This essay will examine the extent to which the statutory provisions on redundancy, laid out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULR(C)A 1992”) as amended, balances the employers need for flexibility and the employees desire for job security (“needs and desires”). In doing so, the essay will set out, firstly, an overview of the statutory provisions regarding redundancy; then, an analyse on how the statutory provisions balance the needs and desires; and finally, a judgement as to the extent the statutory provisions fairly balance these needs and desires of employers and employees respectively.
Redundancy is defined in s.139 ERA 1996 and essentially is where a business or workplace is closing or the need for employees to perform particular services is diminishing or ceases to exist (Taylor and Emir, 2015, p.144). It is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98(2)(c) ERA 1996 and persons covered by the statutory provision of redundancy are employees, that are not excluded, who have been dismissed by reason of redundancy under ss. 136-8 ERA 1996 (Sanders v Ernest A Neal Ltd [1974]), and have been in continuous employment with that employer for at least 2 years (Selwyn, 2006, p.451), subject to exceptions (Pfaffinger v City of Liverpool Community College [1996] IRLR 508). As such, an employee’s desire for job security is dependent on their qualifying period of service, and employers need for flexibility is restricted if an employee qualifies for a redundancy payment.
As articulated, an employee will be able to claim a redundancy payment if they are eligible and shown to be dismissed by reason of redundancy, however, as stressed by the Employment A...
... middle of paper ...
... it is rare for the EAT to order re-employment despite the dismissal was unfair, including, that an employer may be deterred from being flexible through the cost of such payments, especially in regard to multiple employees, outlines that the balance between both the needs and desires respectively are not as fair as they seem. Furthermore, the employers need to follow strict practices and statutory provisions can make it costly for employers to dismiss employees and, as such, improve employees’ job security, yet, this can be argued to reduce an employers need for flexibility as it becomes difficult to make an employee redundancy and respond to change, yet, it can be argued, in situations where 20 or more employees are at risk, the consultation procedure is aimed at mitigating job cuts as thus helps narrow the gap for the statutory provisions to provide a fair balance.
There was evidence shown that the unfair dismissal requirements were the furthermost conflicting and inconsistent from the manager’s perspective. The Fair Work Act applied unfair dismissal requirements for entirely workers, regardless of the population of workers in the business (Chapman, 2015). The Fair Work Act presents two cases that dismissal could be reasonable, including other dismissal and summary dismissal. In the first case, the law offers a sequence of stages such as concluded checklist, copies of notice, declaration of dismissal and a witness announcement with signature that managers must follow with the intention to reduce the problem (Chapman, 2015). In the second case, managers may dismiss a worker without notice due to theft or fraud. As the consequence, the amount of cases in relation to unfair dismissal has risen significantly since the Fair Work Act implemented as law. In addition to the growing records of cases in relation to unfair dismissal, the judgements from Fair Work Australia showed some contradicting clarifications of the Fair Work Act (Chapman, 2015). According to an example, a business in Albury- Wodonga had dismissed an employee due to the breach of occupational and safety laws after an employee continually denied to wear safety glasses at work (Sloan, 2011). However, after checking the worker’s reinstatement, the Fair Work Australia stated that the worker had a family and he has found it challenging to
Marshall, Shelley, 2004. Enterprise Bargaining, Managerial Prerogative and the Protection of Workers Rights. An Argument on the Role of Law and Regulatory Strategy in Australia under the Workplace Relations Act 199, Vol.22(3), , p.299.
Whether RSI claims reach the courts and are won or lost, employers, prior to the claim, have almost certainly been paying a price through the employee’s general lack of wellbeing and discontent at work. Unfortunately, in a lot of instances the very nature of this condition lends itself to being overlooked by management, until it is too late and a claim becomes imminent?
In conclusion, employment relations have changed considerably since the 1980s. The falls in union membership triggered initially by the miners and print unions defeats, along with the legal constraints surrounding unions which were introduced by the conservative government and mostly retained by the labour party have all combined to reduce the impact of trade unions on present day employment relations. However unions and employers are adapting to these changes and adopting different approaches to managing industrial relations.
Upon receiving notice to layoff and redesign job descriptions of employees, specific areas were reviewed in order to make a decision that would provide the best outcome for the company. These areas included job performance, productivity, special achievements, job responsibility, educational qualifications, absenteeism and status.
...e Bargaining, Managerial Prerogative and the Protection of Workers Rights: An Argument on the Role of the Law and Regulatory Strategy in Australia under the Workplace Act 1996 (Cth). Retrieved on April 9, 2013, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.unimelb.edu.au%2FE8812500-7599-11E2-84E10050568D0140&ei=t0RkUdT0K62V7Ab48IC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNEfV17R8n5eNatsPXKQRxB9bqvUig&bvm=bv.44990110,d.ZGU.
This legislation does not prevent dismissals from occurring but only allows the employee to challenge their dismissal. The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 is the legislation that covers the basis for Alfie’s case. In his case, he seeks to prove that his dismissal was unfair and unwarranted. Thereby seeking redress from his employee. Many aspects of his case are pertinent to the Acts as the facts indicate.
The Supreme Court observed that the absence could have been treated as leave without pay. The workman might have been warned and fined. Court further said, “it is impossible to think that any reasonable employer would have imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its entire permanent staff in this matter”.
Layoffs are one means by which an organization can reduce expenses with the intent of improving its bottom line. Despite being typically performed as a last resort, layoffs often have a negative impact on the remaining workforce. As a manager, there are numerous areas for concern in managing the workforce going forward. The human costs related to downsizing are “immense and far-reaching” with one of the most profound being survivor syndrome according to Hanson (2015, p. 187). Also known as survivor’s guilt, this condition relates to the emotions felt by those still employed and some of the effects include decreased motivation, moral, and job satisfaction, as well as an increased proclivity to search for other employment. This volunteer turnover being another grave concern for managers, and retention of the remaining workforce is usually dependent on their existing perception of the organization and its culture (Sitlington & Marshall, 2011). Also relayed by
The employee turnover rate and the retention of skilled employees is a major problem businesses face. “Conservative estimates put the cost of replacing a lost employee at 25 percent of the annual compensation amount. For the typical full time employee who earns $38,481 and receives $50,025 in total compensation, the total cost of turnover would amount to $12,506 per employee.” This being the case employee turnover is a major cost and can significantly influence the bottom line so it should be avoided if possible. (Bliss)
Managers have a degree of choice in how they deal with their employees. (Purcell, 1987) Some may see them as a commodity while others may see them as an important and valuable resource needing to be developed. (Purcell, 1987) Managerial prerogative is defined by Bray, Waring and Cooper (2011: pg 332) as “those areas of decision-making within an organization over which managers claim to have an unfettered right to decide as they see fit.” It is important to define managerial prerogative so that we can establish whether the legislation has increased or diminished it. Defining managerial prerogative is also important as we look at the different managerial styles and strategies and observe if they play any role in increasing or minimizing managerial prerogative. Managers will always have some degree of control over their employees because most of the day to day tasks in the workplace such as rules and procedures of the workplace, tasks, and which employee performs which tasks are decisions made by the manager without consultation with employees and unions. (Bray, Waring and Cooper, 2011) The laws and regulations surrounding managerial prerogative have only seemed to rule in favour of employers being the sole decision makers in an organisation and decrease the amount of bargaining power unions and employees have towards pay and conditions. (Bray and Waring, 2006)
673), retention management must be based on three types of turnover, voluntary, discharged, and downsizing. Not all businesses are freighted by turnovers, for some it is the way of life and cost is built into the budget. However, for others any type of high turnover can be detrimental for company profit, employee wage and benefits offered. First, let’s take a look at voluntary and involuntary turnover that affects retention. Voluntary turnovers are caused by many different reasons. Turnover may result from topics such as job dissatisfaction, job mismatching, knowing that job opportunities are plentiful. Two reasons that I will discuss more are micromanagement and employee loyalty. Like stated before in the introduction, when employees are dissatisfied, possibly due to being placed in an area that doesn’t fit with their skill set, one is more likely to seek new employment. Another part of turnover is discharging and downsizing. Discharge is just that, members being discharged due to discipline and job performance. While downsizing turnover is a result of business being overstaffed (Heneman III, Judge, Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015, pg. 675). There are also other reasons for voluntarily employee turnover, such as generation differences when it relates to employment. The current generations are more likely to see a job as one piece in their life puzzle rather than as the first, indispensable anchor piece without
Suffield, L., & Templer A. (2012). Labour Relations, PH Series in Human Resources Management, 3rd Edition
The role of the government on industrial relations is very important as it sets the legal framework that industrial relations operates in. Appropriate industrial relations legislation should recognize the requirements of both employers and employee’s. Both the employee and the employer want to profit from each other but are also reliant on each other. This means that the equal bargaining power of employers and workers must be recognized (Peetz, David. 2006). Appropriate industrial relations laws should address any imbalance of power and give both groups an equal degree of control. Appropriate industrial relations should not only allow a mixture of both collective and individual bargaining but also facilitate employee participation in day to day workplace decisions. After all it’s the structure and framework of the employment relationship, which is governed by legislation that leads to good Industrial Relations.
The theory holds work to be governed by a wide range of formal and informal rules and regulations, which cover everything from recruitment, holidays, performance, wages, hours, and a myriad of other details of employment. It asserts that these rules are what industrial actors try to determine, that their establishment is influenced by the wider environmental context in which the actors operate, and that the actors themselves share an interest in maintaining the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. On the back of these assertions four elements are held to make up the system of industrial relations rule-making. The first is industrial actors, which consists of employers and their representatives (i.e., employer associations), employees and their representatives (i.e., trade unions), and external agencies with an interest in industrial relations (i.e., government departments and labour courts). The second is the environmental context, which