How far do the 2008/2009 changes in the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievances help managers and employees to ensure fair and consistent standards at work? Discuss.

Authors Avatar by alijay (student)

HRM- 20015 RE-ASSESSMENT MANAGING HUMAN RESOURCES

How far do the 2008/2009 changes in the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievances help managers and employees to ensure fair and consistent standards at work? Discuss with reference to the purpose of discipline in employment, nature and function of disciplinary procedures, the available research-based evidence and the changes made in the 2008/2009 to the ACAS code.

Over the years, there have been many changes to the ACAS Codes of Practice on discipline and grievances procedures at the work place to ensure fair and consistent standards at work.  The changes are used to improve the managerial privilege at the workplace.  This essay will discuss on how the changes helped managers and employees to ensure fair and consistent standards at work.

Basically, the term discipline is mostly operated as a tool to control and shape employees’ behaviour (Clancy and Seifert, 2000). This ACAS code of Practice is designed to help employers, employees and their representatives deal with disciplinary and grievances situations in the workplace (ACAS 2009, Para 1). Fairness and transparency are promoted by developing and using rules and procedures for handling disciplinary and grievances procedures (ACAS 2009, para 2).  Disciplinary actions are made by employers when misconducts arise or employees’ poorly performing at work, for example of misconduct or poor performance; punctuality or productivity at work.  If employees tend to continuously arrive late to work or productivity is low then disciplinary actions will take place for improvement.

In the matter of disciplinary and grievances procedures, the procedures entails the establishment of disciplinary rules and regulations for good behaviour and performance, then when rules of discipline are broken, sanctions or punishments are established which are the consequences for not obeying the rules, then breaches have to be identified and dealt with by applying sanctions or disciplinary actions where appropriate.

Edwards (2000: 326-7) cites Gouldner’s (1954) identification of three types of bureaucratic rule as means of understanding disciplinary rules in practice ‘Mock’ bureaucracy rules ignored by all, for instance; no-smoking. ‘Representative’ bureaucracy; exemplified by safety rules which were enforced and obeyed. ‘Punishment-centred’ bureaucracy rules enforced by one party over another, e.g. over breach and absenteeism, managers try to enforce rules rigidly, workers resent rules.

Join now!

Most managers think that punishments will result in improvement of behaviour (Rollinson et al, 1997) to employees. Formal procedures legitimize managerial prerogative hence strengthening it. In addition, there are managers who still prefer informal dealings especially in the case of absenteeism.

Formally stating maximum days of absences tolerable may encourage employees to perform at a minimum level of standard, hence formal procedures does not always necessarily yield the desired behaviour (Dunn and Wilkinson, 2002). These formal procedures act as a ‘vehicle to voice out concerns’ and promote fairness when handling conflicts (Kersley et al, 2011).

 Discipline ...

This is a preview of the whole essay