How Should HR Handle a Senior Officer Allegedly Siding with Union Leaders?

Handling a Senior Officer's Allegiance with Union Leaders

How should the Personnel Department of a company handle a senior officer belonging to one of the Production Departments who is evidently (though without proof) in collusion with some Union Leaders and supporting their claim for excess manpower, even though we believe there is sufficient manpower that is not being utilized properly? Other than transferring him outright, what else can be done on this issue and also to prevent such things from happening in the future?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Have you mapped the entire production process? If not, then do it first. Find out how much time each process takes and also how many persons are required to execute each process. Furthermore, you may conduct time and motion studies as well. This is a very old and proven method of manpower analysis.

Ok...

Regards,
Dinesh V Divekar

Thank you, Dinesh. Time and Motion study was a good methodology but is no longer relevant today, especially in multi-tasked complex processes, particularly in a very large manufacturing company. Such a study is not possible in this case. However, it is observed that for similar processes in other companies globally and in India, a lesser number of people handle the operations even when compared with the current manpower.

The real problem does not solely lie in the manpower issue as mentioned earlier. The crux of the issue is the individual themselves. It's not just the Union that poses a challenge. This person, while not taking a demanding stance and remaining quiet during meetings, incites the unions, which were previously inactive. He engages in anti-company activities to create problems for his colleagues.

The problem does not solely stem from the manpower issue or the Union; it's primarily this individual who is the root cause. While it's possible to address this individual, the question remains on how to tackle this effectively.

I did not outrightly reject your suggestion; I provided background and mentioned what actually was the problem.

Understanding the Problem

First and foremost, we know where the problem is emanating from, and hence our focus is on rectifying that corner. Again, we work in a different way. It's not possible to yield to the whims of the Unions every time they raise an issue. We know what issues to discuss and what to reject. Over 50 years of tough IR experience under difficult circumstances in a left-run state has taught us that. We get all our information. In this case, the unions don't want any Industrial Engineering study. Think of it like "testing the water." We have identified the problem, and the problem is the person. This thread is asking "on ways to deal with this person."

Complexity of Production Processes

The company is a huge fully integrated Steel Plant (with over 53 full works departments), and the department concerned is Coke Ovens and Coal Chemicals. The number of permanent workmen is 1,200, with an equal number of contract laborers, if not more. The number of processes just for the Coal to Coke conversion subprocess would perhaps be more than 500, excluding all maintenance activities.

Measuring Plant Efficiency

Perhaps you meant just the efficiency of the Coal Coke conversion since the department itself has several parameters based on the large number of products and by-products. These efficiency parameters are the same as those facilities of ISP, globally and in India, and are widely published.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Again, each department has different KPIs to measure their performance, grouped under production, maintenance, power, energy, etc. This is the same for any ISP.

We have implemented the ERP system, which is a level 4 system, and we found that the SCM module wasn't giving us the desired results, especially in the "process system," though for the "products system," it had its advantages. For a process industry, a high-level 3 system like the Manufacturing Execution System (MES) is needed, integrated upwards with a level 4 system. This is being implemented in stages in all our sister units. Because of the variability (which runs into millions), an MES system provides more substance, though it is multiple times costlier than the ERP system itself. It's because of variability like this that a Time and Motion study does not have too much relevance in a company like ours, especially in process departments like Coke Ovens, Sinter Plant, Blast Furnaces, etc.

Seeking Suggestions

Coming back to the main issue, which is this person, any suggestion will be appreciated.

Thanks and Regards.

I liked your suggestions. I too agree that he should be aware that the management is aware of his behavior. These things do happen, especially in a government sector where there is a lot of job security. It's not the first time such things have happened. The last time such a thing occurred (and I am aware of it), I wasn't in this section. The officer was transferred on that occasion. Finally, things ended up in court, and the employee later withdrew. Union leaders, in order to improve their status, do resort to such actions. But again, they reveal it in front of other officers when they don't get some personal favors met. In the long run, the officer doesn't achieve anything.

Understanding the Reasons Behind Behavior

Another thing I wanted to mention is that we don't REALLY try to find out the REASON for such behavior. This is a big gap on our part, and I agree. Really appreciate your help.

Thanks & Regards

I sincerely appreciate the apt suggestions given by Mr. Divekar. At the outset, you have already clarified that the demand for excess manpower is not the real issue. I readily accept this, as the manpower requirement in an ISP is determined after an elaborate and comprehensive study by IED and other allied departments, as well as the technology provider, and is finalized after consultation with the Union. Once the Sanctioned Manpower is fixed, it's difficult to get it enhanced.

Any mid-stream requirement needs to be justified based on additions or modifications in the process or products. The only variable factor can be Contractual Labour deployment for purposes such as cleaning, periodic maintenance, or during capital repairs.

Since manpower is not the issue here, the association of the Manager with the Union and the resulting nuisance-value in terms of general discipline, productivity, and employee morale is the concern.

Manager's Level and Departmental Involvement

You have not mentioned the level/grade of the manager. How is the HOD of CO & CCD treating this matter? What is his opinion? Did he bring this matter to the notice of the Personnel Dept. overtly or covertly? Or, is it just an internal matter within the Personnel Dept.?

In case the matter has not been initiated or is not in the cognition of the HOD, then he should be taken into confidence. As CO & CCD is the first vital link in the production process, the output and quality of Coke and Coke Oven gas would affect all production parameters starting from the Blast Furnaces to downstream Rolling Mills. As such, the HOD should rightly be concerned, and his suggestion and support would be necessary.

Transfer Considerations

You have said that he has been transferred earlier, but the result did not turn out to be good. Where was he transferred to? In a different department or outside the Plant?

Under the circumstances, transfer seems to be a good option as already suggested earlier. In which section is he working? Whether in Production or in Mechanical or Electrical maintenance?

He needs to be moved from his usual place. For example, if he is a Mechanical Engineer in mechanical maintenance, then he can be put in Production, or vice-versa. If he is a Metallurgical or Electrical engineer, then he can be assigned to the Material Procurement or Training/Safety/Quality sections.

Another usual place (though personally I do not approve of this), in case of outside department transfer, is to put such persons in the Training, O&M, SQC, or Materials department, or even in Township services, even if he is not transferred out-stations or to other sister plants. The idea is to remove the rotten apple from the lot.

Performance and Disciplinary Measures

It might be a good idea to look into his last three Appraisal Ratings and take action based on performance issues, which already include job rotation and transfers. Also, one needs to enlist the support of the Officers' Association too, and somehow bring the matter of his relationship with the Union.

There are several ways and approaches to handle such a situation, with every subsequent step leading towards a progressive disciplinary approach. Finally, his actions can be put under surveillance, and any delinquent behavior dealt with promptly by issuing Warning Letters to start with and then increasing in severity. For this purpose, one can start with punctuality and attendance and then his job performance.

In general discipline management, there is no one-shot tried and tested formula, but several approaches and alternatives that can be used depending on the person and situation. Sometimes, just a mere counseling from HOD and the Personnel Dept. may work.

Do feel free to revert back in case of any clarification or further discussion on the matter.

Warm regards.

At the outset, thank you so much for taking a keen interest in this post. The officer concerned isn't the HOD or even the HOS but is a Senior officer in the rank of DGM. He was in the operations/production of a different section of the same department but has been recently moved to his current section within the department in operations. The GM of the Department is new and has just joined this month. He isn't aware of what is going on, and even his colleagues perhaps aren't really aware (I am not sure). I should also mention here that when this officer was moved last time to a new section in this department, he had raised a similar issue and finally managed to move some workers from his old section to his new section. Now, he wants to move them back to his current section.

I would like to make a clarification here: the officer was never transferred. When I referred to 'an officer' in my last post, I meant another different officer but in the same department some years back. Coming back to the officer under review, his performance isn't bad, neither is it very distinguished. Transferring him out would mean taking an experienced hand out of the department. In my opinion (and I could be wrong here), maybe he is trying to excel himself by putting others down so that he gets his promotion. And since he isn't very senior amongst his peers, it could be that it's a long-term strategy. His activities are not known (perhaps) amongst his peers, but then again, the Personnel Department did get a whiff of the information. It's not an isolated incident since his activities have been suspicious to the Personnel Officers for quite some time now. By the way, the Officers Union plays no part in such activities in my organization.

In case the matter has not been initiated or is not in the cognition of the HOD, then he should be taken into confidence, as the CO & CCD is the first vital link in the production process.

I am completely in sync with you, Sir. And we are going about it slowly and cautiously.

Transferring him outright is a possibility. But it won't change the man. I was thinking in terms of firstly denying his demand, secondly making him aware that we know what he is up to, and thirdly letting him know that by doing all this, he has disturbed his career growth. If the Union leaders spill the beans on him, then he falls into deep trouble. I was also thinking of countering him with statements like he is ineffective without excess manpower, as demonstrated earlier.

Thank you all and Mr. Raj for your suggestions.

Regards.

These types of games do happen in large PSUs regularly. Key executives play such games to portray their importance, keeping attention away from core issues and finding convenient reasons to escape criticism of their inadequate performance. Many times, blame is put on the HR department for all their inadequacies. When these individuals act in cohorts with certain union leaders, it becomes a deadly combination.

Having faced such situations, I suggest that at the first level, confront with data such as manpower vs. performance, production vs. contract labor (value/number) in production review meetings, or in proposals for additional manpower to support your point that additional manpower is not truly needed to meet the production target. At the second level, you may choose to play the game yourself. There will always be some trade union leaders or opinion makers who can incite others against these executives. However, this is a challenging game, and one must be very careful and calculated while playing it.

Another method is to wait for the time when the individual will expose themselves. Have faith in the saying that "all people can be fooled for some time, some people can be fooled always, but all people cannot be fooled always." Since you have understood the game, sooner or later, with some assistance from you, this message will reach everyone, and these negative elements will be exposed.

All the best.

Regards, KK

Mr. Raj and Mr. Dinesh have covered it very well. You may consider the following aspects as well.

You wrote, "When this officer was moved last time to a new section in this department, he had raised a similar issue and finally managed to move some workers from his old section to his new section." I have seen this happening many times where some people prefer to work only with their familiar or established subordinates to avoid the effort of training or understanding new staff. They may lack confidence or capability to deal with a new team or have other vested interests. This could be one of the reasons.

You also mentioned, "maybe he is trying to excel himself by putting others down so that he gets his promotion." Is he due for a promotion, or has anyone junior to him been promoted? A new GM has joined the department. Was he expecting to be promoted or placed as GM?

How long has he been with the company? When was this behavioral change noticed? He may not have been willing to change to another department for some reason or another.

Kind regards