DHR10
Industrial
Relation & Labor Laws
Assignment – I
Assignment
Code: 2016DHR10A1 Last
Date of Submission: 26th May 2016
Maximum Marks: 100
Attempt all the questions. All the questions are compulsory and
carry equal marks.
Section-A (50 marks)
1. Industrial Relations Policy of the
Government of India has shifted from regulation, to protection, to enabling. Terms of reference of the National
commission are set in view of the
emerging economic scenario. Trace the Government Policy formation and paradigm shifts therein over the
years.
2. What are the usual causes of Industrial Disputes in
India? Has the Industrial Relations Machinery
in India served the desired purpose of prevention and settlement of Industrial disputes over the years?
Illustrate with two instances that may bring about adequacy or otherwise of the present provisions.
Section-B (50 marks)
Case Study
ABC industries ltd
ABC industries
ltd, has a work force of more than 1200 employees, engaged in manufacture of
cotton yarn of different counts. It has modernized its plant and to maintain
good human relations, ABC Industries has extended more than customary facilities
to its employees, and they enjoy better wages and benefits as compared to
industries engaged in similar activities.
The CEO of the
Company and executives in charge of different areas comprise the management
cadre. IR department is headed by Manager (IR). The employees are represented
by four trade Unions; say A, B, C, and D unions. Union A and B are recognized
by the management for purposes of negations, otherwise all unions maintain
cordial relations with management, individually and collectively.
The Company had
been distributing bonus to the workers at rates more than the statutory minimum
prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Last year, for declaration of
rate of bonus, management had a series of meetings/ discussions with the recognized
unions and finally announced a bonus which was in turn agreed upon by all
recognized unions.
The next day,
when the management prepared the settlement and presented it before the union
representatives for signatures the leader of Union B refused to sign and walked
out, stating that the rat of bonus declared was not sufficient. The next day
Union B issued a strike notice to the management asking of higher bonus. The
management tried its level best to avoid unpleasant situation, but in vain. The
members of Union B went on strike; they were joined by members of Union D.
During its
efforts to know the reasons for the deviant behaviour of the leader from Union
B, it found that the leader of Union A, soon after the first meeting had stated
to a group of workers that the management had agreed to the declare bonus at
the current rate because of his efforts and that the leader of Union B had
miserably failed in its talks with management. This observation by leader of
Union A reached the leader of Union B, and he felt insulted. On identifying the
reason for Union B’s strike call, the IR manager brought about a compromise
between the leaders of the Union A and B. The workers on strike thereafter
resumed work and the settlement was signed for the same amount of bonus as
agreed upon earlier in the meeting.
Questions:
1. What should be the management’s long term strategy for
avoiding recurrence of such inter-union differences?
2. How would you handle this IR situation, if you were
the manager IR, when Union B resorted to strike?
DHR10
Industrial
Relations & Labor Laws
Assignment – II
Assignment Code: 2016DHR10A2 Last Date of Submission:
26th May 2016
Maximum Marks: 100
Attempt all the questions. All the questions are compulsory and
carry equal marks.
Section-A (50 marks)
1. Indian Labour Legislations have been
greatly influenced by ILO’s conventions and recommendations.
Elucidate by establishing direct relation between the conventions / recommendations by ILO and provisions
contained in any two prominent labour Legislations.
2. ‘The statutory social security schemes in India cater
only to a small proportion of the population.
Even all industrial workers are not covered as smaller establishments and those drawing salaries exceeding certain
limits are excluded from the benefits of various social security programs.’ Name any five prominent social
security legislations and justify
the above statement with help of provisions of two of these legislations.
Section-B (50 marks)
Case Study
A joint venture
company, Indo-Czech Private Ltd. was established in 2002, to manufacture auto
parts. It established its plant at Noida (UP) on a Plot allotted by UP State
Industrial Area Corporation. Commercial production commenced in 2005. The same
year, the Indian partner purchased an Industrial Plot developed by Haryana
State Industrial Corporation at Manesar, near Gurgaon, Haryana. The Indian
partner planned an industrial unit to assemble a related product, again with foreign
technology from a foreign firm of a different Nationality. Though there was no violation of the legal
agreement entered into between the Indian Party and the Czech Company which had
established business at Noida, the Czech Company did not appreciate the move by
the Indian partner to go on his own and not involve them in the business
project at Manesar.
The JV with
Czech company was doing well and declared its first-time dividends in 2008, and
continued to grow and make profits for the next three years. Towards the close of 2011, the Czech Company
decided to part ways, and the Indian promoter inducted two of his school
friends, on the Board of Directors who agreed to buy the stock held earlier by
the Czech Company, in equal proportion.The new management made many changes
including the following:
a)
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 the one run by the
promoter director at Manesar, Haryana.
b) They invested 30 Crores for up- gradation of the
facilities at the Factory at Noida.
c)
They shifted
from 6days working to 7 days working per week t improve the productivity and
enhance the 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, Corporate Manager (IR) intervened and promised the
workers that they would be paid for 30 days instead of 26 days, but Director
(HR) and GM (Operations), refused to agree to this since they were not involved
when the corporate manager (HR) made the commitment.
The promise was
not fulfilled which further complicated the problems. The issues kept on
lingering for 6 months. No decision could be taken because of the difference of
opinion among senior executives. In June 2012, the workers ‘gheraod’ the GM
(Operations) to pressurize management. They succeeded to the extent that the
management agreed to give financial benefits with retrospective effect of 4
years making it one additional year over and above 3 years of normal agreement.
Workers were asked to give a notice of change which the workers could not give
till December, 2012 because of disagreement among themselves. In the mean time,
on recommendations of GM (Operations) ir was decided to appoint an Assistant
Manager (HR). This appointment took 3-4 months because of discord in opinions
of GM (Operations) and Director (HR). However, Mr. Smart was appointed
Assistant Manager (HR) in October 2012.
In December
2012, the workers gave a notice of change demanding an increase of Rs.2200/-
per month. In January 2013, a notice of change was given by management side. In
February the negotiations started and continued till July. GM (Operations), the
new Corporate Manager (IR), Ms Smily and Mr. Smart were to represent the
management and seven members of the union were to represent the workers,
besides 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 the General Secretary of BMS withdraw as he was fed up with
the rigid stand of union leaders. During the third meeting (which was not
attended by the General Secretary, BMS) union leaders came down to Rs. 1200/-
from Rs.2200/-. The Minutes of the meeting were jotted down but the union
leaders refused to sign. Taking advantage of the occasion, GM (Operations) and
the Asstt. Manager (HR), had a secret meeting with the General Secretary of BMS
in a hotel, who advised the representatives of management to maintain a low
profile for a few months to crack down the workers’ aspirations who had very
high expectations. It was observed by the Asstt. Manager (HR) there was
perceptual differences between senior and junior union leaders. Taking a cue
from this, he adopted a policy of divide and rule. He took into confidence a
senior union leader and had a secret meeting with him to explore the last
settlement amount, suggesting that management could go only up to Rs. 450/-. He
also took a junior Union Leader into confidence and convinced him that
management was not going to bend before the demand of the workers. He further
spread the rumors that no wages would be given retrospectively.
The next day
meeting resumed in which union representatives came down to Rs. 750/- (because of pressure from workers)
beyond which they were not ready come down.
It was decided
that the number of the management representatives and the workers would be
restricted to four (two on either side). Accordingly a meeting was held and it
was resolved that Rs. 575 on an average be given per month. An MOU was drafted
by the legal manager at the Corporate Office and duly signed by the all those
who were present at the meeting where the agreement had been reached.
When the papers
were sent to Director (HR), he had his ego hurt and objected to MOU, and picked
holes in the agreement arrived at.
Questions
1.
Did the management use an ethical approach during
negotiations, in this case? Give reasons to support your answer.
2.
Should the Director (HR) raise objections after the
MOU had been signed?
3.
Assuming that you are corporate manager (HR), what
will be your strategy in the given case?
No comments:
Post a Comment