Take-Home Examination

TAKE-HOME EXAMINATION

QUARTER 1 2018

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

Unit Name (In Full):INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & WORKPLACE CHANGE

Unit Number:200719

Due Date: 25 MARCH 2018

Number of Questions:FOUR

INSTRUCTIONS

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE PROCEEDING

1Students are not to discuss ANY aspect of the exam questions with another person before the submission date and time has passed. Administrative questions regarding the exam can be directed to the Unit Co-ordinator.

2Answers are to be typed, with double spacing and numbered pages. Each exam question answered must be identified: e.g.,Question 2, Question 4 etc.

3Only minimal referencing is required. Citation of material contained in the 200719 Unit Reading Material 2018 Q1 is only necessary if there is a direct quote or close paraphrasing. Citations for the Unit Reading Material need only be simple: e.g., (Bray et al. 2018, p. 178) or Ellem (2010, p. 362). Students are NOT required consult material not included in the Unit Readings. Material citied from the Unit Readings does not need to be included in a list of references.

4The exam is worth 50% of the total marks for this unit.Part A is worth 30 marks. Part B is worth 20 marks.

5The maximum word limit for your exam answers is 2000 words (excluding references). The maximum word limit for anyPart A answer is 400 words. The maximum word limit for the Part B answer is 800 words.

6The total words used in your examanswers are to be shown: e.g., 1953 words overall. The word amount used to answer each question is to be shown: e.g., 379 words for a Part A answer; 781 words for a Part B answer. If an answer exceeds the word limit the marker will stop reading once the word limit has been reached.

Part A: Answer 3 (THREE) questions only. All questions are of equal value. Part A is worth 30 marks

Question 1

Kotter and Schlesinger (2008), unit Supplementary Readings Week 3, argue there are four “most common” reasons why people resist workplace change: (1) parochial self-interest; (2) misunderstanding and lack of trust; (3) different assessments; and (4) a low tolerance for change. Which of these four reasons best explains the reaction of the warehouse employees to the workplace change attempt outlined in the “Introduction of new technology at FoxMeyer Drugs” (Topic 3) case study?

Question 2

Greenwood and Van Buren (2017), unit Supplementary Readings Week 3, state at page 671: “If ‘shared interests’ were jointly determined then they could rightfully be labelled as ‘shared’. However, if employers primarily get to define what the interests are, then in fact the normative claim germane to unitarism is not ‘employers and employees ought to share interests’ but rather ‘employees ought to share their employer’s interests’.”

Whereas Bashshur and Oc (2015), unit Supplementary Readings Week 7, state at page 1546: “When voice is ignored, many of the positive outcomes turn negative. Ignored voice can lead to turnover, absenteeism, and withdrawal across all levels of the organization as well as punishment for the voicer.” Is it possible to argue an employer and a workforce have shared interests when management ignores the “voice” of its workers?

Question 3

Muffels and Wilthagen (2013), unit Supplementary Readings Week 9, at page 113 suggest the concept of “flexicurity” combines various forms of organisational flexibility and workforce security: “On the one hand It encompasses external numerical (hiring and firing), internal numerical (working-time flexibility) but also internal functional flexibility (to adapt the internal work organization swiftly to changes in product demand) and wage flexibility; on the other hand it includes job and employment security but also income security”. By discussing a relevant example, how might flexicurity result in “win-win” workplace change outcomes?

Part B: Answer the case study question. Part B is worth 20 marks

Please read the Business Learning Solutions case study below:

Business Learning Solutions (BLS) is a publisher of professional practice guides, specialist trade magazines, annotated legislation, case-book notes and updates, and court and tribunal decision reports. It is also the distributor for several discipline-specific academic journals, sharing the sales profits with the respective scholarly association. While traditionally all its products where paper-based (actual bound books, journals, reports etc), in recent times it has moved to electronic publications with online subscriptions to web-based products including the use of smart-phone and tablet applications (“apps”). The shift to electronic publication is mostly influenced by financial considerations (i.e. it is generally cheaper than paper-based printing and distribution).

The BLS sales division is divided into separate fields of professional practice units (law, accountancy, nursing science, education etc) identified by a capital letter (“A”, “B”, “C” etc). Within each unit, staff are appointed at a specific grade or level, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5. It is unusual for staff to move between the units mostly due to specialist knowledge required for each professional practice field. Staff tend to work independently with a high degree of autonomy, though more junior and less experienced staff (e.g. Levels 1 and 2) are partnered with more senior staff (Levels 4 and 5) when dealing with the more valued customer accounts.

Each professional practice unit does not have a full-time manager. Instead a Level 4 or Level 5 staff member is appointed as a “unit coordinator” performing staff supervision on a part-time basis (between 20% and 50% of their duties depending on the number of sales staff in each unit).

BLS does not pay is sales staff a commission (i.e. a proportion of their total sales). Instead, staff are promoted into higher paying levels based on a combination of their total sales, their sales profit margin, generation of new customers, retention of existing customers, and customer feedback.

Last year a new Director of the sales division was appointed. Six months after her appointment the new Director forwarded to the CEO a draft “Organisational Change Proposal” for the sales division for approval. The draft proposal is:

The Company has made a significant investment in electronic publishing and related infrastructure which demands changes to the Division’s activities and therefore considerable changes to the staff profile of the Division, reducing the total staff number from the current 139 to 103. It is proposed to achieve and maintain this new profile through a mix of restructuring and recruitment.

Table 1: Current Division staff profile by unit and appointment level.

Professional field / Level 1 / Level 2 / Level 3 / Level 4 / Level 5 / Total
A / 10 / 18 / 5 / 1 / 1 / 35
B / 1 / 11 / 8 / 3 / 5 / 28
C / 3 / 5 / 5 / 0 / 1 / 14
D / 5 / 14 / 7 / 2 / 2 / 30
E / 5 / 13 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 26
F / 0 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 6
Total / 24 / 63 / 32 / 8 / 12 / 139

Table 2: Proposed Division staff profile by unit and appointment level.

Professional field / Level 1 / Level 2 / Level 3 / Level 4 / Level 5 / Total
A / 9 / 13 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 28
B / 5 / 7 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 18
C / 4 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 12
D / 5 / 7 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 18
E / 7 / 7 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 20
F / 2 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 7
Total / 32 / 41 / 20 / 5 / 5 / 103

To effect the restructuring it is proposed to call for expressions of interest (EOI) for voluntary redundancies from the Division’s staff.

The Modern Award covering BLS and it employees contains the following “Consultation” clause:

Consultation regarding major workplace change

1 (a) Employer to notify

(i)Where an employer has made a definite decision to introduce major changes in production, program, organisation, structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees, the employer must notify the employees who may be affected by the proposed changes and their representatives, if any.

(ii) Significant effectsinclude termination of employment; major changes in the composition, operation or size of the employer’s workforce or in the skills required; the elimination or diminution of job opportunities, promotion opportunities or job tenure; the alteration of hours of work; the need for retraining or transfer of employees to other work or locations; and the restructuring of jobs. Provided that where this award makes provision for alteration of any of these matters an alteration is deemed not to have significant effect.

1 (b) Employer to discuss change

(i)The employer must discuss with the employees affected and their representatives, if any, the introduction of the changes referred to in clause 1(a), the effects the changes are likely to have on employees and measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects of such changes on employees and must give prompt consideration to matters raised by the employees and/or their representatives in relation to the changes.

(ii)The discussions must commence as early as practicable after a definite decision has been made by the employer to make the changes referred to in clause (a).

(iii)For the purposes of such discussion, the employer must provide in writing to the employees concerned and their representatives, if any, all relevant information about the changes including the nature of the changes proposed, the expected effects of the changes on employees and any other matters likely to affect employees provided that no employer is required to disclose confidential information the disclosure of which would be contrary to the employer’s interests.

Question 5

The CEO of BLS has tasked you, the Senior Human Resources Advisor, to write a short report of about 800 words answering the following questions:

Will the implementation of draft Organisational Change Proposal result in any of the events described in the Award clause “significant effects” paragraph 1(a)(ii)?

If not, why not?

If any of the events described are likely to happen, in what ways can they be averted or mitigated in accordance with the Award clause paragraph 1(b)(i)?

Write the report.

END OF EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

Page 1 of 6