Industrial Relations

The context has been changed and hence goalpost needs to be changed too while dealing with unions and managing Industrial Relations. Please watch my interview in "Expert Talk". Link is here >> https://youtu.be/QoXB8zdg4LM

It's not always about power

Last week one of the former union committee members working in my one of the earlier organizations called me. We used to call him DC that time. We reconnected on Facebook, exchanged numbers and we got reconnected. He is retired now. During the discussion we discussed our old days. We recollected our memories about the organization. He was very aggressive and one of the strong members of the union. The union was affiliated to the strong political party. The central union had assigned one of the secretaries to the unit of our factory. He was an uneducated greedy chap always expecting gratification in exchange of maintaining the better industrial relations. However, as a multinational company, we had a code of conduct and it was not possible to entertain him. Good part was our workmen were cooperative though they were resistant to the changes and new practices. 

During this period, I was using the framework called CCDP technique, which means Culture, Communication, Directions and Power. (I have explained the framework during one of the panel discussions. Please read the report and the framework). I had presented this framework along with actions and results the organization got in one of the conferences in 2002 and it was recognised very well.

DC was committed to the workmen’s cause. Other members used to put him in front for the confrontation. He was genuine and spontaneous but non-political. Sometimes your good character is the weakness in some circumstances. Because of his nature he was always on my radar.

During 2003, the central body was sacked by the party supremo. New body was inducted. Our local union unit also got a new secretary to coordinate. We decided to give the presentation to the central body about the organization, challenges we were facing, the resistance of workmen while implementing new initiatives etc. We also wanted to give the economic challenges, cost movement of raw material and why we need to be productive and capable. Our sourcing head, Pankaj, supported a lot to make the story convincing.

Before starting the meeting, DC stood up and asked the permission from the President and Secretary to address his grievance. I thought now, DC is going to derail the discussion.

He said, “Bidwaik Saheb, (sir) has not consulted us while making the presentation and we as a committee member are not aware about what he is going to present. Hence, we will not agree on anything, what he is presenting.”

The President of the central body just said, “Let him present. We will see later what to do with that.”

I put my points on behalf of the management. After the presentation, the president asked DC, “What is wrong in this presentation? He presented the data and facts. It is good to know the organization, the story they have. If you have better arguments let's discuss this.”

DC got upset but I was relieved by the response of the central body. It made our job easy to engage them further. However convincing DC was a major challenge. Transparency and genuine interest in the person make your job easy. I did the same. I was always open with committee members, afterall they were our employees. I was educating them about the consequences of their actions. I could implement a lot of change management initiatives afterward because of their support.  

(Opinions are purely personal & does not represent my organization)    

Author's book are available on Amazon, Flipkart and BookGanga 

(Income from books is donated to the NGO which works for orphans, street children & abandoned elders)

It’s all about the ideology

It was mid-year in 1997. I had just joined the organization as a Management Trainee in the Personnel department. It was a heavy engineering company having the union affiliated to a left political outfit, militant and with illogical leadership known for disturbing the industries around. When I joined the organization, I was shortlisted for managing recruitment for diploma and engineering graduates and training them for the assembly line. Rule was simple. You hire trainee diploma engineers, train them and put them on the assembly line. You hire engineering graduates to supervise them or to work in quality control or some better job. Because of the nature of the job, the attrition in those trainees was high. So, my job was to keep filling the pipeline of those trainees. There were few lucky chaps who would get the permanent letter of the employment. Was this practice professional? I will say it depends upon the perspectives.         

When I joined, I came to know that there are some issues on the machining shop floor with union. The settlement was due for a long time and the union was pushing hard on their demands. I never realised that I would be the part of the team handling the industrial dispute and participate in negotiations further with the little experience I have. We had a team who used to manage discipline and industrial issues under the leadership of the Personnel Manager.        

I don’t remember the day, but one morning when I reached the factory, I saw the large gathering at the security gate. They were workmen but also the workmen who were from different industries around. They were waving red flags and shouting slogans against the few people in the management. I could not enter the gate. Somebody from the workmen noticed me. He took me to the leader. Leader asked me my name. I told my name and then he shouted the slogan against my name. I somehow escaped from there and stood at the end. After an hour, workmen dispersed, and I could get in. As I was one of the witnesses, the Personnel Manager asked me to give the statement in writing with names of workmen and details of the event. Security also submitted their report. 

Next day, there was a joint meeting between management and union, but I came to know that the said meeting was inconclusive. After a few days all the workmen suddenly stopped the work and they started shouting slogans and moving around the factory. Next day the large pandal was erected outside the gate. I don’t know why but the management asked all employees to come to the factory daily, sign the muster and if possible, run the machines. This was a difficult situation for all.     

And after 2-3 days the situation became chaotic. Managers were unable to go outside the factory and outsiders were unable to come in. Next day managers could escape out of the factory with the help of the police force. I came to know that the Personnel manager was fired and the Works Manager (in charge of the factory) took charge of the whole situation. Somebody from the corporate office came to Nashik. He was staying in the hotel outside but was trying to settle the situation with office bearers and external union leaders of the outfit.

Finally, the company decided to do two things. Suspend union committee members and simultaneously get the injunction for restricting to agitate them in front of the factory. 

I was called by the Works Manager, he asked, “Do you think that in such circumstances, you can hire and train trainees?”

“No” I said,

“Then, you don’t have any job to do.” He said

“I understand, you are asking me to leave.” I said sadly.

“I have not said so.” He smiled, ‘but I have an offer for you.”

“Which offer sir?” Me

“Will you work with me in handling the situation which you know? You will have to support in coordinating our labour lawyer, his team, courts and of course with union office bearers. We will have corporate Employee Relations Chief with whom you will work closely”

I was not that much aware about the consequences, but I was worried about my job and the salary. For me, my job was the priority. I had no options. I agreed.

Next few days were super busy working from early morning till midnight. Drafting notices with the help of our lawyer, displaying those and appealing workmen to resume back. Once we arranged snacks for the workmen and I took the opportunity to mingle with them. I think workmen wanted to resume the work, but office bearers were adamant. I could develop a few relations as few of them were living near my home. The Assistant Labour commissioner was trying hard to bring both parties together. I was now the team member assisting Works Manager and Chief of ER who was deputed by the corporate at the factory.

Battle was on 3 level,

Psychological level: It was a mind game for management and union. While negotiating, speaking, and dealing with the union, both parties used all pressure tactics.  

Social Level: It was a talk of the town with a lot of media coverage. People were speculating on who was right and who is wrong. So called social workers and political leaders started intervening and demanding the management to agree on the demand of workmen.    

Legal level: Simultaneously it was also fought in the legal machinery like labour commissioner, counselling officer and for injunction etc in industrial court and civil court. 

Individual level: This was a major task keeping workmen engaged and preparing them for the better and worst if something happens. They were losing their patience. Their families started calling our known officers requesting to do something about this.  

After a few days, the situation became worse. Few union leaders along with outsiders entered inside the factory and started to sabotage the property. It was too much. This was the right time to act. Police again intervened. What the union was doing was totally illegal. Anyway, it was an illegal strike.

I had nine letters in my hand typed by me on the typewriter and signed by the Works Manager. I had to hand over those letters to union committee members. I was scared. In the presence of our security guards and 2 police constables, I handed over the “suspension pending enquiry” letters to union committee members. That day was stressful day. I was shaking and perhaps I would have been collapsed the way union committee behaved with me. It was mental abuse and threats to look after me outside. In the slogans, my name was also added frequently. After a few days, the company decided to declare the lock out and close the plant. Accordingly, the notice was pasted, and copies were sent to union and state authorities.

For me lock down was the good news as I could be away from this all, till we get some order from the court. Within the next 1.5 month, finally, we got the injunction in favour of the company, restricting them to agitate in front of the factory. Court clearly declared the right of running the factory. Court asked the union to resume the work immediately and settle the matter on the table. We were aware that our lock out was also illegal.

Nine union committee members were still outside, however workmen were asked to submit the good conduct bond. Everybody signed the bond except few. It was split but the majority wanted peace of mind. It was clear now that workmen abandoned the union office bearers. We helped the workmen to have the new leadership which was more amiable which also got recognition from the industrial court very fast. 15% workmen remained with the earlier union.  Settlement was signed with a win-win situation.

After a few years, I had the opportunity to visit the house of an earlier leftist union leader in connection with some social club where I was the member. His house was a four storied building. He was living with the family on the 4th floor. It was a posh home of course with elegant showpieces and rich furniture and we were served the tea in silver cups and saucers.

While taking the tea, I recalled the whole incident. Nine union committee members were on their own fighting for the reinstatement back which was not possible. Once, I saw one of them driving the rickshaw. When I waived towards him, he just saw me. I will never forget his gloomy smile. 

Workmen who went behind that external leader lost their face and they never came out from the failure. Local committee members could not get the job back. Really the left ideology is strange.

(Opinions are purely personal & does not represent my organization)    

Author's book are available on Amazon, Flipkart and BookGanga 

(Income from books is donated to the NGO which works for orphans, street children & abandoned elders)

School of thought which I follow.

It was the year 1997. I was doing my post-graduation (Masters) in management from the institute which is affiliated to Pune University. The situation was not that good. Our batch was the second batch of the management college. Our senior batch was almost ready for placement, however there were very few companies visiting our campus. It was the era of slowdown because of Asian financial crisis. Companies were shutting down their shops. The militant left union known for their adamant attitude was making a lot of noise on the issues of wage agreement. Industries over the district in different industrial areas were struggling with top line, profitability and at other side with the non-cooperation from the union resulting in poor productivity. Few local industrialists were more much in trouble. The other union which was affiliated to the right-wing political party was blackmailing industries and few union leaders were demanding ransom from industries. Few industries were shifting to neighbouring states.

The situation was the same everywhere in the state. Few years back the government had come with the idea of establishing industrial belts in different regions. The idea was good, but the progress was slow. The infrastructure required for the industries was not that good in those delocalised regions. However few industries choose to be there to get the tax and other benefits. The new industries became the cash cows for local mafias. The environment was not that conducive for industries.

Strikes, go slow and agitations were common. This took me in 1982 where the great Bombay textile strike was called by mill workers of Mumbai under the leadership of Datta Samant. We all know the debacle of this strike. It is said that this strike was the big conspiracy against the poor mill workers by union leaders, political leaders and mill owners. This strike was spontaneous, and workers went to Mr. Samant demanded him to lead the strike, discarding established unions that time. Main demands were for more bonus and increase in wages. This strike lasted almost 19 months with the involvement of almost 0.25 million mill workers resulting in permanent closure of textile mills and pushing almost billions of people in poverty and hardship. Mr. Samant was a successful union leader dealing with employers for wage increase earlier. His militant style got popular and he established his credibility among the workmen. Because of his success, mill workers demanded him to be the leader and lead the strike. However, Samant was not ready for that. He agreed finally when workmen were too pushy and were not ready to leave his home. Very soon other leftist union supported Mr. Samant While fighting for greater pay and better conditions for the workers, Samant and his allies also sought to capitalize and establish their power on the trade union scene in Mumbai. The government got scared because if this strike would have been successful, it would have had an impact on port and dock workers and other big establishments in the region. The then congress government in state and center didn’t want the influence of Samant. We don’t know what cooked behind the scene but Samant tried to encash the situation but could not do it as Mill Owners Association and government refused to budge the pressure of union in spite of economic losses.                

The situation in 1997 was different. Union had lost its glory but because of the economic conflict, few unions were trying to establish their power. Industrial relations became better compared to 1982, but the mindset shift was required.

 It was the hot summer of 1996. As a part of the project assignment, we had to visit industries and work there for a few days. College had given us the recommendation letter. Contacting industries and relevant officers was an ongoing struggle. Today the world is so fast with the internet and mobile. That time, we had landlines and that’s also in a few homes. There was no other option. We had to travel to an industrial area, convince the security officer or the guard of the company and request him to allow us to speak with the relevant officer. It was like company to company marketing of your resume for the project work. Me along with my 3 friends were visiting industries daily and finally we got something.

That was my first experience to see the factory inside. It was a big electrical manufacturing company. We could enter the factory and meet the Personnel manager of the factory. He had a big cabin. He invited us inside, listened to us patiently. Finally, he allowed us to work with him on the project.

During the two months, we spent time with blue collar workmen, understanding their psyche. I also spoke with union leaders, worked with them on the shopfloor. I drafted disciplinary action letters, show cause notices, for the manager. During the span of two months, I realised one thing and that was, "missed human connection". There was a gap between white collar and blue-collar workmen. It was always “we” and “they”. Workmen were not willing to learn new things and managers were not taking them in confidence. There were separate canteens, separate washrooms, separate locker rooms. During the briefing session, I asked the question to the manager who was assigned to us as a project supervisor by the company, “It seems that we are focusing more on discipline, implementation of agreement clauses, but why don’t we focus on their skilling and reskilling, training and development and other human resource factors? Why don't we establish some mechanism to listen to them? Why don’t we establish connections without involving unions?” He laughed and replied, “It’s about the attitude from both sides, workmen and management. We can just try to bring that change. Unfortunately, both parties are not willing to do that.”

Today we have made a lot of progress in Industrial Relations. Unions are changing and they are not that extreme. There are “old school” and “new school” thoughts. One goes by the guidebook, rules and regulations, this thought is strong in managing any types of unions by any means. Another school of thought thinks about the human angle in industrial relations, understands different perspectives, challenges workmen on their purpose but equally is strong managing them in a balanced way. Both are right in their ways.

I was not aware that time what is there for me after submitting the project to the company and my professor. But yes, that day, I was clear which school of thought, I wanted to follow. 

 Please read the print replica of my latest book written for leaders on amazon kindle, Vitality in Human Resource: Adding human dimensions in HR processes

(Opinions are purely personal & does not represent my organization)    

Author's book are available on Amazon, Flipkart and BookGanga 

(Income from books is donated to the Janseva foundation which works for orphans, street children & abandoned elders)

Action – Reaction…

Three learnings while dealing with conflicting situations…

I always see the people in stress when something goes wrong. People even push the panic button and start acting without thinking. I understand that the reaction is natural after any action, but without understanding the action, you can’t design your reaction. Adverse situations are always challenging, you actually hone your skills while handling such situations.  

I remember the situation when I was working with one of the biggest automobile company in their engine manufacturing plant. There was a discussion going on wage demands. Those were typical days when such discussions are in progress. The negotiations were long pending and workmen were adamant on their demands. They were not willing to discuss on the productivity expected by the management as per the standards.

They tried every resorts like boycotting the founder day, annual day, go slow etc. However management was firm and we handled the situation. We identified troublemakers and opinion makers. Trouble makers were put under observation and opinion makers were properly communicated. We also completed almost 10 domestic enquires against the workmen involving habitual absenteeism. These 10 workmen were counselled and instructed not to take a single leave without permission in a year. The counselling sessions were documented in front of the union leaders. Their termination was kept on hold.

We came to know that workmen are planning to take mass leave. They did this and next day nobody turned to the job. This was a case of flash strike.

Next day, 10 workmen were out of the company…we terminated their services. Union had totally ignored this and they were shocked… after few days, MoU was signed. We asked them to implement productivity as per the norms and then only we signed the settlement.

This situation taught me few things which I always remember.                 

Don‘t respond immediately: During the whole process we thought a lot with the team on the actions. We were knowing that workmen will go for flash strike, but we decided the action after much thought. We also deducted the salary as per the law. The deduction and termination of 10 workmen was the strong point with us during negotiations. The pressure built by other workmen and opinion makers helps us to get the union on the table to discuss productivity issues.     

Try to understand before you act: The consequences would have been totally different. We had completed domestic enquiries and all 10 workmen were liable for punishment considering their records. However we had decided to give them one chance, going on flash strike also means absenting from the job which is not sanctioned by the management. Irrespective to all pressures they should have come to the job. They lost. I was criticized by few colleagues for giving the opportunity to those workmen. We didn't terminated them before because we didn't wanted to create a negative environment during collective bargaining.     

Keep the end in mind: This situation was the opportunity for us. Union came forward for the discussion. They had to take the full retreat. When we reacted on the situation, it was clear that we want to break the unwavering which we did.

Off course this was the team work. I also would like to clear that decisions in such situations are logical during particular situation and not necessary, they will be applicable in all such similar situations. However above learnings are applicable before acting in any situations.       

Calculated risk which I took…

When they selected me as a “Management Trainee” through campus, they told me that I would handle recruitment and training. They used to hire diploma engineers from campus working in assembly department. These trainee engineers would actually work on machine and doing assembly jobs. That was a big task. Mass recruitment, walk-in was common.

When I joined the company, I saw a clear conflict between management and workmen. Most of the workmen were members of dominated left outfit.  After joining of 15 days, the conflict went terribly wrong and union started agitations. They started exhibiting their militant behavior and forced workmen to stop the work. The Personnel Manager sent the letter to Directors (who were located at Mumbai) that he was unable to attend the office due to the threat of workmen. We, (trainees) were asked to seat at home. Union office bearers “Gheraoed” the Works Manager one day. They cut the telephone wires from his table. When I came in the plant, I came to know the incident. We all were out side the plant. There were very less chances to break the deadlock. The other team members who were actually responsible for Industrial Relations were just discussing what to do. They were not allowed to go inside the plant by union members.  

By evening, I decided to do something. I thought, anyway the situation is worst. Anyhow, I had to find another job in different company, but that was a time to act and take some risk. The working telephone was at the security gate only. Workmen were settling around away from the security gate. I managed to go inside and reach in the cabin of Works Manager. He was on the verge of being fainted. I went towards the senior union office bearer and shouted, “There is a call at security gate from Directors from Mumbai for Mr. Narke (Works Manager) and he told me to request you people to allow him to speak with him to resolve the issue. From his language, it seems that he wants to break the deadlock, hence please allow him at least to understand the views of Director.” My “confident voice” might have some impact and they somehow allowed to the Works Manager to go out from the cabin. As he stood, I whispered in his ear outside the cabin, “Sir, there is no any such call, better let’s run over the fence and disappeared from the venue.”

We both did the same thing and ran from the “venue”. We stop the taxi and disappeared from the spot.  The went his home and sent the fax to directors at Mumbai that he was also not in a position to attend the office as there was a threat to his life. Next day, company declared the “lock out”.

After 2-3 months, some-how conflicts started to resolve. The union office bearers were suspended. Workmen were convinced to form the internal union and normalcy was restored.

Works Manager was so happy with me that he confirmed me within 6 months.  Apart from recruitment and training, the responsibility of Industrial Relations was also given to me.

When I look back, I surprise the risk which I took that time. There were 50-50 chances of wining. Perhaps, they could beat me if they would have suspected that I was just saving the Works Manager. But it was calculated risk. I decided to act in evening where the energy of union members and workmen was low. Though all workmen were with union, I knew that there were internal issues and most of the workmen wanted normalcy. I was not responsible for Industrial Relations, but I was worried about the Works Manager on humanity ground. I just acted.

After that I took lot of risks in my personal and professional life, but all were weighted and calculated….

With reference to the context……

The General Manager along with head of all functions would review the status and discuss day to day operations. The big company with lot of activities with 2000 plus employees needs daily review for smooth operations. One of the issues was related long pending agreement with trade union. The union was dominant, 10% of the workforce was comprised with corporators, ex-corporators, leaders of different political parties around the area. Inside the factory they all were united under one flag. As they have different ideologies outside the company, union also has lot of challenges.

Due to this, negotiations took long time and both parties could not enter into the agreement. It was pending almost one year.

The company celebrates its founder day every year in October. Union decided to boycott the function. All blue collar workmen did not turn up for the function. But the function was great success with participation of staff and their family members.

Next day, union requested that they would like to pay the homage to the founder, in the premises of the company. All the functional head were in the opinion that they had nothing to do with the founder, if they had, they would have to be present on founder day. They should not be allowed.

There was lots of discussion. At the end of the day, General Manager was one side and all others were at another side including HR Head.

There was another Dy. Manager working in HR. General Manager called the guy in the meeting room.

“Union is asking the place in the premises of the company for their gathering?” what is your opinion?” he asked.

“No we should not permit their gathering inside the company premises.” He replied.

“Do you know for what this is?”

“No sir,”

“They do not want for conducting any meeting. It is for paying the homage to the founder”

Guy looks to HR head, expecting some signal. He just smiles.

“They have committed that they would not create any nuisance. As a part of agitation, they boycotted yesterday’s function organized by the local management. They had taken the move considering the sentiments of their members. This is just synchronicity. Our today’s decision should be considering the same sentiment.” GM explained.

“I agree sir, our decision should be matured. We can not work like they work. I suggest we should allow them to give the permission for paying the homage to our founder.”

After lot of discussion considering the context, the proposal was accepted by all members.

“We should always understand the context before arriving on any conclusion. It is always better to consider the matters with reference to the context.” General Manager concluded the meeting.

Do we consider the context before concluding something?