In this competitive world, any entities would not mind stepping on the employees to go that extra mile.

What they don t see is the extortion they put upon the employees. Those employees have nowhere to turn to and all they do is keep quiet and get molested literally . To stop those kind of activities; different industrial work relations are formed. WorkChoice 2005 was one of them. But this legislation did not give enough right to the people because of which the Government was thrown and in came the Australian labor Party which brought along their Fair Work Act . It acted like an independent, industrial umpire that gave rights to the employees and flexibility to the employers. This essay will contrast FWA 2009from WorkChoice 2005 and explain the reason why Fair Work Australia (FWA) was sewed into the Industrial Relations while the WorkChoice 2005 was dismantled at the same time. It discusses how Fair Work Australia evolved and what direction it is taking in the future. The Fair Work Australia (FWA) was designed in such a way that the needs of employees, employers and the unions were balanced. The result FWA sought was; a productive and competitive workplace without taking away the basic workplace conditions and rights.Fair Work officially started on 1 July 2009 after the Fair Work Bill 2008 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 25 November 2008 by the then Deputy Prime Minister & Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard and passed on 20th of March. The Howard government s Work Choices, as contained in Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, was dismantled because it had pushed the boundaries of Industrial Relations reform to unacceptable limits for the trade Unions and for many Australian Voters as seen from the 2007 election.Australia s Workplace relations started to change when Australian Labor Party (ALP) came into power and Rudd Government started amending all the existing tribunals, bodies and agencies created by the Howard government (Gollan 2009).Gillard s Fair Work bill 2008 stepped on the Howard s Work Choices 2005 with an aim to set a framework for Workplace Relations for the upcoming decades and make FWA a one-stop-shop for information advice and assistance in settling grievances and disputes, ensuring compliance with industrial relations obligations, and overseeing the forward with fairness industrial relations system (Australian Labour Party 2007, pp. 17-18). Application of the Fair Work Act applies to Commonwealth workplace which covers all the constitutional corporations, commonwealth and its authorities, employers in the Australian territories and employers of maritime including waterside workers and the flight crew (Gollan 2009). Major objective that Fair Work Australia underpins is to: provide balanced workplace relations laws that are fair to employees and flexible to the employers; ensure a fail-safe safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable wages and conditions which can never be undermined;assist in balancing the workfamily responsibilities; enable fairness and representation at work, prevention of discrimination, freedom of association, right to be represented and protecting against unfair treatment; and achieving productivity and fairness by emphasising enterprise -level collective bargaining underpinned by good faith bargaining obligations (Gollan 2009). To ensure its objectives are met, Fair Work comprises of the national tribunal, fair Work Australia, & the office of the Fair Work Ombudsman. In essence, FWA will act as a new governing body that enforces legislaton and i investigates any breaches of the legislation & awards to prosecute them accordingly. According to FWA, Employers must legally bargain with their employees or the relevant union for a collective enterprise agreement if the majority of the employees support such action. FWA holds every right to determine the content of the agreement if the employer declines to bargain in good faith and

declines to recognise employees or their respective voice mechanisms (unions). FWA assumes that employers will participate in an industry-wide bargaining and accept the possible increments of wages and entitlements above legislated minimum standards; should FWA conclude that the employees are low paid. As long as an employee is concerned for the involvement of the union, FWA requires employer to bear with the increased rights of the unions to enter workplaces to discuss & consult with the employee and be involved in the bargaining for enterprise agreements. Small businesses, which were on the exemption lists on the WorkChoice 2005, are also included in a specialist information and assistance unit within the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman (as part of FWA). FWA requires a satisfaction on a specific agreement: Greenfield agreement; that the relevant union is able to represent the industrial interests of the majority (if not necessarily all) of the employees who are covered by the agreement.The implication of the recent changes in the Australian Industrial relations has offered whole new options to challenge workplaces practices, one of which is discrimination on the basis of age. In a broad range of non -discrimination ground; prospective employees are protected from any adverse action as long as they exercise the workplace right and they fall within one of the protected categories (Macdermott 2011). One of the major considerations in the Fair Work Australia is the amendments it made to the federal unfair dismissal laws exposing the unfair dismissal rights to more people. This includes the Small Business FairDismissal Code , which requires employers to give a warning based on the employee s performance or the incapacity to work, and an opportunity given to the employees to improve their ability to meet the required standards. Even though the procedures and codes of practice provides sufficient protection for employees and business, the negotiation will still wind up at the courts and FWA as par to how they interpret the code. The classic reason Operational reason will not be an operational defence for employer against a claim of unfair dismissal. FWA defines unfair dismissal as harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal which is not the case of genuine redundancy (Fair Work Australia 2010).On the contrary, FWA stretches towards the right of the employers where an employee can be made redundant if the employer is a small business operator and the employer follows the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code when an employee is let go . However, if the employer fails to prove that he had followed the code then the FWA can order the employer to reinstate the employee or pay compensation up to 26 week s pay (Macdermott 2011). By contrast, the precedent to FWA: WorkChoice Laws only covered unfair dismissal laws to the businesses that had more than 100 employees which leaded to more unfair treatment of employees as indicated by the decline of unfair dismissal application to the Industrial Relation Commission (IRC) of NSW and the Australian Industrial Relation Commission (AIRC 2007) (Gollan 2009). FWA, also known as the new industrial umpire, steps in to settle any lost-cause arguments where every efforts have been made and the related industrial action is doing more harm than good to both parties. Moreover, the umpire (FWA) has every right to intervene if serious and persistent breaches are made against the good faith bargaining as seen in the likes of cases of Telstra and Cochlear. (Budd Gomez &Meltz 2004).believes that a collective bargaining would be possible for the groups of workers like cleaners, childcare workers, hospital workers and community workers to settle down with in many ways that was not previously possible. Awards is another field where, in the WorkChoice 2005, a reduction was made in the allowable matters permitted in awards which would not protect the right of workers to bargain collectively (Macdermott 2011).In contrast, FWA puts forward awards as a central component of the safety net of pay and the conditions of the employment.Safety net, aforementioned, comprises two separate parts in which legislated national employment standard is

the first one which is made unmodifiable, unreplaceable and not removable. The second one is the Minimum employment standard that could be fixed into the individual awards (Australian Labour party 2007a, pp.7-11). Supported by the theory of pluralism, FWA acknowledges the fact that the employees & the employers are always in a conflict and people must negotiate to save the interest of both the parties. The pluralism theory suggests that the organization is a result of powerful and divergent sub-groups (Management and Trade Unions), each legitimately loyal to their customary sets of objectives and leaders. The theory believes that the roles of the management leans more towards persuasion and co-ordination rather than towards enforcing and controlling. Since, Trade Unions act as a legitimate representative of the workers; the theory outlines that the conflict can be dealt by collective bargaining which is not necessarily a bad thing and if managed could channel the conflict towards a positive change and evolution (Budd Gomez &Meltz 2004). FWA argues that for a conflict to be regulated, even if it is beyond reasonable reasoning, there are still some implications for the wider society. An example is Australia Workplace Agreements (AWA); an individual written agreement on the employee s terms and conditions of the employment with an employer that prevailed over all states of federal award (Sloan 2011). Collective bargaining is at the heart of Labor's workplace relations system and FWA focus on collective bargaining. FWA provides a number of forms of collective agreement also referred as enterprise agreements which meant no distinction between union and non-union agreements; whereas the precedent to FWA: Work Choice had its foundation over the individual-level bargaining although collective agreements were also legally allowed (Chenyi 2010). Pluralists, hence FWA, champion over Work Choices 2005 on grievance procedures, employee voice mechanism i.e. labour unions, collective bargaining and employee employer partnerships (Befort& Budd 2009). Under the WorkChoice legislation, a feeble power was awarded to the trade unions to represent employees during the negotiation periods. Moreov er, WorkChoice 2005 restricted the union s right of entry into the workplaces and the employee s right to strike. The effect of the individual agreements which were negotiated one-on-one resulted in a considerable decrement in the collective bargaining; fu rther deteriorating the chances of the possible involvement of the unions (Australian Government 2009).Such were the reasons that compelled for the admittance of a new industrial relation (FWA) that would widen the chances of the union s right of entry in the workplaces and take part in the negotiation process with the help of the collective bargaining. Both employees and employers are equally protected under the new collective agreement of FWA should there be an involvement of any negotiation or bargains. It is clearly stated in the fact that the main objective of the act is to provide workplace relations law that is fair to all working Australians, is flexible for businesses, promotes productivity and economic growth for the Australia s future economic prosperity and achieving productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining. With all these limitations, employers face a challenge to turn the Fairness act from a framework of compliance into an opportunity for performance by maintaining ambiguity at the workplace. Making good use of the immense flexibility and opportunities offered by the FWA depends upon the management s ability to manage and go beyond the compliance of the aspects of Labor s legislative reform(Sappy et. al. 2009) . On the other hand, such flexibility also brings greater discretion for managers resulting in the exposure of bad management and increased risk for firms. In fact the centralised industrial relations system has exposed many workplaces based on the inadequacy of structures and culture in driving a

productive workplace reform. While all businesses are feeling suffocated from a number of issues in the new FWA Act, everybody is failing to notice the possibility of the real value of the proposed Fair Work legislation that has an ability to provide stability and a degree of predictability in industrial relations. So, there is an immense need for workplace arrangements that can reinforce behaviours of the employer to take into account the needs & aims of the employee while adding value to the company. Such can be accustomed if guiding principles are established that can lead to reform rather than focusing on a strict legislative agenda of cost minimisation with little long term achievement or a productivity culture. As Professor Ron McCallum righteously expressed a hope where a 20 years of siege warfare, winner-take-all, narcissistic politics is over and all get along with the true role of labour relations law, which provides a bedrock of rules to allow employees to work fairly for a fair day s pay and for employees to receive their labour and remunerate them with adequacy, fairness and dignity (McCallum 2008). If FWA fails to deliver the balance and other outcomes as promised, improving the social inclusion through the participation of labour force will be, as always, an elusive goal (Smith 2010). Only way to salvation is a pioneer approach to the labour, social and environmental justice that has always eluded us somehow. As stated by Stewart (2009), it is implausible as to why the remnants of the Workplace Relations Act should operate longer than a transitional period given that the prime objectives of the Fair Work Legislation is to create a new, simpler and more practical system of regulation. Since the Act states that each employee can appoint their own bargaining representative, who may not necessarily be a union, a complex negotiations involving multiple agents and unions can be foreseen which would do no less than further deter any chances of reaching to an enterprise agreements (Sappy et. al. 2009) . The fact that the Fair Work Act deems that the union is the bargaining representative of an employee, if one is a member of the union, negotiations can be further complicated unless a contrary is advised. Fair Work Act has increased the likelihood of good faith bargaining orders as the onus of the representation under the Fair Work Act has increased the fluidity of the union influence on the negotiations (Meadows 2007). As the Fair Work Act does not stipulate the minority of employees in a workplace to vote for an enterprise agreement to be successful any number of , employees can vote and if 50 percent plus one of those voted in favour of the agreement, it would be approved. Such situation will lure more union presence and more involvement for no great reasons due to their experience in mobilising and organising union members(Sappy et. al. 2009) . In summary, although Fair Work Act has promoted enterprise agreement bargaining believing it will result in higher efficiency gains but in practice, significant challenges arises in making enterprise agreement making it less plausible for further achievement in increasing workplace productivity. Even though the Fair Work Act entails a small gesture towards the light at the end of the tunnel, it offers a limited amount of hope that a least advantaged worker would have a living wage and some dignity at work. At last we can summarise that the Fair Work Act 2009 is indeed a significant development in the history of the Australian Industrial Relations. The amendments made to the WorkChoice 2005 are more likely to give rise to a greater fairness at the workplace level thanks to the increased focus given to the collective bargaining. However, whether the act will result in being the source of encouragement for enterprise bargaining that would provide a greater platform for achieving larger productivity level and fairness is to be seen.

References
th Australian Government 2009, Australia s Fair Work System viewed at 12 Aug 2011, http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRelations/NewWorkplaceRelations/Pages/FactSheets.aspx

Australian Labor Party (ALP). 2007. Forward with fairness: Labor s plan for fairer and more productive Australian workplaces, April. Befort, SF & Budd, JW 2009, In visible Hands , Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law and Public Policy into Focus, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chenyi, L 2010, An Essay on the Contract between Fair Work Australia Legislation and Workchoice, OtherPapers, viewed at 11th August, http://otherpapers.com/Business/Essay-On-Contract-BetweenFair/77.html Budd, JW, Gomez, R & Meltz, NM 2004,why a balance is best: The pluralist industrial relations paradigm of balancing competing interests, Industrial Relations Research Association, Volume: Research made for Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Fair Work Act 2009 Gollan, PJ 2009, Australian industrial relations reform in perspective: Beyond Work Choices and future prospects under the Fair Work Act 2009 , Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol.47, Issue 3, EBSCOhost, DOI: 10.1177/1038411109106858. Macdermott, T 2011, Challenging age discrimination in Australian Workplaces: From antidiscrimination legislation to Industrial Regulation , University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 34, Issue 1 (EBSCOhost) McCallum, R. 2008. FairWork Act to bring stability after 20 years of constant IR change.WorkplaceExpress, 24 November. Meadows, P 2007, a review of the economic impact of employment relations services delivered by ACAS . London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research, November. Sappey, R, Burgess, J, Lyons, M &Buultjens, J 2009, Industrial relations inAustralia: Work and workplaces , 2nd edn, Pearson Education Australia, FrenchsForest. Sloan, J 2011, Evaluating the Fair Work Act , Policy, Vol.26, Issue: 4 (EBSCOhost) Smith, HM 2010, Labour Force Participation, Social Inclusion and the Fair Work Act: Current and Carbon-Constrained Contexts , Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, Issue 2 (ebscohost)