Identify the industrial relations problems in this company?
The major industrial relations problem facing the insurance company was that they wanted to start a union to voice their grievances: their request was denied. They decided to go this route because against the following background. When they started to expand their business, they expected their staff to work hard. To work beyond regular working hours was till the work was done was considered to be normal. Any staff member reluctant to do so was given warning that such behaviour was not welcomed. On the other hand, those doing good job were rewarded. As they expanded further, they appointed branch managers who carried forward the work ethos of Peter and Jim. This led to tension with new employees, particularly those who haven’t had a chance to work directly with the owners. Such new employees considered this job as fixed hour jobs. Consequently, job turnover was high. To compound the problem further, there was no formal staff’s grading or any wage structure. Further, Peter and Jim spend majority of their time developing network of branches, and didn’t have time for internal matters.
They had a practise of transferring staff between various branches. This system was not liked by my staff members, especially those who had local commitments after work. Those taking public transit were particularly affected; as they were not compensated for travel expenses incurred in the process. This policy of transfer or employee allowed exchange of ideas and information between the branches. This also made them aware about the work conditions at different branches. That is how they came to the conclusion that pay policy didn’t exist in the company, and practice varied from branch to branch.
After all, the “degree to which voice practices are embedded in an organization is much more important than reporting the extent of any particular individual or collective schemes for employee voice”.
How effective would these methods be for workers in giving them an influence over their working lives?
The effectiveness of these methods will depend on the sincerity of company’s leadership. That implies how much freedom they give to the consultant and how diligently they apply his/her recommendations. They should rather choose to work with the union for variety of reasons. Management can consider trade union representatives as part of communication and voice process in workplace. It has been observed “that management is more able to persuade unions to observe procedures if they themselves have conformed to previous agreements.”
What would you do if you were Phillip to respond to Peter and Jim’s attempts to remain non-union?
If I were Phillip, I would take the following steps in correct order. According to this article, recognition can be achieved via several routes. First, if a company employs 21 or more workers, then an independent trade union can request employers for recognition. And if there is not recognition within 28 days, then ACAS can be asked to intervene in this matter. Secondly, if voluntary negotiations fail to resolve the issue, then the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) will assess the extent to which the “bargaining unit” exists for recognition. The CAC helps both the employer and the staff, and also tries to determine whether the trade union has majority support of the workers within that defined unit. If majority support is found, then CAC can issue a declaration in their support. Lastly, CAC has within its scope to conduct a ballot to find out the extent of support for trade union recognition. This can be done if following three conditions can be met; if CAC feels it is interest of good industrial relations; if a significant number of members within the bargaining unit informs it that they do not need trade union recognition; and if there is evidence that prompts CAC to conclude that as significant number of bargaining unit members do not want trade union to bargain on their behalf.
Philip should also be aware of general course of events in such situations. Typically, employers prefer unilateral decision making. Then unions typically force the management into joint regulation through collective bargaining unit. In response the employers will try to minimize the scope of the collective bargaining unit to protect their own management rights. Next the unions will seek to extend the scope of collective bargaining unit to cover managerial relations to challenge the right to manage. Ultimately both will try to strike a balance where disputes are resolved via information and consultation, and neither of them is autocratic in approach. Typically, employers will prefer to have individual form of information and consultation. Whereas, union will prefer that information and consultation be provided to the employee in presence of union representative. If the unions are able to pressurize management to provide information and then move on to negotiate, they will limit the managerial prerogative. However, the managerial rights will be unaffected in conditions where unions are unable to support collective bargaining with sanctions.
Bibliography
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. & Ackers, P., 2004. The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resources Management, Sep, 15(6), pp. 1149 - 1170.
Keele University, n.d. Employee Involvement, Consultation and Participation. s.l.:s.n.
Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A., n.d. Managing Worker Voice. In: Human resource management at work people management and development. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development, pp. 383 - 421.
