Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

Subject Code: PHR21C

Paper: HRM
Specific Instructions:
9 Answer all the four
questions.
9 Marks allotted 100. Each Question 1 carries 40 marks .All other questions are of
equal marks.
9 Word limit is 250 - 400 words
General Instructions:
9 The Student should submit this assignment in the handwritten form (not in the
typed format)
9 The Student should submit this assignment within the time specified by the exam dept
9 Each Question mentioned in this assignment should be answered within the
word limit specified
9 The student should only use the Rule sheet papers for answering the questions.
9 The student should attach this assignment paper with the answered papers.
9 Failure to comply with the above Five instructions would lead to rejection
of assignment.
Question No 1
Answer the question following the case study
Geetha Laboratories Private Limited was established by Mohan Ramnath in 1988 at
Chennai. He, a soft spoken gentleman, was Ph.D. in chemistry, who did not believe in
working under pressure. The company was a small scale unit manufacturing non-patented
antimalarial medicines. The company had 6 days per week working making 26 working
days per month and was running smoothly. In 1978, CITU supported union came into
existence. The industrial relations started deteriorating making it difficult for the company
to survive. In 1988 Ramnath decided to enter into partnership with three other partners,
Chandan Keshav, Bharat Pathak and Veenu Ramachandran to overcome the difficulties
faced by him. The company came to be known as Geetha Laboratories Limited. Even
after this the industrial relations did not improve till 1990 and it was during this period
that 14 workers were sacked. In 1990 Ramnath decided to sell his shares to Emission
Pharmaceuticals, a multinational, though other partners continued. Now, the company
was called German Drug House (GDH). During this period CITU withdrew support to the
union and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) came into the picture. An average increment
of Rs. 225 was given to all workers and industrial relations improved to some extent.
IMPLA Pharmaceuticals Limited was another non-patented antimalarial bulk drug
manufacturing giant having units at Pune, Mysore, Hyderabad, Coimbatore and Corporate
office at Baroda. It wanted to have monopoly in the antimalarial drug manufacturing by
taking over GDH. but before taking such a step. they wanted to assess the internal
condition of the company. Therefore, in January 1994 Vishal Shrivastava, qualified
chartered accountant was inducted as Director by purchasing a requisite number of shares
of the company. In September, 1994 after IMPLA was convinced about the favourable
conditions of GDH it formally took over the company. At that time the manpower
strength of the plant was 210 in which 130 were workers and 80 were executives and staff
members. After taking over, IMPLA made many changes and the major ones were :

(i) They increased the salaries of executives and staff of the unit to reduce the gap in the
pay structure of the executives and staff of this unit and their other units.
(ii) They invested Rs. 3-4 crores for upgradation of the plant.
(iii) They shifted from 6 days working per week to 7 days working per week to improve
the productivity and enhance cost-effectiveness of the unit.
The shift from 6 days to 7 days working without any financial gains made workers resist
the change. At this juncture, Sumeet Joshi, Corporate Manager (lR) intervened and
promised the workers that they would be paid for 30 days instead of 26 days, but Ravi
Shriman, Director (Personnel) and Vishal Shrivastav, CM (Operations) refused to agree
to this since they were not involved when Sumeet Joshi made the commitment. The
promise was not fulfilled which further complicated the problems. The issues kept on
Iingering for 6 months. No decision could be taken because of the difference of opinion
among senior executives. In June, 1995 the workers gheraoed Vishal Shrivastav to
pressurise the management to take the decision. They were successful to some extent as it
led to the agreement of management with workers that financial benefits would be given
with retrospective effect of 4 years making it one additional year over and above 3 years
of normal agreement. They were asked to give a notice of change which the workers
could not give till December, 1995 because of disagreement among themselves It was felt
at this point of time by Shrivastav that plant should have an Assistant Manager
(personnel) in stead of having Personnel Officer. Ajit Dubey, Assistant Manager
(personnel) was appointed in October, 1995 but even this appointment took 3-4 months
because of discord in opinions of Shrivastav and Shriman.
In December, 1995 the workers gave a notice of change demanding an increase of Rs.
2200 per month. In January, 1996 a notice of change was given by management. In
February, 1996 the negotiations started and continued till July, 1996. Shrivastav,
Rajkumar, the new Corporate Manager (IR), Ajit Dubey and Kishore were to represent
the management side and nine members of the union were to represent the Workers,
besides V.D. Agrawal the General Secrerary of BMS.
The first two rounds of meeting did not lead to any outcome as none of the parties were
ready to budge. This made V.D. Agrawal withdraw as he was fed up with the rigid stand
of the union leaders.
The third meeting was held without Agrawal wherein the union leaders came down to Rs.
1, 200 from Rs. 2, 200 p.m. The minutes of the meeting werr lotted down but the union
leaders refused to sign. Taking advantage of the occasion, Dubey and Shrivastav had a
secret meeting with Agrawal in a hotel. Agrawal advised the representatives of the
management to maintain a low key for a few months to crack down the workers
aspirations as they had very high expectations. It was observed by Dubey that there were
perceptual differences between senior and junior union leaders. Taking cue from this,
Dubey adopted a policy of divide and rule and took into confidence Devilal, the senior
union leader and had a secret meeting with him to explore the last settlement amount and
apprised him that the management could go only upto Rs.450. He also took Janak Singh,
the junior union leader into confidence and convinced him that management was not
going to berid before their demands and as such the workers were going to be the ultimate
sufferers. Besides this, Dubey spread the message that no wages would be given
retrospectively.
The next day meeting resumed in which union representatives came down to Rs. 750
(because of the pressure from the workers) beyond which they were not ready to come
down. It was decided that instead of having meeting with all the members, only two
members, one senior union leader, Devilal and one junior union leader, Janak Singh
would sit in the negotiations. Immediately a meeting among Shrivastav, Rajkumar,

Devilal and Janak Singh was held and it was resolved that Rs. 575 average per month
would be given for 4 years retrospectively. An MOU was drafted by the legal consultant
at the corporate office and was duly signed by Shrivastav, Rajkumar, Dubey and all the
union representatives. In the evening a dinner was hosted in which all the negotiators
were invited. When the papers were sent to R. Shriman, he objected to the MOU on two
points.
First, the other plants were having 30 days pay system leading to less average pay per day
and in Chennai plant it was to be given for 26 days leading to higher average per day.
Second the milk allowance given for overtime at Chennai unit was higher than other
units. It look Shrivastav and Rajkumar two months to convince Shriman about the
ageement and thereafter, implementing th same. A total amount of Rs. 14 to 15 lakhs was
given to all the 160 workers within a week as arrears and the issue was settled.
Questions :
(a) Was it right for V.D. Agarwal to withdraw half way during the negotiations?
Negotiation in industrial situations are typified by trade union negotiations where a team
from the trade union seeks to gain better pay and working conditions from a reluctant
management. Although many companies are more enlightened about such negotiations these
days, the 'traditional' confrontational methods are illustrative of a particular style and still
may be found in many other organizations. Both sides of the negotiation usually have
multiple members on their teams. A team is typically led by a lead negotiator and supported
by experts and people whose main job is to observe the other side and watch for body
language and other subtle signals.
The presence of several people can create a sense of intimidation. This is exacerbated if they
are physically large, look scary and use aggressive body language.In February, 1996 the
negotiations started and continued till July, 1996. Shrivastav, Rajkumar, the new Corporate
Manager (IR), Ajit Dubey and Kishore were to represent the management side and nine
members of the union were to represent the Workers, besides V.D. Agrawal the General
Secretary of BMS. The first two rounds of meeting did not lead to any outcome as none of
the parties were ready to budge. This made V.D. Agrawal withdraw as he was fed up with the
rigid stand of the union leaders. But in this case his act is not justified as he was representing
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh.
(b) Identify the tactics used by management in the case. Are they justified?
Rather than gentle bargaining, the approach is often to play the game right up to the wire,
squeezing the maximum concessions out of the other side without a great deal of
consideration for the relationship.
This typically includes abrasive argument and strong use of negative negotiation tactics.
Negotiators may dramatically walk out of the room and play a waiting or posturing game. In
larger organizations particularly, the press may be deliberately drawn into the game with each
side pleading its case to the public at large while journalists seek interesting angles for their
stories. In theory unions might exercise their collective bargaining power to partially offset
the purchasing power of an employer in a particular occupation and in doing so achieve a
mark-up on wages compared to those on offer to non-union members.
In this case the third meeting was held without Agrawal wherein the union leaders came
down to Rs. 1, 200 from Rs. 2, 200 p.m. The minutes of the meeting werr lotted down but the
union leaders refused to sign. Taking advantage of the occasion, Dubey and Shrivastav had a
secret meeting with Agrawal in a hotel. Agrawal advised the representatives of the
management to maintain a low key for a few months to crack down the workers aspirations as
they had very high expectations. It was observed by Dubey that there were perceptual
differences between senior and junior union leaders. Taking cue from this, Dubey adopted a
policy of divide and rule and took into confidence Devilal, the senior union leader and had a

secret meeting with him to explore the last settlement amount and apprised him that the
management could go only upto Rs.450.
(c) Should Director (Personnel) have raised objections after MOU (Memorandum of
Understanding) was signed? Give reasons.
An MOU was drafted by the legal consultant at the corporate office and was duly signed by
Shrivastav, Rajkumar, Dubey and all the union representatives. In the evening a dinner was
hosted in which all the negotiators were invited. When the papers were sent to R. Shriman, he
objected to the MOU on two points.
First, the other plants were having 30 days pay system leading to less average pay per day
and in Chennai plant it was to be given for 26 days leading to higher average per day. Second
the milk allowance given for overtime at Chennai unit was higher than other units. It look
Shrivastav and Rajkumar two months to convince Shriman about the agreement and
thereafter, implementing the same. A total amount of Rs. 14 to 15 lakhs was given to all the
160 workers within a week as arrears and the issue was settled.
Thus the Director (Personnel) is justified for raising the objections on factual ground sin
interest of the organization even after the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) was
signed.
(d) In view of the information given in the case, suggest the strategies that could have
made IMPLA Pharmaceuticals a more progressive organisation.
The term "progressive" encompasses a wide range of viewpoints, and it is therefore difficult
to pin down an exact definition of what a progressive organization might be. Generally,
progressive organizations fall along the left side of the political spectrum and might be
described as "liberal," "left wing" or even "humanistic." Progressive organizations tend to
view equity within an organization as natural and necessary, though the extent to which this
may be applied obviously varies. Rather than a strict hierarchy, many progressive
organizations prefer a more informal approach, with power sharing. In some instances, each
member of an organization will share power equally, with all decisions made through voting.
Co-ops, for example, are run with this one person-one vote principle.
Question No 2
(A) How do the cross-cultural aspects affect the union-management relations? Cite
suitable examples to support your answer.
Cultural intelligence means being intelligent enough to create a workplace culture that gives
positive direction for your organization and its people. In fact, a strong workplace culture
makes it easier for an organization to stay focused, define its goals, and deliver on those
goals.
Most progressive organizations sustain their market leadership position: they never stray
away from their culture promise and are quick to make adjustments along the way to
accommodate the changing needs of their employees, consumers and the marketplace.
The strength of an organizations cultural promise is rooted in its business model, decisionmaking and strategies. Like in life, there are temptations to sway from your core beliefs.
The ones that stay true to their cultural promise will succeed, and endure.
Organizational cultures can vary greatly. Cultures can range from being traditional and
hierarchical to casual and collaborative. Building and sustaining a solid positive
organizational culture is one way of showing that your people are your most valuable asset.
Companies with a strong organizational culture gain a competitive edge, reaping the benefits
of loyal employees and increased profitability.

Many of the resulting problems and issues (reflected for instance in the proliferation of
disputes due to cross cultural 'mismanagement') fall within the concept of cross- cultural
management. The problems arise due to differences in industrial relations systems, attitudes
to and of unions, work ethics, motivational systems and leadership styles, negotiating
techniques, inappropriate communication, consultation and participation procedures and
mechanisms, values (the basic beliefs that underpin the way we think, feel and respond),
expectations of workers and interpersonal relationships.
These cross-cultural management issues in turn pose the following problems:
i. What particular industrial relations and human resource management considerations at the
regional, sub-regional and country level affect the development of sound relations at the
enterprise level in a cross-cultural environments?
ii. What would be the most effective programmes for this purpose'?
iii. How can investors in Asia familiarize themselves with the environmental and cultural
considerations in the recipient country relevant to their managing people at work?
iv. How could information be collected, analyzed and disseminated?
(B) Define industrial grievance. Explain various approaches of grievance resolution. In
your opinion, which approach is the most effective and why?
.
Purposes of the Grievance Procedure:
The primary purposes of a grievance procedure are to: (1) channel conflict into an
institutionalized mechanism for peaceful resolution; (2) facilitate communication between
labor and management regarding problems that arise in a collective bargaining relationship;
(3) enable employees to complain with dignity knowing that there is a system of appeals
leading to an impartial decision-maker; and (4) enforce compliance with the terms and
conditions negotiated by the parties.
Handling Employee Complaints: The following checklist is provided as guidance when an
employee comes to you with a complaint:
CHECKLIST FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS:
1.
PREREQUISITES:
A. Know the contract.
B. Make sure that meetings with employees to handle complaints are held in accordance
with any contract provisions that regulate the time and/or location for such meetings.
C. Develop good listening and note taking skills.
D. Be prepared to spend the time to get the evidence and testimony to support your case
and to refute management's case.
E. Treat all employees fairly and consistently.
F. Do not make judgments about the case to the employee or anyone else until you get
the facts.
G. Keep good records of all transactions, oral and written, that occur from the time a
complaint is brought to you until the case is resolved in the grievance procedure or in
arbitration.
H. Know who, when and how to ask for help.
2.
INTERVIEW:
A.
Let the employee tell his/her story without interruption. Take notes. When the
employee has finished, ask, "Is there anything else you would like to add?"
B.
Review the employee's description of the case with him/her to make sure you have
all the facts.
C.
Make sure you get the answers to the questions who, what, when, where, why and
how.

D.

Ask the employee for the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any
witnesses. Then ask the employee to tell you what he/she thinks each witness
knows about the case. Record this information. Try to clarify any uncertainties
about what a witness is supposed to know.
E.
Ask the employee to give you all of the evidence he/she has concerning the case.
Make
copies
so
that
no
information
is
lost
E. Before the employee leaves, check one more time to make sure you have all
the facts, names of witnesses and evidence.
3.
REVIEW:
A. Refer to the grievance procedure in the contract to make sure the issue the employee
has raised is defined as a proper subject of a grievance. If you are uncertain, ask for
help. If the issue is not a proper subject of a grievance, the best thing to do is to tell
the employee and explain how this affects his/her case.
B. Check to make sure that the procedural requirements set forth in the grievance
procedure have been complied with. Key considerations include:
Is the complaint timely?
Who should the employee and/or union representative meet with at the first step?
What information must be presented by both parties at tfirst step?
C. Review the contract provisions alleged to have been violated to make sure they fit
the issue described by the employee and that no provisions have been left out.
D. Review the evidence. Go through all the documents the employee has given you.
Make sure everything is dated and signed. Carefully check the content of each document
to find out what it actually states, if this information pertains to the case and is timely.
Check for inconsistencies in the documents and between the documents and the
information the employee has given you. Make a list of all inconsistencies. Check to see
if the documents contain the names of other potential witnesses that the employee did not
mention and/or that might be called by management. Make a list of these persons and find
out how to contact them.
F.
Find out is there is any other evidence, e.g., rules and regulations, past grievances
and arbitration decisions, past practice, documents in the employee's personnel file
that he/she may not have, etc., that have a bearing on the case as viewed by both the
union and the employer. Request documents from the employer as appropriate, in a
timely fashion and in writing.
G.
Match the evidence you have with the list of potential witnesses. Make a list of
questions to ask each witness when you interview them. Be sure to include at the
end of each list the questions, "Is there anything else you would like to add?" and
"Do you know of any other witnesses?"
H.
Interview witnesses. Apply the guidelines as set forth in II. Also, carefully check
the following things as you consider what witnesses state that they know about the
case:
Does the witness have direct personal knowledge about what happened or is his/her
knowledge
based
only
on
hearsay
(i.e.,
second
hand)?
Is the witness credible (i.e., able to give a reasonable explanation about the events, and
an honest, accurate accounting even if this means revealing negative things about his/her
record/conduct)?
Does the witness' statement confirm what the employee has said, or are there
differences/inconsistencies?
Does the witness have any reason to be less than truthful in stating what he/she knows
about the case?

If there is more than one witness who knows about a given event, note which ones would
be best able to present clear testimony under the pressure of examination and crossexamination at an arbitration hearing.
Verify name, address, telephone, work shift and location.
4.
ANALYSIS:
A. After you have thoroughly reviewed all of these matters, you may find that a
complaint is not grievable/arbitrable or that the case lacks merit. One way to
proceed is to explain your findings to the employee and ask if there is any
additional information he/she has that might have a bearing on the case. If not,
you should be guided by local or international union policy and perhaps by
counsel, in determining how to handle this situation. Grievances lacking merit
should be screened out to conserve a union's resources for other cases. This can
be done by committee in consultation with an international representative or
counsel. This determination should be made with care because unions have a
legal duty to fairly represent all employees in the bargaining unit whether or not
they are union members.
B. Can you account for any inconsistencies in the case and, if so, how?
C. Are there any mitigating circumstances that could explain the employee's
behavior and thus lessen or remove any disciplinary action?
D. Does the evidence and testimony the union has demonstrate one or all of the
following:
Disparate treatment;
Arbitrary and capricious action; and/or Discrimination.
E. Are there any past practices which pertain to the case and, if so, how?
F. Does the evidence and testimony the union has support the remedy requested or
should some modification be made in that remedy?
G. Do you have hard evidence and testimony based upon direct personal knowledge
to support your case or is your case largely based upon circumstantial evidence?
H. Is the remedy requested reasonable or is it nonsensical, outside the scope of the
employer's or of an arbitrator's authority to grant? Would it be impossible to
implement even if granted, etc.?
I.
Is the contract provision(s) you are relying upon modified by more specific
language in the provision or elsewhere in the contract?
J.
Where rules and regulations are concerned, have they been posted and given to
employees, are they reasonable and have they been fairly, consistently and
equitably enforced?
K. What has been the outcome of other similarly situated cases? Does this
information help or hurt your case? How?
L. Once you have reviewed and analyzed all these considerations with respect to
the union case, prepare a summary of what you think the employer's response
will be and determine if you have a sound rebuttal for each of the points the
employer could raise.
5.
FILING:
Be sure to properly and timely complete the grievance form. This includes such items as:
names; dates; signatures; clear and accurate statement of the complaint; contract clauses
alleged to have been violated; and remedy requested.
This is a checklist, not a magic wand. It highlights key points to consider in handling
employee complaints. This task is time consuming and requires the application of a number
of skills. There are no real short cuts. If you take them, an employer will usually find them at
some stage in the grievance procedure or in arbitration. The result may be very damaging

involving not only loss of a case that might have been won, but also expenditures of time,
other resources and credibility that a union can ill afford.
Handling Discipline and Discharge Cases:
In all likelihood, most of the grievances you handle will involve discipline or discharge.
Since management is the party that took the action, (i.e., is the moving party) the BURDEN
OF PROOF is on the employer to show that it has just cause for such action. This means that,
in arbitration, management must go first in showing what evidence and testimony it has to
support the action taken. A union then responds with the evidence and testimony it has in
defense of the grievant and as rebuttal to the case presented by the employer. There are 7
commonly
accepted
tests
for
just
cause.
These
are:
1. If a rule is alleged to have been violated, was that rule reasonable?
2. Was the grievant given adequate notice that the conduct complained about was improper?
3. Was the alleged offense sufficiently investigated?
4. Was the investigation fair?
5. Was the misconduct proved?
6.
Did the employee receive equal treatment with all others who have committed a similar
offense? If not, were there any mitigating circumstances?
7. Was the penalty appropriate for the offense committed?
Refer back to the Checklist for Handling Complaints to remind yourself of the type of
information you must collect to support a complaint in a discipline or discharge case.
Remember to find out: who; what; when; where; why; and how. Collect all of the evidence
and interview witnesses, then review and analyze these in relation to the 7 tests listed above.
This will give you an idea of the strength of support for the union's case. Remember, you
must also consider what evidence and testimony management may be able to present and
assess your case accordingly.
Question No 3
Identify the factors responsible for the formation of white collar managerial unions.
What kind of implications are there for the organization for such a process?
Solution:
Seeing how unions of blue-collar workers had improved their service, employment and
working conditions by bargaining collectively with their employers for better and regular
payment of wages, bonus and other fringe benefits, and job and social security, whitecollar
workers also started uniting and organising themselves and forming their unions for fighting
for better pay scales, more fringe benefits, internal promotion by collective bargaining,
agitation and litigation. Other factors responsible for the growth of white collar unionism are
discussed below.
1. Denial of both Job Security and Social Security to them by their exclusion from the
purview of labour laws like; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Laws relating to wages,
bonus and social security against such social risks as sickness, maternity, premature death,
and permanent or temporary disabilities caused by accidents, old age and retirement.
2. Anomalies in pay caused by implementation of the recommendations of Wage Boards and
Pay Commissions.
3. Nationalisation and consequent rationalisation of pay and perquisites.
4. White and Blue collar workers unions are mostly registered under the Trade Unions Act,
1926 and are generally known as workers and employees Unions, white-collar workers
unions are registered either under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, or under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860, and are known as employees unions, or employees or staff
associations. Since the immunity from civil and criminal prosecution is provided to unions,
its members and office bearers for bona fide trade union activities under the Trade Unions
Act, and as this is not specifically provided under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 the
white-collar workers organisations registered as association under the latter Act have to be
selective in using pressures for getting their demand met. They generally take recourse to
mass casual leave, work to rule, peaceful demonstrations and dharnas, or hunger strike, rather
than to strike, picketing and boisterous agitation and demonstration.
5. Members of white-collar unions are more educated, knowledgeable and intelligent, and,
therefore, they are more capable in negotiating and bargaining for their demands. Their union
leadership is, therefore, mostly internal or endogenous. As blue-collar workers are largely
illiterate or low educated, the leadership is more external than internal, as they require the
help of the outsiders in bargaining for them collectively and representing them in
conciliation, arbitration and adjudication proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
6. Financially and membership-wise white-collar unions are stronger than blue-collar unions.
Small membership and poor finances make the latter more dependent on outside leadership
and political parties for their day to day working, negotiations with employers, and
conciliation and adjudication of their disputes. These outsiders may not work always entirely
in the interest of workers. Increasing militancy of blue-collar unions could be attributed to
some extend to their poor bargaining power and frustration.
7. White-collar unions suffer must less from multiplicity, politicalisation and outside
leadership, and consequently from inter-union rivalries than the blue-collar unions. They,
therefore, have better bargaining power and greater possibility of arriving at collective and
bipartite agreements. Most of the whitecollar unions are independent, as they are not
affiliated to central trade union organisations with different political ideologies. All India
Federation of Railwaymen (AITUC), and National Federation of Indian Railwaymen
(INTUC) are working more cohesively than as rivals. Similar is the case with All India Bank
Employees Association and National Union of Bank Employees, they do not sacrifice the
interests of their members for some political gains.
8. Lastly, some of the white-collar employees may be outside the purview of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and so may have the problem of job security which their unions may
have to look after. This may not be the problem with Blue-collar Unions as their members are
almost covered by the I.D. Act, 1947.
9. Inconsistent and discriminatory promotion and salary policies which have been causing so
many conflicts and disputes.
10. Gradual narrowing of wages and salaries differentials of blue and white-collar workers
due to fast improvement in the wages and fringe benefits of the former organization account
of their union activities, and so causing feeling of deprivation among white-collar workers.
11. Inflation and soaring prices resulting in erosion of pay and standard living of whitecollar
workers, and thus leading to demand for higher pay, dearness allowance and annual bonus
and other fringe benefits. It is because of unions of the Government employees and public
sectors undertakings who had been excluded from the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act,
1965, enabled them to receive now annual bonus worked out on the basis provided under this
Act.
Distinguishing Features of White-Collar Unions
There are some noteworthy features of unions of white-collar workers which distinguish them
from that of the blue-collar unions as stated briefly below:

a) Managerial Association
Managerial trade unionism is no longer a fiction, but is an established fact. Though this
phenomenon is more than forty years old, it is yet to be considered as worthwhile to be
concerned with either by the Government, or by the central bodies of trade unions, or by
academicians. The Government could not enact a legislation concerning this aspect of trade
unionism, or could not introduce some procedure for redressal of grievances of the
managerial staff. The Central orgnisations of trade unions could have provided leadership or
guidance for proper organisation of such unions. The academicians, if they had wished, could
have attempted an in-depth study of managerial unionism and workshops. It is only the
corporate managements who could not ignore this happening. In fact they are finding it
difficult to develop working relations with their managers and other officers in the absence of
any corporate or national policy on this subject.
b) Nature of Managerial Association
Hardly any organisation of managerial employees is a union. They are known as Officers
associations registered either under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under the Trade
Unions Act, 1926. The officers do not like their association to be equated with a trade union,
though many of their organisations are registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1927. Some
cases are also reported to be pending in the Courts, wherein the officers of certain
oranisations are claiming that they are not managers but workmen, and they should be given
protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The purpose of
managerial unions is not very much different from that of other trade unions for employees at
different but lower levels in the hierarchy. The means and strategies may differ in the sense
that the managerial unions are relatively soft in their wheelings and dealings than most of the
blue-collar unions.
Employer-Employee The officers eligible for membership of such associations are below
the level of Relations
Director. They may be from the rank of trainees and upward up to the rank of Deputy General
Manager, and in some cases even the General Manager. It is the junior and middle level
managers who provide leadership of these associations. These officers rise from the ranks,
and as members of the non-executive cadre they may have had prolonged experience as
members of trade unions, if not, as office-bearers.
In India, Managerial unionism is more in public sector than in private sector. Its lesser
development in private sector may be due to the fact that most of the organisations in this
sector are usually small, and, therefore, they are free from the cold and impersonal
atmosphere usually found in large bureaucratic organisations. In small organisations the
problems and difficulties of the officers do not remain unattended. Such individualised
attention is supposed to be missing in big public sector establishments. The other possible
reason for slower growth of managerial trade unions in private sector may be that there
employers are not willing to permit their officers to combine and form unions of their own.
The emergence of Officers Associations in the public sector is relatively a new happening,
whereas these associations have existed in the banking industry and insurance companies for
a fairly long time. In Western Europe officers are organised in almost all countries, and there
also it predominates in the public sector. There the formation of such unions have been
facilitated by the fact that demarcation between a workman and non-workman is not so rigid
as in India, and there trade unions are also not so apathetic towards officers association as
they are here in India. In fact there the unions want to bring officers unions under the banner
of the existing trade unions.

Why Managerial Association


i) Feeling of relative deprivation has been an important reasons for the officers/ managers to
organise themselves and form their associations for obtaining fair deal from their
managements. There has been a feeling that as compared to unionised cadre of workmen and
lower staff they have been getting a raw deal. They complain about narrowing wage
differentials generally. It is after the management had negotiated a settlement with the
unionised staff and a settlement is arrived at, the ad hoc increase in emoluments is given to
them unilaterally, which is usually less than the increase given emoluments of the junior
officers and the wages of the senior workmen.
ii) Feeling of insecurity is another reason for the growth of officers unions. They do not have
that enormous protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is enjoyed by the
employees covered by this Act. They are left high and dry to fend for themselves. This has
made them to realise the message of unit and organise to protect the interest of their
membership through collective bargaining, a strategy of which efficacy has been
demonstrated amply by the workmen and staff unions.
iii) Growing harassment of managerial staff by their subordinates: The authority of the
managers has been grossly eroded by the unionised workmen and staff. They are making it
difficult for the managers to take work from them by being emboldened by the support from
their union and protection they enjoy from labour legislation. Under pressure of the unionised
staff top management often fails to provide the required support to junior and middle level
managers. Even whenever they are assaulted by the workmen, the matters are hushed up for
maintaining industrial peace. Managerial unions have been formed to pressurise top
management to provide necessary protection against such harassment.
iv) To be a Third Force between the Working Class and the Management: Being denied
the protection of labour laws, and as well as of the privilege of a real manager, the junior and
middle level managers have gone for the only option left to them, that
is, the formation of the Officers Association. They would not like to be considered as part and
parcel of either of the working class or the management, but as a third force between these
two groups.
Question No 4
Write short notes on the following:
(A) Trade union recognition: Recognition means the expressed recognition of a registered
trade union by an employer or by an employers association for the purposes of
collective bargaining. While the law says nothing about trade union recognition, the
practice is that a union is entitled to sole recognition in a particular establishment if it
has more than 50 per cent of employees in that establishment as it members. It is the
employer and only the employer, who awards recognition to one or more unions, or
refuses such recognition.
(B) Adjudication
Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and
argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a
decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved. Three types of
disputes are resolved through adjudication:

Disputes between private parties, such as individuals or


corporations.

Disputes between private parties and public


officials.

Disputes between public officials or public bodies.


(C) Conciliation
Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process whereby the parties to a
dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their
differences. They do this by lowering tensions, improving communications, interpreting

issues, providing technical assistance, exploring potential solutions and bringing about a
negotiated settlement.
Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no
legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses,
usually writes no decision, and makes no award.
Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by
seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide the discussion in a way that
optimizes parties needs, takes feelings into account and reframes representations.
In conciliation the parties seldom, if ever, actually face each other across the table in the
presence of the conciliator.
(D) Tripartite consultation
Tripartism is a system of labour relations in which the state, employers, and workers are
autonomous yet interdependent partners, pursuing common interests and participating in
decisions affecting them in a binding spirit of mutuality and reciprocity. This can take place
at either or both macro and micro levels.
Tripartite consultation is an important feature of Indias industrial relations system. It has a
long history in India as it was set up as early as 1942. The Indian Labour Conference (ILC)
and the Standing Labour Committee (SLC) are two main forums for Tripartite Consultation.
The objectives of Tripartite Consultation could be mentioned as under:
i.
To promote uniformity in labour legislation.
ii.
To lay down a procedure for settlement of industrial disputes.
iii.
To consider matters of importance to both the managements and labour.
Tripartite forums evolve norms or standards in the form of guidelines. There are a number of
tripartite bodies which operate at the Central and State levels. The Indian Labour Conference,
Standing Labour Committees, Wage Boards and Industrial Committees operate at the Central
level and State Labour Advisory Boards operate at the state level. All these bodies play an
important role in reaching at voluntary agreements on various labour matters. Though the
recommendations of these bodies are only advisory in nature they carry considerable weight
with the government, workers and employers.