Impact of Trade Union Strike on Wage Obligations
Recently, a 2-day strike was initiated by all trade unions in India. Many of the trade unions actively supported this strike. Our company's external union also extended their support; however, the strike notice was provided to us only 2 days before the strike began, leading to a halt in the production process. As a result, the question arises whether we are obligated to pay wages for the duration of this strike.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1Recently, a 2-day strike was initiated by all trade unions in India. Many of the trade unions actively supported this strike. Our company's external union also extended their support; however, the strike notice was provided to us only 2 days before the strike began, leading to a halt in the production process. As a result, the question arises whether we are obligated to pay wages for the duration of this strike.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Simple rule for strike.........."No work ........No Pay" Their is no question of paying for non attendance................ Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(4)
Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
No Work, No Pay Policy
No work, no pay is always the rule. For any such strike, no pay is the rule, and unions also do not expect payment for these two days. It is an established rule.
However, using words like "nonsense" about anybody is unethical, and one should refrain from using any such language. I hope members learn from this.
Thanks
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(4)
Amend(0)
No work, no pay is always the rule. For any such strike, no pay is the rule, and unions also do not expect payment for these two days. It is an established rule.
However, using words like "nonsense" about anybody is unethical, and one should refrain from using any such language. I hope members learn from this.
Thanks
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
I initially thought I would not respond to this post. However, the expression of views must be in a language acceptable to all. I was only saying that using words like "nonsense," etc., about anyone or anybody is not a good practice. They have gone on strike and do not get paid for the same. They have damaged property; file a suit for damages.
I have read newspapers and I am reasonably keeping myself updated about what is happening. Thanks for your suggestion that I should read newspapers.
The issue is not about the correctness of what was done; the issue is using certain terms in public forums. The language we use in a closed room cannot be used in public.
Regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(4)
Amend(0)
I have read newspapers and I am reasonably keeping myself updated about what is happening. Thanks for your suggestion that I should read newspapers.
The issue is not about the correctness of what was done; the issue is using certain terms in public forums. The language we use in a closed room cannot be used in public.
Regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
It's worth recollecting the S.C. judgments on this issue (AIIMS). I attach the analysis of the subject that appeared in The Hindu for further deliberation of members.
Kerala Judgement
Recall, in August 2003, the Supreme Court had expressed its anguish over strikes. Upholding the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts' judgments declaring bandhs as "illegal and unconstitutional way of collective bargaining," it had ruled that government employees had no "fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right" to go on strikes, whatever the cause, "just or unjust." Pointing out that aggrieved employees had other options available to them, the Bench opined: Strikes as a weapon are mostly misused, which results in chaos and total maladministration.
Adding: "In a democracy, government employees are part and parcel of the governing body and have a duty to society. They cannot hold society to ransom." To buttress its contention, the Court observed: "The law on this subject is well settled and even a very liberal interpretation of Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) cannot lead to a conclusion that trade unions have a fundamental, guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise."
The Apex Court's judgment also upheld the Kerala Court's distinction between a hartal and a bandh. It held that a hartal was a form of passive resistance and a call for it did not involve force. However, a bandh was an enforced muscle-flexing act that interfered with the freedom of citizens. A bandh call might completely halt locomotion and, as a result, involve life and property, particularly of those who attempt to go against the strike call.
Trust our "law-abiding" netagan to circumvent the Court's ruling. They simply replaced their call for bandh by hartal. To plug this loophole, the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, yet again directed the Election Commission to entertain complaints seeking de-recognition of political parties that called for hartals by "force, intimidation --- physical or mental --- and coercion was unconstitutional." They even imposed a fine on holding of bandhs and hartals. (The Bombay High Court ordered the Shiv Sena and BJP to pay Rs.20 lakh each to compensate for losses incurred during a bandh organized by them in 2003). Predictably, this led to a political uproar. Nothing more, nothing less.
Regards,
kumar.s.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Kerala Judgement
Recall, in August 2003, the Supreme Court had expressed its anguish over strikes. Upholding the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts' judgments declaring bandhs as "illegal and unconstitutional way of collective bargaining," it had ruled that government employees had no "fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right" to go on strikes, whatever the cause, "just or unjust." Pointing out that aggrieved employees had other options available to them, the Bench opined: Strikes as a weapon are mostly misused, which results in chaos and total maladministration.
Adding: "In a democracy, government employees are part and parcel of the governing body and have a duty to society. They cannot hold society to ransom." To buttress its contention, the Court observed: "The law on this subject is well settled and even a very liberal interpretation of Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) cannot lead to a conclusion that trade unions have a fundamental, guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise."
The Apex Court's judgment also upheld the Kerala Court's distinction between a hartal and a bandh. It held that a hartal was a form of passive resistance and a call for it did not involve force. However, a bandh was an enforced muscle-flexing act that interfered with the freedom of citizens. A bandh call might completely halt locomotion and, as a result, involve life and property, particularly of those who attempt to go against the strike call.
Trust our "law-abiding" netagan to circumvent the Court's ruling. They simply replaced their call for bandh by hartal. To plug this loophole, the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, yet again directed the Election Commission to entertain complaints seeking de-recognition of political parties that called for hartals by "force, intimidation --- physical or mental --- and coercion was unconstitutional." They even imposed a fine on holding of bandhs and hartals. (The Bombay High Court ordered the Shiv Sena and BJP to pay Rs.20 lakh each to compensate for losses incurred during a bandh organized by them in 2003). Predictably, this led to a political uproar. Nothing more, nothing less.
Regards,
kumar.s.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
No Work, No Pay Policy During Strikes
As most of my friends expressed their views on the Bundh and payment for those two days, I do agree with them all—"No Work, No Pay." If the Union and workmen have come forward to compensate for those two days on their weekly off days or any holidays, the wages for those two days can be considered.
In our organization, we considered their request with a give-and-take policy. This will pave the way for better industrial relations.
This is my view.
Regards,
G.K. Manjunath
Sr. Manager-HR
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
As most of my friends expressed their views on the Bundh and payment for those two days, I do agree with them all—"No Work, No Pay." If the Union and workmen have come forward to compensate for those two days on their weekly off days or any holidays, the wages for those two days can be considered.
In our organization, we considered their request with a give-and-take policy. This will pave the way for better industrial relations.
This is my view.
Regards,
G.K. Manjunath
Sr. Manager-HR
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Since your union supported the strike, and you suffered from the lack of proper notice given, you are not obligated to pay for those days.
Understanding the Right to Strike
Although labor welfare acknowledges the right of unions to strike as a means to voice their concerns, it also emphasizes that striking should be a last resort. Initially, there should be proper meetings and demands presented to the management. Subsequently, a sufficient notice period should be provided, which, as per my understanding, should be at least a week prior to the intended strike day. A notice of just 2 days does not allow for enough time to devise an alternative strategy to prevent losses.
Addressing Union Actions
It's important to consider how the external union's actions impact your company. You may need to address this with them before issuing payments to avoid any disputes over reduced pay. Clarify matters beforehand, then proceed with payments.
Hope this information proves helpful.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Understanding the Right to Strike
Although labor welfare acknowledges the right of unions to strike as a means to voice their concerns, it also emphasizes that striking should be a last resort. Initially, there should be proper meetings and demands presented to the management. Subsequently, a sufficient notice period should be provided, which, as per my understanding, should be at least a week prior to the intended strike day. A notice of just 2 days does not allow for enough time to devise an alternative strategy to prevent losses.
Addressing Union Actions
It's important to consider how the external union's actions impact your company. You may need to address this with them before issuing payments to avoid any disputes over reduced pay. Clarify matters beforehand, then proceed with payments.
Hope this information proves helpful.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Trade unions and collective bargaining.pdf
THE TRADE UNIONS ACT,1926.ppt