I think there is nothing wrong in addressing you as Prof. Priyanka as your analysis heavily relies on the text book article “Regulating Employment Relations: The Analytical Framework”.
No offence meant really. I was just kidding. I guess who have started your preparations for ER Quiz I meticulously. But a bit more seriously! All the best for your performance in quiz madam!
I thought only professors are allowed to think theoretically and almost vaguely given an interesting situation like this for discussion. Going by the recent posts on this forum, it appears to me that what b-school education can do to creativity and objectivity to hundreds of young minds. The post by Priyabrata is an apt example for this as he has succeeded in diverting our attention to severance compensation related laws and regulations. Let's all thank Lawyer Priyabrata for opening our eyes.
Yet, it is my sincere duty, which also means punishment to self, to fight the battle with sword when the opponent is armed with the sword. Hence, I would try to analyze your postings using concepts and theories to reply your analysis by assuming the role of a lawyer temporarily.
Point No 1. Your reading and understanding of Employment Contract is fundamentally wrong. What makes you to assume that because Hair’s employment contract specified that he would retire in 2008, ICC can’t terminate his services during the employment period?
Point No 2. Even if you assume that legal action can be taken against ICC, what makes you to assume or rather predict or even pass a judgment that the case is strongly in favour of Darrel Hair?
Point No. 3. This is something which may appear to be irrelevant to you. But many executives and organizations go through this dilemma in the globalized world. Even if Hair decides to sue ICC, should he go to court in Australia as he is originally from there, or U.K. since he has migrated there, or Dubai where ICC headquarters is? You think this question is silly, right?
Point No. 4. The power of unions. How is this relevant for our discussion? Is it relevant because you assume that Darrel Hair would form the union of umpires to protest against ICC and thereby have better bargaining power to negotiate a deal? But going by his mail, it appears to me that as such he enjoys a significant bargaining power, without any support of union, so that he could demand, if not command, such a deal from ICC for his exit.
Point No. 5. The substitutability of capital or feasibility of outsourcing. Again, how would you position this in the context of Darrel Hair’s story madam? BTW, are you aware that Darrel Hair was an outsourced employee of ICC meaning “independent contractor” and not the employee of ICC? Do you think this matters at all when negotiating a deal like this?
Point No. 6. “If the employee is highly qualified and experienced such that it is not feasible for the organisation to replace him then this power vests with the employee.” This point is also raised by Sushma in her posting. So, you mean to say that Darrel Hair was not so qualified and experienced so that ICC could contemplate of firing him easily?
Point No. 7. “Government Support to Labour”. So expect the Govt. of Australia to Darrel Hair or the Govt. of U.K. or the Govt. of UAE or the Govt. of Pakistan? Which government madam as there are lot of governments involved in this story directly or indirectly? First of all, why should government be interested in safeguarding the interest of Mr. Hair? Your example of “Jet Airways” case is misplaced and may not be appropriate for our discussion. We would definitely take up the case of Jet Airways later in the class.
Last but not the least, thanks for your “Four Point Something” advice at the end of your posting which would open the eyes many illiterates like me. But eagerly looking forward to your input on the above questions. Sorry, If I had sounded too much of a lawyer during the “Seven Point Something”.
Thanks.
With Regards,
Ganesh
P.S: I hope Priyanka's posting helped us to think critically about various issues and chalk out a different path for subsequent postings by others. Hope, she would take my comments and questions in the right spirit. All in the game!
1 comment:
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your invaluable feedback. I am sure this dialectic forum will help greatly in improving my knowledge of the subject which is quite bad as of now.
Firstly, I apologise for my misunderstanding. I thought that we were supposed to give our observations on the organisation and employee bargaining power in general and not specific to the case. Quite obviously, all the points that I made except employment contract were not applicable for the case. I accept my mistake and would try not to repeat it.
Secondly, your feedback on Employment contract has raised certain questions in my mind. What I think of employment contract is that a company can terminate an employee's services during his employment term only if the contract specifies certain conditions for the same. My question is even if such conditions are not specified in the contract, can an employer still fire the employee?
Thirdly, I am, once again, sorry for passing the judgement that case would be in favour of Darrell Hair. It was quite immature of me to pass the judgement.
Post a Comment