Topic: Assess the changed role of human resource practitioners as a consequence of the introduction of the Work Choices legislation

of December, 2005. Also investigate the need for caution on the part of such practitioners in implementing the provisions of this new legislation.

The purpose of preparing this essay is to assess the changed role of human resource practitioners as a consequence of the introduction of the Work Choices legislation in Australian Industrial Relations system. This essay also investigates the need for caution on the part of such practitioners in implementing the provisions of this new legislation. The essay starts with a brief introduction to the current Australian industrial relations system. Then it analyses Work Choices legislation and compares it with the previous legislation Workplace Relations Act 1996. It also examines the changes that will occur in organisational human resource practices. When there are changes in the organisations human resource strategy, it also brings changes to the organisations overall strategic goal which at the same time requires changes in managing the entire workforce. Considering these changes, gradually this essay comes to the conclusion and evaluates why human resource professionals have to be careful about their activities and how they will manage to practice Work Choices in a logical and fair way to build a dynamic and collaborative culture in their organisations.

With the aim of transforming the industrial relations system from a centralised process to a decentralised and enterprise level system, the present conservative Liberal government has actually followed a radical step-by-step reformation process. As the final outcome the Work Choices legislation has been introduced in December 2005 and it came into effect March 2006. This legislation is an amendment of the previous

Page 1 of 7

legislation Workplace Relations Act of 1996. The legislation has some basic features like an AWA agreement must only meet the following five conditions, which are: minimum wage $12.75 per hour, 38 hours per week ordinary working time which can be averaged over 1 year period and overtime hours pay must be negotiated, 4 weeks annual leave with 2 weeks cash out option, 10 days personal/sick leave and a 52 weeks of unpaid paternal leave. (Work Choices, 2005). According to the government, the Work Choices legislation emphasises on Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) replaces the traditional, rigid and outdated system that was designed over 100 years ago. It represents a necessary next step in the modernisation of Australias employment relations system which will also guide it towards a more flexible, simpler and fair national system. The Federal government also claims that it will allow employees to negotiate with their employer to ensure economic prosperity of both parties, since the government thinks that the key to greater productivity in the workplace today comes from individual bargaining. (Business Council of Australia, 2005).

In support of this view, Hamberger, (cited in Dessler et al, 2004, p.520) a government spokesman and head of the office of Employment Advocate has recently commissioned research and he found that the number of employees and employers using AWA is increasing in the workforce because it provides more flexibility of hours, simplified terms and conditions and the agreement reduced the scope for third party intervention for dispute resolution. Based on the ABS data he also pointed out that average weekly wage under AWA was $895, compared with $711 under certified union agreements. Furthermore, Gollan and Wooden (cited in Dessler et al, 2004, p.520) in their research have found a strong correlation between AWA and high organisational productivity. Woodens research confirmed that use of Work Choices by high commitment

Page 2 of 7

employers actually tends to increase the organisational development and employee retention.

On the other hand, most of the employees and union members think Work Choices as No Choices. For example, the Australian Council for Trade Unions (ACTU) president Sharan Burrow (cited in Baird, 2005, p.19) said, On any measure Work Choices legislation will be a bad law. With this new legislation, all new employees have no choice but to accept an AWA with conditions determined by the employer or to go elsewhere and it will affect the majority of workers within five years. Moreover, in opposition to the above mentioned Gollan and Woodens research, Burrow added that the claim of increase in productivity related to AWA is difficult to agree with because productivity is in fact higher in highly unionised workplaces. (Teicher et al, 2006). Similarly, Ellem (2006) agrees with Burrow and he mentioned that Work Choices has actually enhanced managerial control and flexibility on managements terms and that choice is therefore unlikely to be a genuine choice for employees. This new legislation is a choice for employees between no job and an individual contract. Chapman (2005, p.65) added that Work Choices is specifically designed to make it easier for employers to drive down wages and conditions of employment. There is a significant power difference between employers and employees which restricts employees to go for meaningful negotiations. In addition, critics like Ruan, Bramble and Lafferty (2001, p.387) in their research have found that woman, part time and casual employees are more likely to be disadvantaged by this type of individual contract. For example, the ACTU has recorded a couple of hundreds incident which happened in 2005 where the employees had been dismissed unfairly under AWA contracts. (ACTU, 2006). One of the most negative results on the use of AWA comes from the study of Robbins (cited in Dessler et al, 2004, p.521) of 800 small businesses in the Albury-Wodonga area.
Page 3 of 7

Protesting the governments claim of small businesses were beneficiary of AWA system, his survey found that only 4% of those business actually used this legislation.

This discussion in a nutshell shows that according to the government Work Choices is about giving people more choices (flexibility, job satisfaction, fair treatment) and securing their future by improving life standard which will enhance a more familyfriendly workplace and will nurture economic prosperity. On the other hand, critics claim that Work Choices is a grossly unfair and complex system which is less flexible and unjustified by any credible economic argument.

The commencement of Work Choices has pushed HR professionals to the forefront of a critical role. There is a huge challenge for HR practitioners to determine how to implement this legislation in their organisations under a new framework. At the same time, HR is also faced with other pressures, such as equal and fair treatment, employee retention, job satisfaction and work / life balance. How does the Work Choices affect the HR role? One possibility is that the HR role becomes primarily an industrial relations role - formulating workplace agreements, interpreting the application of the new IR laws, and enforcing adherence to agreements and policies. There may be pressure on HR to examine ways to tighten up pay and conditions, and explore ways to dismiss employees who are considered to be performing poorly. (Yen, 2006). Work Choices changes the systems of employees' pay and conditions and for many employers, it has meant a complete change because they have moved from the jurisdiction of a state system to the federal system. Along with it, existing awards and agreements have fallen under a new set of criteria which makes a big change in organisational HR practices. (Martin, 2005).

Page 4 of 7

Another possibility of the HR practitioners volatile role is to encourage a fair and simple HR environment by determining the negative impacts of the Work Choices. In this case, HR practitioners have to be fully aware of this legislation and understand its span. Thus they need to add value in their role which can be done by understanding the organisational policy and strategy to manage the workforce. Covering the whole HR activities, HR practitioners have to be very careful about the legal issues of unfair dismissal, comply with the Australian Fair Pay Conditions Standard on paid / unpaid leave, working hours and individual bargaining. In order to increase organisational prosperity, HR practitioners must understand how to implement a unique 'system' that works for their particular companies. Equal and fair treatment is another important concern. People are not greedy or unreasonable about any of these factors. They want to be treated fairly and they know what fairness is says Sirota (cited in Martin, 2006). A recent survey by Mercer HR consulting shows that 58% of respondents have lack of confidence in their managers to engage employees in workplace change in Australia. (Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2006). The interesting issue is some HR professionals are committed to the concepts of employee development and well-being, but have no real impact on the executive. Some HR managers serve the organisation's business goals by agreeing to whatever decisions the executive makes about the workforce. But most importantly, the value that HR practitioners bear contributes a great deal in the workforce damage or prosperity. (Australian Business Limited, 2006).

So, HR practitioners have to consider the available options to formulate the new legislation without hampering the employee awards and benefits. They are also expected to know the minimum obligations that employers and employees have under this new legislation. Moreover, each HR practitioner has to consider what other

Page 5 of 7

employers are doing so that they remain competitive. If other employers are changing or lowering pay and conditions, there may be pressure on HR to copy those actions.

Finally, from the above discussion it can be forecasted that Work Choices will deliver very little for workers and their careers but will be more beneficial for employers. It can be unsuccessful in encouraging optimism and harmony between employers and employees by maintaining a family friendly work environment. The legislation itself is extensive and complex, so in many cases it is still unclear how it applies in a particular context. However, the overall goal of the HR practitioners is to contribute to the organisations mission and long term goals by maintaining a healthy, fair and peaceful working environment. So, being committed to this ideology HR practitioners have to take the lead in practicing Work Choices in a logical and fair way to build a dynamic and collaborative culture in their organisations.

Page 6 of 7

References Australian Business Limited: Work Choices (2006). [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at: <http://www.australianbusiness.com.au/?content=/channels/Workplace_relations/WorkChoices/ Small_and_medium_businesses/WorkChoices.xml> Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) [1], (2006) Unions@Work. [Online, retrieved on 24th September 2006], available at: <http://www.actu.asn.au/public/papers/unionswork/>. Baird, M., (2005), Government policy, women and the new workplace regime: A contradiction in Terms and policies, IR Change Report Card, University of Sydney. [Online, retrieved on 26th September 2006], available at: <http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/14896.html>. Business Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at: <http://www.bca.com.au/content.asp?newsID=97547> Chapman, A., (2005), Challenging the Constitution of the (White and Straight) Family in Work and Family Scholarship, Work Family and the Law, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65-87. [Online, retrieved on 1st October 2006, from UWS / ProQuest global database]. Dessler, G., Griffiths, J. and Lloyd-Walker, B., (2004), Human Resource Management, 2nd edn, Pearson Education Australia, Australia. Ellem, B., (2006), Deregulation and other myths: Re- reading industrial relations policy, IR Change Report Card, University of Sydney. [Online, retrieved on 26th September 2006], available at: <http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/14896.html>. Martin, G., (2005), HR in the new IR landscape balancing the pressure, Workplace Info. [Online, retrieved on 30th October 2006], available at: <http://www.workplaceinfo.com.au/registered/alert/2006/060531411.htm> Mercer Human Resource Consulting, (2006), Work Choices: from IR to HR, are your choices clear. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at: <http://www.mercerhr.com.au/knowledgecenter/reportsummary.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1204310> Teicher, J., Lambert, R. and ORourke, A., (ed), (2006), Work Choices: The New Industrial Relations Agenda, Pearson Education, Australia. Work Choices: Our Plan for a Modern Workplace, (2005). [online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at: <https://www.workchoices.gov.au/ourplan/overview/Ourplanforamodernworkplace.htm> Yen, M., (2006), Making the right Work Choices, Human Resources. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at: <http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/0D/0C03E80D.asp?Type=60&Category=871>

Bibliography: Boxall, P. and Purcell, J., (2003), Strategy & Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan, USA. Barneveld, K., (2006), Australian Workplace Agreements under Work Choices, The Economics and Labour Relations Review 165. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at: <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELRRev/2006/8.html> Moore, D., (2005), Work Choices: Less Flexible, More Complicated and Still Unfair? Conference proceedings of ALSF on 3rd December, Australia. Pocock, B., 2003, The Work / Life Collision, The Federation Press, Australia.

Page 7 of 7