Union Dilemma: How Should We Handle Management's One-on-One Settlement Offers?

Sir, please assist me in overcoming a bad situation at the plant. I am a union member, and our long-term settlement (LTS) case is pending in the industrial tribunal. The management has proposed one-on-one settlements, and some individuals are accepting the offer, as it has been pending for about two years.

Dear Pradeep,

Settling Disputes Outside Judicial Forums

The pendency of a dispute for a long period before any judicial forum cannot be a bar for the disputants to settle the dispute among themselves bilaterally outside. Why not have the management talk to the union and arrive at an amicable settlement of the pending dispute? Instead, if the management indulges in a one-to-one settlement with the workmen, there is every justification for the presumption that the management wants to break the union.

Implications of Non-Signatories

What about the conditions of service for those workmen who do not sign such a settlement? In case the number of non-signatories is more, how will the management implement the settlement? Will they have two sets of service conditions for the same class of workmen if the settlement combines the rate of wages with the quantum of workload?

Concerns Over Management's Strategy

I think the present move of the management is neither correct nor appropriate. It might be successful in the short run, but what is the guarantee that the workmen would not join together to thwart such individual settlements on the grounds of the same having been obtained by coercion and intimidation? This is certainly an unbecoming strategy of industrial relations belonging to the Colonial Era.

Need for Collective Bargaining

It is equally important that while management requires unlearning certain despicable acts, the union also needs a lot of learning in the process of effective collective bargaining. For the sake of popularity and personal grudges of the office-bearers, the union should not press for unrealistic demands. No employer can ever satisfy all the needs of their employees.

Both the management and the union of workmen should recognize the fact that even a poor bilateral settlement arising out of ideal collective bargaining will, in the long run, be better than the best award coming out of adjudication.

Regards

Strike Considerations and Legal Actions

Please suggest if there is scope for a strike given that our Long Term Settlement (LTS) matter is pending in the industrial tribunal and has been delayed for the last 23 months without any response from management. Our union members are interested in a strike. Is there any scope for a strike on this matter or another issue that frequently arises in the plant? If we proceed with a strike, what outcomes can we expect, and what actions might management take against union members?

Since the last five years, one trade union has been functioning in our plant, and we have applied for recognition to the government of Odisha, which has granted permission. However, when we submitted the letter to management, they have not responded for the last year. In the meantime, management has created a pocket union with fewer than 30 members, while our union has more than 180 members. What legal actions should be taken against management? Please suggest.

Regards, Pradeep Sir

Management's Unfair Practices and Union Strategies

I think the management is wrong and is engaging in unfair practices by allowing the formation of an employer-sponsored union. Similarly, by conducting one-to-one settlements, the management is actually allowing workers to continue working by accepting a good conduct bond. The employer should not have acted like this.

However, as Umakanthan Sir has pointed out, you should aim for an amicable settlement. It's important to be realistic and consider the issue from the company’s perspective as well. If you, as a union member, can take the initiative to inform others about the real situation of the company, it would be beneficial. Demanding an unrealistic hike in salary and other service conditions will not be accepted even by the adjudication machinery. Therefore, you may establish a baseline and start negotiating afresh. If a bilateral settlement is reached, it will be advantageous for everyone.

If you initiate a strike, the management might declare a lockout. Who is the loser then? Only the employees will suffer, and ultimately, when they are about to lose their jobs, at least some employees will accept the management's conditions and withdraw from the strike, bringing it to an end. On the other hand, if you establish a new baseline and negotiate with the management now, you may be able to achieve favorable outcomes. Since you know the level at which the management is conducting one-to-one settlements, you can use this as the baseline. You can even start negotiations at a slightly higher level to reach a settlement.

Alternatively, you can file a representation before the Tribunal, stating that the management is conducting one-to-one settlements and attempting to form a self-sponsored union, which are unfair practices as per the ID Act.

Regards, Madhu.T.K

Since last year, when the LTS matter was in conciliation near the ALC, a small disturbance was created between workers and management due to this issue. The union office bearers, including the general secretary and vice president of the union, tried to solve the issue with management, and the matter was resolved bilaterally at the same time. The union also kept a copy of the agreement.

After about one and a half months of finalization, the management issued a 4-member charge sheet cum suspension letter, including the general secretary and vice president, and another 4 members received only show-cause letters. The inquiry is still ongoing, and the crucial point is that the union office bearers who were suspended are protected workmen, and the management did not give permission for the suspended workers to enter the plant.

Subsequently, during bilateral discussions about the LTS outside the plant premises, the office bearers could not talk to the union members properly about the LTS meeting. The management alleges that the suspended workmen caused a riot in the plant and were involved in misconduct towards a female management staff, which is false and baseless as we have video evidence of the earlier incident.

Currently, the union is demanding to resolve both issues, but the management clearly indicates that the issues are different and should be addressed one by one after completing the inquiry. Initially, solve the LTS issue. However, we now fear that the suspension may lead to termination.

Questions for Consideration

1) Should the union prioritize resolving the LTS or wait for both issues to be resolved simultaneously?

2) If the union prioritizes the LTS, what will be the future of the suspended workers?

3) How will the government's recognition of the union be affected?

Thank you.

Complex Issues in Workmen Termination

If the management is terminating the workmen, this can be challenged by stating that the principles of natural justice were denied to them. Naturally, if permission from the Court/Tribunal where the settlement proceedings are ongoing has not been obtained before issuing a charge sheet to the protected workers, you can approach the same machinery for assistance by stating that the charges are directly connected to the demands.

It can also be an opportunity for the management to resolve the situation by dropping the cases against your fellow members and requesting you to sign the settlement at a level acceptable to the management only. Therefore, if the union is ready for a settlement, you can demand that there should be no action against them, nor should they be victimized in the future.

Recognition will remain in force until the expiry of the period granted. This is not even an issue, but what is essential is to reach a settlement that is acceptable to the majority of workers.

Regards, Madhu.T.K

Not only has the issue become complicated, but the position of the union has also become precarious. Now, two challenges are before the union: one is to forge a settlement as soon as possible regarding the long-term issues pending adjudication to regain the trust of the workmen, and two is to protect the jobs of the charge-sheeted office bearers.

Since the matter of obtaining prior permission for terminating the protected workmen is a concurrent issue with the pending dispute, once the dispute is over with the signing of the settlement, the matter of permission would become fruitless. That's the trump card the management wants to use.

So, Pradeep, the ball is in your court. If you want to save the union, sign the settlement first as insisted by the management because you are very firm that the charges are fabricated and await the outcome of the inquiry against the office bearers. Otherwise, bring the current situation to the notice of the tribunal and file an expedited petition for the early disposal of the dispute. There is every chance that the management may prolong the inquiry as long as the dispute is pending and terminate them only after the passing of the award so that prior permission would be out of the question.

To solve both issues at one go, the union has to make some concessions as suggested by Mr. Madhu. Ensure that the concessions are not too costly. Good luck!

There is nothing to be disheartened about with any member for their views on a particular issue. In fact, contrary views promote healthy discussions and enrich our knowledge, and therefore, your observations are taken in good stead. However, I would like to point out that if you are patient enough to analyze the situation described in the original post, further explained in the follow-ups, and the responses of Mr. Madhu and myself, you will certainly understand that our suggestions are free from bias.

In industrial disputes, whether it is the management or the union of workmen, the disputants would always project only half-truths in their respective versions. Here in this thread, the forum has no opportunity to know the version of the management. What we can gather at best is that there is no cordial relationship between the union and the management right from the very beginning for obvious reasons, and it gets sharply reflected in the long-pending adjudication and the propping up of a rival union by the management with a simultaneous attempt to effect individual settlements with every workman regarding the issues pending adjudication. It is clear that both are still trying to outsmart each other.

Now, the pending disciplinary action against the office bearers has become a contentious issue blocking the bilateral negotiations of the long-term settlement. If the workmen want to save the union by signing the settlement as insisted by the management, they cannot save the charge-sheeted office bearers. If the management drops the disciplinary action for the sake of an out-of-court settlement with the union, discipline in the industry or the prestige of the management would be at stake.

Any tactics or strategy, whether adopted by the management or by the union in resolving an issue, would be meaningful, appropriate, and appreciable only as long as it produces the desired result. Otherwise, it would be totally inappropriate, if not wrong, as there is no right or wrong in industrial relations. There cannot be the so-called "win-win situation" in industrial relations but only a "both-gain-situation," provided both disputants realize their respective strengths and weaknesses in the interest of all stakeholders of the industry.

Regards

Firstly, I thank you for your valuable suggestions. The settlement date was on January 13, 2017, in the industrial tribunal, and the management applied for a time petition for 7 weeks. However, the judge refused it and gave only one month, stating that you have already taken 2 years, so this is your last extension, and no further time will be given for document preparation. If you apply for a time petition, the case will be heard on the next date.

An incident occurred with me today due to my involvement in union activity. The management is attempting to dominate me by using false allegations against me through my executive. I have received a letter from management requesting a one-to-one settlement.

Allegations from Management

In the letter, the management has accused me of the following:

I work as an operator in the production department, and a supervisor instructed me to carry out a task involving unloading long stainless steel from a truck. When I refused, stating it was not my duty, the supervisor instructed me to return to my working area.

Another issue arose when a new production machinery line was inaugurated on January 10, 2017. I, along with some friends, visited the line after obtaining permission from the safety officer and receiving a helmet. However, upon entry, an executive informed us that without reflective jackets, entry was prohibited. We left the area without hesitation. Additionally, there has been no production planning in my working area for the past 4 months, and everyone is operating without permission.

The management has been falsely accusing and harassing me not only through this letter but also through various other means regularly. I seek your assistance on how to handle this situation. If possible, kindly draft a reply for me, as I am not fully familiar with legal terminologies, and I would prefer it to be in Odia, my native language.

Thank you.

Dear Pradeep,

It is, in fact, a common problem and an unpredictably unforeseen situation regarding wage increases. The most significant issue is the loss of time when cases drag on for years, moving from Tribunal to High Courts. This is why people often avoid going to court, as it is a common problem in court cases. Your fellow colleagues have been your strength, haven't they? If they are opting for a 2P settlement, why aren't you? After all, there could be an order of reference pending before the Tribunal, or there could be a Management and union settlement that the Tribunal can award, but the timing of this is uncertain. This is why your colleagues prefer individual settlements. The right strategy, as I personally feel, is to support your co-workers, stay united, get the money, and put this matter behind you for good.

Remember one more thing—the rule of Democracy: "Majority wins, and the minority loses." If it is not done this way now and you lose control and strength, it is possible that your Management targets you, along with a few others. This may or may not be right, but it is a possible next step for them. In fact, we employ similar tactics and say everything is fair in love and war.

Best wishes,
RDS Yadav

Agreed with RDS Yadav, Sir. Why are you not accepting it and ending the matter? Just think on behalf of the company. Why are you creating such an atmosphere in the company to create such a situation? I am asking one question of you, Mr. Pradeep. Just think, you are the father of a son or daughter, and you are getting Rs. 15,000 per month. At this time, you are buying a gift or chocolate for your child worth Rs. 500. But can you imagine if your salary increased from Rs. 15,000 per month to Rs. 30,000 per month, would you still only buy a chocolate worth Rs. 500 or would you buy more? I think you, and not only you but every father, would buy more than Rs. 500.

The same thing applies between a company and its employees, where the company is like a father and the employee is like a son. So, whenever the company increases its benefits, obviously they will increase your remuneration and other benefits. But when the company is not in a position to do so, then is it possible?

Just rethink once again, then make your decision. I think, as a union member, it's your prime duty to understand the situation between management and company employees.

Addressing Unfair Management Practices

How can you advise an employee to go for an illegal settlement when the management is engaging in utterly barbaric negotiation? Why don't you consider the employees' perspective as well? I will not advise Pradeep to abandon trade union principles and opt for a settlement that undermines the trust of his coworkers. This is unfair, and the management should not be allowed to repeat such actions with another employee. Look at the false charges being fabricated against an employee. Don't you believe that workers also deserve fairness?

My advice now is to immediately approach the Tribunal and report the unjust practices within the company. Otherwise, this will lead to a scenario where no worker will be satisfied, but the management will emerge victorious. The next potential outcome could be the dismissal of every worker who refuses to sign the good service bond. Management can easily concoct charges and terminate the employee. The only recourse for the workers is to seek redress through the labor court. However, by the time a verdict is reached, it may be nearing retirement, and the real losers will be the workers. Many refrain from legal action against the management due to this knowledge, but exploiting such situations is unjust.

Regards, Madhu.T.K

Since 16th January 2017 onwards, this thread has not been active. You have received good inputs from Umakanthan ji and Madhu ji based on your posts, in my view. Madhu ji rightly advised you to approach the Tribunal immediately and inform the authorities of the unfair practices happening in the company. It seems to me that you are facing internal union issues and there is no affiliation with anyone. You should hire the services of an expert from the industrial relations domain in your vicinity to guide you on various aspects, including how to make counterattacks on management steps through drafting letters. You need to gather various pieces of evidence regarding management's unfair practices.

Wishing you all the best.