The personal grievance provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) prevent an employer from firing an employee without good cause. Instead, dismissals must be justified. Employers must both show cause and act in a procedurally fair way.
 Personal grievance procedures were designed to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from “unjustified dismissals”. The premise was that the common law of contract lacked sufficient safeguards for workers against arbitrary conduct by management. Long gone are the days when a boss could simply give an employee contractual notice.
 But these provisions create difficulties for businesses when applied to highly paid managers and executives. As countless boards and business owners will attest, constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earning managers is a handbrake on boosting productivity and overall performance. The difference between C-grade and A-grade managers may very well be the difference between business success or failure. Between preserving the jobs of ordinary workers or losing them. Yet mediocrity is no longer enough to justify a dismissal.
 Consequently—and paradoxically —laws introduced to protect the jobs of ordinary workers may be placing those jobs at risk.
 If not placing jobs at risk, to the extent employment protection laws constrain business owners from dismissing underperforming managers, those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity and therefore on workers’ wages. Indeed, in “An International Perspective on New Zealand’s Productivity Paradox” (2014), the Productivity Commission singled out the low quality of managerial capabilities as a cause of the country’s poor productivity growth record. Nor are highly paid managers themselves immune from the harm caused by the ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedures. Because employment protection laws make it costlier to fire an employee, employers are more cautious about hiring new staff. This makes it harder for the marginal manager to gain employment. And firms pay staff less because firms carry the burden of the employment arrangement going wrong.
 Society also suffers from excessive employment protections. Stringent job dismissal regulations adversely affect productivity growth and hamper both prosperity and overall wellbeing.
 Across the Tasman, Australia deals with the unjustified dismissal paradox by excluding employees earning above a specified “high-income threshold” from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws.In New Zealand, a 2016 private members’ Bill tried to permit firms and high-income employees to contract out of the unjustified dismissal regime. However, the mechanisms proposed were unwieldy and the Bill was voted down following the change in government later that year
36. The personal grievance provisions of the ERA are intended to ____.
[A]punish dubious corporate practices
[B]improve traditional hiring procedures
[C]exempt employers from certain duties
[D]protect the rights of ordinary workers
37. It can be learned from the Paragraph 3 that the provision may _______.
[A]hinder business development
[B]undermine the managers' authorities
[C]affect the public image of the firms
[D]weaken the labor-management relations
38. Which of the following measures would the Productivity Commission support?
[A]Imposing reasonable wage restraints.
[B]Enforcing employment protections.
[C]Limiting the powers of business owners.
[D]Dismissing poorly performing managers.
39. What might be an effect of ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedure？
[A]High-paid managers may lose jobs.
[B]Employees suffer salary cut.
[C]Society sees a rise in well-being.
[D]Employers hire new staff.
40. It can be inferred that “ high-income threshold” in Australia_______.
[A]has secured managers’ earnings
[B]has produced undesired results
[C]is beneficial to business owners
[D]is difficult to put into practice
36、【解题思路】由题干关键词 personal grievance provisions 和 ERA 结合题文同序原则，首先 定位至第一段第一句找到相关话题。第一段的三句话是对 personal grievance provisions 内容的介 绍， 而题意旨在提问其意图，往后定位至第二段首句可以看出该句紧扣题意： “Personal grievance procedures weredesigned to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from ‘unjustified dismissals’ .”可以看 出 personalgrievance provisions 的设计意图是保护普通人的工作免受不公正解雇，正确答案 D“保 护普通人的权利”是对该句句意的正确体现。【干扰排除】选项【A】“惩罚有问题的公司实践” 、【B】“改善传统的雇佣流程”（hiring 与原文的firing 也不符）、【C】“免除公司部分义务”在文段中均未有体现。
37、【解题思路】由题干已知定位段落和关键词 provisions 定位到第三段的句①和句② 。句①主干已明确指出，“这些规定给公司制造了困难”（these provisions create difficulties for businesses）。 此外，句②主干进一步指出，“限制公司解雇表现不佳而收入颇高的经理如同一个手刹，无法促进（企业）生产力和整体业绩” （constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earningmanagers is a handbrakeon boosting productivity and overall performance.）。最后，如果①②两句还无法摸透，还可以辅助句③进一步确认 。句③有大写字母， 因此是事实例证， 例子可以佐证身为观点的①②两句。句③指出，“C 等级和 A 等级的经理的区别很可能就反映出公司成或败的区别” 。因此经理若业绩表现不佳，公司很可能会与成功失之交臂 。总而言之，选项中的“阻碍企业发展” （hinder business management）为最佳的和原文关键句同义改写的选项， 即【A】选项。【干扰排除】选项【B】原文仅提及经理表现不佳且薪水颇丰的问题， 并未提到“瓦解经理的权威” 这一事实， 因此 undermine 和 authorities 文中未提及，属于无中生有，故排除；选项【C】原文仅 提及企业因为相关规定无法解雇表现不佳的经理，从而影响企业的生产力和业绩，但文中未提 及企业的“公共形象”（public image）是否有受影响， 因此该选项也属于无中生有，故排除 。选 项【D】 weaken the labor-management relations 文中未提及，属于无中生有，故排除。
38、【解题思路】由题干关键词 Productivity Commission 定位至第五段第②句 。该句指出委员 会认为低质量的管理是国家生产力增加纪录变现不佳的原因 。言外之意就是表现不佳的经理导 致了低生产力 。委员会必然想提高生产力，那么就要把表现不佳的经理开除，故选 D。【干扰排除】选项【A】是根据第一段①句中的worker’s wages设置的干扰项。该句说的是这些法律会限制工人的工资，跟Productivity Commission没有关系；【B】选项无中生有，此段没有提到就业保 护；【C】选项是强干扰项，首先要明确生产力委员会必然想提高生产力 。第①句说到这项法案使 得企业老板没有办法开除表现不佳的经理，而第②句说到正是这些表现不佳的经理导致低生产 力 。那么想要提高生产力就要给老板权力让他们可以开除表现不佳的人， 而不是限制老板的权 力，故排除。
39、【解题思路】先由题干关键词 ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedure 定位至第六段第一句， 根据句意可初步确定影响为负面的，且根据题干所问 an effect 可推测原文中不止一个影响，需 要向后读继续从原文验证 。第四句主干提到公司给员工支付了更少的工资，对应到选项中会发 现与【B】员工遭受降薪相符，为正确答案。【干扰排除】选项【A】是根据第六段首句的 highly paid managers 设置的干扰项，但文中未提及他们会丢掉工作 。第二句中出现 employers are more cautious about hiring new staff，说明更不容易招 聘新员工了， 而选项【D】内容说雇主会招聘更多员工， 与原文不符， 故排除 。选项【C】是关于 society，可定位至第七段第一句，根据 Society also suffers 可再次确认对社会的影响是负面的， 但【C】的表述是正向， 因此排除。
40、【解题思路】由题干关键词 high-income threshold（高收入门槛）定位至最后一段。该段第 一句交代澳大利亚解决 unjustified dismissals paradox（不公平解雇悖论）的方法是通过把高收入 雇员排除在对雇主不公平的法规保护范围之外 。但这一句只是陈述了澳大利亚的做法， 并不能 得知具体的执行效果 。该段最后一句，提到 the mechanisms proposed were unwieldy （所提出的 机制是难操作的），则可推知这一做法是难以付诸实现的，故选 D。【干扰排除】选项【A】 has secured managers’ earnings （保障了经理人的收入）与文意相反，澳大利 亚提出 high-income threshold 的做法为的就是让经理级别的高收入人员免于法律的保护，从而使 雇主可以根据工作表现选择解雇他们而不受法规约束。选项【B】has produced undesired results（造 成不良结果）和选项【C】is beneficial to business owners（对雇主有利）均属于过度推测，段落中 没有细节得以支撑。选项【C】干扰性较大， 因为较为符合文章的主旨大意，但如果没有具体细节 说明澳大利亚的做法是成功的，则也不能推知这一做法对雇主有利。