Employee Law Relations

Employee Law and Relations Name: Class Affiliation Instructor Date Introduction The last forty years in Britain have been characterised by enormous changes that have led to the consequent change in the role of legal regulations and the employment relationship at the work place. There exists an explicit transformation from the traditional legal abstention of the state to the use of individualistic legal employment rights to protect workers. The change in employment relations in Britain is traced to the adoption of new statutory rights for individuals by the Labour government. Background In the 1960’s the employment relations in Britain were best described as Voluntarist as the public policy at that time envisioned abstention of the state. Trade unions and Employers had to consult to reach any conceivable agreement, and this gave trade unions colossal power in protection of the workers’ interests. Coats (2010,p.6) identified that the state at the time had the sole responsibility of regulating aspects of child labour, safety at work and payment of wages in low-income industries. According to Dickens (2009, p.1) the shift from collective bargaining as the distinct method of regulation of employment is because of the conservative governments between the years of 1979-1997. The said governments concentrated on increasing of managerial control and freedom to take independent action. The labour governments then took over and employed a different approach through the introduction of minimum employment standards of regulation that were aimed at promotion of equality at work places. The changed attitudes of employment relations by European Union and the introduction of National Minimum Wage in 1999 led to the expansion of statutory rights. The affected aspects included rights relating to working time, consultation of employees and antidiscrimination hence positively affecting the rights of atypical workers (Dickens 2009pp.1-2). Current Problems in Employment Relations in Britain Dickens (2009, p.2) identified that there are different stakeholders in employment relations. Consequently, this leads to the classification of emergent problems being two fold where employers are of the opinion that deregulation is the way forward. However, this is contrary to trade unions demand for significant labour reforms. The employers take is deemed incoherent as Britain has a slightly regulated labour market compared to the international standards. Workers are often pushed to take their cases to employment tribunals due to the decline in union membership over the years. Despite the changes made by the labour government the statutory laws introduced by the conservatives such as stringent rules governing industrial action and the continued consolidation of managerial power still exist (Wilton 2010, p.280). Dickens (2009, p.4) reckons that the other legal problem is linked to vast perceptions of unfairness in workplaces despite a good number of workers being aware of their employment rights. This proves that unfair treatment in formal employment in the UK is existent due to inefficient managers who have limited knowledge on management styles and respect for culture whilst operating in a legal system that has too much red tape. Moreover, the labour government compounded the problem of flexibility by assuming that flexibility is equal to the absence of effective regulation of the labour market (Dickens 2009, p.6). Ideally, the labour government need to allocate resources for the implementation of their recommended extension of workers statutory rights. The other recognised legal problem on employment relation as the contentious argument that the rights of atypical workers create prejudices as compared to other types of employees in aspects such as tactical changes in employment patterns. Subsequently, the direct use of the discrimination law and other legislations in the context of employment relations is relatively limited and problematic. This has led to continued discrimination in certain aspects such as recruitment conditions that demand certain age brackets (Dickens and Hall 2005, p.23). Overell, Mills, Lekhi and Blaug (n.d., p.6) identify collapse of workers autonomy as another legal problem. They allude to a study that revealed declined influence of how workers did a task from 56.9% in 1992 to 42.7% in 2006. Further, there was reduced control of personal work from 70.7% to 52.5%. Generally, the legislative system in the UK is marred by tensions, ambiguities and compromises that increment the labour government on grounds of pursuing its own interests and priorities at the expense of improving employment relations. In other words, the labour government has lagged behind due to conceptualization of friendly labour frameworks but lacking in the actualization bit of the frameworks. Causes of disputes Arising from Employment issues Dickens and Hall (2005, p.14) stipulate working time as one of the causes of conflict arising in employment relations. Neathey and Arrowsmith (2001, p.6) conducted a study in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and identified that employers did little in implementation of the working regulations but instead stuck to basic, minimal compliance. However, they also noted that in some instances whenever, the forces of market pressures faced them, they did revise their working time arrangements for their personal gain. Dickens and Hall (2005, p.15) determine that the widespread absence of employee representation across UK businesses and corporations is to blame for the continued rigidity hence inhibition of the statutory working time standards. Nevertheless, according to a recent DTI paper (2004a, p.16) only 25% of employees were willing to reduce their working hours with the consequence of a cut in their pay. The other 71% were adamant that they were not willing to change their working hour while 4% appeared undecided on what they preferred. National minimum wage pay is also a point of conflict in employment relations. Fitzner (2005, p.12) recognized that there exists non-compliance to this legislation especially in the informal employment where the mode of payment is cash payments. Dickens and Mannings (2003, p.207) provide the reaction of some employers to the introduction of bare minimum pay as cutting of rest breaks and mounting the intensity of work hence diminishing its essence and value. Implicit to this is the fact that the working time directive is restrictive to a vast majority of managerial and professional staff and who have a provision to opt out of the regulations. Trade union decline is the next point of concern in employment relations in Britain. Wilton (2010,p.282) records the findings of Barrett 2009 who found that by 2008 trade unions had 7.2 million members of whom only 24.9% were in employment. Union density is recorded to be stronger in the public sector at 57.1% as compared to the private sector at 15.5%. Wilton (2010, p.281) offers that the decline in trade unions is because of the transfer from manufacturing to a service based economy. Employers embrace decline in trade union as it gives outmost power to managers and reduces the cases of industrial action. Workers on the other hand, are sceptical of the decline of trade unions because it limits the extent to which they are protected in their workplaces. Dickens and Hall (2005,p.17) demonstrate the importance of unions to workers by stating that they are successful mediators of legal rights and translate to positive changes in workplaces and the consequent practice of self-regulation. Brown (2005,p.8) alludes to research findings that indicated that trade unions encouraged internal solutions to problem compared to individual employment disputes presented to the Employment tribunal increasing the workload of cases. Woolfson and Beck (2004, p.348) identified that some employers have the ability to pre-empt trade unions activities when their intentions are to impart intimadatory actions or to frustrate the unions’ activities. Other pertinent causes of conflict in employment relations in the UK are parental leave, flexible working hours for parents with young children or even disabled children and time off for employees with dependants. Palmer (2004, p.10) found out in a survey at DTI that 13% of employees submitted requests to work on a part time basis. Consequently, their employers duly granted 84% of the requests. According to Dickens and Hall (2005, p.18), employees take their statutory rights on paternal and maternal leave with no major problem. Most Employers have no objection to these rights as there are not paid. Dickens and Hall (2005, p.19) also noted that smaller organisations were more likely to accept employees off requests and the procedure could be done informally without the usual official letters that have to be given days before the days that you intend to go. Unfair dismissal and employment procedures are other significant causes of conflict in employment relations in the UK. Disputes on grounds of unfair dismissal are evident in the Employment tribunal statistics (Dickens and Hall 2005, p.19). Further, employers differ on the impacts of legislations touching on the area where some agreed it was efficient while others disregarded it. An increased compensation ceiling due to unfair dismissal has led to decline of the said cases. The employment tribunal statistics indicate that median awards have risen however, impacts of caseloads are complex to ascertain basing on clashing legislative changes. Generally, employees are happy with the increased levels of compensation for unfair dismissal and inclusion of basic minimum protection through extension of workers’ rights and the removal of waivers for fixed term employees. Workplace Employment Relations survey data suggest that unfair dismissal legislation led to the formalisation of workplace discipline that necessitate a procedure for filing of grievances by employees. The employment act of 2002 provides a requirement where employees should apply for a basic disciplinary procedure in cases of unfair dismissal (Dickens and Hall 2005, p.20). Hepple and Morris (2002, p.255) criticised this provision arguing it would undermine the significance of procedural fairness and consequently downgrade it. A Case Study of Wal-Mart and Union suppression Wal-Mart is a worldwide retailer with a capacity of over 2.1 million employees. Wal-Mart owns Asda in the UK and has a capacity of 170000 employees. The retailer has often been accused of advocating for the decline of trade unions. The company categorically states that it does not deem it necessary to have a union within its organizational structure. Nonetheless, the company states that it has nothing against unionism however; unionism would not be of any essence in their company as they have a direct communication structure in the firm. Contrary to unionism the company advocates for its open door policy that allows complains to be addressed anywhere in the corporate ladder and hence negating, the incorporation of a third party in resolving of disputes as it would only complicate the leadership structure. Claims have however been made that Wal-Mart adopts extreme strategies in substituting of unions by actively suppressing workers from joining unions. In the UK Asda was accused of participating in union bursting activities and consequently charged guilty by the employment tribunal for breaching the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in 2006. Among the wrongs linked to Asda were production of materials that negatively publicised trade unions and efforts of trying to discredit the process of collective bargaining. Other strategies embraced by Asda were lobbying employees to vote against strikes, bribing employees with pay hikes on condition of relinquishing their membership in unions, and writing to employees’ families to warn them against participating in strikes (Wilton 2010, p.306). This case study reveals the challenges that workers have to deal with even with the legislation of statutory workers rights. The success of statutory workers rights in the UK is dependent on the willingness of both the labour government and all the stakeholders in the labour movement. EU legislation relating to Employment Law in the UK The employment relations in the UK is blamed for sharp contrast between the European Union and the UK. The tension is caused by different approaches to employment relations. This is so because whereas, the UK has historically been reluctant in the attempt of regulating of employment, the European Union’s approach is based on the ideals of favouring greater social and legal legislations aimed at regulating employment. In 1994, the European works council issued a directive aimed at encouraging employee participation and involvement in workplaces. The law took effect in the UK in 1999 under the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations. The directive has since been of minimal impact on employee relations across Europe due to adoption of shallow involvement strategies and lack of implementation by some employers who often avoid the establishment of that nature. In 2004, there was the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations. The law came to effect in the UK in the year 2005 where it gave employees the right to be informed and consulted on employment matters in an organisation with over 50 employees. However, this legislation is open to various interpretations in the UK due to certain provisions of the act. This include a 10% request from the work force to be informed or consulted hence it is not an automatic obligation for employers to consult. This provision waters down the relevance of the act, as very few employees are willing to demand such a right as many employers do not take it kindly when employees are adamant on their rights besides such claims may lead to loss of their jobs or termination of their contracts (Wilton,pp.301-302). Conclusion Employment Law and Relations in the United Kingdom have undergone a process of change after the labour government too over. The changes made were structured in such way that they aimed at strengthening of statutory employment rights in all situations that workers depended on the Employer. However, some of these changes have been met with apparent opposition from the various stakeholders while others have embraced the changes terming them as a step in the right direction. The new employment patterns have resulted to the growth of atypical workers who work for stipulated hours and often end up doing night shifts. The employers have greatly benefitted from these type of workers as they are able to sustain a 24-hour demand economy at a cost effective rate. The legislations passed because of this agenda have experienced some problems that are of legal nature. The Assumption that flexibility is equal to the absence of effective regulated markets, direct use of discrimination laws in the context of employment relations and conflicting legal ideologies between the employers and trade unions are identified as some of the challenges. The main causes of dispute range from working time hours, the new national minimum wage pay, and flexibility in working hours to the unfair dismissal or termination of employment. The legislation on statutory rights of workers in Britain is further influenced by the continental legislations made by the European Union. Evidently, the differences in ideologies between the UK and the European Union have resulted in tensions as Britain has often insisted on not regulating the employment relations while the European Union advocates for the advancement of socialistic ideals in legislation. Owing to these disagreements, Britain has lagged behind in the implementation of EU directives such as the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations act and the directive aimed at encouraging employee participation and involvement in workplaces. The recommendation that best suits the labour government is to take up the responsibility of structuring of effective laws that will seal the loopholes surrounding employment legislations in Britain. The eradication of legislation problems in employment relations would ensure that the statutory rights of workers are advanced hence promoting efficiency at workplaces. Further, the legislations would be in tandem with other developments such as technology that would promote flexibility and workers job satisfaction. Bibliography Browne, L2005, “Producing ONS redundancy statistics”, Labor Market Trends, ONS. Coats, D 2010, ‘Time to cut the Gordian Knot –the case for consensus and reform of the UK’s employment relations system’. The Smith Institute. Department of Trade and Industry 2004, ‘Has the national minimum wage reduced UK wage inequality’, Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 167: 613-26. Dickens,L 2009, ‘Delivering fairer workplaces through statutory rights? Enforcing employment rights in Britain’, A paper prepared for 15th World Congress of the International Industrial Relations Association held in Sydney, Australia. Dickens,L & Hall, M 2005, ‘Review of research into the impact of employment relations legislation’, Employment Relations Research Series No.45, Department of Trade and Industry Dickens, R. and Manning, A 2003, ‘Minimum Wage, Minimum Impact’ in R. Dickens, P. Gregg and J. Wadsworth (eds)’, The Labour Market Under New Labour, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 201-13. Fitzner, G 2005, ‘How have employees fared? Recent UK trends’, Employment Relations Research Series No. 56, Department of Trade and Industry Hepple, B & Morris G 2002, ‘The Employment Act 2002 and the Crisis of Individual Employment Rights’, Industrial Law Journal, Vol.31, issue 3 pp 245-269 Neathy, F. & Arrowsmith, J 2001, ‘Implementation of the Working Time Regulations’, Employment Relations Research Series, No. 11.London: DTI Palmer, T 2004, ‘Results of the first flexible working employee survey’, Employment Relations Occasional Papers, London: DTI Overell,S, Mills,T, Roberts,S & Lekhi, R n.d, ‘The employment relationship and the quality of work’, The Good Work Commision, Provocation Paper 7,1-74. Wilton 2010, ‘10 Employment relations’, Sage publications.276-306. Woolfson, C. & Beck, M. 2004, ‘Union recognition in Britain’s offshore oil and gas industry: implications of the Employment Relations Act 1999’. Industrial Relations Journal, 35: 344–58. mployment Law and Relations 13