Fair Trade Assignment Help

Introduction:

Workplace relation has been a multi- disciplinary field of study regarding the employment relationship. As there has been an increase in the non- industrial employment relationships therefore in order maintain a balance of proportion between industrial relations be it the employer or employee relations this sector too needs to be given enough attention. Overall, this portrays the fact that there needs to be broadening of human resource management trend and has now begun to be synchronized with industrial relations. For this however, both labor laws and national labour policies along with collective bargaining and labor management relations need to be studied and worked upon. This whole trend came up from the 19th century in the United States, where the new term “New Deal” came into being just because of the fact that work unions came up as a very vital subject during that time. Having three interfaces which includes, science building, problem solving and ethical sciences, these make the whole combination called work unions an issue which has to be dealt in with enough efficacy and practicality.

Framework of Fair Work Act:

It was under Rudd’s Governance that the Australian industrial relations tribunals were setup as under Fair Work Act 2009. Initially known as Fair Work Australia the operations of this whole programme commenced on July 1st, 2009.It is basically a successor body of the Australian industrial relations commissions. To add to it this body has proved itself to be very versatile as it has even started to perform the works of the Workplace Authority and that of the Australian Fair Play Commission. Right from the settlement and bringing in variationof modern awards to the fixing of minimum wages, approving enterprise agreements and even to handle claims for unfair dismissal this whole matter has been dealt in by the commission very well. It not only empowered the workers to have security and safety at their workplace but also gave a warning bell to the government as to which all practices should it get involved into in order to facilitate the whole plan. The principles of Fair Work are basically the requirements which have been implemented for the Government, the agencies working under it the contractors, suppliers and finally and most importantly the workers to ensure the rights and presentable conditions to work under by the latter party (Meadows, 2007). The principles are very strict on the fact that it is the Government which realises that what is being asked by the Fair Work Act is carried out well in place. The principles which have been put up are such that it facilitates the creation or innovation of job opportunities which are of high or at least standardised quality and even wants to promote fair, cooperative and productive workplaces so that along with the air of fairness there is also the presence of respect which incorporates freedom to form association and the right to be represented at work. Even the suppliers need to adhere to what has been given in this whole act of principles for they not only procure the goods and services but even need to comply while entering into a contract or in order to submit a tender for government work (Stewart,2009).

Hire Professional Writers at Low Prices!
*
*
*
*

Regarded as a strong independent umpire, the Fair Work Australia has been established to regulate the entire setup of workplace relations. The most important step taken by the government in this sector is that of enshrining good faith bargaining which helps facilitate agreement making by setting out the standards and the expected conduct to encourage open communication amongst partners and that of representing bargaining. The agreements of enterprise are subject to the “Better off overall test” The new workplace relations under the government of low paid employees who had been deprived of a lot of basic necessities apart from the luxuries of life and had faced a lot of difficulty in substantial undertaking of collective enterprise level bargaining can seek enough amount of assistance from fair work Australia in order to facilitate multiple- employer bargaining. It was thought and too quite a high level has helped employees working in areas like that of child caring, that of aged caring, serving communities, cleaning and security whose medium of being paid is by getting a very basic award rate. There are ten legislations of National Employment Standards which cannot be undermined from January 1st 2010, and the list goes on as the following:

  1. the number of hours of work
  2. their request to have a work arrangement which is flexible.
  3. the parental leave
  4. leave for compassionate and in the personal or carer’s
  5. leave for community service
  6. leave on an annual basis
  7. service for long duration service
  8. holidays for public service
  9. serving of notice of termination and pay during redundancy
  10. statement on fair work.

In the process of modernising awards the Australian industrial relations commission has taken several other steps too which was to be completed by 31st December 2009. The NES in collaboration with modernising awards try guaranteeing that the workers are provided with decent and relevant entitlements. To comply with the Fair Work Act, 2009 is a condition of participation for the procurement of the Australian Government for which the government had put forth the following criterion,

  1. Inclusion of contract provisions by agencies which require the contractors to comply with the relevant laws which are material in nature and made it a must that they required the suppliers to implement such a requirement to the sub- contractors which should be done by the agencies.
  2. It will amount to a breach of contract with the Australian government consequentially of the contractual requirement if there is the breach of any industrial laws, health and safety law occupation or even the workers compensation laws.
  3. The suppliers will be compelled to provide undertakings that they have not been subject to any judgements which are of adverse nature rather judgments for breaching laws related to industries, laws related to occupational health and safety laws or workers’ compensation law which have not been subject to any outstanding claims.
  4. It is required for the suppliers to provide information as to how they will promote fair, cooperative and a productive workplace relation as has been described and also about the providing of information regarding their commitment of supporting apprenticeship and education and training in the workplace (Stewart,2009).

The suppliers for this reason need to provide information like that of compliance in relation to awards and industrial agreements and laws, giving annual leave and long service leave entitlements, having the capacity to meet entitlements of the workers and even to make contributions which are superannuated and along with this compliance with health in the occupational sense and the safety and workers’ laws in respect of compensation which is supposed to be accompanied with the reports of the Procurement Coordinator which reports on the developments related to work- place practices of suppliers.

The Australian government even committed in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill of Fair Work in order to commence a post- implementation review of the Act in as short a time as two years of its implementation. The regulation impact analysis process being administered by the Office of Best Practice regulation makes the Australian Government being tagged as a staunch regulator in it -self. Being a division within the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the office of best practice regulation still acts independently from its umbrella organisation and also from the government or the ministers in order to assess and report on compliance with the best practice regulation requirements (Meadows, 2007). When one speculates the Best Practice Regulation handbook, and the OBPR guidance note post- implementation reviews require the following things to be examined by the Post Implementation reviews to examine:

 the problem that the regulation was intended to address

 the objective of government action

 the impacts of the regulation (whether the regulation is meeting its objectives)

 whether the government’s objectives could be achieved in a more efficient and effective way

As endorsed by the OBPR on 2nd December, the terms in themselves envisaged the fact that the review would traverse both requirements and even issues these things which turn out to have a broader scope. Its principal focus being that whether the Act will achieve its aims and how well they can be improved in it -self says a lot about meeting the requirements of PIR. Even the interpretation of the OBPR, the PIR requires a comparison directly between the Act but only a part of it. While recognising and meeting the requirements of the OBPR, the Panel’s approach to its wider terms of reference has been to assess the FW Act in the context of the industrial relations and economic experience of the two decades since the introduction of enterprise bargaining in 1993. This reflects the Panel’s view that Work Choices is part of the context for the FW Act, but only a part. The material comparing the two is required by the PIR, but does not of itself bear on our central interest in whether the FW Act is meeting its objectives, and how it may be improved (Meadows, 2007).

The requirements of PIR include the requirement to conduct consultation while in accordance with the Australian Government’s principles commensurate being significant of measure under review. It conducted a review by consulting extensive targeted users of the system in accordance with other interested parties. A public notice regarding the starting of the public submission process was published in the Australian andAustralian Financial Review newspapers on 12 January 2012. The Panel released the Background Paper calling for

Submissionwhich included general information about the Review and the FW Act, details regarding the process of the submission, evidence derived from sources which were relevant and a list of 69 questions for stakeholders which could be usedto consider in developing their submissions. DEEWR notified most of the approximately 150 entities that had made submissions to the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations into the Fair Work Bill 2008 (the Senate Inquiry) and also issued a media release. The Background Paper and other information about the Review were made available on a dedicated Review webpage on DEEWR’s internet site.

The initial submissions were to be provided by 17 February 2012 as per the panel and even  asked about supplementary submissions commenting upon the submissions of other participants be submitted by 2 March 2012. When the process of submissions began it had 207 submissions which were initial, and further 47 supplementary submissions were lodged.

Submissions were received from all peak employer and employee representatives, including:

 Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)

 Australian Council of Work Unions (ACTU)

 Australian Industry Group (Ai Group)

 Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA)

 Australian National Retailers Association (ANRA)

 Business Council of Australia (BCA)

 Master Builders Australia (MBA)

 Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)

The challenging requirements were endeavoured by the panel, for a fact-based analysis of the Fair Work legislation. Its impacts were minimal as the Transition Act was operational for only a short period and was then repealed. Accordingly, while considering the Transition Act where relevant, the primary focus of the examination has been on the Fair Wage Act. In order to achieve this, the statistics of  many organizations and bodies have been looked into like tha measured and developed by DEEWR, Fair Work Australia (FWA), the Fair WorkOmbudsman (FWO) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and on academic studies, case law and other evidence such as case studies provided by stakeholders in the course of consultations.

The policy was basically a response to the system of work choices, which from the objective of delivering an economic benefit to employers excluded many of the employees from accessing unfair dismissal procedure in totality. So overall, the act did not bring in many benefits but brought many practices which were not justiciable (Stewart,2009). This changed the overall ratio between the employers and the employees the loss of protections for these employees may also have limited employees’ ability to voice concerns in the workplace or negotiate flexible working arrangements. The unfair dismissal provisions of the Bill were intended to ensure that good employees are protected from being dismissed unfairly, while enabling employers to manage underperforming employees with fairness and with confidence which was not however expected to have a negative impact on employment. The DEEWR submission to the FW Bill Inquiry noted that there is ‘no direct or conclusive evidence to support’ a claim that extending unfair dismissal protections would have a negative impact on employers’ decisions to hire more people. The submission went on to state that in any event the new system would have ‘special measures to ensure that it is less complex and easier to comply with than the previous system’ (Stewart,2009). The elements of the unfair dismissal are set out in s. 381which include establishing a framework that balances the needs of businesses and employees, establishing quick, flexible and informal procedures that address the needs of employers and employees and providing remedies for unfair dismissals with an emphasis on reinstatement. As stated in s. 381(2), it is to ensure that ‘a fair go all round’ is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned (Meadows, 2007). The reach of the system and their views tended to be polarised. Where many a reduction in the coverage in some way due to the impost on employers the others advocated for the broadening of the coverage area so as to improve employee access to justice and fairness in the workplace (Meadows, 2007). Several suggestions have been put forth in order to reduce the provisions which were mainly supporting the interests of the employers which included:

  1. increasing the small business employee threshold which had been limited to that to only 15.
  2. basing the small business threshold on full-time equivalent (FTE) employees rather than a headcount
  3. the exemption of small business entirely from the provisions.

4.removal of protections for the employees who were earning high enough and were being covered by awards.

  1. removal of any kind of protection to hire labour and especially the employees being hired.

Recommendations for an increase in handling of unfair dismissal protections came mostly from unions and community groups. While these groups acknowledged the increase in coverage under the FW Act was an upgrading over the previous provisions, they said more should be done to facilitate access. For example, the Employment Law Centre of WA submitted that while the FW Act generally provides a well-adjustedcharter, seclusions that prevented vulnerable workers from making an unfair dismissal claim do not promote social inclusion.1068 In this category, they referred to casuals, labour leasing workers, employees who failed to meet the minimum qualifying periods of employment, and employees who failed to obtain advice before the expiry of the 14-day lodgement period. Endorsements to increase the coverage of the unfair dismissal provisions included (Meadows, 2007):

 reducing the succeeding period for all employees to three months or eradicating it completely

 allowing employers and employees to settle to a shorter in the tobe accredited period

 abolishing the high income advent

 confiscating small business absolutions

 extending protections to all unpremeditated employees

 submissive labour hire employees to make unfair sacking claims against their multitude employer.

It was a clear purpose of the changes to restore bigoted dismissal fortifications to many employees who lost protection under the previous legislative regime. As noted above, DEEWR’s analysis in the EM suggested that the coverage of employees under the system would increase from 3.7 million to 6.7 million  (ALP, 2007). The recent ABS data, DEEWR now estimates that approximately 7 million employees currently have approach to unfair discharge protections, compared to 4.2 million if the coverage provisions had remained unchanged from Work Choices. This is an increase in reporting of 2.8 million employees, or 66 per cent.The ACTU estimates that the number of personnel with access to unfair sacking protections if Work Choices had persisted in place would be about two million, with approximately 6.5 million employees protected under the FWAct.1077 Given that the ACTU has not provided the basis for its cunnings, it is difficult to assess which estimate is more ingenuous. However, it is clear from both estimates that there has been a noteworthy increase in the coverage of the provisions. Several stakeholders pointed to an increase in unfair dismissal claims under the new system (McCallum, 2008) .

Purchase Complete Assignment Solution 

Place your Order Now