Gsbs6042 Employment Relations: Effectiveness Of Assessment Answers

Answer:

Introduction

Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) is a test that is under the relevant modern award that includes all workers covered by the enacted enterprise agreement. It ensures that every award covered worker and every considered award covered worker should be in a better position based on the arrangement than they would if the appropriate award is applicable to them. The Better Off Overall Test is applicable during the test time- the period when the application for approval was created. Any agreement created based on the relevant modern award may not be considered for the reasons of the Better Off Overall Test (James & Ombundsman, 2015). The reason is that it is assumed that any engagements made under the agreements in a modern award would be regarded in the debating process and most likely will be part of the arrangements. Moreover, the test is not applicable as a line by line analysis. It is widely used test that requires recommendation of benefits and disadvantages to award covered workers and proposed award covered workers. The query posed by the test is not whether every worker is better off based on the arrangement in comparison to their certain existing working agreements but whether they are better off entirely if the arrangement applied instead of the appropriate modern award (Regan & Lee, 2015)  

The test also covers all the employees equally by the prospective collective arrangement, inclusive of those who may be subjected to the increased income threshold. However, the test necessitates that every award-covered worker to be better off, the Fair Work Commission may consider that every worker within a particular category of workers are better off when the arrangement passes the Test when applied to that category (Barry, 2016). The phrase “category of workers” is a definition of a set of workers under the enterprise agreement who have similar features that help them to be served equally when the Fair Work Commission uses the BOOT. For instance, where the workers are in the same category, job level or grade or worth similar working conditions. Furthermore, the Better Off Overall Test provides that all award terms to be excluded as long as the overall salaries or benefits received by the worker make them better off than if the terms remained the same. Therefore, the application of the test necessitates the statement of the terms of an arrangement which are most essential to workers in comparison to the appropriate modern award and the conditions of an arrangement which are less essential and then an entire evaluation of whether a worker would be better off based on the arrangement. It is important to note that an arrangement may pass the test even if some award commission have been decreased, as long as the decrement is more than redeemed by the advantages of the arrangement (Hustedt & Seyfried, 2016).         

Additionally, the Fair Work Commission will apply BOOT to ensure that each worker covered by the arrangement is in a good position in comparison to other modern award. The application of modern awards to workers performance will promote simplicity of the authorization procedure in comparison to the recent, complex and limited standards arrangements. It also promotes productivity and equity through organisation arrangements that are implemented to help the organisations and the employees (Howe, 2014). This entails giving the employees and administrators the rights to appoint persons to act as representatives during debates for a projected agreement. Furthermore, it helps the Fair Work Australia to enhance good faith negotiations and the improvement of agreements. For example, through making bargaining orders and resolving disputes where participants require assistance and confirming that all employees in the arrangement are in a better position against the current minimum net salaries.

Aim of the Report

This report is aimed at assessing the effectiveness of Better Overall Test (BOOT) when applied to all employees under the Fair Work Commission. It is necessary that all employers to note the benefits of BOOT on the overall performance of workers, the workers will be awarded fairly based on the work they have done during a particular period of time. Therefore, this will enhance improvement of the working conditions.   

Scope of the Report

This report is focused on the effectiveness of the application of Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) on all workers under the Fair Work Commission. For the purposes of this report, what comprises the Better Off Overall Test is defined by the Fair Work Commission. Also, this report was restricted to full-time employees based on the Fair Work Commission.  

Fair Work Commission (FWC)

The fair work commission is an independent organisation whose role is to ensure that employees work in good conditions. Moreover, the commission maintains appropriate sum of minimum remunerations, and other working responsibilities and administrations. The Fair Work Act provides a more detailed system for regulating industrial associations for all employees in Australia. It is important to note that all states are required to give all of their industrial associations framework to the United Nations. Hence, all the employees of those states will be under the National Fair Work Act in a situation where a state decides to evaluate their responsibilities to a main and national industrial associations system. (Bray & Stewart, 2013). Recently, the Fair work Commission has replaced the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) in handling workstation issues and industrial actions. The major responsibilities of the Fair Work Commission include setting the minimum salaries, solving problems, approving company contracts and resolving disputes arising from unfair dismissal. In addition, it carries out the responsibility of the Australian Fair Pay Commission and the Workplace Authority. Nevertheless, it plays a major role in the implementation of the national industrial relations guidelines. For instance, regulating the award system and setting required remunerations (Buchanan, 2013).

Changes to BOOT (Better Off Overall Test)

It is important to appropriately identify the modern award that incorporates all the employees to whom the company arrangement will apply, before conducting the Better Off Overall Test. In identifying the most relevant award, the award must contain the categories most relevant to the job performance, and to the area in which the job is conducted, will certainly identify the most appropriate award. The modern awards contain interaction guidelines which regulate cases where more than one award may apply. The relevant modern award can be identified by comparing the roles carried out by the workers to the categories highlighted in the modern award (Steele, Wee & Ramsay, 2016). Besides this, the Fair Work Commission is required to provide the level of the award during the testing period and to evaluate the conditions of the arrangements to the workers it covers at that period. In addition, the Commission is supposed to evaluate the main, substantial or principal nature of the job conducted by the worker at test period, incorporating the period of time spent conducting certain jobs, the terms of the employment and what the worker was tasked to do.     

Fair Work Act 2009 Legislation Impact

Based on the Fair Work Act, a worker can make an unfair dismissal claim not considering the company size, as long as they have finished the required period of employment and subject to particular other benefits (Bray & Stewart, 2013). Moreover the Act gives the employees an opportunity to appoint an individual of their choice who will represent them in negotiation matters. In addition, the Fair Work Act provides a more integrated system for controlling industrial associations for all employees (Roles & O'Donnell, 2013).

Important Issues

It is important to note that the intention of the Better Off Overall Test is to prevent situations where there is inequality in workstations extending from the manger’s mandate or the power of particular workers negotiating participants result in arrangements where individual workers are in a better position as compared with the appropriate modern award (McKenzie, 2016). However, a no-disadvantage test (NDT), which necessitates that persons are made worse off, can enhance similar results more effectively. Additionally, replacing BOOT with an NDT will not solve the technical problems. Moreover, there is a concern under the Fair Work Act regarding whether the test is applicable to each individual employee or to a category of similar workers. For instance, weekend Casual Workers. Based on the NDT, the former would have a disadvantage that the Fair Work Commission could not consider an arrangement even if just one person was made worse off. Normally, the Fair Work Commission has applied BOOT in association to a certain category of workers, but there remains a bigger problem that a particular worker’s complaint might make the arrangement to be void. Therefore, statutory change to ensure that the test be for a category of workers would solve this issue.    

Conclusion

It is significant that all workers are aware of the BOOT analysis at every level of the bargaining and drafting procedure, so as to determine which conditions are likely to enhance condemnations of the commission and to consider how any particular critics might be efficiently offset. Also, the minimum wages comparisons in comparison to the relevant modern award remain a major section of the BOOT analysis. In addition, managers must be careful when trying to evaluate the amount of non-financial benefits. This is particularly important when evaluating the value of benefits that may not be considered by all workers.   

Recommendations 

The enterprise agreement should implement the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) only if the Fair Work Commission is pleased that every award-covered worker and every proposed award-covered worker might be in a good position based on the arrangement in comparison to the appropriate modern award. Moreover, the administration of the Fair Work Commission requires changes. Most of the major contributors of ineffectiveness is a result of decisions of past governments, especially the focus on electing individuals with opinions emphasized on one side or the other of debates regarding industrial associations.   

References 

Barry, M. (2016). Employer and employer association matters in Australia in 2015. Journal of Industrial Relations, 0022185616634092.  

Bray, M., & Stewart, A. (2013). From the arbitration system to the Fair Work Act: The changing approach in Australia to voice and representation at work. Adel. L. Rev., 34, 21.

Buchanan, J., Bretherton, T., Frino, B., Jakubauskas, M., Schutz, J., Verma, G., & Yu, S. (2013). Minimum wages and their role in the process and incentives to bargain. Melbourne: Fair Work Commission, https://apo. org. au/files/Resource/fwc_minimum-wages-incentives-to-bargain_2013. pdf.

Charlesworth, S., & Macdonald, F. (2015). Women, work and industrial relations in Australia in 2014. Journal of Industrial Relations, 57(3), 366-382.

Ellem, B. (2014). A battle between titans? Rio Tinto and union recognition in Australia’s iron ore industry. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(1), 185-200.

Giudice AO, T. H. G. (2014). Industrial relations law reform–What value should be given to stability?. Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(3), 433-441.

Howe, J. (2014). Is the net cast too wide? An assessment of whether the regulatory design of the 457 visa meets Australia's skill needs.

Hustedt, T., & Seyfried, M. (2016). Co-ordination across internal organizational boundaries: how the EU Commission co-ordinates climate policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(6), 888-905.

McKenzie, D. M. (2015). The role of mediation in resolving workplace relationship conflict. International journal of law and psychiatry, 39, 52-59.

Sheldon, P., & Thornthwaite, L. (2015). Employer and employer association matters in Australia in 2014. Journal of Industrial Relations, 57(3), 383-400.

Steele, S., Wee, M. S., & Ramsay, I. (2016). Remunerating Corporate Insolvency Practitioners in the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore: The Roles of Courts.

Trigger, D., Keenan, J., Rijke, K., & Rifkin, W. (2014). Aboriginal engagement and agreement-making with a rapidly developing resource industry: Coal seam gas development in Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 176-188.

Regan, L., & Lee, C. (2015). Workplace law: Review of the fair work act: What will change?. Proctor, The, 35(4), 38.

Roles, C., & O'Donnell, M. (2013). The Fair Work Act and worker voice in the Australian Public Service. Adel. L. Rev., 34, 93.

James, N., & Ombudsman, F. W. (2015). Commonwealth of Australia