LRM2601 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 6 November 2024
3 views 0 purchase
Course
Labour Relations Management: Macro (LRM2601)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
South African Employment Relations
LRM2601 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 6 November 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.
Read the case study and then answer the questions that follow. A TOUGH SITUATION AT GOLDEN WHEELS TRANSPORT SERVICES Sipho is a young, ambitious man pursuing a ...
LRM2601 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 6 November 2024 Course Labour Relations Management: Macro (LRM2601)
LRM2601 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 6 November 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations.. Ensure your success with us...
LRM3702 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2024 Questions and Answers for THREE DIFFERENT ATTEMPS
All for this textbook (8)
Written for
University of South Africa (Unisa)
Labour Relations Management: Macro (LRM2601)
All documents for this subject (7)
Seller
Follow
unisaassignmentsolutions
Reviews received
Content preview
, LRM2601
Assignment 6
(COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester
2 2024 - DUE 6
November 2024
QUESTION 1
1.1 Example of Perceived Distributive Injustice: The specific example of distributive injustice
in the case is that employees’ overtime earnings, which constitute a significant part of their
income, have been cut, while senior managers, including Mr. Mkhize, continue to receive annual
bonuses despite the company’s financial challenges.
Explanation using the Equity Criterion: The equity criterion evaluates fairness based on the
proportional relationship between individuals' contributions and their rewards. Employees feel
this decision is unfair because they work extended hours and rely on overtime to make ends
meet, yet they are denied this essential income while senior managers receive bonuses. This
discrepancy in rewards undermines the perceived fairness of the distribution of income within
, the company, as those most dependent on overtime earnings are penalized, whereas higher-
ranking staff continue to receive additional benefits.
1.2 Example of Perceived Procedural Injustice: An example of procedural injustice is when
Mr. Mkhize held a meeting to explain the reduction of overtime but did not allow employees to
ask questions, make suggestions, or discuss alternative cost-saving options. Additionally, when
Sipho proposed exploring other measures to reduce costs without affecting overtime, Mr. Mkhize
dismissed his suggestion outright.
Explanation using Procedural Justice Criteria:
Representativeness: This criterion requires that all stakeholders impacted by a decision
should have their views considered in the decision-making process. Mr. Mkhize did not
allow employees to voice their opinions or propose alternatives during the meeting, thus
failing to represent their interests in the decision-making process. This lack of
representation led employees to perceive the process as dismissive and unfair.
Bias Suppression: Bias suppression requires that decision-makers avoid favoritism and
personal biases. In this case, Mr. Mkhize showed favoritism towards senior management
by disregarding the employees’ need for overtime income while still preserving bonuses
for higher-level managers. His dismissive response to employees’ suggestions and
concerns further suggests that his approach was biased in favor of management,
contributing to employees’ perception of an unfair and one-sided process.
1.3 Explanation of Perceived Unfairness and Impact on Trust:
Mr. Mkhize’s actions were perceived as unfair because he not only cut essential income for
employees but also dismissed their concerns without considering their input or exploring
alternatives. His approach contradicted his stated intent to protect their best interests, as
employees observed that he continued to protect benefits for senior management. This perceived
inconsistency between Mr. Mkhize’s words and actions eroded employees' trust in management,
as they felt that their well-being was secondary to the interests of those in higher positions.
Consequently, this lack of trust has likely contributed to the growing support for union
representation as employees seek a fairer balance of power and accountability in their workplace.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller unisaassignmentsolutions. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.92. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
