Employee Relations November 2005 - CIPD

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 

Professional Development Scheme 

Generalist Personnel and Development 

Employee Relations 

November 2005 

3 November 2005 13:50-16:00 hrs 

Time allowed - Two hours and ten minutes (including ten minutes’ 

reading time). 

Answer Section A and seven of the ten questions in Section B. 

Please write clearly and legibly. 

Questions may be answered in any order. 

Equal marks are allocated to each section of the paper. 

Within Section B equal marks are allocated to each question. 

If a question includes reference to ‘your organisation’, this may be 

interpreted as covering any organisation with which you are 

familiar. 

The case study is not based on an actual company. Any 

similarities to known organisations are accidental. 

You will fail the examination if: 

• you fail to answer all eight questions in Section B and/or 

• you achieve less than 40 per cent in any section. 

Registered charity no: 1079797 

5709

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 


SECTION A - Case Study 

Note: It is permissible to make assumptions by adding to the case study 

details given below provided the essence of the case study is neither changed 

nor undermined in any way by what is added. 

You are the Personnel Officer at Tinpot Enterprises, a retail outlet which has grown in 

sales and market share. It employs ten people in managerial grades, 50 in 

administrative and technical grades, 25 in secretarial/clerical grades and 250 shop 

assistants in ten departments. 

It is viewed as a good company for which to work. There is a waiting list for jobs with 

the company. The management style is paternal and Tinpot Enterprises prides itself 

in that it looks after its workforce from ‘the womb to the tomb’. It has always operated 

progressive personnel policies, dealt with employee complaints fairly and speedily 

and paid superior pay and fringe benefits relative to its competitors and other 

companies in its locality. It invests a significant amount of time in informing, and 

consulting with, the workforce. 

It has always been a non-union company believing it can look after the interests of its 

employees better than any trade union. Although there was some interest amongst 

employees in joining a trade union a few years ago, this came to nothing. However, 

the company knows that a trade union(s) would see gaining recognition from it as a 

great coup. Your Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is aware that a statutory procedure 

whereby trade unions can gain recognition from employers now exists. However, the 

CEO is adamant that the company should remain non-union and that no demands for 

representation by union(s) should arise from the employees. 

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) knows you have a knowledge and 

understanding of the current published research on union recognition and of 

the experiences of many other organisations in dealing with union recognition 

claims. You have been asked by the CEO to: 

1. Produce a strategy to enable the company to continue to remain nonunionised. 

2. Provide, drawing on appropriate research, a justification for your 

specific employee relations proposals. 

3. Explain how you will ensure your plan is capable of implementation. 

You are advised to spend 50% of your time on (1) a further 25% on (2) and the 

remaining 25% on (3). 

5709



SECTION B 

Answer SEVEN of the ten questions in this section. To communicate your 

answer more clearly, you may use whatever methods you wish, for example 

diagrams, flow charts, so long as you provide an explanation of each. 

1. Your line manager has heard that the policies of the government can 

influence the behaviour of the players in employee relations. He asks you to 

explain the main roles of the UK Government in employee relations. 

Outline, and justify, your reply. 

2. Your Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is a member of the Employee Relations 

Committee of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). He has just been 

nominated to be a member of the Union of Industrial and Employers’ 

Confederation of Europe (UNICE) Negotiating Committee to attempt to 

negotiate a Framework Agreement on minimum standards of training 

provision for all employees in the European Union. He is unsure what all 

this will involve him in. The CEO turns to you for help and guidance. What 

would you tell him? 

3. You overhear some of your managerial colleagues being critical of the 

Personnel Department. They are saying we do not really need a Personnel 

Department to manage disciplinary matters. It is best outsourced to 

lawyers. Drawing on published research and wider organisational practice, 

how would you counter their views? 

4. Your CEO believes organisations cannot gain added value from joining an 

employers’ association. You have been called by her to a meeting to 

discuss this issue. Your views are different to the CEO but you know she is 

open to persuasion. Formulate, with evidence, the case you would put to 

her. 

5. Your organisation’s senior management has decided that competitive 

advantage will lie in achieving continuous improvement in the quality of 

product/service provided. There is, however, concern amongst senior 

managers as to the employee relations implications of this strategy. 

Drawing on appropriate evidence, what advice would you give to the senior 

managers? 

6. You are to present a paper to a meeting of non HR/personnel management 

colleagues on the importance of management style in determining an 

employee relations strategy. Drawing on contemporary research, outline 

the content of your reply. 

PLEASE TURN OVER 

5709



7. You have been asked to make a presentation to line managers on why it is 

important for them to be competent in listening skills if they are to manage 

employee grievances effectively. Outline, with full reasons, what you would 

say in your talk. 

8. Your organisation needs to reduce its payroll numbers over the coming 

year. The CEO hopes to achieve this without any bad publicity or serious 

opposition from the workforce. You have been asked to produce a policy 

paper for the CEO outlining how these objectives might be achieved. 

Drawing on contemporary research, outline what you would say in your 

paper. 

9. You have been invited to talk to the local CIPD Branch on the benefits of 

using mediation to resolve differences between individual employees and 

their employer. Outline your talk, drawing on research evidence. 

10. Good practice in employee relations is often said to give organisations 

advantages over those who do not operate good employee relations 

practices. Your junior personnel staff ask you to explain why this is the 

case. Explain, making reference to appropriate evidence, the reply you 

would give. 

END OF EXAMINATION 

5709

PDS – Employee Relations 

EXAMINER'S REPORT 


Introduction 

This was a two-part, eleven question examination paper. Section A contained one 

question, a case study, which invited candidates to: 

1 produce a strategy to enable the company to remain non-unionised 

2 provide, drawing on contemporary research, a justification for the specific employee 

relations proposals in that strategy 

3 explain the problems anticipated/expected in implementing the proposed strategy 

and how these problems might be overcome. 

Section B contained ten questions covering employee relations institutions, procedures, 

processes, the external environment in which employee relations activities are managed, 

and the skills required to be an effective employee relations manager. Candidates were 

invited to answer seven out of the ten questions. Seven candidates failed to comply with 

this instruction. One candidate answered only six questions, while six candidates 

answered fewer than four questions. All these candidates failed the examination. Two 

candidates answered no questions at all – they simply submitted a blank answer 

booklet. 

Two hundred and eighty-two scripts were received from fifty-four centres. These were 

assessed by the Chief Examiner and three assistant examiners. The former also 

moderated the scripts. In assessing candidates’ performance, the examiners took into 

account: 

• the knowledge and understanding the candidate demonstrated of the issues raised 

by the question 

• the candidate’s ability to apply , describe and analyse management techniques 

• the candidate’s application of core general management skills, (interviewing, written 

communications, and so on) to address the employee relations polices/issues raised 

in the question 

• the extent to which the candidate’s answer reflected a practical managerial 

approach, business understanding, added value, result achievement and customer 

focus 

• the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of employee relations policy and 

practice in organisations other than that in which they are employed 

• the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of contemporary research published in 

journals (academic and trade press) and CIPD publications.




When there was doubt as to whether a candidate should be granted a Pass or Fail grade 

against the above criteria, the examiners applied the following professional judgement 

test: 

’The CIPD Graduate membership qualification is an indication to employers that the 

holder of such a qualification can be reasonably expected to be aware and informed of 

the prevailing trends, contemporary research, organisational practice, skills and 

techniques in employee relations and human resource management, and to display an 

acceptable level of proficiency in terms of operational skills that might be expected of a 

chartered member of the CIPD.’ 

The awards 

The distribution of grades was as follows: 


Grade Number Percentage of 

total (to 1 

decimal point) 

Distinction 1 0.4 

Merit 18 6.4 

Pass 150 53.2 

Marginal Fail 21 7.4 

Fail 92 32.6 

Total 282 100 

The overall pass rate was 60% (169 candidates). The highest mark awarded to any 

candidate was 72% and the lowest was 0%. Sixty per cent (93 candidates) of the 

candidates who passed the examination received a mark of between 50–52% inclusive. 

The number of candidates receiving a Distinction and/or Merit remains relatively few. 

The above figures are simple calculations based on the number of candidates sitting the 

Employee Relations paper at the November 2005 diet whether for the first or subsequent 

time(s). They are for interest only. They are not to be confused with the statistics 

produced by CIPD headquarters which are based upon the performance of candidates 

sitting the examination for the first time. It is from these figures that the national average 

pass rate is calculated.




The number of answers to each question and the pass rate was as follows: 

Section Question Number of 

answers 

Number of candidates 

who passed 

Percentage 

pass rate (%) 

A Case study 282 170 60 

B 1 131 62 47 

2 139 90 65 

3 233 141 61 

4 182 124 68 

5 140 72 51 

6 137 68 50 

7 261 105 40 

8 242 165 68 

9 214 116 54 

10 254 123 48 

The most popular questions answered in Section B were Questions 3 (discipline), 7 

(listening skills), 8 (redundancy), 9 (mediation) and 10 (good practice). The least popular 

questions were 1 (Government policy and employee relations), 5 (continuous 

improvement) and 6 (management style). 

Reasons for not meeting the Standard 

The main reasons why candidates did not reach the required Standard were as follows: 

• Failure to answer seven questions in Section B (seven candidates). 

• Achieving a mark of less than 40% in the case study question (Section A). 

• Achieving a mark of less than 40% in Section B. 

• Achieving a mark of less than 40% in both Sections A and B. 

• Presenting answers in note form with no explanation of the significance of the points 

listed. Listing is unacceptable – an explanation/analysis must be provided. 

• Failure, when specifically asked to do so by the question, to provide contemporary 

research and/or organisational practice to support the arguments being presented 

(for example in Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6). 

• Serious factual errors – in answering the case study question, many candidates were 

of the view that, under the Information and Consultation Directive, employers must 

set up such machinery. This is not the case. Management must do so only if the 

employees request the setting-up of information and consultation machinery. In 

answering Question 9 (the use of mediation), many candidates gave an incorrect




definition of mediation, claiming that the role of the mediator was simply to keep the 

two sides talking. This is conciliation. The mediator makes recommendations to the 

parties as to how their differences might be resolved. Many candidates made these 

factual errors. 

• Candidates did not address the key issues of the question. This was particularly the 

case with Question 3 (discipline), Question 7 (listening skills) and Question 10 (good 

practice). In Question 3, many candidates wrote all they knew about discipline 

management and did not concentrate, as required by the question, on the dangers of 

‘outsourcing’ discipline handling to lawyers. In response to Q uestion 7, many 

candidates wrote about handling employee grievances in general rather than 

concentrating, as required by the question, on listening skills as an informationgathering 

technique on the basis of which management reaches a number of 

decisions. For example, is the grievance genuine or is it ill-founded? If it is genuine, 

management then establishes objectives as to how the grievance might be resolved. 

If candidates’ performance is to improve in terms of them not just scraping a Pass, then 

they must do the following: 

• Read the question carefully and then answer the question set. They should ask 

themselves what the central focus of the question is. They should then write about 

that. Candidates appear to be applying little or no thinking-time before picking up 

their pens to answer the question. 

• It is essential that they consider the what and why of the question. Too many 

answers concentrate on the what (ie describing), often to the total neglect of the why 

(ie analysis). 

• When the question specifically asks the candidate to draw on contemporary research 

and/or organisational policy and practice then they must do so. They must specify 

which research, by whom, in what publication and at what date. 

• In answering the case study question, candidates need to bear in mind that the acid 

test is: (a) Have I outlined what proposals I advocate (What will I do?), (b) Have I 

explained the reasons for my proposals and are they coherent (Why will I do that?), 

(c) Have I explained how I shall implement what I have proposed (What problems 

are envisaged? How will they be overcome?) and (d) Have I addressed the resource 

implications of the proposals (Are there sufficient resources? If not, from where will 

the additional resources be gained?)




Section A 

Case study 

On the whole, the answers were at best just passable but at worst poor, naïve and 

lacking in business focus. The few good answers did the following: 

• demonstrated that they understood the problems the case study posed for 

management 

• explained that they would review their existing employee relations strategy and 

related polices 

• spelt out the following in detail: employee voice, quick resolution of grievances, 

provision of good terms and conditions of employment, and so on 

• reviewed whether management behaviour in the past over some issue (for example 

an employee grievance or redundancy situation) had been mishandled and caused 

feelings of injustice to arise among employees 

• outlined the resource implications of their recommendations and addressed the 

envisaged implementation problems 

• backed their proposals by research and organisational policy and practice evidence. 

A significant number of students failed the questions because their solution to the 

problem was to implement the Information and Consultation Directive. An organisation 

(ie Tinpot plc) that employs over 300 people and is non-unionised will have some form of 

employee voice mechanism in place, so to say ‘implement the directive’ is naïve. 

Candidates who advocated this solution did not seem to recognise the following: 

• Employers are not obliged to set up information and consultation machinery. They 

only need to do so if employees request it. 

• An employer introducing information and consultation machinery to comply with the 

Directive must negotiate the arrangements with their employees. The management 

cannot just impose this. 

• Under the Directive the employees can challenge existing arrangements and force 

the employer to negotiate more favourable arrangements.




Section B 

Question 1 (The role of the G overnment in employee relations) 

The answers to this question were disappointing. They did not demonstrate 

understanding of the main role of the Government in employee relations – an economic 

manager, a law-maker and a peace-keeper. Most only made reference to its law-making 

role and confined their answer to telling the examiners the content of particular acts of 

parliament. Most answers demonstrated even less knowledge and understanding of how 

these roles influence the behaviour of the ‘players’ in the game, for example, in terms of 

the processes they use to arrive at mutually acceptable agreements, and how they 

influence the outcome of the game, such as the content of substantive agreements. 

Question 2 (Negotiating framework agreements) 

This was one of the best answered questions. Most answers rightly pointed out that their 

chief executive would become a player in the social dialogue law-making process of the 

EU. They then correctly explained this process. Better candidates pointed out that, as a 

member of the UNICE negotiating committee, they would be involved in drawing up the 

employer’s bargaining agenda on the issue to be subject to a framework agreement, and 

would be involved in negotiations that would be unwieldy and slow moving. 

Question 3 (Disciplinary matters) 

In answering this question few candidates drew on published research and 

organisational policy and practice, as required by the question. Too many answers were 

unfocused in that the candidate wrote in general about discipline. They did not address 

the centre theme of the question, namely that knowing the law surrounding the 

management of disciplinary matters is inadequate for effective management of 

disciplinary matters. They also did not show that they understood it is the key function of 

the personnel/HR department to train line managers to handle discipline effectively 

within an organisational context and culture, and that this is difficult for a lawyer to do. 

Question 4 (Employers’ Associations) 

In answering this question, the majority of answers demonstrated a good knowledge and 

understanding of the role and function of Employers’ Associations – representation, 

lobbying services, advice on employment law and good employment practice and, in 

some sectors, the negotiation of collective agreements. The main problem was that 

candidates did not go on to explain how all these functions can add value to an 

organisation. In reality, most only answered part of the question. In addition, not one 

candidate, as requested by the question, drew on evidence from research to justify the 

case they would put to their chief executive in explaining how Employers’ Associations 

can add value.




Question 5 (Employee relations strategy) 

This question centred on the appropriate employee relations polices consistent with a 

strategy of continuous improvement and examiners were expecting candidates to 

explain the appropriate polices – communications, appropriate employee voice 

mechanisms, the need for continuous training and retraining. The answers to this 

question can only be described as poor. They did not (a) draw on appropriate evidence 

to support their advice, as required by the question, (b) explain the term continuous 

improvement in the quality of product/service provided and (c) explain the employee 

relations practices associated with continuous improvement. 

Question 6 (Management style) 

Again the majority of answers were poor. Few candidates explained the purpose of an 

employee relations strategy, nor briefly outlined the content of such a strategy. The 

question centred on relating employee relations strategy to the values and preferences 

of organisation’s dominant decision-makers. In concentrating on this central issue, it was 

expected that candidates would make use of the Purcell and Sisson’s five typical 

management styles – authoritarian, paternalistic, consultative, constitutional and 

opportunist. Most candidates did not do this and many made no reference to the 

management styles outlined by Purcell and Sisson. 

Question 7 (Listening skills) 

The answers to this question were poor. Instead of concentrating on the central issue of 

the question (namely listening skills as an information-gathering technique) most 

answers centred on general points about managing employee grievances. Few answers 

contained an explanation as to what listening skills involve and the central point of the 

question was missed in most answers. Good listening skills enable managers to obtain 

information upon which they can make a number of decisions, for example, is the 

employee grievance well founded or does it have no basis? If the former is the case, 

then the manager will establish objectives as to how the grievance might be best 

resolved while protecting management’s interests and plan the appropriate strategy and 

tactics to achieve these objectives. 

Question 8 (Redundancy) 

This was the best answered question. Candidates did not fall into the trap of writing all 

they know about managing redundancy. Most candidates, as expected by the 

examiners, explained that management would have to engage in meaningful 

consultation with the workforce. Many candidates also said that they would consider 

whether, depending on employee turnover rates and so on, natural wastage will achieve 

the objective of reducing the payroll numbers. The main reasons why high marks were 

not awarded for this question was that not a single candidate justified the details 

(content) of their plan by drawing, as instructed by the question, on contemporary 

research.




Question 9 (Mediation) 

Most candidates demonstrated understanding of the term ‘mediation’. However answers 

were very weak in explaining why employers might see some advantage in engaging in 

the process. In this regard, candidates should make reference to some of the following 

points: 

• the employer retaining control of the situation is free to reject or accept the 

mediator’s recommendations 

• it is cheap and informal relative to an employment tribunal 

• it offers a quick resolution to problems, privacy and confidentiality. 

Question 10 (Good practice) 

The majority of answers were poor in that candidates did not: 

• demonstrate that they understood the term ‘good practice’ – acting with just cause 

after a thorough investigation and behaving in a fair, reasonable and consistent 

manner 

• explain why operating good practice gives competitive advantage – if employees are 

treated fairly and kept informed then employee morale should be high, their 

productivity higher and their willingness to accept change greater. 

Professor John Gennard 

Chief Examiner

Employee Relations November 2005 - CIPD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?