Petersheba
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Hi guys i have recently got an essay back, my fourth business assessment task. I received a 14/20 for the essay, which is unexpectedly lower than my previous essays for business, ranging in the 85% and above and my teachers comments when i specifically asked him were 'fishy' so to speak. Furthermore i would love to receive additional feedback and/or a mark out of ?/20 if possible. Thanks in advance! 
Additional notes:
- If you guys want me to write out the marking criteria for the task i'm happy to do so.
- There are footnotes within the essay just ignore them.
- I also apologise if i didn't post in the right section, as this is my first time posting.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Essay question: Analyse the causes of two workplace disputes and strategies used to resolve them.
Qantas is one of the largest airlines in 2014 ranking 1st in Australia, that serves the purpose to provide the best quality transportation and service to and from flights in domestic and international destinations. Through this Qantas has experienced overwhelming success comprised of its innovative cost controls in reducing expense and increasing profitability. On the other hand the business has undergone capital labour substitution and a shortening of the work force. This has substantially increased the concerns of the workforce on the grounds of renumeration, job security and employment conditions that has arisen the ground workers and engineers dispute of 2011. As such Qantas began to try and negotiate to the workers to come to a formal agreement, they have also tried grievance procedures and tribunals. Moreover the spark of the workplace disputes derived from Qantas trying to maximise profitability within the business that arisen the workers dispute and through this Qantas began to implement strategies to deal with these implications over the years.
The dispute that took hold in 2011 ‘engineers workplace dispute’ was arisen by the workers and engineers demanding various conditions in terms of their employment. They include, an increase in job security and increase in renumeration derived upon the matter of rising inflation that led to the cessation of workers which were being replaced for capital. The dispute backed Qantas into the corner and forcing them to implement negotiations of contractual conditions, grievance procedures for employee complaints, and tribunals. As such the engineers then demanded a 4% annual pay rise (remuneration), claims upon job security, and no grounds to be outsourced in an EBA (1). Furthermore the engineers went a step further and by the ALAEA union that Qantas’s contractors to be restricted, improving capital technology restricted, that all falls upon the desired goal of engineers that Qantas becomes a staff reliant business. The engineers desired purpose was to ensure that they retain a long term income. As such in the modern day society it can be relatively difficult to attain an employment position as businesses require specific qualifications and skills that are in high demand. Thereafter these demands were introduced to Qantas; they rejected the demands of the engineers and as quoted by Alan Joyce he says “We will be submitting an agreed workplace determination to Fair Work Australia that represents a good deal for Qantas and its 1600 licensed engineers”. (5). According Section 266 of the Fair Work Act 2009 it details that the process in resolving a dispute; the supervisor of both the employee and employer that they have an opinion on the matter, if the matter still remains unsettled, employee have the choice of a union representative. This is an indication that the negotiation strategy used in the grievance procedures failed and that in and of itself sparked the 1 hour strike in Melbourne on September 23rd 2011. In retaliation Qantas enforced the Fair Work Act 2009 which is referred to as a ‘lockout’ of all employees that were complaining and acquire the union to cease industrial action, thereby referring the matter to the FWA. Hence in all aspects of the tribunal FWA favoured Qantas’ side; as such the quote “had the union been successful, it would have meant that over time Qantas would not be financially viable”(2). suggests that the wrong decision would overall impacted upon the profitability and financial state in the long run of the business, as this is in conflict with employees wanting to maintain a long term sustainable income which would not be able to be meet its requirements. FWA did however allow a 3% pay increase that in turn allowed Qantas to change aircraft maintenance regulations, moreover the demand of the workers were not upheld in this matter (1). Overall the strategies that were undertaken to achieve such measures of meeting the standards and expectations of both the worker and the business suggested that negotiation, grievance procedures and tribunals were essential in regards to Qantas in ensuring that they responded to the ‘engineers workplace dispute’ in equal fairness and meeting both parties condition, although overall ruling in favour of Qantas as the employees conditions were subject to be unreasonable.
Another dispute in Qantas occurring in 2011 was the ‘ground workers workplace dispute’ which was sparked by the rise in demand in remuneration, more responsibility in their employment contracts, and a more sustainable job security. Furthermore Qantas began to undertake the act of negotiating workplace agreements, grievance procedures and tribunals to resolve employee demands. The TWU pursued for ground staff, a 10% wage rise over the next 2 years, third party labour providers would be prohibited, and to be retrained in hope of expanding the workers skills. (1). As such the negotiation was an inevitable failure as both parties could not reach a desirable agreement on the basis of balancing the desires of employees and attaining business objectives. Through this a 2 hour nationwide strike that was up-brought upon the offer given by Qantas whereby ensuring a 3% increase in wages over the next 12 months and a 2% increase over the course of 24 months([4) Spokesman Mick Piere "We'll keep taking these actions while they're talking to us but don't be surprised if we do end up with a 24-hour stoppage." As such Qantas employees abbreviate upon the fact that standards of living are continuing to rise and through this they speculate that Qantas is not taking these factors into consideration. As such grievance procedures were then implemented by both ends of the party, whereby the employee’s and employee supervisor meeting and conferring on the matter and represent them. Furthermore the strike that was implemented on the busiest days of the year that lasted 2 hours. "The timing is absolutely appalling. The union have targeted this day, this would have to be one of the top five travelling days in Australia," Qantas spokeswoman Olivia Wirth told reporters at Sydney Airport. So forth lockout measures were utilised relevance to the TWU. FWA disregarded TWU’s disputes which outlines that “The claim fails on the grounds of merit and by virtue of its negative impact on efficiency and productivity.” (6) However Qantas was not entirely in favour as the FWA decided that a provision for the life of the workplaces determination, suggested that there would be no compulsory redundancies of permanent employees. Overall the ‘ground workers dispute” initiated in 2011 rises the concern of the needs of employees to have increased remuneration, employment conditions and job conditions. Whereby in ensuring Qantas remains competitive in its industry strategies of negotiation, grievance procedures and tribunals were crucial in solving the workplace dispute.
Thus in response to the workplace disputes by engineers and ground workers suggested
implementing crucial and specific strategies to resolve the issue and compensate for both parties demands. The causes arisen the workplace dispute was primarily the need for remuneration, employment conditions and job security due to Qantas’ labour-capital substitution of the workforce. Through this Qantas implemented and utilised various strategies to resolve these issues whereby negotiation was proven to have an undesirable outcome for both parties, grievance procedures and tribunals. Thereby in regards to Qantas attaining desirable business goals and objectives, profitability has come at the expense of labour and wage cuts, however sparking workplace disputes as such implementations were to be used by Qantas to increase profitability.
Additional notes:
- If you guys want me to write out the marking criteria for the task i'm happy to do so.
- There are footnotes within the essay just ignore them.
- I also apologise if i didn't post in the right section, as this is my first time posting.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Essay question: Analyse the causes of two workplace disputes and strategies used to resolve them.
Qantas is one of the largest airlines in 2014 ranking 1st in Australia, that serves the purpose to provide the best quality transportation and service to and from flights in domestic and international destinations. Through this Qantas has experienced overwhelming success comprised of its innovative cost controls in reducing expense and increasing profitability. On the other hand the business has undergone capital labour substitution and a shortening of the work force. This has substantially increased the concerns of the workforce on the grounds of renumeration, job security and employment conditions that has arisen the ground workers and engineers dispute of 2011. As such Qantas began to try and negotiate to the workers to come to a formal agreement, they have also tried grievance procedures and tribunals. Moreover the spark of the workplace disputes derived from Qantas trying to maximise profitability within the business that arisen the workers dispute and through this Qantas began to implement strategies to deal with these implications over the years.
The dispute that took hold in 2011 ‘engineers workplace dispute’ was arisen by the workers and engineers demanding various conditions in terms of their employment. They include, an increase in job security and increase in renumeration derived upon the matter of rising inflation that led to the cessation of workers which were being replaced for capital. The dispute backed Qantas into the corner and forcing them to implement negotiations of contractual conditions, grievance procedures for employee complaints, and tribunals. As such the engineers then demanded a 4% annual pay rise (remuneration), claims upon job security, and no grounds to be outsourced in an EBA (1). Furthermore the engineers went a step further and by the ALAEA union that Qantas’s contractors to be restricted, improving capital technology restricted, that all falls upon the desired goal of engineers that Qantas becomes a staff reliant business. The engineers desired purpose was to ensure that they retain a long term income. As such in the modern day society it can be relatively difficult to attain an employment position as businesses require specific qualifications and skills that are in high demand. Thereafter these demands were introduced to Qantas; they rejected the demands of the engineers and as quoted by Alan Joyce he says “We will be submitting an agreed workplace determination to Fair Work Australia that represents a good deal for Qantas and its 1600 licensed engineers”. (5). According Section 266 of the Fair Work Act 2009 it details that the process in resolving a dispute; the supervisor of both the employee and employer that they have an opinion on the matter, if the matter still remains unsettled, employee have the choice of a union representative. This is an indication that the negotiation strategy used in the grievance procedures failed and that in and of itself sparked the 1 hour strike in Melbourne on September 23rd 2011. In retaliation Qantas enforced the Fair Work Act 2009 which is referred to as a ‘lockout’ of all employees that were complaining and acquire the union to cease industrial action, thereby referring the matter to the FWA. Hence in all aspects of the tribunal FWA favoured Qantas’ side; as such the quote “had the union been successful, it would have meant that over time Qantas would not be financially viable”(2). suggests that the wrong decision would overall impacted upon the profitability and financial state in the long run of the business, as this is in conflict with employees wanting to maintain a long term sustainable income which would not be able to be meet its requirements. FWA did however allow a 3% pay increase that in turn allowed Qantas to change aircraft maintenance regulations, moreover the demand of the workers were not upheld in this matter (1). Overall the strategies that were undertaken to achieve such measures of meeting the standards and expectations of both the worker and the business suggested that negotiation, grievance procedures and tribunals were essential in regards to Qantas in ensuring that they responded to the ‘engineers workplace dispute’ in equal fairness and meeting both parties condition, although overall ruling in favour of Qantas as the employees conditions were subject to be unreasonable.
Another dispute in Qantas occurring in 2011 was the ‘ground workers workplace dispute’ which was sparked by the rise in demand in remuneration, more responsibility in their employment contracts, and a more sustainable job security. Furthermore Qantas began to undertake the act of negotiating workplace agreements, grievance procedures and tribunals to resolve employee demands. The TWU pursued for ground staff, a 10% wage rise over the next 2 years, third party labour providers would be prohibited, and to be retrained in hope of expanding the workers skills. (1). As such the negotiation was an inevitable failure as both parties could not reach a desirable agreement on the basis of balancing the desires of employees and attaining business objectives. Through this a 2 hour nationwide strike that was up-brought upon the offer given by Qantas whereby ensuring a 3% increase in wages over the next 12 months and a 2% increase over the course of 24 months([4) Spokesman Mick Piere "We'll keep taking these actions while they're talking to us but don't be surprised if we do end up with a 24-hour stoppage." As such Qantas employees abbreviate upon the fact that standards of living are continuing to rise and through this they speculate that Qantas is not taking these factors into consideration. As such grievance procedures were then implemented by both ends of the party, whereby the employee’s and employee supervisor meeting and conferring on the matter and represent them. Furthermore the strike that was implemented on the busiest days of the year that lasted 2 hours. "The timing is absolutely appalling. The union have targeted this day, this would have to be one of the top five travelling days in Australia," Qantas spokeswoman Olivia Wirth told reporters at Sydney Airport. So forth lockout measures were utilised relevance to the TWU. FWA disregarded TWU’s disputes which outlines that “The claim fails on the grounds of merit and by virtue of its negative impact on efficiency and productivity.” (6) However Qantas was not entirely in favour as the FWA decided that a provision for the life of the workplaces determination, suggested that there would be no compulsory redundancies of permanent employees. Overall the ‘ground workers dispute” initiated in 2011 rises the concern of the needs of employees to have increased remuneration, employment conditions and job conditions. Whereby in ensuring Qantas remains competitive in its industry strategies of negotiation, grievance procedures and tribunals were crucial in solving the workplace dispute.
Thus in response to the workplace disputes by engineers and ground workers suggested
implementing crucial and specific strategies to resolve the issue and compensate for both parties demands. The causes arisen the workplace dispute was primarily the need for remuneration, employment conditions and job security due to Qantas’ labour-capital substitution of the workforce. Through this Qantas implemented and utilised various strategies to resolve these issues whereby negotiation was proven to have an undesirable outcome for both parties, grievance procedures and tribunals. Thereby in regards to Qantas attaining desirable business goals and objectives, profitability has come at the expense of labour and wage cuts, however sparking workplace disputes as such implementations were to be used by Qantas to increase profitability.
