DHR10

Industrial Relation & Labor Laws

Assignment I
Assignment Code: 2015DHR10B1
Submission: 15th November 2015

Last Date of
Maximum Marks:

100
Attempt all the questions. All the questions are compulsory and
carry equal marks.
Section-A (50 marks)
1.
Industrial Relations Policy of the Government of India has shifted from
regulation, to
protection, to enabling. Terms of reference of the National
commission are set in view of the emerging economic scenario. Trace the
Government Policy formation and paradigm shifts therein over the years.
2.
What are the usual causes of Industrial Disputes in India? Has the
Industrial Relations
Machinery in India served the desired purpose of
prevention and settlement of Industrial disputes over the years? Illustrate
with two instances that may bring about adequacy or otherwise of the
present provisions.
Section-B (50 marks)
Case Study

ABC industries ltd

ABC industries ltd, has a work force of more than 1200 employees, engaged
in manufacture of cotton yarn of different counts. It has modernized its plant
and to maintain good human relations, ABC Industries has extended more
than customary facilities to its employees, and they enjoy better wages and
benefits as compared to industries engaged in similar activities.
The CEO of the Company and executives in charge of different areas
comprise the management cadre. IR department is headed by Manager (IR).
The employees are represented by four trade Unions; say A, B, C, and D
unions. Union A and B are recognized by the management for purposes of

negations, otherwise all unions maintain cordial relations with management,

individually and collectively.
The Company had been distributing bonus to the workers at rates more than
the statutory minimum prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
Last year, for declaration of rate of bonus, management had a series of
meetings/ discussions with the recognized unions and finally announced a
bonus which was in turn agreed upon by all recognized unions.
The next day, when the management prepared the settlement and presented
it before the union representatives for signatures the leader of Union B
refused to sign and walked out, stating that the rat of bonus declared was
not sufficient. The next day Union B issued a strike notice to the
management asking of higher bonus. The management tried its level best to
avoid unpleasant situation, but in vain. The members of Union B went on
strike; they were joined by members of Union D.
During its efforts to know the reasons for the deviant behaviour of the leader
from Union B, it found that the leader of Union A, soon after the first meeting
had stated to a group of workers that the management had agreed to the
declare bonus at the current rate because of his efforts and that the leader of
Union B had miserably failed in its talks with management. This observation
by leader of Union A reached the leader of Union B, and he felt insulted. On
identifying the reason for Union Bs strike call, the IR manager brought about
a compromise between the leaders of the Union A and B. The workers on
strike thereafter resumed work and the settlement was signed for the same
amount of bonus as agreed upon earlier in the meeting.
Questions:
1. What should be the managements long term strategy for avoiding
recurrence of such inter-union differences?
2. How would you handle this IR situation, if you were the manager IR,
when Union B resorted to strike?

DHR10
Industrial Relations & Labor Laws
Assignment II
Assignment Code: 2015DHR10B2
Submission: 15th November 2015

Last Date of
Maximum Marks: 100

Attempt all the questions. All the questions are compulsory and
carry equal marks.
Section-A (50 marks)
1.
Indian Labour Legislations have been greatly influenced by ILOs
conventions and recommendations. Elucidate by establishing direct relation
between the conventions /
recommendations by ILO and provisions
contained in any two prominent labour Legislations.
2.
The statutory social security schemes in India cater only to a small
proportion of the population. Even all industrial workers are not covered as
smaller establishments and those drawing salaries exceeding certain limits
are excluded from the benefits of various social security programs. Name
any five prominent social security legislations and
justify
the
above
statement with help of provisions of two of these legislations.
Section-B (50 marks)
Case Study
A joint venture company, Indo-Czech Private Ltd. was established in 2002, to
manufacture auto parts. It established its plant at Noida (UP) on a Plot
allotted by UP State Industrial Area Corporation. Commercial production
commenced in 2005. The same year, the Indian partner purchased an
Industrial Plot developed by Haryana State Industrial Corporation at Manesar,
near Gurgaon, Haryana. The Indian partner planned an industrial unit to

assemble a related product, again with foreign technology from a foreign firm
of a different Nationality. Though there was no violation of the legal
agreement entered into between the Indian Party and the Czech Company
which had established business at Noida, the Czech Company did not
appreciate the move by the Indian partner to go on his own and not involve
them in the business project at Manesar.
The JV with Czech company was doing well and declared its first-time
dividends in 2008, and continued to grow and make profits for the next three
years. Towards the close of 2011, the Czech Company decided to part ways,
and the Indian promoter inducted two of his school friends, on the Board of
Directors who agreed to buy the stock held earlier by the Czech Company, in
equal proportion.The new management made many changes including the
following:
a) They increased the salaries of executives and staff of the Unit to
reduce the gap in the pay structure of the executives and staff of this
Unit and the one run by the promoter director at Manesar, Haryana.
b) They invested 30 Crores for up- gradation of the facilities at the Factory
at Noida.
c) They shifted from 6days working to 7 days working per week t improve
the productivity and enhance the cost effectiveness of the Unit.
The shift from 6 days to 7 days working without any financial gains made
workers resist the change. At this Juncture, Corporate Manager (IR)
intervened and promised the workers that they would be paid for 30 days
instead of 26 days, but Director (HR) and GM (Operations), refused to agree
to this since they were not involved when the corporate manager (HR) made
the commitment.
The promise was not fulfilled which further complicated the problems. The
issues kept on lingering for 6 months. No decision could be taken because of
the difference of opinion among senior executives. In June 2012, the workers
gheraod the GM (Operations) to pressurize management. They succeeded
to the extent that the management agreed to give financial benefits with
retrospective effect of 4 years making it one additional year over and above
3 years of normal agreement. Workers were asked to give a notice of change
which the workers could not give till December, 2012 because of
disagreement among themselves. In the mean time, on recommendations of
GM (Operations) ir was decided to appoint an Assistant Manager (HR). This
appointment took 3-4 months because of discord in opinions of GM
(Operations) and Director (HR). However, Mr. Smart was appointed Assistant
Manager (HR) in October 2012.

In December 2012, the workers gave a notice of change demanding an

increase of Rs.2200/- per month. In January 2013, a notice of change was
given by management side. In February the negotiations started and
continued till July. GM (Operations), the new Corporate Manager (IR), Ms
Smily and Mr. Smart were to represent the management and seven members
of the union were to represent the workers, besides the General Secretary of
BMS.
The first two rounds of meeting did not lead to any outcome as none of the
parties were ready to budge. This made the General Secretary of BMS
withdraw as he was fed up with the rigid stand of union leaders. During the
third meeting (which was not attended by the General Secretary, BMS) union
leaders came down to Rs. 1200/- from Rs.2200/-. The Minutes of the meeting
were jotted down but the union leaders refused to sign. Taking advantage of
the occasion, GM (Operations) and the Asstt. Manager (HR), had a secret
meeting with the General Secretary of BMS in a hotel, who advised the
representatives of management to maintain a low profile for a few months to
crack down the workers aspirations who had very high expectations. It was
observed by the Asstt. Manager (HR) there was perceptual differences
between senior and junior union leaders. Taking a cue from this, he adopted
a policy of divide and rule. He took into confidence a senior union leader and
had a secret meeting with him to explore the last settlement amount,
suggesting that management could go only up to Rs. 450/-. He also took a
junior Union Leader into confidence and convinced him that management
was not going to bend before the demand of the workers. He further spread
the rumors that no wages would be given retrospectively.
The next day meeting resumed in which union representatives came down to
Rs. 750/(because of pressure from workers) beyond which they were not
ready come down.
It was decided that the number of the management representatives and the
workers would be restricted to four (two on either side). Accordingly a
meeting was held and it was resolved that Rs. 575 on an average be given
per month. An MOU was drafted by the legal manager at the Corporate Office
and duly signed by the all those who were present at the meeting where the
agreement had been reached.
When the papers were sent to Director (HR), he had his ego hurt and
objected to MOU, and picked holes in the agreement arrived at.

Questions

1. Did the management use an ethical approach during

negotiations, in this case? Give reasons to support your
answer.
2. Should the Director (HR) raise objections after the MOU had
been signed?
3. Assuming that you are corporate manager (HR), what will be
your strategy in the given case?