Understanding No Work, No Pay Concept and Work to Rule in Employee-Employer Relationships

Hi Veterans,

Can anyone enlighten me about the 'No work, no pay' concept, including legal provisions? Also, please tell me whether agitations such as 'Work to rule' and 'Non-cooperation' attract this provision.

Thanks,
Ranga Raj

Dear Ranga,

'No work, no Pay' is a principle adopted not to pay salaries to workmen when they are on strike. It has been accepted as the right principle by the Supreme Court on various occasions. You have to refer to Supreme Court rulings in relation to strikes to get more details.

Work-to-rule and non-cooperation may not attract this provision as some work might have been performed. However, courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled that 'work-to-rule' and non-cooperation are more serious misconducts than even an illegal strike. In the case of a strike, you openly declare that you are on strike, whereas in 'work-to-rule', etc., you pretend to be doing the job (by doing a little bit of it) but actually do more harm to the company. For more details, again, you have to refer to Supreme Court judgements on this subject. What I am trying to say is that in the case of work-to-rule, etc., you issue a chargesheet, conduct an enquiry, and then can even dismiss the employee.

KKT

The employer-employee relationship is built on the concept that a person (the employee) agrees to provide his/her labor/ service/ skill/ other effort to another (the employer) in return for which the employer agree to compensate employee with money/ benefits/ other considerations.

As part of this arrangement the employee surrenders some of his/her personal preferences and agrees to come under the “direction and control” of the employer during the time s/he is so employed.

Where an employee refuses to work, due to absence, or dispute with employer, or other situations such as lack of work, the employer has no obligation, unless specifically bound by an employment contract, to provide compensation - “No work, no pay”.

“Work to rule” and “Non-cooperation”, are essentially the same thing. In most companies, certain practices have been devised by the employees and recognized/implemented by the employer that supersede standard operating practices, since they are more efficient, workable, and mutually beneficial. In cases where minor disputes turn into major issues, rather than refuse to work (withhold labor/ services), i.e. “go on strike”, and lose pay - “No Work, No Pay” - employees ignore the “practice” and begin to work under the Operating Procedures, or the Labor Contract without exception. The result being a slowdown in effort, lower efficiency and production, and increased waste of time and material (Work to Rule).

“Non-cooperation” involves a slow response, short of refusal (which could be construed as insubordination), to a supervisor's direction; asking for detailed instructions, and other tactics designed to delay the actual performance of work.

Thank you, Mr. Paladin, but how do we tackle these issues within the framework of Labor Law? Can we invoke the 'No work, no pay' provisions for 'Non-cooperation' or 'Work-to-rule'? If an employee goes on strike, they lose a day's salary. However, in the above situation, the employee does not complete a full day's work but still gets paid. In one such instance of agitation, employees, including officers, refused to attend a review meeting called by their higher authority and an external agency, citing reasons of 'Non-cooperation'. As a result, they were issued show cause letters for insubordination.

Please clarify this matter.

Raj

Raj,

"He does not turn out his full day's work but gets paid too."

"The employees, including officers, refused to attend a review meeting called by their higher authority and also an external agency, quoting reasons of 'Non-cooperation'. They were issued show cause letters for insubordination."

Management has (or should have) the right to set the Standard of Work, both the quality and the quantity, restricted only by a labor agreement negotiated by representatives of the employees. Where such Standard is set and accepted, that is the standard that will be used in a "work to rule" setting. In addition, management has (or should have) the authority to direct the workforce, which means to establish reasonable rules for the efficient, productive, and safe operation of the facility. Violators of these rules, and/or the direction of management are (or should be) subject to discipline "up to and including discharge".

From what I've read in this forum, Labor relations policy and practice is broad and ambiguous in India. The country has very liberal labor laws (due to the culture and history of the country?) that cover almost every aspect of working life, from the time a person becomes an employee to the time s/he leaves, and for all periods in between.

It is this inflexibility, I believe, that led to the recent unpleasantness - the strike at Toyota some months ago. That work stoppage was borne out of worker frustration and management arrogance. The employees had a bona fide issue; management ignored them, so the only recourse was to refuse to work, and when attempts were made by the authorities to protect property chaos erupted. People were hurt, property damaged, and both parties pointed fingers at one another.

Obviously, management cannot condone employee insubordination (the first step on the road to chaos), especially where union leaders instigate and promote such action. On the other hand, employees with legitimate issues affecting the workplace need a forum to express such concerns and, where appropriate, have them addressed with a reasonable and mutually beneficial solution. Where there is open, honest, and frank communication of what is expected and what the effect of non-compliance will be, there is no need for "work to rule" or "non-cooperation", since issues that arise are soon disposed of.

Where "flashpoint" issues arise unexpectedly, Management should attempt to convince the Officials to use their influence to persuade the employees to return to work at the normal pace after which the parties will sit down and discuss the issue that gave rise to the action. If the officials refuse, they usually are charged with gross insubordination and suspended (lose pay) for 1 to 3 days, while employees who engaged in the job action are charged with insubordination, subject to "progressive discipline", with a warning that any breach of the rules or decorum in the future will be met with more severe penalties.

Union Officials are (or should be) held to a higher standard due to their position, level of influence, and the fact that they know, or should know that any unauthorized work stoppage/slowdown has a negative effect on the business, and eventually on the employees themselves.

Have you attempted to determine what was the underlying cause behind the refusal to attend the meeting? Lack of communication? Essential work that could not be delayed? Just a refusal to show their power?

Since I am not familiar with your labor laws, I can only offer some comments and observations, based on my experience here in the States. Maybe there are other members who could provide a responsible course of action.

Regards,

PALADIN

Paladin,

That was quite elaborate. Thanks a lot. It gave me new insights into the issue. Though we are tackling the issue quite effectively, I wanted to get others' opinion on the topic. Though you were the only person to respond, I am glad I got a good reply. Thanks once again.

Raj