Assignment
XYZ is a company with its headquarters in Tokyo, Japan.
XYZ is active with a subsidiary in UK and is considering a partnership in US, for which some of its employees will have to be stationed there.. The CEO has done a lot of reading regarding legislation, union traditions and employment relations in UK and US, being already familiar with those in UK, and has been to both countries on several occasions.
Prior to making a decision as to whether to expand a subsidiary in UK or engage in a partnership in US, for which employees will have to be sent there from either the Japan or UK, the CEO and CFO require pertinent information about employment relations in UK and US. It therefore also needs to compare labour conditions in UK and US, and employment relations in both countries. The Board of XYZ is careful with its reputation, as it has been in a conflict with unions in the Japan over labour conditions in its facilities there and it wants to avoid Further damage to its reputation should there be issues with its activities outside of the Japan.
The Board of the company also intends to move some employees from Japan to US or UK.
You are tasked to:
1) Analyze all three jurisdictions the UK, the US and Japan– reviewing parties to employment relations, including trade unions, business partners, collective bargaining and the role of the state
2) Advise whether the CEO should opt for either expanding in UK or entering in a partnership in US–provide detailed analysis about both countries in relation to labour conditions and the compatibility with XYZ’s operations, but making a clear choice which country either UK or US, the CEO should choose in the end. You are required to justify your choice with logical argumentation.
3) Explain and discuss the ramifications /effects for employees moving from Japan to UK or US, and possibly moving from UK to US (analyzing and discussing each country separately, discussing legal conditions, union traditions and employment relations.
Criteria
Subject Weight factor Criterion this assignment
Critical application and integration of relevant models and concepts 40% A clear understanding of relevant countries, employment relations, relevant parties in labour relations, countries in question
Synthesis of industrial relations practice and theory 25% Show me you use multiple elements in different jurisdictions practically and also provide theory from academic resources
Depth of analysis, extensiveness of research and breadth of reading 25%- The more in depth and creative your solutions, answers and strategies will be, the better. You may use the book, the slides. You may use other books and models.
Coherence and quality of
documents and referencing 10% Proper English. Using Word, Power Point or other compatible software. Logical structure. Following Harvard referencing style and use academic sources in module assignments.
Subject Fail 0 –
24 Fail 25 – 34 Fail 35 – 54 Pass 55
– 64 Pass 65-74 Pass 75
– 84 Pass
85 – 100
Critical application and integration of relevant models and concepts (40%) Very weak use of framework s, which do not appear to be understood. Rather naive or simplistic approach to framework s. Weak use of framework s, which are applied without any meaningful
analysis. Little evidence that they are understood. Some evidence of naive or simplistic approach to framework s. An inadequate and overall weak use of frameworks. Some understanding of key issues. Analysis is simplistic and not well grounded. Good analytical
use off frameworks although the range is limited.
Some good understanding and insight into key issues.
Some evidence
of critical attitude to models. Commendable
use of appropriate frameworks with a very good level of
analysis. Very good understanding of key issues. Excellent use of a wide and appropriate range of frameworks supported by excellent high quality analysis demonstrating thorough critical understanding. Outstanding use of a wide and appropriate range of frameworks supported by the highest quality analysis demonstrating a good command of the subject.
Synthesis of industrial relations practice and theory (25%) Very weak attempt at
combining
theory and practice Some
industrial relations theory weakly introduced but only weakly applied to the area of study Lack of data and evidence. An inadequate attempt to combine industrial relations theory with practice as found in the area of study. Limited use of data and evidence. A good attempt to combine industrial relations theory with practice as found in the study area. A useful range of examples is given and good data and evidence. A very good attempt to
combine
industrial relations theory with the realities found in the case studied. Commendable understanding of how theory is applied. Sophisticated use of examples. An excellent combining of industrial relations theory with the realities found in the studied. Excellent analysis and synthesis. Excellent use of data and evidence. Outstanding synthesis of industrial relations theory with the realities found in the case studied. Deep and insightful analysis of entities and landscape.
Depth of analysis, extensiveness of research and breadth of reading (25%) Narrow inadequate range of sources. Points not evidentially grounded. No evidence of readings or research Weakness evident in breadth of reading and extent of research leading to weak analysis of the case. Inadequate depth of analysis.
Inadequate extent of research. Reading is limited to the core text. Good depth of analysis. Extent of research is good. Reading rather limited and does not extend far beyond the core text. Very good depth of analysis.
Commendable extent of research. Reading is very wide and beyond the core text. Excellent analysis in breadth and depth.
Selectively wide reading evident which is well beyond the core text and includes independent sources. An outstanding analysis of the both in breadth and depth. Reading is extensive and includes independent sources and press coverage.
Coherence and quality of
documents and
referencing
(10%) Very weak
report with
little
coherence and some elements of task not addressed. Weak in referencing and standard of written English. Weak report with little
coherence and some elements of task barely addressed. Weak in referencing and generally poor standard of literacy evident. Inadequate in terms of logical
structure, coherence and presentation. Referencing of sources is weak and narrative frequently very descriptive. Good quality report with logical structure and coherence. The writing is to a
good standard
and all elements of the task attempted to a good standard. Good referencing of sources. Very good quality report. Clear and logical structure and coherent. The report is very well written and all elements of the task attempted to a very good academic standard. Excellent report with clear and logical structure and intrinsic coherence. Excellent academic style including referencing. All elements of the task are addressed. An outstanding report in terms of presentation, writing and clarity of expression. Excellent academic style including referencing. All elements of the task addressed.
Comprehensively
