MHR001 Managing Workplace Relations

Assessment 4 – Group Project

Assessment type: Group Report & Group Presentation

Worth: 35% [Report 25 + Presentation 10 marks)

Due date:  Report in week 11 (13 Nov), Presentation in week 11 & 12 (13 and 20 Nov 2024).

Time allowed: 15 minutes per group including Q&A.

Write a report on the topic given below:

“There are two main processes by which collective bargaining takes place- traditional (distributive) bargaining and interest-based (integrative) bargaining. Although, they commonly operate in tandem through mixed bargaining”. Critically discuss this statement keeping in mind the recent APS-wide pays and conditions negotiations (bargaining) between Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) and the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU).

To successfully complete the assessment, students must explain in depth and within the permitted word limit the stated questions. This requires undertaking quality research (peer reviewed articles) to achieve high marks. Research is considered appropriate when the group report must have a minimum of eight (8) peer reviewed articles. Students should however attempt to exceed the minimum expected research to maximise their assessment outcome.

The project report should include the following sections:

• Cover page
• Executive summary
• Table of content
• Introduction
• In depth discussion (theoretical frameworks, actual bargaining between the parties, offers, rejections and the resolutions). It is expected that students familiarise themselves with the relevant theory and build a bridge between theory and the application in practice.
• Conclusion and recommendations.
• References

Presentation:

• The presentation must be supported by appropriate visual aids.
• About 10 slides.
• All group members are required to present their parts.
• Please avoid reading from the slides.
• Demonstrate positive verbal and non-verbal communication skills.

NB: Please note that students are expected to contribute equally. Members who fail to equally contribute to the assessment will receive a mark reduction.

Brief criteria for assessment:

• demonstrated understanding of the issues raised and their impact on the practice of management of workplace relations.
• quality and completeness of your response to the questions.
• evidence of appropriate reading and research; and
• correct presentation, including citation of sources and clarity of expression.

APSC – Wide Pay and Conditions Negotiation

Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) and the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU).

The context

CPSU endeavoured to secure a service-wide deal on and off via negotiations and other techniques for nearly two decades. Of late, they were engaged at times in bitter negotiations that lasted for more than a year to deliver results for their members.

The CPSU entered this process with a mindset to fight as hard as it takes for the improvements covering a wide range of areas. The steps and the approaches taken by the CPSU have the most resemblance to the pluralistic philosophies of workplace relations. The CPSU did not hesitate to take industrial action throughout the course of these protracted negotiations. The actions ranged from overtime bans to strikes of different lengths. The attitudes exhibited and the actions taken by CPSU no doubt played a part in delivering a package that can go on to improve the working lives of APS employees. By contrast, the APSC managed the negotiation with a ‘glass half full’ approach. Their strategy was to emphasise the positives rather than the denial of what has been a prolonged workplace bargaining.

The Outcome

The initial target of CPSU was to gain a 20% APS wide increase. The negotiations have finally yielded an outcome for more than 170,332 public sector employees in Australia. These outcomes covered a wide range of areas including some degrees of pay equity among the different public sector agencies, a significant rise in salaries for those at the bottom, job security protection, casual loading, enforceable consultation rights (employee voice) about issues affecting public sector employees, leave entitlements covering the areas of domestic violence, career and parental leave, and the trust in the APS (ensuring things like the ‘Robodebt’ never happens again). Under the deal, the APS employees got an 11.2 per cent pay increase over a three-year period starting with a 4 per cent increase in 2024 followed by a 3.8 per cent in the next year and in the last year the increase will be 3.4 per cent.

What Can Be Learned?

Well-prepared, determined, protracted and level-headed negotiations – with integrity – can yield outcomes to the satisfaction of all parties.

 

Marking Criteria:

Refer to the marking rubric given below.

Criteria	Fail Less than 50%	Pass 50 – 64%	Credit 65-74%	Distinction 75 – 84%	High Distinction 85 – 100%
Introduction (2 mark). Introduces the context of the assignment, the purpose of the report and foretells the structure the report	Unfocused introduction. Required elements are missing.	Introduction provides some idea as to the purpose of the report but may be missing some elements such as the context and the structure of the report.	Contains all elements but could be more effectively written.	Effective introduction that provides a clear indication of the topic, purpose, structure and the process followed.	Excellent introduction that provides a clear identification of the topic, context, purpose, structure and the limitations.
Analysis (16 mark). Demonstrates critical analysis and evaluation of the topic/question and its’ impact on the practice of management of workplace relations in the organisation/ industry/country in focus, quality, and completeness of your response to the topic.	Discussion is limited to description rather than analysis and/or analysis is limited to the topic /organisation/ industry/country with no integration.	Discussion is adequate but tends towards description rather than analysis. May be some disconnect between the topic and its impact on the organisation/industry/economy/country. Some evaluation of the research shown.	Effective discussion indicating good analysis of the research. Some evaluation of the impact of the topic on the organisation/ industry/economy/ country is shown with some justifications.	Key issues in the research are clearly identified. Analysis of the impact of the topic on the organisation/ industry/economy/ country is consistently demonstrated throughout the report.	Excellent analysis of the research. Critical evaluation and synthesis of the appropriateness and impact of the topic on the organisation /industry/economy/ country is consistently evident.
Conclusion (1 mark). Summarises the main points of the report and draws relevant conclusion/s.	Missing, unclear or tenuous.	May re-state main argument of report but does not bring together main points of report.	Satisfactory identification of the main issues in the report.	Good line of reasoning that supports the overall discussion in the report.	Convincing and strong line of reasoning that supports overall argument in report.
Recommendation (1 mark). Well-argued recommendation, supported with evidence, that is practical and feasible for the chosen organisation/country.	Absent or deviates significantly from what was required.	Recommendations are evident but may not be clearly linked to previous discussion nor realistic or well supported.	Recommendations are detailed and contains some justifications.	Recommendations presented are feasible, clearly linked to previous discussion and consistent with conclusion.	Recommendations are practical, feasible and is based on evidence clearly evaluated in the body of the report and are very consistent with conclusion.
References (4 mark). Uses a minimum of 8 sources, five of which are Academic Journal Articles (AJAs). Correct and consistent citations using Harvard style. Accurate and properly formatted reference list.	Poor. Relies on direct quotations and/or frequent errors in technical aspects of referencing and/or does not meet minimum references requirement.	Some errors in technical aspects of referencing. Minimum references requirements are not clearly met.	Quotations and referencing are mainly accurate. Evidence of fulfilling the minimum references requirement.	Minor referencing errors. Meets format requirements. Minimum references requirement is exceeded.	Referencing is consistently accurate. Meets APA/Harvard requirements. Minimum references requirement is exceeded.
Professionalism (1 mark). Written clearly and accurately with spelling, punctuation and grammar checked. Logical structure. Word count has been met.	Poor format and/or structure. Written expression needs improvement. Does not meet word limit.	Adequate. Structure may be difficult to follow in areas. Evidence of need to proofread. May not meet word limit.	Satisfactory structure and written expression. May need to proofread work.	Good. Structure and written expression are overall good with minor errors.	Excellent. Concise and flowing structure, no spelling or grammatical errors.
Oral Presentation (10). Well-constructed presentation that introduces the case and group members. Analysis is effective with clear PPT slides. Professional body language, clear and concise presentation. Introduces engagement elements.	Poor presentation with no group introduction. Limited analysis of case study/scenario responses, no engagement.	Adequate presentation with a brief group introduction. Limited analysis of case study/scenario responses, PPT are OK. Limited/nominal engagement.	Satisfactory presentation with a good group introduction. Some analysis of case study/scenario responses. PPT slides are informative with some engagement.	Good introduction. Very good analysis of case study/scenarios. PPT slides are informative with better engagement elements.	Excellent presentation with a professional introduction and conclusion. Excellent analysis of case study/scenario questions. PPT slides are informative with excellent engagement.

 Thank you and Good Luck!

 

Word Count: 2500-2600

No. of Pages: 13