Maruti locks horns with its Union on Recognition: The new Maruti Suzuki Employees

Union (MSEU) at Manesar Plant (near Gurgaon, Delhi) demand recognition as a Union
and the Management doesn’t seem to be interested in letting that happen. The
Management is of the stern view that there is already a recognized Union by name
Maruti Udyog Kamgar Union (MUKU) and the workers who are interested in
participating in the election only need to participate in the election under the said
Union therefore making it unnecessary for the Management to mushroom in a rival
Union. The workers who intent to form MSEU are of the opinion that MUKU is a Union
representing Gurgaon Plant and do not represent Manesar Plant and that only MSEU is
the true representative face of the workers at Manesar Plant and therefore need not
participate in the election organized by the Plant.

The workers with MSEU decided to boycott the election slated for 16th June, 2011 and
resorted to a strike on 4th June, 2011 demanding recognition of their Union. The strike
lasted for 13 days and the Management suspended 8 Office bearers of MSEU and 3
other workers. Without relenting to the demands of the newly formed Union Maruti
Suzuki Chairman R.C. Bhargava said elections would be held for “both the plants” and
those who win will represent the workers of “both Gurgaon and Manesar”. “We are the
same company, Manesar and Gurgaon and they are not independent entities.”
However, Bhargava clarified that the management does not have any role in the
election process. After 13 days of deadlock, the strike was called off following
intervention of Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda with the management
agreeing to take back 11 sacked employees and cut down the no work no pay rule of
eight day’s salary cut for every single day of the strike to three days.

Today the horns still stay locked between the Management and the Union. But the
question that arises is that when the Managements role is of only an administrative
nature why do they feel threatened by the formation of the new Union. Though the
normal production has resumed in Maruti Suzuki Plant at Manesar. This standoff of 33
days between the workers Union and the Management on the issue of recognition of
their union and reinstatement of the suspended workers was smoothened up by the
intervention of Harayana Government whereby bringing about a consensus. It was the
third dispute to affect production at Maruti Suzuki in three months. This plant
produces 1200 cars every day in 2 shift. The workers resorted to sabotaging production
and deliberately causing quality problems. The production problems were discovered
during quality-control checks and included doors falling off and dents in car bodies,
according to the firm. The situation had reached a stage where it was directly harming
customers’ interest and trust. The 2,000 workers were locked out of the factory, one of
two operated by Maruti in Haryana, until they had signed the Good Conduct Bond.

As per the consensus, the management of Maruti Suzuki would conditionally take back
the 18 trainees who were suspended as the workers agreed to sign the Good Conduct
Bond laid down by the management. The said bond promises that they would not
sabotage production, resort to go-slow tactics or otherwise hamper output at its
Manesar plant. However, the management stated that the disciplinary action taken
against the 44 workers would be dealt with separately and subject to the outcome of the
domestic enquiry. Now the question remains is that can a Good Conduct Bond override
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and other Apex court judgments which
make Strike a legitimate weapon of the workers. Maruti Suzuki wouldn’t give the
workers such a bond regarding a Lockout, the management’s weapon.

Kalindi and Others vs. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd. (1960) II LLJ 228 303.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors 1998 (12) TMI
616.

Workmen of Kampali Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Management of Kampli Cooperative
Sugar Factory Ltd. ILR 1994 KAR 1566, 1995 (1) Kar.L.J. 554.

Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporation of India and Others 1985 AIR 488,
1985 SCR (3) 150.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and others vs. Workmen of KSRTC
Staff and Workers Federation 2005 (1) Kar.L.J. 333, (2005) IILLJ 219 Kant.

Balmer Lawrie Workers’ Union, Bombay and Anr. vs. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. and Ors., 1985
AIR 311, 1985 SCR (2) 492.