December 28, 1995. A notice of dispute was served by the representative union to the conciliation officer for registering an industrial dispute in the factory. This prevented the workers from going on strike, which was in the interest of the management. January 28, 1996 to September 9, 1996. During this period, a series of negotiations were carried out between the representative union and the management in the presence of the conciliation officer in order to evolve a wage structure which could be acceptable to both the disputing parties. The management was represented by R. Satish (Personnel Officer), P.K. Mishra (Finance), S.K. Bhatia (Production) and was headed by R. Subramaniam, GM (HRM) and the union was represented by the union leader R.K. Joshi and 13 other members of the union. The management had a clear strategy and they offered a package deal to increase the wages in lumpsum by Rs. 190/- for the unskilled workers and a proportionate increase in the other categories. However, the offer was unacceptable to the union. Negotiations continued and finally both parties agreed to a lumpsum increase of Rs. 400/- for the unskilled workers. The break-up of this amount was jointly decided by both the parties (Annexure IV). September 11, 1996. On September 11, the new wage settlement was signed between the representative union and the management and a copy of the agreement was placed on the notice board. September 18, 1996. On September 18, Chaddha received a letter from the other union, ESS which registered its objections against a clause included in the wage settlement agreement. According to this clause one-time deduction of 7% from the arrears (for the period of January 96-September 96) was to be made and credited to the building fund which was to be used by EMS for its union activities. Since management was bound by law to negotiate with EMS, they took no notice of the letter by ESS despite the fact that it had membership of more workers. October 7, 1996. The payment of the arrears was made on October 7, 1996 alongwith the salary of September 1996 in the same envelope after deduction of 7% for the building fund. The workers refused to accept the envelope, and for the first time since 1983, there was agitation in the factory, they gheraoed the management bringing work to a halt. Now what should Subramaniam do? Annexure I Charter of Demands igolono 1. There should be an increment of Rs. 250/- in the basic salary. 2. The existing rate of increment should be doubled. 3. The HRA should be increased from Rs. 80 to Rs. 200. 4. *Washing allowance of Rs. 50/- per month. 5. *Conveyance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. 6. *An education allowance of Rs. 100/- month.

MARKETING 2018
19th Edition
ISBN:9780357033753
Author:Pride
Publisher:Pride
Chapter4: Social Responsibility And Ethics In Marketing
Section4.2: Blue Bell Creameries Moo’ves Ahead After Listeria Crisis
Problem 3C
icon
Related questions
Question

QUESTION : WHAT Should SUBRAMANIAM do ?

Cases of Indian Organizations
449
CASE 7:
SUBRAMANIAM'S DILEMMA
Shivram Gears, a medium sized gear manufacturing public limited company based at
Faridabad with its head office at New Delhi, was established by a young and dynamic
entrepreneur Sunil Sanghi. It was a small scale industrial unit in the year 1962 with a total
workforce of 20 persons.
Company Background
The small scale industry of the 60s grew into a private limited company of 70s and ultimately
a public limited company in the 80s. The company sold its products to heavy vehicle and
two-wheeler industries. They also had a huge replacement market served through their
distribution network.
A charter of demands (Annexure I) was submitted to the factory manager R.P. Chaddha
on November 20, 1995 by the representative union, the Engineering Mazdoor Sangh (EMS),
demanding a better wage structure. Chaddha forwarded the notice of change to R. Subramaniam
(GM-HRM). As he read it, he could foresee a dark cloud hovering over the
existing between the management and workers.
sunny
relations
The Brewing of Dispute
The company had a workforce of 2400 with staff to worker ratio being 1:3. The workers were
categorized into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. The organization had been enjoying
industrial harmony and not even a single manday had been lost since 1983 due to strike.
The organization had two trade unions, the Engineering Mazdoor Sangh (EMS) and the
Engineering Shramik Sangathan (ESS). The representative union as per the Haryana Industrial
Relations Act (HIRA) was EMS, which had the right to negotiate on behalf of the employees.
However, EMS did not enjoy support of the majority of workers in the organization whose
allegiance was more towards the rival trade union, the ESS. In addition, the workers were
known to change their allegiance frequently.
The wage rates of the workers were much above the Minimum Wages Act
(Annexure II). In fact, the wage rates were fixed in accordance with the industry norms so
as to ensure a low manpower turnover. The wage rates in theory were governed by the wage
settlement agreement between the management and workers. Apart from the existing wage
structure, the management also offered other incentive schemes to further motivate the
workforce (Annexure III). The revisions in the same were considered along with the wage
revisions.
Chronological Order of Events
November 20, 1995. On receiving the charter of demands from the union, the negotiations
commenced. The GM (HRM), the factory manager and the personnel officer alongwith other
departmental heads scrutinized the notice of change, calculated the costs and studied its
implications. They even compared the practices in the industrial units in the surrounding
area as well as in the other engineering units specially in view of the new demands. Since
the wage settlement agreement was to expire on 31st December, 1995 it was decided by the
management that they would not discuss this issue till January, 1996 and the same was
intimated to the representative union.
Transcribed Image Text:Cases of Indian Organizations 449 CASE 7: SUBRAMANIAM'S DILEMMA Shivram Gears, a medium sized gear manufacturing public limited company based at Faridabad with its head office at New Delhi, was established by a young and dynamic entrepreneur Sunil Sanghi. It was a small scale industrial unit in the year 1962 with a total workforce of 20 persons. Company Background The small scale industry of the 60s grew into a private limited company of 70s and ultimately a public limited company in the 80s. The company sold its products to heavy vehicle and two-wheeler industries. They also had a huge replacement market served through their distribution network. A charter of demands (Annexure I) was submitted to the factory manager R.P. Chaddha on November 20, 1995 by the representative union, the Engineering Mazdoor Sangh (EMS), demanding a better wage structure. Chaddha forwarded the notice of change to R. Subramaniam (GM-HRM). As he read it, he could foresee a dark cloud hovering over the existing between the management and workers. sunny relations The Brewing of Dispute The company had a workforce of 2400 with staff to worker ratio being 1:3. The workers were categorized into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. The organization had been enjoying industrial harmony and not even a single manday had been lost since 1983 due to strike. The organization had two trade unions, the Engineering Mazdoor Sangh (EMS) and the Engineering Shramik Sangathan (ESS). The representative union as per the Haryana Industrial Relations Act (HIRA) was EMS, which had the right to negotiate on behalf of the employees. However, EMS did not enjoy support of the majority of workers in the organization whose allegiance was more towards the rival trade union, the ESS. In addition, the workers were known to change their allegiance frequently. The wage rates of the workers were much above the Minimum Wages Act (Annexure II). In fact, the wage rates were fixed in accordance with the industry norms so as to ensure a low manpower turnover. The wage rates in theory were governed by the wage settlement agreement between the management and workers. Apart from the existing wage structure, the management also offered other incentive schemes to further motivate the workforce (Annexure III). The revisions in the same were considered along with the wage revisions. Chronological Order of Events November 20, 1995. On receiving the charter of demands from the union, the negotiations commenced. The GM (HRM), the factory manager and the personnel officer alongwith other departmental heads scrutinized the notice of change, calculated the costs and studied its implications. They even compared the practices in the industrial units in the surrounding area as well as in the other engineering units specially in view of the new demands. Since the wage settlement agreement was to expire on 31st December, 1995 it was decided by the management that they would not discuss this issue till January, 1996 and the same was intimated to the representative union.
450
Human Resource Management
December 28, 1995. A notice of dispute was served by the representative union to the
conciliation officer for registering an industrial dispute in the factory. This prevented the
workers from going on strike, which was in the interest of the management.
January 28, 1996 to September 9, 1996. During this period, a series of negotiations were
carried out between the representative union and the management in the presence of the
conciliation officer in order to evolve a wage structure which could be acceptable to both
the disputing parties. The management was represented by R. Satish (Personnel Officer),
P.K. Mishra (Finance), S.K. Bhatia (Production) and was headed by R. Subramaniam,
GM (HRM) and the union was represented by the union leader R.K. Joshi and 13 other
members of the union. The management had a clear strategy and they offered a package deal
to increase the wages in lumpsum by Rs. 190/- for the unskilled workers and a proportionate
increase in the other categories. However, the offer was unacceptable to the union. Negotiations
continued and finally both parties agreed to a lumpsum increase of Rs. 400/- for the
unskilled workers. The break-up of this amount was jointly decided by both the parties
(Annexure IV).
September 11, 1996. On September 11, the new wage settlement was signed between the
representative union and the management and a copy of the agreement was placed on the
notice board.
September 18, 1996. On September 18, Chaddha received a letter from the other union, ESS
which registered its objections against a clause included in the wage settlement agreement.
According to this clause one-time deduction of 7% from the arrears (for the period of January
96-September 96) was to be made and credited to the building fund which was to be used
by EMS for its union activities. Since management was bound by law to negotiate with EMS,
they took no notice of the letter by ESS despite the fact that it had membership of more
workers.
October 7, 1996. The payment of the arrears was made on October 7, 1996 alongwith the
salary of September 1996 in the same envelope after deduction of 7% for the building fund.
The workers refused to accept the envelope, and for the first time since 1983, there was
agitation in the factory, they gheraoed the management bringing work to a halt.
Now what should Subramaniam do?
Annexure I
Charter of Demands
golono
1. There should be an increment of Rs. 250/- in the basic salary.
2. The existing rate of increment should be doubled.
3. The HRA should be increased from Rs. 80 to Rs. 200.
4. *Washing allowance of Rs. 50/- per month.
5. *Conveyance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month.
6. *An education allowance of Rs. 100/- month.
Transcribed Image Text:450 Human Resource Management December 28, 1995. A notice of dispute was served by the representative union to the conciliation officer for registering an industrial dispute in the factory. This prevented the workers from going on strike, which was in the interest of the management. January 28, 1996 to September 9, 1996. During this period, a series of negotiations were carried out between the representative union and the management in the presence of the conciliation officer in order to evolve a wage structure which could be acceptable to both the disputing parties. The management was represented by R. Satish (Personnel Officer), P.K. Mishra (Finance), S.K. Bhatia (Production) and was headed by R. Subramaniam, GM (HRM) and the union was represented by the union leader R.K. Joshi and 13 other members of the union. The management had a clear strategy and they offered a package deal to increase the wages in lumpsum by Rs. 190/- for the unskilled workers and a proportionate increase in the other categories. However, the offer was unacceptable to the union. Negotiations continued and finally both parties agreed to a lumpsum increase of Rs. 400/- for the unskilled workers. The break-up of this amount was jointly decided by both the parties (Annexure IV). September 11, 1996. On September 11, the new wage settlement was signed between the representative union and the management and a copy of the agreement was placed on the notice board. September 18, 1996. On September 18, Chaddha received a letter from the other union, ESS which registered its objections against a clause included in the wage settlement agreement. According to this clause one-time deduction of 7% from the arrears (for the period of January 96-September 96) was to be made and credited to the building fund which was to be used by EMS for its union activities. Since management was bound by law to negotiate with EMS, they took no notice of the letter by ESS despite the fact that it had membership of more workers. October 7, 1996. The payment of the arrears was made on October 7, 1996 alongwith the salary of September 1996 in the same envelope after deduction of 7% for the building fund. The workers refused to accept the envelope, and for the first time since 1983, there was agitation in the factory, they gheraoed the management bringing work to a halt. Now what should Subramaniam do? Annexure I Charter of Demands golono 1. There should be an increment of Rs. 250/- in the basic salary. 2. The existing rate of increment should be doubled. 3. The HRA should be increased from Rs. 80 to Rs. 200. 4. *Washing allowance of Rs. 50/- per month. 5. *Conveyance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. 6. *An education allowance of Rs. 100/- month.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Globalization
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, management and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
MARKETING 2018
MARKETING 2018
Marketing
ISBN:
9780357033753
Author:
Pride
Publisher:
CENGAGE L
Principles of Management
Principles of Management
Management
ISBN:
9780998625768
Author:
OpenStax
Publisher:
OpenStax College