Sir, please assist me in overcoming a bad situation at the plant. I am a union member, and our long-term settlement (LTS) case is pending in the industrial tribunal. The management has proposed one-on-one settlements, and some individuals are accepting the offer, as it has been pending for about two years.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Pradeep,
Pendency of a dispute for a long period before any Judicial Forum cannot be a bar for the disputants to settle the dispute among themselves bilaterally outside.
Why not the management talk to the union and arrive at an amicable settlement of the pending dispute? Instead, if the management indulges in a one-to-one settlement with the workmen, there is every justification for the presumption that the management wants to break the union.
What about the conditions of service of those workmen who do not sign such a settlement? In case the number of non-signatories is more, how will the management implement the settlement - will they have two sets of service conditions for the same class of workmen if the settlement combines the rate of wages with the quantum of workload?
I think the present move of the management is neither correct nor appropriate. It might be successful in the short run, but what is the guarantee that the workmen would not join together to thwart such individual settlements on the ground of the same having been obtained by coercion and intimidation? This is certainly an unbecoming strategy of industrial relations belonging to the Colonial Era.
It is equally important that while management requires unlearning of certain despicable acts, the union also needs a lot of learning of the process of effective collective bargaining. For the sake of popularity and personal grudges of the office-bearers, the union should not press for unrealistic demands. No employer can ever satisfy all the needs of his employees.
Both the management and the union of workmen should recognize the fact that a worst bilateral settlement arising out of an ideal collective bargaining will, in the long run, be better than the best award coming out of adjudication.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pendency of a dispute for a long period before any Judicial Forum cannot be a bar for the disputants to settle the dispute among themselves bilaterally outside.
Why not the management talk to the union and arrive at an amicable settlement of the pending dispute? Instead, if the management indulges in a one-to-one settlement with the workmen, there is every justification for the presumption that the management wants to break the union.
What about the conditions of service of those workmen who do not sign such a settlement? In case the number of non-signatories is more, how will the management implement the settlement - will they have two sets of service conditions for the same class of workmen if the settlement combines the rate of wages with the quantum of workload?
I think the present move of the management is neither correct nor appropriate. It might be successful in the short run, but what is the guarantee that the workmen would not join together to thwart such individual settlements on the ground of the same having been obtained by coercion and intimidation? This is certainly an unbecoming strategy of industrial relations belonging to the Colonial Era.
It is equally important that while management requires unlearning of certain despicable acts, the union also needs a lot of learning of the process of effective collective bargaining. For the sake of popularity and personal grudges of the office-bearers, the union should not press for unrealistic demands. No employer can ever satisfy all the needs of his employees.
Both the management and the union of workmen should recognize the fact that a worst bilateral settlement arising out of an ideal collective bargaining will, in the long run, be better than the best award coming out of adjudication.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please suggest to me, if a matter is pending in the industrial tribunal LTS (Long Term Settlement) and LTS has been delayed for the last 23 months, and management is not responding regarding this matter. Even though it's too late, our union members are interested in a strike. Is there any scope for a strike with this matter or a strike on another issue, which always happens in the plant? If we go for a strike, what output can be expected, and what action should management take against the union members?
Since the last five years, one trade union has been functioning in our plant, and we have applied for recognition to the government of Odisha. The government has also given permission for recognition. However, when we submitted the letter to management, they have not responded for the last year. In the meantime, management has also created a pocket union with fewer than 30 members, while our union has more than 180 members. What legal actions should be taken against management? Please suggest.
Regards,
Pradeep Sir
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since the last five years, one trade union has been functioning in our plant, and we have applied for recognition to the government of Odisha. The government has also given permission for recognition. However, when we submitted the letter to management, they have not responded for the last year. In the meantime, management has also created a pocket union with fewer than 30 members, while our union has more than 180 members. What legal actions should be taken against management? Please suggest.
Regards,
Pradeep Sir
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think the management is wrong and is doing an unfair practice by allowing to form an employer sponsored union. Similarly, the management by doing one to one settlement is actually allowing the workers to work by accepting good conduct bond. The employer should not have acted like this. However, in fact, as Umakanthan Sir has pointed out, you should have an amicable settlement. You should be realistic and see the issue from the company’s perspective also. If you, as a member of the Union, can take initiative and bring to the notice of all others the real situation of the company, it would be good. Demanding an unrealistic hike in the salary and other service conditions will not be accepted even by the adjudication machinery. Therefore, you may fix a border line and start negotiating afresh and if a bi lateral settlement is arrived at, it will be good for all. If you start strike, the management will declare lock out. Who is the loser? Only the employees will be at a loss and ultimately, when the employees are about to lose their job, at least a portion of the employees will accept the conditions proposed by the management and withdraw from the strike. The strike will have an end then. On the other hand, if you draw a new border line and negotiate with the management now, you may be able to take the things as you like. Since you know what is the level at which the management is doing the one to one, you can take this as the border line. You can even take a little higher level for starting the negotiation and bring a settlement.
Alternatively, you can also file a representation before the Tribunal that the management is doing one to one and is trying to have a self sponsored union which are unfair as per ID Act.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Alternatively, you can also file a representation before the Tribunal that the management is doing one to one and is trying to have a self sponsored union which are unfair as per ID Act.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
Since last year, when the LTS matter was in conciliation near the ALC, a small disturbance was created between workers and management due to this issue. The union office bearers, including the general secretary and vice president of the union, tried to solve the issue with management, and the matter was solved bilaterally at the same time. The union also kept a copy of the agreement. After about one and a half months of finalization, the management issued a 4-member charge sheet cum suspension letter, including the general secretary and vice president, and another 4 members received only show-cause letters. The inquiry is still ongoing, and the crucial point is that the union office bearers who were suspended are protected workmen, and the management did not give permission for the suspended workers to enter the plant. Subsequently, during bilateral discussions about the LTS outside the plant premises, the office bearers could not talk to the union members properly about the LTS meeting. The management alleges that the suspended workmen caused a riot in the plant and were involved in misconduct towards a female management staff, which is false and baseless as we have video evidence of the earlier incident. Currently, the union is demanding to resolve both issues, but the management clearly indicates that the issues are different and should be addressed one by one after completing the inquiry. Initially, solve the LTS issue. However, we now fear that the suspension may lead to termination. My questions are:
1) Should the union prioritize resolving the LTS or wait for both issues to be resolved simultaneously?
2) If the union prioritizes the LTS, what will be the future of the suspended workers?
3) How will the government's recognition of the union be affected?
Thank you.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since last year, when the LTS matter was in conciliation near the ALC, a small disturbance was created between workers and management due to this issue. The union office bearers, including the general secretary and vice president of the union, tried to solve the issue with management, and the matter was solved bilaterally at the same time. The union also kept a copy of the agreement. After about one and a half months of finalization, the management issued a 4-member charge sheet cum suspension letter, including the general secretary and vice president, and another 4 members received only show-cause letters. The inquiry is still ongoing, and the crucial point is that the union office bearers who were suspended are protected workmen, and the management did not give permission for the suspended workers to enter the plant. Subsequently, during bilateral discussions about the LTS outside the plant premises, the office bearers could not talk to the union members properly about the LTS meeting. The management alleges that the suspended workmen caused a riot in the plant and were involved in misconduct towards a female management staff, which is false and baseless as we have video evidence of the earlier incident. Currently, the union is demanding to resolve both issues, but the management clearly indicates that the issues are different and should be addressed one by one after completing the inquiry. Initially, solve the LTS issue. However, we now fear that the suspension may lead to termination. My questions are:
1) Should the union prioritize resolving the LTS or wait for both issues to be resolved simultaneously?
2) If the union prioritizes the LTS, what will be the future of the suspended workers?
3) How will the government's recognition of the union be affected?
Thank you.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Issues are much more complicated than expected!
If the management is terminating the workmen, that can be challenged by stating that principles of natural justice were denied to them. Naturally, if permission from the Court/Tribunal where the settlement proceedings are ongoing has not been obtained before issuing a charge sheet to the protected workers, you can approach the same machinery for assistance by stating that the charges are directly connected to the demands.
It can also be an opportunity for the management to resolve the situation by dropping the cases against your fellow members and requesting you to sign the settlement at a level acceptable to the management only. Therefore, if the union is ready for a settlement, you can demand that there should be no action against them, nor should they be victimized in the future.
Recognition will remain in force until the expiry of the period granted. This is not even an issue, but what is essential is to reach a settlement that is acceptable to the majority of workers.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the management is terminating the workmen, that can be challenged by stating that principles of natural justice were denied to them. Naturally, if permission from the Court/Tribunal where the settlement proceedings are ongoing has not been obtained before issuing a charge sheet to the protected workers, you can approach the same machinery for assistance by stating that the charges are directly connected to the demands.
It can also be an opportunity for the management to resolve the situation by dropping the cases against your fellow members and requesting you to sign the settlement at a level acceptable to the management only. Therefore, if the union is ready for a settlement, you can demand that there should be no action against them, nor should they be victimized in the future.
Recognition will remain in force until the expiry of the period granted. This is not even an issue, but what is essential is to reach a settlement that is acceptable to the majority of workers.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Not only has the issue become complicated, but also the position of the union has become precarious. Now, two challenges are before the union - one is to forge a settlement as soon as possible regarding the long-term issues pending adjudication to regain the trust of the workmen, and two is to protect the jobs of the charge-sheeted office bearers. Since the matter of obtaining prior permission for terminating the protected workmen is a concurrent issue with the pending dispute, once the dispute is over with the signing of the settlement, the matter of permission would become fruitless. That's the trump card the management wants to use. So, Pradeep, the ball is in your court. If you want to save the union, sign the settlement first as insisted by the management because you are very firm that the charges are fabricated and await the outcome of the inquiry against the office bearers. Otherwise, bring the current situation to the notice of the tribunal and file an expedited petition for the early disposal of the dispute. There is every chance that the management may prolong the inquiry as long as the dispute is pending and terminate them only after the passing of the award so that prior permission would be out of the question. To solve both issues at one go, the union has to make some concessions as suggested by Mr. Madhu. Ensure that the concessions are not too costly. Good luck!
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I am very small to say anything in this matter but want to add my view. As per the office bearer, his question is absolutely right. But when we think as an HR/IR Manager or employer side, then I think there is nothing wrong being done by the company. It's a tactic to deal with union matters, so why are all HR persons giving suggestions to a union office bearer? It may be an unfair labor practice, but nothing wrong. In management, everything is possible in union handling because union members think about their unjust demands with management. They never consider why we should show mercy to them.
According to me, management is doing the right thing. I feel sorry if anybody has been hurt by this.
From India, Rudarpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am very small to say anything in this matter but want to add my view. As per the office bearer, his question is absolutely right. But when we think as an HR/IR Manager or employer side, then I think there is nothing wrong being done by the company. It's a tactic to deal with union matters, so why are all HR persons giving suggestions to a union office bearer? It may be an unfair labor practice, but nothing wrong. In management, everything is possible in union handling because union members think about their unjust demands with management. They never consider why we should show mercy to them.
According to me, management is doing the right thing. I feel sorry if anybody has been hurt by this.
From India, Rudarpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Gautham,
There is nothing to be disheartened about with any member for their views on a particular issue. In fact, contrary views promote healthy discussions and enrich our knowledge, and therefore, your observations are taken in good stead. However, I would like to point out that if you are patient enough to analyze the situation described in the original post, further explained in the follow-ups, and the responses of Mr. Madhu and myself, you will certainly understand that our suggestions are free from bias.
In industrial disputes, whether it is the management or the union of workmen, the disputants would always project only half-truths in their respective versions. Here in this thread, the forum has no opportunity to know the version of the management. What we can gather at best is that there is no cordial relationship between the union and the management right from the very beginning for obvious reasons, and it gets sharply reflected in the long-pending adjudication and the propping up of a rival union by the management with a simultaneous attempt to effect individual settlements with every workman regarding the issues pending adjudication. It is clear that both are still trying to outsmart each other.
Now, the pending disciplinary action against the office bearers has become a contentious issue blocking the bilateral negotiations of the long-term settlement. If the workmen want to save the union by signing the settlement as insisted by the management, they cannot save the charge-sheeted office bearers. If the management drops the disciplinary action for the sake of an out-of-court settlement with the union, discipline in the industry or the prestige of the management would be at stake.
Any tactics or strategy, whether adopted by the management or by the union in resolving an issue, would be meaningful, appropriate, and appreciable only as long as it produces the desired result. Otherwise, it would be totally inappropriate, if not wrong, as there is no right or wrong in industrial relations. There cannot be the so-called "win-win situation" in industrial relations but only a "both-gain-situation," provided both disputants realize their respective strengths and weaknesses in the interest of all stakeholders of the industry.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is nothing to be disheartened about with any member for their views on a particular issue. In fact, contrary views promote healthy discussions and enrich our knowledge, and therefore, your observations are taken in good stead. However, I would like to point out that if you are patient enough to analyze the situation described in the original post, further explained in the follow-ups, and the responses of Mr. Madhu and myself, you will certainly understand that our suggestions are free from bias.
In industrial disputes, whether it is the management or the union of workmen, the disputants would always project only half-truths in their respective versions. Here in this thread, the forum has no opportunity to know the version of the management. What we can gather at best is that there is no cordial relationship between the union and the management right from the very beginning for obvious reasons, and it gets sharply reflected in the long-pending adjudication and the propping up of a rival union by the management with a simultaneous attempt to effect individual settlements with every workman regarding the issues pending adjudication. It is clear that both are still trying to outsmart each other.
Now, the pending disciplinary action against the office bearers has become a contentious issue blocking the bilateral negotiations of the long-term settlement. If the workmen want to save the union by signing the settlement as insisted by the management, they cannot save the charge-sheeted office bearers. If the management drops the disciplinary action for the sake of an out-of-court settlement with the union, discipline in the industry or the prestige of the management would be at stake.
Any tactics or strategy, whether adopted by the management or by the union in resolving an issue, would be meaningful, appropriate, and appreciable only as long as it produces the desired result. Otherwise, it would be totally inappropriate, if not wrong, as there is no right or wrong in industrial relations. There cannot be the so-called "win-win situation" in industrial relations but only a "both-gain-situation," provided both disputants realize their respective strengths and weaknesses in the interest of all stakeholders of the industry.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
Firstly, I thank you for your valuable suggestions. The settlement date was on January 13, 2017, in the industrial tribunal, and the management applied for a time petition for 7 weeks. However, the judge refused it and gave only one month, stating that you have already taken 2 years, so this is your last extension, and no further time will be given for document preparation. If you apply for a time petition, the case will be heard on the next date.
An incident occurred with me today due to my involvement in union activity. The management is attempting to dominate me by using false allegations against me through my executive. I have received a letter from management requesting a one-to-one settlement.
In the letter, the management has accused me of the following:
I work as an operator in the production department, and a supervisor instructed me to carry out a task involving unloading long stainless steel from a truck. When I refused, stating it was not my duty, the supervisor instructed me to return to my working area.
Another issue arose when a new production machinery line was inaugurated on January 10, 2017. I, along with some friends, visited the line after obtaining permission from the safety officer and receiving a helmet. However, upon entry, an executive informed us that without reflective jackets, entry was prohibited. We left the area without hesitation. Additionally, there has been no production planning in my working area for the past 4 months, and everyone is operating without permission.
The management has been falsely accusing and harassing me not only through this letter but also through various other means regularly. I seek your assistance on how to handle this situation. If possible, kindly draft a reply for me, as I am not fully familiar with legal terminologies, and I would prefer it to be in Odia, my native language.
Thank you.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Firstly, I thank you for your valuable suggestions. The settlement date was on January 13, 2017, in the industrial tribunal, and the management applied for a time petition for 7 weeks. However, the judge refused it and gave only one month, stating that you have already taken 2 years, so this is your last extension, and no further time will be given for document preparation. If you apply for a time petition, the case will be heard on the next date.
An incident occurred with me today due to my involvement in union activity. The management is attempting to dominate me by using false allegations against me through my executive. I have received a letter from management requesting a one-to-one settlement.
In the letter, the management has accused me of the following:
I work as an operator in the production department, and a supervisor instructed me to carry out a task involving unloading long stainless steel from a truck. When I refused, stating it was not my duty, the supervisor instructed me to return to my working area.
Another issue arose when a new production machinery line was inaugurated on January 10, 2017. I, along with some friends, visited the line after obtaining permission from the safety officer and receiving a helmet. However, upon entry, an executive informed us that without reflective jackets, entry was prohibited. We left the area without hesitation. Additionally, there has been no production planning in my working area for the past 4 months, and everyone is operating without permission.
The management has been falsely accusing and harassing me not only through this letter but also through various other means regularly. I seek your assistance on how to handle this situation. If possible, kindly draft a reply for me, as I am not fully familiar with legal terminologies, and I would prefer it to be in Odia, my native language.
Thank you.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Labr laws for Vendor compliance Management.pdf
Stress management.ppt