Hi friends,
Check out this case of unrest.
Labor Unrest at Toyota India
On January 08, 2006, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited (TKM) announced an indefinite lockout of its vehicle manufacturing plant at Bidadi located near Bangalore, Karnataka. The decision was taken following a strike, which had entered its third day, by the Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union (Employee Union), the only company recognized union. The lockout notice stated that the strike was illegal as the Employee Union did not give the mandatory 14 day notice period as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It also stated that the workers were indulging in violence and destruction. TKM was a joint venture, established in 1997, between Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota), Japan's largest car company and the second-largest car manufacturer in the world, and the Kirloskar Group of India.
Toyota holds an 89% equity stake and while the Kirloskar Group holds the remaining 11%. Toyota has invested nearly US$ 336 million (INR 15 billion) in the plant with capacity of producing 60,000 units per year.
Toyota manufactures its world famous cars like Corolla, Camry and Innova at the plant. The plant had a total workforce of 2,378 out of which around 1,550 employees belonged to the Employee Union.
On January 06, 2006, the Employee Union went on strike with the demand to reinstate three dismissed employees, ten suspended employees, and improve the work conditions at the plant.
These employees had been dismissed and suspended by the company, on disciplinary rounds, for attacking a supervisor and misconduct. TKM declared that it would not rehire nor reinstate those employees culminating in the strike and lockout. TKM made several serious allegations against the Employee Union.
The company said that the striking workers were threatening to blowup LPG gas cylinders in the company premises, obstructing the outward movement of manufactured vehicles, illegally stopping production, and manhandling other workers, who were not part of the Employee Union, to strike.
In response, the Employee Union said that three employees were dismissed because they were actively participating in trade union activities and the company wanted to suppress the trade union. They further said that working conditions at the plant were inhuman and 'slave like'.
They were often made to stretch their working hours without sufficient relaxation and compensation. The issue took a new turn when representatives from the management at TKM refused to attend a meeting before the Labor Commissioner on January 09, 2006 for resolving the dispute with the union.
The company said that the atmosphere was not conductive for talks as the Employee Union was in a violent and agitated mood. Though, the company appealed for two weeks time to appear before the Labor Commissioner so that situation could become stable, they were given time only till January 12, 2006.
The Employee Union got support from various trade unions and demanded the intervention of the state government to help resolve the dispute in their favor.
TKM continued with partial production of vehicles with the help of non-unionized workers and the management staff, who were specially trained for these kinds of emergencies.
However, the company's output had fallen from 92 vehicles per day to 30 vehicles with an estimated production loss of around INR 700 million.
The Company lifted the lockout on January 21, 2006 stating that it was responding to the request from workers who eager to return to work. The workers were required to sign a good conduct undertaking to maintain discipline and ensure full production.
The Employee Union relented and withdrew their strike following a Government Order on January 21, 2006, which was against the strike and referred the issue to the third Additional Labor Court. However, the union said that they would not sign the good conduct declaration specified by TKM.
The unrest had other ramifications as the Toyota spokesperson said that the company would rethink its recent decision to build a second car manufacturing plant in the state.
It was also felt that this incident would seriously affect the Karnataka Government's efforts in trying to attract Volkswagen to establish a vehicle manufacturing plant in the state. This was the second dispute involving a Japanese vehicle manufacturer and trade unions in India.
Earlier in July 2005, workers of Honda Motor & Scooters India Limited had a violent clash with the police at Gurgaon, near New Delhi, resulting in a revenue loss of around INR 1.25 billion for the company.
This recent rise in trade union activism resulting in violence and business loss has attracted the attention of the national and international media.
With around US$ 2 billion equity investment since 1991, Japan was the fourth largest investor in India. During the Honda incident, the Japanese ambassador in India had stated that these kinds of incidents would show India in poor light.
Regards
Mamta
From India, Delhi
1Check out this case of unrest.
Labor Unrest at Toyota India
On January 08, 2006, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited (TKM) announced an indefinite lockout of its vehicle manufacturing plant at Bidadi located near Bangalore, Karnataka. The decision was taken following a strike, which had entered its third day, by the Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union (Employee Union), the only company recognized union. The lockout notice stated that the strike was illegal as the Employee Union did not give the mandatory 14 day notice period as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It also stated that the workers were indulging in violence and destruction. TKM was a joint venture, established in 1997, between Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota), Japan's largest car company and the second-largest car manufacturer in the world, and the Kirloskar Group of India.
Toyota holds an 89% equity stake and while the Kirloskar Group holds the remaining 11%. Toyota has invested nearly US$ 336 million (INR 15 billion) in the plant with capacity of producing 60,000 units per year.
Toyota manufactures its world famous cars like Corolla, Camry and Innova at the plant. The plant had a total workforce of 2,378 out of which around 1,550 employees belonged to the Employee Union.
On January 06, 2006, the Employee Union went on strike with the demand to reinstate three dismissed employees, ten suspended employees, and improve the work conditions at the plant.
These employees had been dismissed and suspended by the company, on disciplinary rounds, for attacking a supervisor and misconduct. TKM declared that it would not rehire nor reinstate those employees culminating in the strike and lockout. TKM made several serious allegations against the Employee Union.
The company said that the striking workers were threatening to blowup LPG gas cylinders in the company premises, obstructing the outward movement of manufactured vehicles, illegally stopping production, and manhandling other workers, who were not part of the Employee Union, to strike.
In response, the Employee Union said that three employees were dismissed because they were actively participating in trade union activities and the company wanted to suppress the trade union. They further said that working conditions at the plant were inhuman and 'slave like'.
They were often made to stretch their working hours without sufficient relaxation and compensation. The issue took a new turn when representatives from the management at TKM refused to attend a meeting before the Labor Commissioner on January 09, 2006 for resolving the dispute with the union.
The company said that the atmosphere was not conductive for talks as the Employee Union was in a violent and agitated mood. Though, the company appealed for two weeks time to appear before the Labor Commissioner so that situation could become stable, they were given time only till January 12, 2006.
The Employee Union got support from various trade unions and demanded the intervention of the state government to help resolve the dispute in their favor.
TKM continued with partial production of vehicles with the help of non-unionized workers and the management staff, who were specially trained for these kinds of emergencies.
However, the company's output had fallen from 92 vehicles per day to 30 vehicles with an estimated production loss of around INR 700 million.
The Company lifted the lockout on January 21, 2006 stating that it was responding to the request from workers who eager to return to work. The workers were required to sign a good conduct undertaking to maintain discipline and ensure full production.
The Employee Union relented and withdrew their strike following a Government Order on January 21, 2006, which was against the strike and referred the issue to the third Additional Labor Court. However, the union said that they would not sign the good conduct declaration specified by TKM.
The unrest had other ramifications as the Toyota spokesperson said that the company would rethink its recent decision to build a second car manufacturing plant in the state.
It was also felt that this incident would seriously affect the Karnataka Government's efforts in trying to attract Volkswagen to establish a vehicle manufacturing plant in the state. This was the second dispute involving a Japanese vehicle manufacturer and trade unions in India.
Earlier in July 2005, workers of Honda Motor & Scooters India Limited had a violent clash with the police at Gurgaon, near New Delhi, resulting in a revenue loss of around INR 1.25 billion for the company.
This recent rise in trade union activism resulting in violence and business loss has attracted the attention of the national and international media.
With around US$ 2 billion equity investment since 1991, Japan was the fourth largest investor in India. During the Honda incident, the Japanese ambassador in India had stated that these kinds of incidents would show India in poor light.
Regards
Mamta
From India, Delhi
I think lock out is vital tool provided by the Industrial Disputes act 1947 as the workmen have been bestowed with a right to strike but what is pertinent to note is that the management has to be very tactical and utilising the tool. The timing is the only factory which can make it work, no matter how correct you could be at your point at the end of the day result is what that matters.
Management of Toyota, are you listening.
regards
Ravi
From India, New Delhi
Management of Toyota, are you listening.
regards
Ravi
From India, New Delhi
Hi,
Whenever there is large scale violance, and uncontrollable discipline problem, the management has no other option but to resort to the last weapon of ' declaring a lockout '. This has to be a well thought of decision, and all pros and cons need to be taken in to consideration.
In the present case, the fact that finally the lockout was lifted after the workers agreed to most of the terms, shows that the decsion of the management paid off.
Cyril
From India, Nagpur
Whenever there is large scale violance, and uncontrollable discipline problem, the management has no other option but to resort to the last weapon of ' declaring a lockout '. This has to be a well thought of decision, and all pros and cons need to be taken in to consideration.
In the present case, the fact that finally the lockout was lifted after the workers agreed to most of the terms, shows that the decsion of the management paid off.
Cyril
From India, Nagpur
Hi cyril,
I think you have not properly gone through the contents. This is not what management wanted and i think that the workers had their say at the last. I am again emphasising that timing of lockout is very vital. Make them vulnerable and they will have to mellow down and from where you can take the advantage and maintain discipline.
regrds
ravi
From India, New Delhi
I think you have not properly gone through the contents. This is not what management wanted and i think that the workers had their say at the last. I am again emphasising that timing of lockout is very vital. Make them vulnerable and they will have to mellow down and from where you can take the advantage and maintain discipline.
regrds
ravi
From India, New Delhi
Hi Ravi,
I am sorry, from Mamta's narration " that the union relented and agreed to withdraw the strike", I got a different impression.
There cannot be two opinions that the decision has to be properly timed to get the maximum advantage for the organisation.
Cyril
From India, Nagpur
I am sorry, from Mamta's narration " that the union relented and agreed to withdraw the strike", I got a different impression.
There cannot be two opinions that the decision has to be properly timed to get the maximum advantage for the organisation.
Cyril
From India, Nagpur
There cannot be any excuse for gross insubordination, attacking a supervisor, and challenging his authority in the plant. Discipline, promoting good order, is essential to the smooth, productive and safe operation of any organization. Without discipline and the work rules which are its framework, there is chaos.
The employer-employee relationship is built around a simple fact: Employees are compensated for their service and are expected to respond to the direction and control of the employer; at the same time, the employer has the responsibility to provide a safe, healthy working environment and to recognize the dignity, as human beings, of its employees.
If, in fact, the employees "were often made to stretch their working hours without sufficient relaxation and compensation", and "that working conditions at the plant were inhuman and 'slave like'" then there is a legitimate basis for fact finding and resolution without workplace disruption. On the other hand, if there is no provision in the labor agreement for overtime compensation, and rest periods, then that oversight lays at the feet of the Union.
Further, if treatment of employees is so "inhuman and slave like", it seems to me that Toyota would have difficulty in attracting employees, which is not the case where workers were "... eager to return to work"
I am not familiar with the terms and conditions of the contract between the Company (Toyota) and the Union ( Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union), but if there is not a mechanism for resolving employee complaints, disputes, or issues, the only recourse is power - lockout or strike - the winner (if there is one in a labor disoute) is usually the one who has "suffered" the least. (Employees without income go into debt or forego some elements of their lifestyle; Company's lose revenue as costs soar, since limited number of cars are being produced by inefficient, poorly trained, substitute workers who present safety hazards to themselves and co-workers, and in some cases, depending on the length of the work stoppage/slowdown, market share to competitors.)
Where an employer resorts to "lockout" prior to, or instead of discussion of the facts, violence can be expected. After all, the employer is depriving the employee of his/her livilhood without reason or just cause. Who would not react violently when one's source of income has been denied?
The mechanism for such dispute resolution is a grievance procedure which allows the lowest level of management to discuss and resolve minor problems on the floor with the employee (with or without representation). In the event a major issue arises (such as the termination and suspensions described above), which is beyond the scope and authority of the lowest management person, the issue shall be reviewed at the management level possessing such authority, and the Union executive with similar authority. Both parties agree to respect the final decision. In the event, the partis do not agree on the decision, a disinterested third party (the courts, an arbitrator, etc.) can be recruited to listen to both sides and issue a decision to which both parties will be bouind.
The dispute resolution procedure provides a means to resolve workplace issues while all employees (exceptions being those who have been suspended subject to termination for major offenses) are on the job, producing products and revenue for the employer.
The incident at Toyota was a public relations disaster for both parties, and may have unanticipated consequences for the economy in the future.
PALADIN
From United States,
The employer-employee relationship is built around a simple fact: Employees are compensated for their service and are expected to respond to the direction and control of the employer; at the same time, the employer has the responsibility to provide a safe, healthy working environment and to recognize the dignity, as human beings, of its employees.
If, in fact, the employees "were often made to stretch their working hours without sufficient relaxation and compensation", and "that working conditions at the plant were inhuman and 'slave like'" then there is a legitimate basis for fact finding and resolution without workplace disruption. On the other hand, if there is no provision in the labor agreement for overtime compensation, and rest periods, then that oversight lays at the feet of the Union.
Further, if treatment of employees is so "inhuman and slave like", it seems to me that Toyota would have difficulty in attracting employees, which is not the case where workers were "... eager to return to work"
I am not familiar with the terms and conditions of the contract between the Company (Toyota) and the Union ( Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union), but if there is not a mechanism for resolving employee complaints, disputes, or issues, the only recourse is power - lockout or strike - the winner (if there is one in a labor disoute) is usually the one who has "suffered" the least. (Employees without income go into debt or forego some elements of their lifestyle; Company's lose revenue as costs soar, since limited number of cars are being produced by inefficient, poorly trained, substitute workers who present safety hazards to themselves and co-workers, and in some cases, depending on the length of the work stoppage/slowdown, market share to competitors.)
Where an employer resorts to "lockout" prior to, or instead of discussion of the facts, violence can be expected. After all, the employer is depriving the employee of his/her livilhood without reason or just cause. Who would not react violently when one's source of income has been denied?
The mechanism for such dispute resolution is a grievance procedure which allows the lowest level of management to discuss and resolve minor problems on the floor with the employee (with or without representation). In the event a major issue arises (such as the termination and suspensions described above), which is beyond the scope and authority of the lowest management person, the issue shall be reviewed at the management level possessing such authority, and the Union executive with similar authority. Both parties agree to respect the final decision. In the event, the partis do not agree on the decision, a disinterested third party (the courts, an arbitrator, etc.) can be recruited to listen to both sides and issue a decision to which both parties will be bouind.
The dispute resolution procedure provides a means to resolve workplace issues while all employees (exceptions being those who have been suspended subject to termination for major offenses) are on the job, producing products and revenue for the employer.
The incident at Toyota was a public relations disaster for both parties, and may have unanticipated consequences for the economy in the future.
PALADIN
From United States,
This topic also is written in wikipedia and about.com.
You can find it by using Google.
Apart from that, you also ref more information at: Labor discipline books
Rgs
From Vietnam, Hanoi
You can find it by using Google.
Apart from that, you also ref more information at: Labor discipline books
Rgs
From Vietnam, Hanoi
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.
Check list for labour laws.pdf
LABOUR LAW CHECK LIST.xls