Dear All,
Kindly clarify.,
I am working in LTD comapny
Recently we have done an agreement for 3 yrs 2014 to 2017. All union leaders signedat the time agreement & accepeted
We have 2 unions AITUC & BMS
AITUC made the agreement.
previous agreements we have VDA ,Current agreement don't have VDA
After agreement done general secrty of AITUC damanding for VDA & secound union BMS is supporting for VDA.
Now the issue with DCL.
My query :
Once agreement done can made change?
We asked DCL to refer to court?
Agreement done by both parties (Employer & AITUC)
Kindly helpme out.
With Regards,
Siva Kumar
From India, Mumbai
Kindly clarify.,
I am working in LTD comapny
Recently we have done an agreement for 3 yrs 2014 to 2017. All union leaders signedat the time agreement & accepeted
We have 2 unions AITUC & BMS
AITUC made the agreement.
previous agreements we have VDA ,Current agreement don't have VDA
After agreement done general secrty of AITUC damanding for VDA & secound union BMS is supporting for VDA.
Now the issue with DCL.
My query :
Once agreement done can made change?
We asked DCL to refer to court?
Agreement done by both parties (Employer & AITUC)
Kindly helpme out.
With Regards,
Siva Kumar
From India, Mumbai
Hi Buddy,
Once agreement is signed after mutual consensus between employer and employee under ID act 18(1) sec, that agreement will be in operation for the said time mentioned in the agreement and it is binding.
It cannot be revoked by one party however if both party agreed to make changes than it can be done by framing new agreement.
With Regards
Mr.Thumbs Up
From India, Chennai
104Once agreement is signed after mutual consensus between employer and employee under ID act 18(1) sec, that agreement will be in operation for the said time mentioned in the agreement and it is binding.
It cannot be revoked by one party however if both party agreed to make changes than it can be done by framing new agreement.
With Regards
Mr.Thumbs Up
From India, Chennai
Dear Shiva,
To me your narration of the particular point leading to backing-off by both the representative Trade Unions after signing the settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 seems to be not clear. It would have been better had you mentioned the particular clause of the settlement as well as the saving clause, if any speaking about modifications of earlier terms and demands if any not considered.
I do agree with Kumaran's point that once signed by the parties, all the terms of the settlement are impliedly understood to have the mutual consent of the parties concerned and will have an uninterrupted lease of life as agreed upon.
"VDA" can be interpretted differently. The immediate connotation appears to every one is that of VDA linked to any Cost of Living Index.In my experience, I found some Managements skeptical about VDA linked to COI on the ground of unpredictability of their financial commitment over the period of settlement and prefer differential rates of DA over the years covered by the settlement thus fulfilling the aspect of variability in the matter of payment of D.A. Both the practice have their own pros and cons.
Normally, switching over from VDA linked to COI will not be acceptable to workmen. Such being the general perception, what prompted your Management towards the switch-over in this aspect and how they convinced both the unions are matters of deep analysis. Might be the management used the concession of any long term demand as a barter and on the face of it the union leaders signed the settlement and then backed off after its objection by all the workmen.
So, my opinion is that your management should review the settlement to restore cordial relations rather than prefering adjudication.
From India, Salem
To me your narration of the particular point leading to backing-off by both the representative Trade Unions after signing the settlement u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 seems to be not clear. It would have been better had you mentioned the particular clause of the settlement as well as the saving clause, if any speaking about modifications of earlier terms and demands if any not considered.
I do agree with Kumaran's point that once signed by the parties, all the terms of the settlement are impliedly understood to have the mutual consent of the parties concerned and will have an uninterrupted lease of life as agreed upon.
"VDA" can be interpretted differently. The immediate connotation appears to every one is that of VDA linked to any Cost of Living Index.In my experience, I found some Managements skeptical about VDA linked to COI on the ground of unpredictability of their financial commitment over the period of settlement and prefer differential rates of DA over the years covered by the settlement thus fulfilling the aspect of variability in the matter of payment of D.A. Both the practice have their own pros and cons.
Normally, switching over from VDA linked to COI will not be acceptable to workmen. Such being the general perception, what prompted your Management towards the switch-over in this aspect and how they convinced both the unions are matters of deep analysis. Might be the management used the concession of any long term demand as a barter and on the face of it the union leaders signed the settlement and then backed off after its objection by all the workmen.
So, my opinion is that your management should review the settlement to restore cordial relations rather than prefering adjudication.
From India, Salem
It all depends up on the terms of the agreement.If the agreement resolves some issues and leaves open other issues and if that includes VDA, then probably it is open to the unions to raise the VDA issue.If the agreement is on wage fixation and it includes a formula on DA agreed to by the majority union, then it is stopped from raising the VDA issue again.If the agreement contains a clause that it sets at rest all disputes and contains an undertaking by the union that it will not agitate any other issue during the currency of the existing settlement, then you need to invoke that clause to stop the union from raising the VDA issue.You need to take a stand according to the terms of your agreement.
B.Saikumar
Navi Mubai
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
Navi Mubai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Siva kumar,
I am with B. Saikumar.
But I need to understand, do you have recognised union in your plant?
In case of multiplicity of Union, you must sign the settlement with Recognised Union or with the Union which have more members.
Regards
Govind Pawar
9823411433
From India, Mumbai
I am with B. Saikumar.
But I need to understand, do you have recognised union in your plant?
In case of multiplicity of Union, you must sign the settlement with Recognised Union or with the Union which have more members.
Regards
Govind Pawar
9823411433
From India, Mumbai
Dear Siva,
Your statement, "We asked DCL to refer to court" is not understood, when you have not mentioned what exactly is the objection of the management in agreeing to the demand of the unions. By the way, why the management wants interference of the third party, specially the court, in maintaining the cordial employer-employee relations? Employer-employees relations should always be volunteer and consensual in nature, not imposed by any outside agencies, e.g., i,posed by court judgments, etc.
There is no hard and fast rule to stick to an agreement, if that is deficient on some account. There is no harm in modifying agreement between the employer and the unions in the interest of productivity of the organisation, reaspectability of the management and peace within the organisation, provided there is no substantial loss to the organisation and both the parties are agreeable to that.
So, you have to decide whether there is any harm or not in accepting the demands of the union on the issue of VDA.
In fact, the management should prefer not to invite any outside interference on the issues of management within the organisation. There should be the rearest occasion for that when the management feels totally handicapped in case of any dispute due to totally unjustified demands of the unions/ employees.
Please don't forget, costs of disputes are quite substantial and unbearable in terms of money, productivity and repute of the organisation, besides the respectability of the management.
From India, Delhi
Your statement, "We asked DCL to refer to court" is not understood, when you have not mentioned what exactly is the objection of the management in agreeing to the demand of the unions. By the way, why the management wants interference of the third party, specially the court, in maintaining the cordial employer-employee relations? Employer-employees relations should always be volunteer and consensual in nature, not imposed by any outside agencies, e.g., i,posed by court judgments, etc.
There is no hard and fast rule to stick to an agreement, if that is deficient on some account. There is no harm in modifying agreement between the employer and the unions in the interest of productivity of the organisation, reaspectability of the management and peace within the organisation, provided there is no substantial loss to the organisation and both the parties are agreeable to that.
So, you have to decide whether there is any harm or not in accepting the demands of the union on the issue of VDA.
In fact, the management should prefer not to invite any outside interference on the issues of management within the organisation. There should be the rearest occasion for that when the management feels totally handicapped in case of any dispute due to totally unjustified demands of the unions/ employees.
Please don't forget, costs of disputes are quite substantial and unbearable in terms of money, productivity and repute of the organisation, besides the respectability of the management.
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Working with communities.ppt
THE KERALA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION RULES, 2011.pdf