LRM4801 Assignment 4 (ANSWERS) 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED

Well-structured LRM4801 Assignment 4 (ANSWERS) 2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. (DETAILED ANSWERS - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!)..... Ensure that you meet the requirements in terms of technical presentation as discussed in section 5 of this document. Read the following case study of a fictitious organisation in South Africa: Ubuntu AutoTech South Africa: Ubuntu AutoTech South Africa (UASA) – continuous from Assignment 02 Ubuntu AutoTech South Africa (UASA), a Gauteng-based automotive manufacturer with just over 2000 employees, continues to implement its large-scale automation and digital transformation strategy. This initiative, driven by the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, is intended to modernise operations and secure long-term competitiveness through robotics, predictive maintenance, and advanced data systems. Of the 2 000 employees, about 1 250 are covered by collective bargaining through the recognised trade unions, namely the COSATU-affiliated majority union and UASA. This group includes production workers, artisans, and technicians below supervisory level, while management, professionals, and administrative staff are not included in collective bargaining structures. In response to growing union concerns, management previously established a Joint Labour-Management Transformation Forum (JLMTF) to provide a platform for consultation on the transformation process. However, trade union delegates soon criticised the forum as largely symbolic, claiming it served more as a communication tool than a genuine decision-making body. Despite regular meetings, final strategic decisions remained firmly in the hands of management. Wage negotiations Against this backdrop, wage negotiations began in July 2025 directly between UASA and its recognised unions, including the COSATU-affiliated majority union, at company level, despite the fact that wages and substantive conditions of employment are ordinarily negotiated centrally through the Automotive Industry Bargaining Council (AIBC). The unions submitted demands that reflected anxieties over automation: • A moratorium on retrenchments linked to technological change • A 12% wage increase plus a digital literacy allowance • Guaranteed retraining and redeployment opportunities • Greater union involvement in technology-related decisions Management countered with a 6% wager offer, reskilling “as needed”, and no allowance. After three rounds, negotiations deadlocked and the matter was referred to the CCMA for conciliation, which also failed. This referral raised questions among some stakeholders, since UASA is a party to the AIBC, which ordinarily has jurisdiction over wage bargaining disputes in the sector. Management argued, however, that because the negotiations had been conducted at company level, the CCMA was the appropriate forum, while union officials countered that the matter should properly have been dealt with through the AIBC. Retrenchment challenges Simultaneously, UASA announced that about 300 positions could become redundant within the next 12 months due to automation. While section 189 consultations were formally initiated, unions argued that LRM4801 Assessment 04 14 © UNISA 2025 management was merely “ticking boxes” rather than seriously engaging for alternatives. Some employees had already been told informally that their positions were redundant, creating the impression that decisions had been made before consultation began. Management proposed “adaptability to new technology” as a primary selection criterion for retrenchments, arguing that employees most willing and able to undergo digital reskilling should be retained. The unions strongly objected, claiming the criterion was vague, subjective, and open to manipulation. At the same time, voluntary severance packages were offered, but only to production workers, not to technicians. The unions accused management of unfairly targeting certain categories of workers for job cuts while protecting others. Further complicating matters, management frequently referred to discussions in the JLMTF as evidence of consultation, even though the unions insisted that this forum could not substitute for the formal section 189 process. Union leaders also contended that such large-scale job losses tied to automation should not be dealt with solely at company level. They argued that retrenchments of this scale and nature ought to be addressed through the AIBC, given their broader implications for the sector. Management rejected this view, maintaining that restructuring was an internal company issue requiring company-level solutions. Strike action and conflict Tensions over both wages and job security continued to mount. While unions resisted management’s retrenchment proposals, wage negotiations were already deadlocked. The combination of uncertainty about automation-related job losses and frustration with stalled wage talks created a highly charged atmosphere on the shop floor. In mid-August 2025, the majority union launched a protected strike after meeting the procedural requirements. Around 60% of production workers joined, while 40%, mainly skilled technicians, continued working. This uneven participation reflected deeper divisions in the workforce: production workers were more vulnerable to retrenchment, while technicians felt more secure in their positions but resented being targeted for compulsory reskilling. Picketing rules had not been finalised before the strike commenced. This led to incidents of intimidation of non-striking workers and minor property damage around the plant was reported. Management applied the “no work, no pay” principle and threatened disciplinary action against workers who engaged in misconduct. In some cases, managers encouraged non-strikers to persuade their colleagues to return, which only served to inflame tensions further and deepen mistrust. Adding to the strained atmosphere, shop stewards organised a series of lunchtime protests in solidarity with dismissed colleagues and to highlight dissatisfaction with retrenchment consultations. Although the protests were short and limited to break times, management viewed them as disruptive and issued written warnings to the shop stewards involved. The unions countered that these warnings amounted to victimisation of union representatives, undermining their rights to freedom of association and collective representation under the LRA. Settlement After three weeks of disrupted production, the dispute was referred back to the CCMA. This time, senior union officials and an experienced mediator participated, resulting in a settlement agreement: • An 8% across-the-board increase • A phased retraining and redeployment programme • The establishment of a Joint Reskilling Committee (JRC), specifically mandated to design, oversee, and monitor reskilling initiatives linked to automation LRM4801 Assessment 04 15 © UNISA 2025 The JRC differs from the earlier JLMTF in both scope and authority. Whereas the JLMTF had served as a broad consultation platform with limited influence on decision-making, the JRC was created as part of a legally binding settlement and granted a focused, enforceable mandate on skills development and redeployment. While the JRC provided a more credible platform for engagement on skills, management simultaneously announced a programme of compulsory reskilling workshops for technicians and production workers. Although framed as part of the company’s commitment to redeployment and digital literacy, resistance soon followed. A group of technicians argued that compulsory attendance fell outside their existing contracts and refused to participate. Management dismissed several of these employees, maintaining that refusal to attend amounted to disobedience of a lawful and reasonable instruction and therefore constituted misconduct. The unions challenged this stance, contending that such dismissals were both procedurally and substantively unfair. Post-strike relations While the strike formally ended and employees returned to work, mistrust lingers. Divisions between strikers and non-strikers, as well as between management and unions, remain evident. The HR Executive Committee has therefore requested a comprehensive review of: • UASA’s collective bargaining strategy • The legality of dismissals, retrenchments, and disciplinary measures taken • A forward-looking strike management plan • Measures to rebuild workplace relations and restore trust after conflict. AIBC: Collective Agreement () The following is an extract from the Automotive Industry Bargaining Council Main Collective Agreement: Parties: Automotive Industry Bargaining Council, on behalf of registered employers’ organisations and registered trade unions. Duration: 1 July 2024 – 30 June 2027 Scope: Applicable to all employers and employees in the automotive manufacturing sector, subject to exemptions granted by the Council. Wage increases: • Year 1 (2024/2025): 6% across the board • Year 2 (2025/2026): 5.5% across the board • Year 3 (2026/2027): 5% across the board Other provisions: • Job grading and evaluation system for all occupational categories • Standard retrenchment and redeployment procedures • Training and apprenticeship allowances • Establishment of a dispute resolution fund administered by the AIBC Enforceability: In terms of Sections 31 and 32 of the LRA, this agreement is binding on parties to the AIBC and extended to all employers and employees in the industry. LRM4801 Assessment 04 16 © UNISA 2025 Question 1: Collective Bargaining at UASA 1.1 Explain what is meant by the concepts “bargaining unit” and “bargaining level”, clearly differentiating between these concepts. Then, outline the composition of the employees covered by collective bargaining at UASA. (5) 1.2 In light of UASA’s membership in the Automotive Industry Bargaining Council (AIBC), critically assess whether UASA and its unions were correct in negotiating wages at company level rather than council level. In your answer, refer to the relevant provisions of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), the purpose of centralised collective bargaining, and the implications for the legality and enforceability of such wage agreements. (10) 1.3 The dispute was referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) rather than being dealt with by the Automotive Industry Bargaining Council. Critically evaluate whether the referral to the CCMA was appropriate. (5) [20] Question 2: Organisational rights of trade unions 2.1 The COSATU-affiliated trade union is the majority union representing employees. During the protected strike, around 60% of production workers participated, while 40% of employees, mainly skilled technicians, continued working. Critically discuss the organisational rights that a majority trade union enjoys in terms of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). In your answer, evaluate how these rights enhanced the bargaining power of the majority union during the strike. (5) 2.2 Suppose a smaller, minority union representing mainly skilled technicians, requests the same organisational rights as the majority union. Critically discuss the organisational rights that minority unions may claim in terms of the LRA. In your answer, evaluate how granting or denying such rights would affect collective bargaining, workplace stability, and union-management relations at UASA. (5) [20] Question 3: Retrenchment and consultations 3.1 Critically evaluate whether UASA complied with the legal requirements for a fair retrenchment process under section 189 of the LRA. In your answer, consider the following: • Employees were told their jobs were redundant while consultations were still in progress. • Management relied heavily on the JLMTF for consultation, rather than the formal section 189 process. • Voluntary severance packages were offered only to certain categories of workers. • “adaptability to new technology” was used as a proposed selection criterion. (12) 3.2 Unions argued that retrenchments linked to automation should have been dealt with at the AIBC, given their potential impact on the industry as a whole. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of this argument. (3) [15] LRM4801 Assessment 04 17 © UNISA 2025 Question 4: Discipline, misconduct, and strikes 4.1 Evaluate the fairness and legality of dismissing employees for refusing to attend compulsory reskilling workshops. In your answer, consider the balance between an employer’s prerogative to direct work and employees’ rights under their existing contracts. (5) 4.2 Assess whether the warnings issued to shop stewards for leading lunchtime protests amounted to victimisation of union representatives or constituted legitimate disciplinary action. Refer to the LRA provisions on freedom of association and protection of shop stewards. (5) 4.3 With reference to section 69 of the LRA, critically analyse the implications of UASA in allowing strike action to commence without finalising the picketing rules. In your answer, discuss the legal position regarding picketing, intimidation, and property damage during a strike. (10) 4.4 Evaluate UASA’s application of the “no work, no pay” principle during the strike. Was this consistent with the provisions of the LRA? (5) [25] Question 5: Employee involvement and participation and communication 5.1 The strike at UASA revealed deep mistrust between management and employees, particularly around issues of automation, retrenchments, and compulsory reskilling. Although the JRC was created in the CCMA-brokered settlement, management has acknowledged that additional strategies are needed to rebuild trust and strengthen labour-management relations. Suggest three forms of employee involvement and/or participation that would be most suitable to rebuild employment relations at UASA in the aftermath of the strike. In your answer you should: • Clearly explain what each for of involvement/participation entails; • Provide reasons why each would be appropriate in UASA’s context of automation and restructuring; and • Critically discuss how each form could contribute to more constructive labour-management relations in the future. (12) 5.2 The JLMTF at UASA was criticised by the COSATU-affiliated trade union as being “largely symbolic” and more of a communication tool than a genuine decision-making forum. Miscommunication during retrenchment consultations and the strike also deepened mistrust between management and employees. Critically evaluate the role of effective communication in managing employment relations during UASA’s automation and retrenchment process. In your answer, suggest two communication practices that management could adopt to improve trust and minimise conflict. (8)