Papers Regulation of Work and Employment †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Papers Regulation of Work and Employment. Answer: Introduction An enterprise agreement should be able to inform the employee of how much they can expect to be paid at each grade, the terms in which they will work with; the number of hours an employee can work per day, terms of extra time in duty and terms of reward, and whether there are breaks for taking meals in between the working hours. In agreement, the employee is also entitled to know how to go through the procedures used to resolve disputes in case they arise and how and whom they can consult to improve their working environment. It is through this agreement that the employee authorizes any deductions to be cut from their salaries. The commission of fair work gives information that guides the agreement between the employers and the employees on their terms of work and the conditions in which they are offered the employment (Li, 2017). The commission also evaluates and analyzes the different agreements and also makes the decision on the basis of meeting some set conditions together with p utting the public interests as a major factor. In this regard, the enterprise agreements have to follow the commission's guidelines, and if they do not meet them, they are not approved. The BOOT test was introduced at the beginning of the year 2010 with the aim of assessing the different groups of employees (Li, 2017). This test only works at a time when a person in place of an employee who is covered by the award makes an application for the agreement. Not all the agreements from employees covered by the rewards meet the requirement of the better off overall test although some who take care of the interest of the public can be considered by the fair work Australia. The BOOT test also requires workers who are covered in the award agreement or those who intend to be covered by the award to be the best among all at the time of their application because they must meet the pass requirement of the test. Before this test was implemented in 2010, the no disadvantage test was in place (McDonald, 2013). The test is used to set the pay rates in comparison to the relevant modern award or the least pay set up by the Australian government. If the final agreement sets the pay to be lower than what was in the relevant modern award or is below the government's least pay, then the fair work Australia approves the government's pay as the employee is entitled to. Using the better off overall test helps to compare the financial benefits of an individual, their circumstances at the time with the monetary/ non-monetary awards that are applicable at the time of agreement (Parker et al. 2017). Employee flexibilities can also be negotiated after employment so that the worker gets the power to bargain on their terms and conditions and do not just confirm/ accept the employers terms. Here the Commission considers the welfare of the employee to avoid exploitation from the employer. Having set the lowest one can earn in any agreement for employees who are already covered in the awards/ those who intend to be covered by a certain award. This also has a long-term benefit to the employer since after the agreement is approved by the fair working commission, the employee gains intrinsic motivation and satisfaction which in turn would improve their commitment to work, thus improving the rate of production and their services become more efficient (Matlay, 2009). Workers who have gone through individual flexibility agreement do not switch from one employment to the other, they do their jobs/ they serve for a long term, and therefore the employer does not spend a lot of energy and finances on recruitment processes. Employees are retained for a long term, and the business can stabilize in their operations. They also do not spend on training and retraining frequently changed over employees who in other cases without the flexibility agreement and employees are persistent in attendance of duties. They are responsible and do not abscond duties (Mcdonald, 2013) Application of the Boot Test Cole's Supermarkets had an issue to reckon on which award they would give to Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association and at the same time, the Transport Workers' Union of Australia had a similar case to negotiate an agreement that would cover the employees who transported groceries that were ordered through online shopping (Matlay, 2009). The fair work commission was to give guidelines on the enterprise agreement. Coles felt that the commission of fair work would give their recommendation or give their views on the two matters. By law, the commission could become an arbitrator to solve the dispute by reconciling the parties involved or by giving their views on the same for the parties to negotiate and implement the commissions proposals. The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association also felt that the commission could recommend the award and was willing to start their negotiations with the Coles based on the views of the Commission. They hoped to get a better salary and that their working environment would be appealing and better than the working conditions in place at the time. The Transport Workers Union at the time of these processes had a different view of the approach of the negotiations. They had already started another case in a court with a claim that the court solution would bind the supermarkets legally while the alternative by the commission would not. (Sydney, 2012)The final decision by the commission was to give the court the time to make a ruling as their decision would bind all the parties and that for "the better off overall test," it would be best decision to follow the proceedings in the court and to take the award the court would recommend. The BOOT requires that workers agree without being coerced the terms in the agreement, if many employers are covered by the agreement, they should have accepted voluntarily and not to have been influenced by those seemingly superior employers, the agreement must also provide for ways and channels of addressing any disputes that might come up and the end of the agreement date should be well laid out (George et al. 2017). The employer too should seek legal advice on a selection of legal terms so that the agreement is fair to both the employer and the employee. The criteria used to select the number of employees that appear to be covered in the agreement should appear to be wise from the employers side. Why the BOOT test is important to HM HM is one of the organizations that have found themselves on the wrong side of the law as far as BOOT test is concerned. Despite the organization being huge and having many branches across the world, it has failed to enter into an agreement with the employees (Low, 217). However, this can only be blamed on the fact that the company wanted to cut the wages of the employees at the expense of the employees. The company would have decided to implement the law, but because the employees had to agree to the document, the company found itself in conflict with the employees because they did not share the same views. However, the body that played the most crucial role in the entire case is the Fair Work Commission by dismissing the enterprise agreement. The reason why the agreement was dismissed was that it failed to satisfy the BOOT; an action that would have left many employees underpaid. The BOOT makes sure that each and every organization does not pay less than the award rate. In this case, HM was trying to go through the back door and implement a document that would have violated the rights of the workers. According to Mr. Cullinan (Low, 2017), if the agreement would have been effected, it is more likely that the people who would be more affected would be employees who work on weekends and nigh shifts. Though HM tried to argue that most of the permanent employees are paid better and way above the award rate, it was not a justification for trying to oppress those who were not on the permanent payroll. The move by the Fair Work Commission was one of the best because it protected the rights of many employees. The case is a good example of the importance of a controlling body in the employment industry as it makes sure that the nee ds of the employees are met, and employees are not taken for granted. Strengths and weaknesses of boot the employer and employee negotiate, the employee gets the better off overall especially when they are fully aware of the terms and conditions of the employment The worker too is best when gets employed covered in an award and flexibility agreement than in an employment just under a relevant modern award (Rodriguez et al. 2017). Boot ensures that the pay and the terms the workers are entitled to be not reduced. With this test, the employee always gets what is rightfully theirs, and the employer cannot disadvantage the employee. The employees are given power to a platform to air their views, express their feelings.(Australian council of trade unions, 2009) The test indicates the termination time of the agreement and therefore cannot be reviewed at any time the employer would like to. It has a flexibility arrangement which allows the employee and employer to change the agreed terms and operations depending on the emerging issues within the organization. The better off overall test ensures the employee and the employer feel protected when conducting their engagement roles (Yousef, 2017). The employee is entitled to dispute over an unfair firing by the employer. This test tends to consider the welfare of the employee, and the fair work commission seems to be fighting for the rights of the employees than a fair judgment on both sides. Even though the commission aims at improving the standards of living of the people in the country, it does not consider the financial capability of the employer. It is also not recorded on a fair dismissal of employees who misbehave and should, therefore, look at the alternative side of the coin. There are no ways of proving that none of the parties was coerced to agree to the terms due to naivety or the present circumstances of the employees or smaller employees in the case of multi-enterprise agreement (Yousef, 2017). Some employees can do malice to bind the employers whom they dont like to suffer legally because they know that they are covered. Some employers can ensure that the agreement covers the lowest earners within the business for a very long time so that they cannot review their terms and the environment of working as fast. Improving the BOOT test The test has a good package for the employees, and they might get attracted to employment in business enterprises that cover their employees under agreements. It targets to improve the welfare of the employees and in turn, increase the rate of productivity, service delivery becomes more efficient, and this increases the monetary returns to the business (George et al. 2017). The workers are more committed to their work and avoid absenteeism because they are motivated, and they know the modern rewards that can come along with attaining the best in the workplace. However, the workers at times are not informed about the specific rewards to specific roles that they play in the business and they can, therefore, keep on bringing up disputes which require attention from the courts or need a third party that is not partisan to the organization. This leads to expensive engagement at times to the arbitrator and a waste of time and also leads to tension between the employer and the employee. Resolving of disputes can at times lead to directions which hard to implement by the employer especially when the court is involved. The winners of the case, either the employer or the employees tend to feel superior, and their relationships are damaged. If all clauses of the agreement are clear to both parties, such incidences of strikes and disputes emerging every other time could avoid. (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2009). Only selected employees are covered by a particular agreement; this means that there different agreements for different classes of employees. This sets the employees in different social groups and becomes skeptical in how they relate with one another as others are seen to have better terms than the others. The employees feel that they are not subjected to similar terms and that some are viewed special than others. It is, therefore, important to consider factors such as literacy levels of the employees and how informed they are about their roles and class within the organization (Mcdonald, 2013). Team building and regular forums to express satisfaction and dissatisfaction should be put in place to sense any dispute that might emerge and address it before it affects the performance of the workers. The employers and the employees should be able to interact well with a common objective of achieving the best for the company. The employer controls the employee and gives instructions to the employee while the worker works under the instructions of the senior and has to comply. There exists a vertical relationship between the two where supervision is done by the employer. They both have to know their boundaries so that they can coexist with one another and here the employer should not be misled by power and exploit the workers. They should have set out clearly their expectations. This should take place during the orientation of the workers, given the right tools of work and the freedom to query where they feel uncomfortable to work. Employees pay should never be late and in case the circumstances of paying late the management should prepare the workers psychologically and give a promise of a date to pay their dues (Australian council of trade unions, 2009). Rewards too should be given to those who deserved at the right time. Overtime rewards should well spell out, and the employers should respect the breaks time for the employee as personal time. It is wise for employers to know that the efficiency and good productivity highly depends on how they treat their employees. Its good to know when to centralize supervision to one person and when to decentralize the power having evaluated the power of delegation of powers. It is good to know how to use the best management terms that create the best working environment for a business and not to harm the best performance of the company (Bal De Jong, 2017). The Australian government through the fair work commission has put much effort to improve the working conditions of the employees, and they require the employers to comply and not to take advantage of the low bargaining power of the employees. It has reviewed the employment system and has made it a requirement that a single/ business enterprise agreement be reached by both parties before the contract takes off. The law has greatly improved the employment sector and workers are not exploited and that they can produce according to the ir capabilities. The employers are advised to keep the agreement data for every employee and also give a copy to the employee and caution them against breaching the agreement because of the consequences. Every employer must define the relevant modern reward to their employees notify the employee (Sydney, 2012). A corporate organization has a social responsibility and for any agreement to pass the better off overall test," the fair work commission has to be convinced that the organization takes care of the interests of the people. In case the employer and the employee do not agree on the terms and conditions of working before commencing of employment/ the contract, the agreement can be passed by the commission of fair work so long as the employer promises to negotiate on the terms within six months and shows how committed they are to the needs/ demands of the society (Vakola Nikolaou, 2005). All the industries have been given guidelines by the Australian government on the terms of employment for all the employees, and they have also set a minimum pay for various classes of employees. The employer should be aware of the rates set by the government as it is illegal to pay any amount of money below the government scales (Parker, 2017). There is, however, variations which employers create for the unskilled laborers, and the government should look keenly on their terms of employment. There are also no clear guidelines on the casual laborers who are not permanent or are not given contracts and therefore do not have a written agreement between them and employers. They get hired and fired any time the employer pleases or are employed through the rare necessity to the company. Terms of payment too for experts who are employed once in a very lengthy time to check the functionality of the assets within the company are not specified (Bal De Jong, 2017). The government is not clear on the agreement rules whether there is minimum pay or bracket for which they should pay. The better off overall has many advantages than disadvantages and therefore has improved the working conditions of the employee. Only a slight improvement on the employers welfare too should be taken care of. Conclusion Without fear of doubt or contradiction, just like the employers, the employees as well have the right to partake in the success of any organization. It is for this reason that there emerges a need for an availability of an abiding agreement that defines what is expected of the employee as well as the employer. When such happens, it is evident that the employees are made to feel as part and parcel of the organization thus performing better with the aim of being rewarded and earning from their hard work. The BOOT test has worked effectively in promoting the performance of the employees. Though it has its weaknesses, it also has its strengths as well which outshine the weaknesses. The test encourages the employees to play their roles effectively if they are to be rewarded by the employers or the organizations they work for. Therefore, it ensures that both the employees and the employers needs are well taken care of. References Australian council of trade unions. (2009). submission to the Australian industrial relations commissions; award modernization(supplementary) stage 2 exposure draft awards. Bal, P. M., de Jong, S. B. (2017). From human resource management to human dignity development: a dignity perspective on HRM and the role of workplace democracy. In Dignity and the Organization (pp. 173-195). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Cully, M. (1999). Britain at work: As depicted by the 1998 workplace employee relations survey. Psychology Press. George, J., George, J., Wallio, S., Wallio, S. (2017). Organizational justice and millennial turnover in public accounting. Employee Relations, 39(1), 112-126. Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Soetanto, R., King, N. (2005). Employee perceptions of empowerment. Employee Relations, 27(4), 354-368. Karl, K., Peluchette, J. V. E., Hall, L. M. (2016). Employee beliefs regarding the impact of unconventional appearance on customers in Mexico and Turkey. Employee Relations, 38(2), 163 181. Li, J. J., Kim, W. G., Zhao, X. R. (2017). A multilevel model of management support and casino employee turnover intention. Tourism Management, 59, 193-204. Low, C. (2017). HM Fails to Secure Enterprise Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/hm-fails-to-secure-enterprise-agreement 20170117-gtsxwl.html Matlay, H. (2009). Employee relations in small firms: A micro-business perspective. Employee Relations, 21(3), 285-295. Mcdonald, J. (2013). Changes to rules regarding individual flexibility agreements. Olsen, K. M. (2016). The power of workers: knowledge work and the power balance in Scandinavian countries. Employee Relations, 38(3), 390-405. Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403. Rodriguez, J. K., Johnstone, S., Procter, S. (2017). SPECIAL ISSUE CALL FOR PAPERS Regulation of work and employment: Advancing theory and research in international and comparative human resource management Deadline for submission: Friday 30th of October 2015 Publication date: 2017 (Vol. 28, No. 6) Guest Editors. Sahadev, S., Sahadev, S., Purani, K., Purani, K., Kumar Panda, T., Kumar Panda, T. (2017). Service employee adaptiveness: Exploring the impact of role stress and managerial control approaches. Employee Relations, 39(1), 54-78. Swailes, S., Blackburn, M. (2016). Employee reactions to talent pool membership. Employee Relations, 38(1), 112-128. Sydney. (2012). Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union; shop,distribution and allied employees Association. Commonwealth government. Vakola, M., Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees stress and commitment?. Employee Relations, 27(2), 160-174. Wilkinson, A. (1999). Employment relations in SMEs. Employee Relations, 21(3), 206-217. Yousef, D. A. (2017). Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Attitudes Toward Organizational Change: A Study in the Local Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(1), 77-88.