To put it simply, industrial relations can be described as a field that analyzes and studies the employment relationship. Industrial relations are also popularly known as employee relations or employment relations due to the relevance of non-industrial employment relationships these days. There are some outsiders who also equate industrial relations with labour relations. They feel that industrial relations only study employment situations that are unionized.
Everyone has their own notions of what is anti-competitive conduct, and they assume that the Competition and Consumer Act CCA prohibits this behaviour. Very often it does not. You all know that petrol is my favourite example. Recently we announced Armidale as one of our regional fuel studies.
We simply announced that we had found no evidence of the cartel conduct we had been asked, with great fanfare, by a member of Parliament, to investigate. Petrol prices in Armidale have been unusually high. This probably drove the cartel allegations; it certainly is why it is the next focus of our regional fuel studies that Minister Billson has directed us to undertake.
Recently there has been attention on alleged behaviour involving unions and the general industrial relations arena.
In addition at any time we have between 10 and 15 competition cases in court. These matters are always complex cases; usually many of these cases will involve cartel conduct. We make judgements about what we take on based largely on the level of expected detriment as well, of course, on the prospects of success.
The examples of behaviour I will now cite all involve potentially significant detriment and would, on that basis, be worthy of investigation.
Some have been investigated. Most, however, cannot be as they are clearly or very likely not a breach of the CCA. The Case study on industrial relations bata most often cited are as follows.
Companies who compete with one another agreeing to identical wages and employment conditions for their employees, whether induced to do so by the union or not.
Indeed, the employers could meet in a smoke-filled room to reach this agreement. Such behaviour does not breach the CCA, even though some may describe it as price fixing of the price of labour.
Enterprise agreements being negotiated by unions with companies that contain provisions restricting competition by: Such behaviour is highly unlikely to breach the CCA.
The next two examples are more problematic. Examples 3 and 4 can breach the CCA but only in reasonably narrow, defined circumstances. Much turns on the facts of each matter. Unions have been given a clear role under the law to represent their members and take action seeking improved wages and conditions.
However, this does not give them or businesses cooperating with them a licence to seek to regulate markets. They could take themselves outside the above exemptions if they seek to determine which firms may operate within markets, what prices they can charge or how bids for work will be determined.
In a market economy it should be the market that sets prices and determines who participates and who wins work, not unions or businesses.
The ACCC will look carefully at conduct within examples 3 or 4 to ascertain what is really going on. That said, our focus will be on behaviour that substantially lessens competition, even if other aspects of the behaviour may be very concerning. To elaborate, this evening I will cover three topics.
First, relevant aspects of the legal framework, which this audience will be well aware of. Applying the CCA to the cited examples. Raising some issues for discussion. The legal framework Most relevantly to the four examples that have been highlighted above are the prohibitions on the following: Agreements between competitors which impede competition, such as agreements by competitors to fix the prices they will charge, or the prices they will pay, or to restrict the acquisition of services or goods from certain suppliers.
This extends to third parties involved in these agreements, for example, a union facilitating competitors reaching such an agreement i. Hence, agreements between unions and companies, even though they are not competitors, can be caught by the Act i.
Agreements between parties in a vertical relationship, where supply or acquisition is made conditional on the acceptance of some restriction on further supply or acquisition i.
Agreements between unions and other persons where a pre-existing supply or acquisition relationship exists, and the agreement is designed to prevent or hinder the person from continuing the relationship with that particular supplier or acquirer i.
When talking about industrial relations issues, people will of course also think of the prohibitions in the CCA on secondary boycotts. In very general terms, they apply where two or more persons act in concert to prevent a third person dealing with a fourth person i. These prohibitions do not apply to the facts of the four examples referred to above.
The final exemption is for enterprise agreements that have been approved by the Fair Work Commission. The IR carve out First, and most significantly, the CCA specifically excludes acts done in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding CAU or provision of a CAU, or the making of a CAU or any provision of a CAU, to the extent that the CAU, or the provision, relates to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of employees.
The effect of this IR carve out is that the ACCC does not have jurisdiction to deal with agreements, or aspects of agreements, that relate to employment conditions.Industrial relations cover the relationship between management and employees and how they interact, and through which they regulate conflict in the workplace.
It also focuses on the relationship between management and, particularly, groups of workers. legislation, led to the enactment of the Industrial Relations Reform Act Case studies in ‘unfair dismissal’ process Gerry Voll Charles Sturt University ABSTRACT. AIRAANZ This Act for the ﬁ rst time, in the federal jurisdiction, legislated for relief from ‘unfair dismissal’.
Case Study Maruti Suzuki Manesar: An Industrial Relations Crisis 7. Background On 18 July , auto factory workers in Maruti’s Manesar plant attacked supervisors and started a fire that killed a company official and injured personnel, including two Japanese Expatriates. Study this case carefully.
In India we have two major Korean consumer electronics conglomerates. While both the companies have achieved tremendous market growth, they have started encountering the problem of losing their key people.
And we are providing case study Answers, Assignment solutions, Multiple Question Answers and Project Reports of more than 40 + International B School (Indian and Foreign Universities) Currently we are having more than 2, 00, Case study Answers.
Lead Select 'Lead' to find cases in which a media or channel plays a leading or significant role (available for case studies since ). Mix Select 'Mix' to find cases that simply include a .