LRM2601 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 6 November 2024
84 vistas 4 veces vendidas
Grado
Labour Relations Management: Macro (LRM2601)
Institución
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
South African Employment Relations
LRM2601 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 6 November 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. For assistance, Whats-App 0.6.7-1.7.1-1.7.3.9. Ensure your success with us... Read the case study and then answer the questions that follow. A TOUGH SITUATION AT...
LRM3601 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2024 Lerato is the newly appointed risk manager of the organisation. Lerato reports to Mr Hlongwane. During the rst six months of her employment, she monitored the p...
1.1 Example of Perceived Distributive Injustice: The specific example of distributive
injustice in the case is that employees’ overtime earnings, which constitute a significant part of
their income, have been cut, while senior managers, including Mr. Mkhize, continue to receive
annual bonuses despite the company’s financial challenges.
Explanation using the Equity Criterion: The equity criterion evaluates fairness based on the
proportional relationship between individuals' contributions and their rewards. Employees feel
this decision is unfair because they work extended hours and rely on overtime to make ends
meet, yet they are denied this essential income while senior managers receive bonuses. This
discrepancy in rewards undermines the perceived fairness of the distribution of income within
the company, as those most dependent on overtime earnings are penalized, whereas higher-
ranking staff continue to receive additional benefits.
1.2 Example of Perceived Procedural Injustice: An example of procedural injustice is when
Terms of use
Mr. Mkhize held a meeting to explain the reduction of overtime but did not allow employees to
By making use of this document you agree to:
ask questions, make suggestions, or document
• Use this discussasalternative cost-saving
a guide for learning, options.
comparison Additionally,
and reference purpose,
• Not to duplicate,
when Sipho proposed exploringreproduce
other and/or misrepresent
measures the contents
to reduce costsofwithout
this document as your
affecting own work,
overtime,
• Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Mr. Mkhize dismissed his suggestion outright.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.
, +27 67 171 1739
QUESTION 1
1.1 Example of Perceived Distributive Injustice: The specific example of
distributive injustice in the case is that employees’ overtime earnings, which
constitute a significant part of their income, have been cut, while senior managers,
including Mr. Mkhize, continue to receive annual bonuses despite the company’s
financial challenges.
Explanation using the Equity Criterion: The equity criterion evaluates fairness
based on the proportional relationship between individuals' contributions and their
rewards. Employees feel this decision is unfair because they work extended hours
and rely on overtime to make ends meet, yet they are denied this essential income
while senior managers receive bonuses. This discrepancy in rewards undermines
the perceived fairness of the distribution of income within the company, as those
most dependent on overtime earnings are penalized, whereas higher-ranking staff
continue to receive additional benefits.
1.2 Example of Perceived Procedural Injustice: An example of procedural
injustice is when Mr. Mkhize held a meeting to explain the reduction of overtime but
did not allow employees to ask questions, make suggestions, or discuss alternative
cost-saving options. Additionally, when Sipho proposed exploring other measures to
reduce costs without affecting overtime, Mr. Mkhize dismissed his suggestion
outright.
Explanation using Procedural Justice Criteria:
• Representativeness: This criterion requires that all stakeholders impacted by
a decision should have their views considered in the decision-making
process. Mr. Mkhize did not allow employees to voice their opinions or
propose alternatives during the meeting, thus failing to represent their
interests in the decision-making process. This lack of representation led
employees to perceive the process as dismissive and unfair.
• Bias Suppression: Bias suppression requires that decision-makers avoid
favoritism and personal biases. In this case, Mr. Mkhize showed favoritism
towards senior management by disregarding the employees’ need for
overtime income while still preserving bonuses for higher-level managers. His
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.
, +27 67 171 1739
dismissive response to employees’ suggestions and concerns further
suggests that his approach was biased in favor of management, contributing
to employees’ perception of an unfair and one-sided process.
1.3 Explanation of Perceived Unfairness and Impact on Trust: Mr. Mkhize’s
actions were perceived as unfair because he not only cut essential income for
employees but also dismissed their concerns without considering their input or
exploring alternatives. His approach contradicted his stated intent to protect their
best interests, as employees observed that he continued to protect benefits for
senior management. This perceived inconsistency between Mr. Mkhize’s words and
actions eroded employees' trust in management, as they felt that their well-being
was secondary to the interests of those in higher positions. Consequently, this lack
of trust has likely contributed to the growing support for union representation as
employees seek a fairer balance of power and accountability in their workplace.
QUESTION 2
2.1 Management’s Employment Relations Responsibilities: Key Functions of
Planning, Leading, Organising, and Controlling
As the Employment Relations Manager, my role is to ensure a balanced relationship
between management and employees, aiming to sustain a healthy, efficient, and fair
work environment. Let me explain how I am applying the four key management
functions in employment relations.
1. Planning: Planning is essential in employment relations to anticipate changes
and prepare solutions that serve both the company's goals and employees'
needs. Given the rising fuel costs and new environmental regulations, our
financial outlook changed. These factors necessitated a strategic cost-
reduction plan, which included the difficult decision to limit overtime. My goal
was to avoid retrenchments and to protect as many jobs as possible while
ensuring that the company remains financially stable. However, I
acknowledge that I could have planned better by actively involving employees
in discussions about cost-saving measures before implementing the decision.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.
Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:
Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios
Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!
Compra fácil y rápido
Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.
Enfócate en lo más importante
Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable.
Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!
Preguntas frecuentes
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?
Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller iStudy. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for 2,67 €. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
