It is Unfair Labour Practice on the part of employer. It is not legal. Even if the employee accepts the appointment letter, he has full right to get associated with the Trade Union. I agree with Mr Malik that, no company can mention this clause in the appointment letter as it is ULP and can go against the company in any court of law. Thanks
From India, Pune
8From India, Pune
If I may counter the point raised by Shanthi, that how come there are big companies without a single union, I would say that union is primarily formed when employees feel that their interests are not being regarded by the company, or in other words, if they are unhappy. If company policies are pro-employees and less cumbersome, then that leaves hardly any scope for the employees to form a union. Why would they, if they are happy? And if the question of highly educated and well paid employees of Indian Petroleum is cited as an example, then they have 1000s of reasons to form a union, apparently against the Policies of Government and also due to their 'awareness' of their dues and gains from the Government. Prashant.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
According to me now a days Management has changed its views towards the employees and they consider them as their assets. In IT companies these employees are quite pampered. Well generally employees who are vulnerable and their demand of expertise in the market is low than they would tend to form Union to get the Job security. So I think this also could be one of the reason that IT employees are not forming any association or union. Sandeep Kulkarni
From India, Vadodara
From India, Vadodara
Dear Friends, Till recession time the IT companies are flooded with HR specifically head hunting guys, their day in or hour in and hour out work is to recruit people because the turn out was very high. It was difficult for IT guys to think about their projects, new assignments and choosing the new offers from other competitors. Basically employees who are not employable / insecure of employment will choose for associations and unions. It is also difficult for the unionized employees to get a job in MNCs & other good firms as normally the management will not opt for these type of people assuming that these people will spoil the culture hence highly professionals are very reluctant for these activities may be a basic reason for this. With best regards - kameswarao
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Hello, It is right that constitution of the country guarantees right to associate and no one can take this right away from anyone. It is not right for any company to insist on such a clause, legally speaking but just as the law says that you should not steal etc and yet, the crimes go on and are punished when caught and proven. Similarly the employers may put such a restrcitive and unconstitutional clause and the naive and uninitiated may fall a prey. That is unfortunate. When employment is a dire need, the potential employees are known to have made unholy compromises of the worst order!! Having said all that, kindly appreciate that all labour law was created to protect the rights of workmen and the time when thses laws were made the laws were perhaps necessary. The scheme of entire gamut of labour law is to grant protection to those who conform to the definition of a "workman" in Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Those who are educated are presumed to be able to look after their own intersts and so were excluded from the definition of a workman. When disputes arose between the employers and employees, as a generality an individual workman could never fight the might of the employer manifest in injustices perpetrated by the employers if & when these happened. It is at such times, the inability to look after their own collective interests Trade unions came to be formed, supposedly, "to protect and further the rights of employees" and the Unions drew support from labour legislations. But they acquired another strength also and that is the strength of unity of working class. This, the employers cannot digest and that is why historically most employers have been resisting Trade Unions-by whatever name called. When disputes entered litigations, the courts who have to right to interprete statutes, created newer meanings to the term "workman". A very old case states that even the pilots of Air-India were "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. This is not a joke but is simply a mockery of law through interpretive mechanisms in the hands of the courts. But to be fair while "who is a workman" is explicitly defined under the said act, "who is not" is not adequately clearly stated. Over the years, it is an established fact that those employees, who have discretion in their jobs, who supervise work of others under them, who have right to commit the employer to a third party, who train, discipline workmen are generally NOT "workmen" under the act and do not get the so called protection of labour law. This means that if you are working under supervision, do not have discrition in the job (and that will be decided by the courts if and when the matters go before them) could be termed as "workmen". However the question whether one is "workman" under the act will always be dependent upon the third party decision (i.e. the courts!). Employers want to prevent such a possibility and therefore generate such weird mechanisms to thwart employees from forming or joining a trade union. Coming more particularly to your confusion, let me state that many engineers in manufacturing sectore and many software professional in the employment with such big firms, could, in my professional opinion, successfully qualify to be "workmen" under the act and if that does happen sometimes, such employers will loose all flexibility in dealing with such employees as they would not be able to act any time ARBITRARILY! But their fears are perhaps unfounded as no one will like to be identified as "trouble maker", "unionist" etc. as that could and most probably will destroy his present and futrure prosperity and financial cushions. There are even more issues involved in this subject but I suppose this long answer will thros morwe than enough light on the matter and put the matter in clear perspective! Regards samvedan March 20, 2009 -------------------------------
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Hi Mallik, I have one similar query that can we mention in appointment letter "employee will be eligible for Bonus & LTA only after confirmation of their services i.e. six months". I am asking this as we have mentioned it in appointment letter because as a policy we are doing that, but as per my knowledge we should pay bonus to an employee even if he has worked for one month. I want your suggestion from legal prospective. Regards Shikha
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Non-compete clause in service contracts.pdf
Non-compete Clause of Infy.jpg