MRF United Workers Union Vs Government of Tamil Nadu Group 13 Group 14 H22170 | Srinivas R Pal H22174 | Tanvi Lakra H22171 | Srishti Kapoor 22175 | Trisha Amalnerkar H22172 | Stuti Biswas 22176 | T Ajith Kumar H22173 | Sumeet Sagar Lenka 12177 | Uttkarsh Bhallika Background: 1. MRF Limited's Arakonam facility in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, is the largest of the company's six tyre production facilities. 2. The workers in the facility are paid on a piece-rate basis which has little transparency inside the process. The workers are also not sure of the definition of ‘piece’ and the rate at which they are compensated for. 3. The number of contract workers in the facility are more than double the regular workers for the same kind of work. 4, Management was preventing the workers from forming an independent union since 1970s by victimising workers who are working in that direction. 5. The management also established its own union in the factory with its selected office bearers, It had arbitrarily deducted subscription from wages of the workers through the check-off facility provided to the union. 6. Despite the efforts of management, the workers were able form a registered union - MRF United Workers Union (MUWU) in 2003. Case Facts: 1. In February 2004, the MRF United Workers Union sought the management to recognise it as the bargaining agent since it had the majority of member subscription 2. Ithad also asked the management to refrain from making deductions under check-off system for the subscription for the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employee Association. The request was turned down by the management, also, the MRF United Workers Union was not recognised 3. On 17/May/2004, the MUWU wrote to Labour Commissioner, Chennai for determining its majority using the secret ballot. The commissioner wrote back to them stating that there was no law providing such determination, 4. The MUWU raised a charter of demands on 25" November 2004. But the management entered the settlement with the MRF Cycle Tyre Unit Employee Association. 5. On the failure of Government and the local labour authorities to address the legitimate grievances of the workers, the MRF United Workers Union lodged a complaint before the ILO Governing Body’s Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA)Judgement: 1 10. 1. 2 23. The court underscored the importance of workers having a truly representative and independent collective bargaining agent observing that this was in the interest of industrial peace apart from being in the interest of the workers. On the basis of various entries in the fifth schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that enumerates ‘unfair labour practices on the part of the employer, the court inferred that the Act also contemplates that the collective bargaining agent of the workers be truly representative and independent. The court held that itis the mandate of the Act that the truly representative and independent collective bargaining agent of the workers be recognized by the management and that the management cannot refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with such a The court further held that the stand of the management that it will decide as to who should be the representative of the workmen and that it will negotiate only with them is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It observed that such a stand would also amount to interference with the right of the workers to organize themselves into a union for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the issue of the mode of determination of the representative status of the unions operating in the factory, differing from the view expressed by the CFA that secret ballot would be the appropriate method, the court opined that the verification procedure prescribed under the Code of Discipline would be the correct method. Comparing the two methods, the court observed that while secret ballot would only indicate the following of a union at a particular point of time, the method of verification would show the following of a particular union over a longer period and would therefore be a better option. In artiving at this conclusion, the court took into consideration the inclination of the state government for adoption of the verification procedure provided under the Code of Discipline. It also noted that the Code of Discipline was evolved based on a consensus between employer’ and workers’ organizations and thus, the procedure contained therein was acceptable to employers as well In addition, it noted that laws relating to the recognition of trade unions in some states in India prescribed the verification procedure. The court permitted the MRF United Workers’ Union to make an application to the concerned Labour Commissioner claiming recognition on the basis ofits membership figures for the last six months and issued a direction to the Commissioner of Labour to thereafter call upon the two unions to submit their membership registers for the last six months and other supporting documents required to be furnished under the Code of Discipline and on this basis determine which union has a larger membership. It observed that in the event of any objections being raised about the membership details, the method of personal interrogation provided for under the Code could be used to determine the correct membership of the respective unions. The court further directed that the union found to have a larger membership based on the aforesaid exercise shall be accorded recognition by the management. The court also ruled that it would be open for the petitioner union to raise an industrial dispute challenging the legality and validity of the settlement of May 9, 2008,Methods of Recognition: 1. No process described in the IR Code or the Rules. 2. The processes could be a. Secret Ballot: All qualified employees of an establishment are allowed to cast a ballot for the union of their choice. Elections are performed in a manner that is very similar to general elections by a neutral agent, usually the Registrar of Unions. b, Check Off: This allows each employee to give written consent to management to withhold union dues from their paychecks and credit those funds to the union of their choice, This provides management with verifiable proof of the various unions’ strengths. However, the system is also susceptible to manipulation, especially when management and a preferred union collide. ¢. Verification: Upon request from unions and management of an organisation or industry, the labour directorate gathers information about all unions in a facility, including information about their registration and membership. Duplicate membership is carefully examined in the unions' claim lists, fees books, membership records, and account books, A later modification required unions to maintain member lists to prevent duplicate membership. Landmark Judgements: Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and others In Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and others reported in 1995 (I) LU page 272 also the Apex Court observed that when in an establishment, be it an industry or an undertaking, there are more than one registered trade unions, the question as to with whom the employer should negotiate or enter into bargaining assumes importance, because if the trade ur claiming this right be one which has its members in minority of the workmen/employees, the settlement, even if any arrived between the employers and such a union, may not be acceptable to. the majority and may not result in industrial peace. In such a situation with whom the employers should bargain or to put in differently, who should be the sole bargaining agent, has been a matter of discussion and some dispute. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has observed that the check-off system has lost its appeals and the method of secret ballot was being gradually accepted. ‘That was however a case where the method was agreed by consent. Automobile Products of India Employees Union v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay, and others Quite contra is the view of the Apex Court in Automobile Products of India Employees Union v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay and others reported in 1990 (2) $.C.C 444. In the aforesaid case, the matter arose from the provisions of the M.R.T.U and P.U.LP Act. Itis relevant to note that the provisions of M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act has granted statutory recognition to the method of verification of membership to determine the majority character of the union. The procedure laid down for verification is based on the membership, six months previous to the date of application. The respondent-union there was the recognized union. The appellant-union claiming majority of membership applied for cancellation of recognition of the first respondent-union, The application by appellant-union was allowed, which was however set aside by the High Court. Onappeal, the Supreme Court noted that though there was a strong demand from some sections for recognizing the bargaining agent of the workmen by a secret ballot or otherwise, the National Labour Commission did not countenance it for certain obvious reasons, It was felt that the elective element would introduce unhealthy trends which would be injurious to the trade union movement, for industrial peace and stability and endanger the interests of the workers, the employers and the society as a whole. The Supreme Court, after examining the various provisions, held that what the Industrial Court did by perm n of the union by secret ballot, was by a method clearly derogatory to the Act. Analysis: 1, The court's interpretation that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947's prohibition on unfair labour practises and the fifth schedule to the Act give rise to the right of workers to have a truly representative and independent collective bargaining agent—and that it is the Act's mandate that such an agent be recognised by management—appears to be a first of sorts. Given the lack of legislation on the question of trade union recognition in numerous states, such a reading of the Act has increased significance 2. Furthermore, the decision clearly establishes that even in a state without a specific law relating to the recognition of trade unions in effect or without a specific statutory requirement requiring an employer to recognise the union in the involved establishment with the largest membership for collective bargaining purposes, the employer is required to recognise the most representative union in the establishment. 3. Since the employer in question is a private company, this is more important. This decision is significant for trade unions around the world because it addresses the issue of employers routinely refusing to recognise and negotiate with representative unions in the private sector as well as the growing trend of employers arbitrarily choosing to enter so-called settlements with minority unions/management-sponsored unions or committees whose members are hand-picked by the management. 4, From the point of view of the MRF United Workers Union, even while the preference of the union was for a secret ballot, the very fact that the court has directed the verification of the representative status of the unions operating in the establishment and has held that the employer is bound to accord recognition to the union found to be truly representative amounts to a vindication of its stand. Recognition of Union under IR Code 2020: 1. Section 14 of the IRC deals with the recognition of a negotiating union or negotiating council. if only one TU of workers registered under the code then, the employer shall, recognise such Trade Union as sole negotiating union of the workers. 3. If more than one registered TU then, the TU having >51% of the workers shall be recognised by the employer, as the sole negotiating union of the workers. 4, if more than one TU and no such TU has >51% of workers then, there shall be constituted by the employer, a negotiating council for negotiation, consisting of the representatives of such registered Trade Unions having the support of not less than 20% of the total workers on the muster roll and such representation shall be of one representative for each 20% and for the remainder after calculating the membership on each 20%.5. Where any negotiation on the matters referred to in sub-section (1) is held between an employer and a negotiating council, any agreement is said to be reached if itis agreed by the majority of the representatives of the Trade Unions in such negotiating council 6. Any recognition made under sub-section (2) or (3) or (4) shall be valid for 3 years from the date of recognition or constitution or such further period not exceeding 5 years, in total, as, may be mutually decided by the employer and the Trade Union, as the case may be. 7. The facilities to be provided by the industrial establishment to a negotiating union or negotiating council shall be such as may be prescribed. Comparison between the Trades Union Act,1926 & IR Code 2020 TUAct IR Code 2020 ‘Only mentions registration. Determination of Representative character of trade unions by the "secret ballot system" as per the Supreme Court in Food corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India, State Legislations for Recognition Recommendations for recognition under Code of Discipline ‘Section 14 of the Code lays down the provisions for recognition of trade unions. = Asingle union: the employer recognizes that union as the sole bargaining union of the workers, = Several unions: the union is recognized by the employer as a bargaining union with 51% of the ‘employees in the industrial ‘company's model directory. ~ Several trade unions, none of which fulfil the above-mentioned criteria: the employer forms a negotiating council made up of representatives of these registered trade unions, who are supported by at least 20% of the total workforce of the industrial company.