Managerial Prerogative

There are still ongoing arguments on whether managerial prerogative should be practise by manager without any external interference from states, trade unions and employees. Human Resource Management (HRM), described by Boselie (2009) is using the human resources through high performance work practises which increase an organisation’s competitive advantage (p.93). Boselie’s reference to high performance work practices indicated strong highly control through managerial prerogative. This paper stressed the importance of interventions from trade unions and state tribunals as supported by Nissan (as cited in Godfrey, Dale, Marchington & Wilkinson, 1997, p.3) that the consequences of allowing managerial prerogative on issues such as recruiting, selecting, training and development reduced teamwork commitment, loyalty to organisation, skilled employees

The unitary theory (HRM) enforce managerial prerogative, one source of authority where decision makings should be done by management solely which employees have to obey the decisions management made. Trade union’s intervention (Bray & Warring, 2006, p. 46) is considered as the inhibitor force due to the effect of collective bargaining on an organisation.
On the contrary, Oakland (as cited in Godfrey, Dale, Marchington & Wilkinson, 1997, p.559) argued controlling others is not an effective approach. Pluralistic approach pointed out the need for interventions as conflicts are inevitable. There are always issues to be address and solve. This is where trade union’s step in when managerial control undermines employee rights. Trade union negotiates with management regarding the concerns voiced by employees. At times which management tend to neglect as they emphasised on efficiency and standardisation as well as profitability.

There are several examples incorporated to illustrate the downside of practising the HRM approach. First off is Australia. The Howard Government “Workplace Relations Act 1996” has replaced Keating