Can a Union Claim Past Settlement Benefits Without Signing the New Agreement?

Dear Mr. Umakanth, The management entered into an 18(1) settlement with the recognized union, which enjoys the status of majority workmen being their members. The tenure of this settlement is 4 years (from 2017 to 2020). The erstwhile long-term settlement was signed under section 12(3) of the ID Act before JCL, wherein two out of three unions were signatories while one union opted out. Let us call this Union X Union. The erstwhile settlement provides for extending an Ayudha Puja Gift worth Rs 150 for the year 2013, Rs 200 for the year 2014, Rs 250 for the year 2015, and Rs 300 for the year 2016 for the first, second, third, and fourth year respectively.

The X union now claims the Ayudha Puja gift alone for the period 2017 despite not being a signatory to the 18(1) settlement. The union claims this on the ground that the benefits of the erstwhile settlement continue to flow, despite the fact that the union has not signed and accepted the settlement signed under section 18(1) as referred to above. Whilst we agree that the benefits accruing out of the erstwhile settlement shall continue to flow, yet we are of the view that the one-time gifts like Ayutha Puja gifts, which are value-specific and year-specific as mentioned in the erstwhile settlement, need not be extended to the workmen who owe allegiance to the signatory union (namely X union). Except for the Ayutha Puja gift, we don't deny any other benefits committed in the erstwhile settlement to the members of X union.

Kindly let us have your expert views.

Thanks & Regards, Senprithvib6

Dear Mr. Senprithvi,

Let me first repeat the facts, contents, and the coverage of the two settlements as I understand:

1) The earlier settlement was under Section 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947, to which the disputant union, i.e., union-X, was not a signatory.

2) The subject matter of the settlement was, inter alia, Ayudha Pooja gifts of a specific value for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 to all the workmen of the industry.

3) The settlement under Section 12(3) signed by the two unions representing the majority of workmen was equally implemented for all the workmen, including the members of the non-signatory union, as the Ayudha Pooja gift was a common benefit conferred by the Management to all their workmen.

4) Later, a fresh settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act on the same subject matter of Ayudha Pooja Gift pertaining to the subsequent years of 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 was entered into with the recognized union, which enjoys the status of the only union representing the majority of workmen in the industry as of now.

5) However, it is not clear to me from your post whether the erstwhile 12(3) settlement is over in its entirety or only in respect of the clause relating to the annual Pooja Gifts for the years mentioned therein, necessitating a fresh negotiation on this issue only. Whatever it may be, my inference is that only by virtue of its status as the sole bargaining agent of all the workmen, the recognized union alone was permitted to participate in the bilateral negotiations in this regard and sign the latter settlement on the same subject matter for the further 4 years starting from 2017 under Section 18(1) of the Act.

Now, the union-X, which is a non-signatory to either of the settlements, demands that the benefit of the 18(1) settlement should be extended to its members too, on the analogy of the implementation of the 12(3) settlement earlier. The contention of the Management is that the one-time gifts like Pooja Gifts, which are value-specific and year-specific as mentioned in the erstwhile settlement, need not be extended to the workmen owing allegiance to union-X, though the Management stands by their commitment to the extension of all other benefits arising out of the erstwhile settlement to the members of union-X.

MY OBSERVATIONS:

A) I would like to avoid the question of whether the demand for Ayudha Pooja gift partakes the essential character of an "industrial dispute" as defined under Section 2(k) of the ID Act, 1947, because of the prevalence of the practice in the industry for long on the basis of settlements and in particular because of the fact of denial of the same to a particular section of workmen employed in the same industry. Amidst the multiplicity of unions in the same industry, allegiance to a particular union at a specific point in time is a matter of alignment of mere numbers based on workmen's expectations. If the Management tries to discriminate against some workmen for their allegiance to a dissenting unrecognized union on a common benefit, it will amount to unfair labor practice enumerated at serial no. 9 of Part I of Schedule V of the ID Act, 1947.

B) The contention of the Management, banking upon the particular clause pertaining to Pooja Gifts in the 12(3) settlement, amounts to approbation and reprobation. When the particular clause having value and year specificities in a subsisting settlement would be in force till it is replaced by a fresh settlement only, and this has already happened in your case by signing a bilateral settlement with the recognized union.

C) Leaving union membership apart, the beneficiaries are the same class of employees, viz., workmen. Therefore, you cannot have two sets of rules for the same class of employees.

My suggestion in the light of the above discussion, therefore, is the extension of the settlement under Section 18(1) with the recognized union to all workmen irrespective of their union allegiance.

Thank you.