LRM3702 Assignment 6 Semester 2 2024 | Due 4 November 2024

Description

LRM3702 Assignment 6 Semester 2 2024 | Due 4 November 2024. All questions answered. RELATIONS GONE BAD Makelotsomoney is a medium-sized retail company with a few stores in the rural areas of the Western Cape, including Wellington, Calendon, Swellendam and Montagu, Bredasdorp and Prince Albert. The managers of each store meet every Monday via a WhatsApp call to share sales updates and ideas, as they do not meet physically due to the cost of fuel. The company upgraded its technology in its stores a few months ago because it wanted to achieve greater efficiency. Joe, the chief shop steward of the Retail Workers’ Union (RWU) (which has been recognised for collective bargaining purposes for a few years) and Frank, an active union member, both based at the company’s main store in Paarl, have been employed by the company for many years as packers and general labourers. Both are quite ambitious and, although it was not their job to operate computer terminals, they slowly taught themselves how to operate the terminals in the store as they were keen to improve their skills and educational level. They did so well that after a few months, they had mastered the computer in the store and were performing the jobs of computer operators by voluntarily helping out as and when needed, as the company was short-staffed. They felt that they should receive some recognition and perhaps some additional remuneration for their efforts and willingness to learn. Joe then approached the store supervisor and asked that the company regrade him and Frank upwards as he maintained that they were now performing work of a higher grade. The store’s supervisor, having been able to rely on Joe and Frank’s skills, had not himself mastered the terminal. He feared that Joe and Frank were trying to replace him, so he said he would look into the matter but, despite numerous reminders to him, he did nothing. Joe and Frank then approached the factory manager and demanded that he immediately regrade them upwards as they were now performing the job of computer operators. He said that he would consider their demand and come back to them. He was willing to recognise their efforts but was worried about the cost of doing this. He then spoke to the company’s general manager. His attitude was that recognition might have been due to Frank and Joe, but that job grading was a management prerogative. He feared that if they talked to Joe, as senior shop steward, about job grading, this would set a dangerous precedent and would constitute a victory for the union in its pursuit of greater workplace control. He believed that the demand was a union-inspired attempt to dictate to management. Although the factory manager wanted to discuss the matter with the workers to find a satisfactory outcome, the general manager decided that it would be best not to respond to Joe and Frank because any response would constitute a concession to negotiate about a management prerogative. Joe and Frank eventually decided that if the company was not prepared to regrade them, then they would stop using the computer and revert to the manual method they had used in the past. On the first day of their refusal, they received an oral warning for failing to use the computer and they were instructed by their supervisor that they should use the computer in future. Joe and Frank were convinced that they could not be forced to use the computer and were determined to pressurise the company into giving them the recognition they demanded. They knew that the company needed their computer skills, and they believed that if they withheld them, the company would be forced to concede. They therefore continued with their refusal. The company then gave them written warnings for failing to obey reasonable instructions, as it hoped this would persuade Joe and Frank to resume using the computer. When they continued with their refusal, they were given final written warnings for insubordination. On the following day, they had a major altercation with their supervisor when he instructed them to use the computer. They informed him that they were sick and tired of being messed around by the company and that the company could do what it liked but they would not use the computers until they were upgraded. Joe and Frank were then summoned to a disciplinary enquiry and dismissed for insubordination after a full hearing. The workers at the company were incensed at the dismissal of a senior shop steward and were convinced that the real reason for the dismissal was that the company wanted to get rid of the union. They therefore stopped work and demanded Joe and Frank’s reinstatement. The company informed them that their work stoppage was unprocedural and illegal and that they would not talk to them until they returned to work. The workers did not heed management’s request and began singing and marching in the car park. Its non-union workers approached the company. They demanded safe custody out of the company premises and warned the company that they expected the company to take firm action against what they called the workers’ “illegal mass action”. They were frightened and felt that the company was always giving in to the union. The workers continued with their strike the following day. The company’s lawyers suggested that they resolve the dispute by going to court for an injunction ordering the striking workers to return to work. The company gave the workers an ultimatum to return to work. When they did not heed the ultimatum, they were dismissed. The company’s attorneys advised the company that they were fully entitled to dismiss illegal strikers and that they would win any action brought by the workers in the Labour Court. The union was anxious not to lose its membership at the company and it approached the company. It suggested that the strikers be reinstated. The company refused, and the union then suggested that the case of Joe and Frank be taken to an independent arbitrator for determination. When the company refused, the union launched a consumer boycott against the company with the support of various sympathetic, political, and church organisations. Although the strike and the boycott caused the company significant harm, it felt morally obliged to stand its ground against the union and its supporters because it believed that their real intention was either to destroy it or to take it over. The workers, on the other hand, believed that the company was determined to rid itself of the union. They felt that Joe and Frank’s original demand was reasonable, and they felt that they had to fight to the bitter end for their jobs.

QUESTION 1
Evaluate the legality of Joe and Frank’s refusal to use the computers as well as the fairness of their dismissals, based on the provisions in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). In your analysis, consider the definitions of insubordination and the criteria for fair dismissals outlined in the LRA. What alternative actions might they have pursued to address their complaints regarding job grading? (15)
Total for Question 1: [15]
QUESTION 2
2.1 Identify the type of strike evident in the case study based on the main reason for the strike and substantiate your answer. (1)
2.2 Analyse the legality of the workers’ strike following Joe and Frank’s dismissal, as well as the legality of the dismissals of the striking workers themselves. In your response, refer to the relevant provisions of the LRA. (13)
Total for Question 2: [14]

QUESTION 3
3.1 Identify three potential barriers to effective communication in the case study. Briefly explain what each of these barriers entail and cite company-specific examples to illustrate how they may impact labour relations at Makelotsomoney specifically. (6)
3.2 Based on the information provided in the case study, determine whether direct or indirect participation is used at Makelotsomoney. Support your answer by referring to examples from the case study. (2)
3.3 Provide a detailed explanation of how competition/power play between groups can have negative implications for an organisation. In your answer, you must refer specifically to the groups in the case study and how the conflict between these two groups might have negative implications for Makelotsomoney. (8)
Total for Question 3: [16]
QUESTION 4
4.1 Makelotsomoney’s management has to make certain decisions concerning the roles of different parties involved in managing employment relations. Briefly explain what is meant by the following concepts within an employment relations context and comment on the decision-making structure at Makelotsomoney by using the information provided in the case study: (6)
4.1.1 Specialisation and devolution
4.1.2 Centralisation and decentralisation
4.2 Use the information provided in the case study to determine which generic strategy option for employment relations has most probably been adopted at Makelotsomoney and provide reasons for your answer. (4)
Total for Question 4: [10]
QUESTION 5
5.1 Discuss the nature of the conflict in the case study by specifically referring to the following:
5.1.1 Three (3) possible causes/sources of the conflict in the case study (6)
5.1.2 The type and level of the conflict in the case study (3)
5.1.3 The stage of the conflict in the case study (3)
5.2 As mentioned in the case study, Makelotsomoney is a medium-sized retail company with a few stores in the rural areas of the Western Cape, including Wellington, Calendon, Swellendam and Montagu, Bredasdorp and Prince Albert. The managers of each store meet every Monday via a WhatsApp call to share sales updates and ideas, as they do not meet physically due to the cost of fuel. What type of team do the managers of Makelotsomoney form part of? (3)
Total for Question 5: [15]
TOTAL = 75 MARKS