Human Resource Management Law Fair Work Act.

Question: Discuss about the Human Resource Management Law for Fair Work Act. Answer: Introduction An Act of the Australian parliament called the Productivity Commission Act 1998 created an independent body or authority in Australia to review and advice the Australian government on various microeconomic topics and policies (McLachlan and Rosalie 2013). Thus, the Productivity Commission in Australian is the Australian governments most important review and advisory body which help the Government to implement better and sounder policies for the welfare of the Australian community in the long run (Parham and Dean 2012). The Productivity Commission has the authority and power to advice the Australian government on economic, environmental and social issues which adversely affect the Australian community. Thus, the productivity commission is like its name suggests focuses on different ways and methods of achieving productivity with an efficient economy and eventually increasing the standard of living in Australia (Bukarica, Dallas and Bukarica 2012). This essay includes the reform of the Australian employment relations and the proposal that has been made in the Commission recently and the impact of the proposal on the Commission. Background: The Productivity Commission believes that the primary source of growth in the productivity of a nation lies in the investments and decisions which the employer and the employee of the nation take (Doove and Samantha 2011). However, their investments and decisions can be regulated or altered by proper governmental policies. Proper governmental policies can change the incentives of profits which companies and individual receive, thus, the same can in return change the decisions employers and employees take to achieve these incentives. The Australian Government seeks the advice of the Productivity Commission and requests the commission to conduct a public inquiry to review and examine the workplace relations framework in Australia and suggest improvements for the same. Thus, the final report of the Productivity Commission on reform of the Australian employment relations framework was sent to the Australian Government on 30 November 2015 and was released to public and press on 21 Decembe r 2015. The said report prepared by the Productivity Commission summarizes a broad range of review and analysis of the workplace relations framework in Australia taking into consideration the current legislation, the institutes and practices which the legislation governs concerning workplace relations in Australia. The approach used by the Productivity Commission to prepare the said report was economic in nature which would help the Commission propose reforms which would help in enhancement of the overall Australian community (Forsyth and Anthony 2012). Proposal review While reviewing the workplace relationship framework in Australia, the Productivity Commission emphasize on the Fair Work Act 2009 keeping in mind and reviewing the important social and economical indicators which are necessary for the productivity, development and welfare of Australia and its community. The Fair Work Act 2009 mostly states all the rules and regulations which are necessary to be followed by an employer and an employee in maintaining employment relations. The Fair Work Act 2009 was introduced to regulate the work relation system in Australia (Peetz and David 2012). The Fair Work Act 2009 also sets minimum standard rule to be implemented by both the employer and the employee in maintaining work relationships. Thus, as the Fair Work Act 2009 stands as the supreme legislation concerning workplace relations framework in Australia, in the report submitted by Productivity Commission, many suggestions and proposal was suggested that required amendments in various sections of the Fair Work Act 2009. One of the proposal which was suggested by the Productivity Commission was to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to clarify whether to terminate or suspend industrial action under the section 423 or section 426 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the term significant to mean important while considering the factors relevant under section 423(4) and 426(4) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fenech et al 2012). Section 423 of the Fair Work Act 2009 deals with Fair Work Commissions power to suspend or terminate protected industrial action when significant economic harm is suffered by the employers and the employees (Act, Fair Work 2009). Additionally, section 426 states the powers and authority of the Fair Work Commission to suspend and terminate the protected industrial action if a third party suffers significant economic losses. Thus, the suggestion proposed by the Productivity Commission was to created amendments which do not require the suspension and termination power of the Fair Work Commission to be dependent on the requirement that both the parties are to be harmed (Kramar and Robin 2012). Under the section 423 of the Fair Work Act 2009, any industrial action which is initiated by the employees can only be suspended or terminated b the Far Work Commission if the said action causes significant economic harm to both the employers and the employees. However, to suspend or terminate a lockout initiated by a employer, the lockout can be terminated or suspended by the Fair Work Commission with the requirement of just proving significant economic damages to the employees. Thus, the said section has caused hardships to employers making its implementation unjust and unpractical in nature (Layton et al 2013). It will be very rare phenomena that employees will engage or conduct any form of industrial action which will be adversely affecting them economically. It is practical that no individual will engage in activities that will make them suffer financial losses, thus, having a section which states that intervention from Fair Work Commission will be provided only when employer and employees suffer economic harm when an industrial action is initiated by the employees, makes the section in just which would affect the workplaces relations between the employees and the employer. It is to be noted that there are many form of industrial action like bans during work which cause huge economic harms to the employers and very little or no significant losses for the employees (Stewart and Andrew 2014). However, in the said case, the Fair Work Commission will not intervene in the matter to resolve it, but the Fair Work Commission needs to keep in mind the both economic harm of employer and employee is very rare to coincide. Thus, the Productivity Commission proposes to amend the said section which requires significant economic harm of both employer and employee, rather the harm should be important irrespective of whomever suffering the same (Cortis, Natasha and Meagher 2012). The Productivity Commission after reviewing the said section also suggested that employers in the situations which are created by section 423 and 426 of the Fair Work Act 2009 tend to engage in drastic response action by conducting serious lockouts with the intention to harm the employees and eventually terminate them (McCrystal and Shae 2010). As seen in the Schweppes case, the employer locked out his employees and subsequently applied under section 423 of the Schweppes case for termination based on the fact that his own lockout causes economic harm to employees. Thus, the above mentioned sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 promoted injustice. Additionally, actions by employers, which promoted adverse intentions on part of the employer to make employees suffer in order to overcome the injustice the said sections, created. Therefore, amendment was required in the said sections (Ellem and Bradon 2013). The Productivity Commission stated that the amendment should include significant economic suffering from either the employer or the employee for Fair Work Commission to intervene, terminate or suspend the industrial action initiated by employees. Additionally, no parties should be allowed to terminate an industrial harm based on self-suffering or self-harm (Baird et al 2012). Impacts if reform eventuates The amendments suggested by the Productivity Commission states that significant economic harm of either employer or the employees should be sufficient to permit the Fair Work Commission to intervene, terminate or suspend the industrial action initiated by the employees. Many opponents stated that the said change would minimize the capacity which employees have to initiate effective and efficient industrial action. However, the said section created injustice for an employer which was more important to resolve to enhance the employer-employee relationship in Australia. Additionally, the Productivity Commission suggested that the bar and degree of significant harm should be set high in the said proposed amendment which would leave the potential industrial actions unaffected by the amendment or the change. In this manner, justice would be accurately given to both employer and employees in Australia (Tweedie and Dale 2013). The amendment would bring additional benefits except the fact that it would eliminate injustice towards employers. The additional benefit would be that employers will not undertake to conduct or engage in strict lockouts with the intention to economically affect the employees and then to terminate them using the section 432 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The said section in its current capacity lead the employer to engage in wrongful conduct thus, the amendment proposed by the Productivity Commission would bring the employer and employee in equal footing, changing the additional benefit which the employees gain under the said section which will make the employees stop engaging in wrongful conduct to override the injustice towards them (Townsend et al 2013). Additionally, the sections mentioned above also promoted increased number of industrial actions which are brought about and then eventually suspended by the party initiating the industrial action claiming self-harm or significant economic harm to the party initiating it. This lead to increased number of industrial actions which was very easy to start and which would end easily by just proving an economic harm to oneself. The increased number of industrial action adversely affected the workplace relationship and created an unhealthy working employment which would affect the overall welfare and productivity of the company and eventually the welfare and productivity of the Australian community. Thus, the said change in the section 423 and 436 of the Fair Work Act 2009 would reduce or minimize the industrial actions for petty reasons like jealously, competition or revenge (McCrystal and Shae 2010). Therefore, implementation of the changes and amendments suggested by the Productivity Commission would enhance the overall relationship between employer and employees. This will also help in eliminating injustice from the fair Work Act 2009 statue which will eventually lead to enhancing the workplace relationships by bringing employers and employee in equal footing when it comes to industrial action initiated by employees and lockouts initiated by employers, by eliminating bringing about industrial actions and terminating the same based on grounds of self harm. By setting the degree and bar of significant harm very high would help in keeping the potential industrial action by employees unaffected by the said amendments (Forsyth and Anthony 2012). Conclusion Thus, the Productivity Commission in Australia, after reviewing very carefully suggested the recommendations, proposals and reforms which if implemented would be of great help in enhancing the Australian employment relations framework which also will help in creating good and friendly working environment in Australia eventually leading to overall development and welfare of the Australian community (Parham and Dean 2012). Reference List Act, Fair Work. "Fair Work Act."Fair Work Act 2009(2009). Baird, Marian, Sue Williamson, and Alexandra Heron. "Women, work and policy settings in Australia in 2011."Journal of Industrial Relations54, no. 3 (2012): 326-343. Bukarica, Alex, Andrew Dallas, and Alex Bukarica. 2012.Good Faith Bargaining Under The Fair Work Act 2009. Annandale, N.S.W.: Federation Press. Cortis, Natasha, and Gabrielle Meagher. "Recognition at last: Care work and the equal remuneration case."Journal of Industrial Relations54, no. 3 (2012): 377-385. Doove, Samantha. "Price Effects of Regulation: International Air Passenger Transport, Telecommunications and Electricity Supply-Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper." (2011). Ellem, Bradon. "Peak union campaigning: Fighting for rights at work in Australia."British Journal of Industrial Relations51, no. 2 (2013): 264-287. Fenech, Marianne, Miriam Giugni, and Kathryn Bown. "A critical analysis of the'national quality framework': Mobilising for a vision for children beyond minimum standards."Australasian Journal of Early Childhood37, no. 4 (2012): 5. Forsyth, Anthony. "Workplace conflict resolution in Australia: The dominance of the public dispute resolution framework and the limited role of ADR."The International Journal of Human Resource Management23, no. 3 (2012): 476-494. Kramar, Robin. "Trends in Australian human resource management: what next?."Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources50, no. 2 (2012): 133-150. Layton, Robyn, Meg Smith, and Andrew Stewart. "Equal Remuneration Under the Fair Work Act 2009." (2013). McCrystal, Shae. "The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the right to strike."Australian Journal of Labour Law23, no. 1 (2010): 3-38. McLachlan, Rosalie. "Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia-Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper." (2013). Parham, Dean.Australia's productivity growth slump: Signs of crisis, adjustment or both?. Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2012. Peetz, David. "Does industrial relations policy affect productivity?."Australian Bulletin of Labour38, no. 4 (2012): 268. Stewart, Andrew.Stewart's guide to employment law. Vol. 3. Federation Press, 2014. Townsend, Keith, Adrian Wilkinson, John Burgess, and Kerry Brown. "Has Australias road to workplace partnership reached a dead end?."International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations29, no. 2 (2013): 239-256. Tweedie, Dale. "Precarious work and Australian labour norms."The Economic and Labour Relations Review24, no. 3 (2013): 297-315.