Employment Relationship
ESSAY PLAN
Topic: Has Managerial Prerogative gone too far?
Summary of Argument
Employment relations legislation has undergone a number of significant transformations over the past decade due to changing government (Loudoun, McPhail, & Wilkinson, 2009).While the original legislation passed had increased managerial prerogative and reduced employee’s rights, the most recent changes have endeavoured to restore the balance of power (O 'Neill & O 'Neill, 2010). Industrial relations plays a vast part in determining managerial influence; and Union ability to collectively bargain effectively for their members, has helped to keep managerial prerogative in check (Marshall & Mitchell, 2009).
This essay will first explore the original system of Unions fostered in 1904, a system where union membership and power was at its peak and managerial prerogative was subject to bargaining and union action (Rooke, 1989). Secondly, the essay will examine the changes under the Liberal governments Work Choices legislation and the decline of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission- thus leading an ostensible omnipotence of managers, and a significant moratorium of union power (Bray & Waring, 2006) (Edgar & Geare, 2005). Lastly, this essay will seek to determine whether the current legislation; Labour’s Fair Work Australia policy, has addressed the issues of managerial influence mentioned in the former policy (McCrystal, 2009).
Definition
Loudoun (2009, p. 23) defines managerial prerogative as the entitlement of managers in the decision making process, giving them the absolute power to decide who, what, when, where and why of the everyday working environment.
Body
Key Point 1- Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (1904) Unions had the power to influence managerial decision making through collective bargaining and tribunal action (Ronnmar, 2006). Managerial prerogative was kept in check through this complex system, affording employees a sense of power (Rooke, 1989).
Key
Topic: Has Managerial Prerogative gone too far?
Summary of Argument
Employment relations legislation has undergone a number of significant transformations over the past decade due to changing government (Loudoun, McPhail, & Wilkinson, 2009).While the original legislation passed had increased managerial prerogative and reduced employee’s rights, the most recent changes have endeavoured to restore the balance of power (O 'Neill & O 'Neill, 2010). Industrial relations plays a vast part in determining managerial influence; and Union ability to collectively bargain effectively for their members, has helped to keep managerial prerogative in check (Marshall & Mitchell, 2009).
This essay will first explore the original system of Unions fostered in 1904, a system where union membership and power was at its peak and managerial prerogative was subject to bargaining and union action (Rooke, 1989). Secondly, the essay will examine the changes under the Liberal governments Work Choices legislation and the decline of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission- thus leading an ostensible omnipotence of managers, and a significant moratorium of union power (Bray & Waring, 2006) (Edgar & Geare, 2005). Lastly, this essay will seek to determine whether the current legislation; Labour’s Fair Work Australia policy, has addressed the issues of managerial influence mentioned in the former policy (McCrystal, 2009).
Definition
Loudoun (2009, p. 23) defines managerial prerogative as the entitlement of managers in the decision making process, giving them the absolute power to decide who, what, when, where and why of the everyday working environment.
Body
Key Point 1- Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (1904) Unions had the power to influence managerial decision making through collective bargaining and tribunal action (Ronnmar, 2006). Managerial prerogative was kept in check through this complex system, affording employees a sense of power (Rooke, 1989).
Key
References: Rooke, S. W, 1989, 'The Role of the Industrial Relations Practitioner at the Plant Level ', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources vol. 27. no. 1.