MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587898133 · doi:10.1093/indlaw/dww040

Establishing the Right to Bargain Collectively in Australia and the UK: Are Majority Support Determinations under Australia’s Fair Work Act a More Effective Form of Union Recognition?

2016· article· en· W2587898133 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Forsyth, John Howe, Peter Gahan, Ingrid Landau

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Law Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective bargainingObligationBargaining powerLabour lawStatutory lawLegislatureLaw and economicsWork (physics)Trade unionBusinessLawPolitical scienceEconomicsLabour economicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The optimal legal and institutional framework for facilitating workers’ access to collective bargaining is a central issue for labour law. Since 2009, Australian labour law has adopted a novel approach to the issue of whether workers should have the right—and employers, the obligation—to engage in collective bargaining. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) seeks to promote collective bargaining in good faith at the enterprise level, by empowering the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to facilitate good faith bargaining and the making of enterprise agreements. One of the key mechanisms available to the FWC is the power to make a majority support determination (MSD), in situations where an employer refuses to bargain and a majority of the relevant employees want to bargain collectively. The making of an MSD then triggers a number of other obligations (including the good faith bargaining requirements) and opens the way to other forms of FWC involvement in the bargaining process. An MSD has the effect of compelling an employer to bargain collectively where it has previously refused to do so. The MSD process is therefore akin to the statutory union recognition procedure operating in the UK and the long-standing union recognition processes that apply under Canadian and US labour laws. However, the Australian iteration of these legislative attempts to address the problem of employer resistance to bargaining is distinctive because it gives the FWC considerable flexibility in the method used to determine majority support for bargaining. For example, the FW Act allows for—but does not require in all cases—a ballot of employees to be conducted in order to determine the level of support for collective negotiations. Other means of establishing employee support, such as petitions, are also permitted. This potentially avoids some of the problems that have affected ballot-based union recognition systems. This article focuses on the operation of the MSD mechanism over the period 1 July 2009–30 June 2015. The article provides some background to the development of the MSD provisions in the FW Act by the former Labor Government. This is followed by an examination of the MSD provisions in the overall context of the FW Act bargaining regime, and their operation in practice, including some comparisons with the main elements of the UK statutory union recognition procedure. The article concludes with some observations about the effectiveness of MSDs in comparison with the statutory recognition procedure in the UK.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Law JournalSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207