Is Nonunionized Workman Entitled To Get Wage Benefit Of Recently Signed Settlement? - CiteHR
Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
Hello Vijay,
I understand the situation which you are going through as I have read the comments of all the Cite HR members as they are saying is correct but it depends on the situation in the organization, On what circumstances the workmen has resigned from the union pls understand that. As far as the organizational benefit is concerned the employee is eligible for all the benefits of the union also for any other benefits if you think to give him as the union will not oppose to it.
Regards,
Rahul.

he is entitled to settlement benefits of similar catageory irrespective whether he is member or not unless there is a clause barring non members
Dear ,
The union wage settlement is enlisted with all required provision in ID act.As you said earlier that you have only one union then surely that will not been certified from Industrial court as Recognized Union.
As per the ID Act,Sect 18 (1),(2) and (3) you check which clause is applicable for you.Samveden has exactly replied the issue.Who are the party in the agreement is the key issue behind this.If a member is not a unionised then there is no question to give hime wages as stipulated in the agreement.It is very clear that his wage and service conditions are laid down in the appointment condition with management.If he was perviously unionised then you have to amend his appointment letter.
Thanks ,
Mangesh Wakodkar
Aurangabad

Having practices Personnel Management for over 30 years and dealt with the Unions and the agreements signed either in conciliation, I am in concurrence with the experts who have expressed their opinion herein above. Management cannot and should not discriminate against individuals who are not members of the union representing the employees. In the instance case, the union seems to have terminated the membership of a particular member (employee of the company) for whatever the reason. The company cannot and should not take recourse to the situation and be benefited(?) by this situation.
If the employee so affected files complaint against the company, the outcome would be very uncomfortable for the company.
Lalit Thakkar

We have same type of case. We have not expanded any wage rise to the workmen who had not signed the settlement also, he is not the member of union.
The nonunion workman may not entitled to avail the benefit but here (situation) it is advisable to consider him. Not giving may lead to an unpleasant situation.
Dear friends,

It is well settled in law and in practice a settlement with a recognised union is binding all irrespective of whether or not some are not members of the recognised union. This principle has been upheld in many cases. One of such matter dealt at the Kerala High Court, excerpts of which is reproduced here below.

............10. It is a well-established principle of industrial law that a minority shall not be allowed to jeopardize the rights of a majority. The principle was applied by the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Coffee Estates, Ltd., and Ors. v. their workmen and Ors. 1965-II L.L.J. 110. In that case, a dispute was compromised by agreement between the employers and their workmen, when appeals with special leave were pending before the Supreme Court from the award of an industrial tribunal. Thereupon, the appellants moved that the appeals may be disposed of in terms of the settlement; but it was objected to by some of the workmen, on the ground that they were not parties to the agreement, and the agreement was not binding on them. The Supreme Court, however, remitted the case to the tribunal, calling for a finding whether, in view of the fact that admittedly a large number of workmen employed by the appellants had accepted payments consistently with the terms of the agreement set up by the employers, it was shown by the objecting-workmen that the said agreement was not valid and binding on them. The tribunal returned a finding that, in every estate, payments were made in terms of the settlement, that such payments were voluntarily and knowingly accepted by the workmen, and that the settlement was a fair settlement, having regard to the basic facts of the dispute between the parties. In the light of the above finding, the objection of the dissenting workmen was overruled ; and the appeals were decided in accordance with the settlement. In doing so, the Supreme Court said at p. 111 ;..................

The gist of this case is attached for reference of all. There are many such cases. So it is not logical to press a point that the settlement is not binding on workmen not members of such union.


Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: doc Settlement with union binding on all.doc (46.5 KB, 644 views)

Here is one more judgment by the Madras High Court in" Workers Of Buckingham And ... vs Commissioner Of Labour And Chief ... on 9 August, 1963"
".....47. For the reasons stated above we are of opinion that the settlement entered into in the present case on 30-3-1963 between the management and the Madras Labour Union is a bona fide one resulting as it did through conciliation effected between the parties by the Conciliation Officer, and that it would bind the entire body of workers including the members of the two unions which have filed the present writ petitions Rule nisi will, therefore, be discharged ....
The gist of the case/judgment is attached for information of all.


Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: doc Settlement binding on all-Madras High Court.doc (78.0 KB, 258 views)

Dear,

This is the section no 18 under INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT which gives clarity that non unionized workman also liable to receive benefit of new settlement.

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding

1[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

(2) 2[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.]

3[(3)] A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act 4[or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section IOA] or 5[an award 6[of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on-

(a) All parties to the industrial dispute;

(b) All other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, 7[arbitrator] 8[Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;

[/U]

(c) Where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;

(d) Where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.

Dear friends,

Let me be clear on the subject matter:

There is no compulsion on any workman to be a member of a union or the other. When there are more than one regd.unions an election is conducted by the management under the supervision of ALC to elect a recognised union which is the bargaining mechanism/authorised union to negotiate and sign the settlement deed. It is a fundamental principle of this mechanism that settlements thus signed by the recognised union suo motto apply to the members of the recognised union but also commonly to all entitled to. It would be ultra vires if any of the clause(s) of the settlement deed bar non-members to the entitlement just because they are not members of the recognised union which did sign the settlement deed with the management.

In cases where there exists no recognised union for whatsoever reasons, the management will negotiate with all the registered unions affiliated to the Industry and authorised rep. from each union will sign the settlement deed either it is for wage revision or for service conditions or for any other workmen related issues.

It is illegal to discriminate between members of a union & non-members. And any terms & conditions of apptt. cannot compel a workman to become member of a union or other. In fact there many industries, big and small where there are no unions at all as the managements demonstrated that they take care of welfare workmen without giving rise to the necessity for creation of a union.


This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™