaints of reduced flexibility among the retailers as compared to the previous industrial relations system, something which Ker (2011) adds to by stating that flexibility degree is quite crucial in the labor force. This in effect has led to renewed deregulation of industrial relations system forming another potential Work Choices-style tussle. Also, concerning bargaining, Forsyth (2009, pp120-141) , Briggs (2004, pp101) and Bray& Waring (2006, 45) state that the coalition government of Howard, while maintaining the bargaining system of Labour, had legislative changes that challenged collective bargaining primacy by introducing the statutory individual agreements and elimination of good faith bargaining obligations. The legislation of Work Choices also down graded the collective bargaining hence affecting agreement making at individual levels. The Fair Work Bill 2008 brought by the Rudd Government, however, sought to rectify the problems and restore collective bargaining primacy. Van Barneveld and Nassif (27-8) also states that the Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) transformed enterprise bargaining approach in federal public service. New guidelines eliminated the individual bargain while also affirming the employee rights to the union representation with regards to the negotiations of collective agreement and union’s organizational rights in the public sector workplaces. As such, the issue of transition from collectivism to individualism has been greatly welcomed although there have been instances of some collectivism sections being preferred by some groups who believe amendments are necessary in enabling total realization of a competitive and effective business environment. Conclusion Various regulatory systems result in distinct geographical strategies hence altering worker practices, union practices and the practices of employers. They are all too intertwined given that interference caused to the regulations of labour market becomes the cause and the effect of the changing structures as well as the shifts in power relations with regards to economy and labour market. Since changes in Australia’s employment system regulation came up at different times through different state power configurations, there have been drastic shifts of the focus to individualism rather than collectivism. However, other parts of collectivism are still desirable while individualism also presents minor challenges. It is, however, evident that every successive government in Australia only plans for the best, effective and conducive working environment for the Australians. Works Cited Briggs, Chris & Cooper, Rae. Between individualism and collectivism? Why employers choose non-union collective agreements. Labour & Industry, 17 (2): 1-23. 2006. Cooper, Rae. & Ellem, Bradon. The Neoliberal State, Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining in Australia. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46: 532-554.2008. Coorey, Philip. Coalition joins push for workplace shake-up, Sydney Morning Herald, August 6th. 2011. Dabscheck, Braham. Work Choices: Australia’s New Industrial Relations Legislation. The Otemon Journal of Australian Studies, pp. 83−91. 2006. Forsyth, Anthony. Exit stage left, now centre stage: Collective bargaining under Work Choices and Fair Work in A. Forsyth and A. Stewart (eds) Fair Work: The New Workplace Laws and The Work Choices Legacy, Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 120-141. 2009. Hepworth, Annabel & Hannan Ewin. Business Council of Australia on attack over union strike- first laws. The Australian. July 27th, 2011. Ker, Peter. Mining boss: Soft Workforce taking nation backwards. Sydney Morning Herald, August 9th, 2011. McCrystal, Shae, Protected Industrial Action and Voluntary Collective Bargaining Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (February 1, 2011). The Economic and Labour Relations Review. Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 37-52; Sydney Law. 2010. Mitchell, Richard & Fetter, Joel. Human Resource Management and Individualization in Australian Labor Law. Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(3), pp. 292-325. 2003. Waring, Peter & Burgess, John. Work Choices: The Privileging of Individualism in Australian Industrial Relations. International Journal of Employment Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1: 61-80. 2006. Briggs, Cooper. The Return of the Lockout in Australia: a Profile of Lockouts since the Decentralisation of Bargaining. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 30 (2): 101. 2004. Bray, Mark. & Waring, Peter. The Rise of Managerial Prerogative under the Howard Government. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 32 (1): 45-62. 2006. Bray, Mark, & Walsh, Pat. Different paths to neo-liberalism? Comparing Australia and New Zealand. Industrial Relations. 37 (3): 358-388. 1998. Van Barneveld, Kristin & Nassif, Ross. Motivations for the Introduction of Workplace Agreements. Labour and Industry, 14 (2): 21-38. 2003. Read More