Chapter 8 PERFORMANCE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MACHINERY...

Chapter 8

PERFORMANCE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MACHINERYIN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES IN KERALA

Modern industrialisation has created a yawning gulf between

employers and workers because of the absence of workers’ ownership over the

means of production. This gap has led to industrial conflicts and disharmony

which ultimately lead to work stoppage in the form of strikes and lockouts,

resulting in many evil consequences affecting both the stock holders and stake

holders. An amicable and early settlement of industrial disputes is imperative

for the continuous development and smooth functioning of industrial activity.

With the intention of protecting the interests of the workers, the

management and the society at large, the Government has put in place certain

mechanisms (statutory and non-statutory) to prevent the occurrence of disputes

and for their settlement.

8.1 Concept of Dispute Settlement Machinery

A fair and independent machinery for the peaceful settlement of

industrial disputes is a prerequisite for the establishment of good industrial

relations. Dispute settlement machinery is a mechanism set up for the

prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. It comprises preventive

machinery for averting industrial disputes and settlement machinery for their

190

earlier settlement. Whenever the preventive machinery fails, the industrial

dispute settlement machinery should be tapped by the Government to settle

disputes.

The objective of setting up industrial relations machinery is to provide

measures, whereby the disputes could be prevented from occurring, and in case

they arise, settle them, so that industrial peace is not disturbed. It aims at

establishing permanent peace on the basis of equality, social justice and fair

play.

8.2 Dispute Settlement Machinery in India

The prompt and equitable settlement of labour disputes is an

important basis for sound industrial relations. The machinery for dispute

settlement in India comprises voluntary or non-statutory and statutory

machinery. Voluntary machinery is used to resolve the dispute in advance and

also prevents the occurrence of differences. If this machinery fails, then the

statutory machinery may be used. A brief description of the non-statutory and

statutory machinery is given below:

8.2.1 Non-Statutory Machinery

Non-statutory machinery is used for the prevention of industrial

disputes internally. Workers’ participation in management, collective bargaining,

grievance procedure, tripartite bodies, code of discipline and standing orders

were voluntarily used in India to prevent the occurrence of disputes.

191

(i) Workers’ Participation in Management

Workers’ Participation in Management (WPM) is a mechanism where

the workers have active participation in the decision making process of an

enterprise leading to a sense of belonging in them. The important forms in

which workers involve themselves in management are information sharing,

joint consultation and suggestion schemes. The objectives of workers’

participation in management includes prevention of workers’ exploitation either

by owners or by top managers, growth of the economy through democratic

processes, solution of conflicts by democratic regulations, sharing of financial

and other information related to organisation and no intention to destroy

managerial authority.1 Workers participation helps to reduce industrial unrest,

misunderstanding and to ensure higher productivity, increased commitment

and industrial democracy. The various forums of participation in India are: works

committee, joint management council, shop council and joint council.

Work committees are intended to promote measures for securing

and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and the

workmen, and to that end to comment upon matters of common interest or

concern and to endeavour to iron out any material difference of opinion in

respect of such matters.These committees comprise equal number of

representatives of employers and employees in the industry concerned. Joint

management councils have been given the rights of information, consultation

1. B.R.Virmani, Workers Participation in Management, Macmillan, New Delhi, 1978, p.5.

192

and administration over specific items. Joint management councils have equal

representation of workers and management. Shop councils have been introduced

in big industrial units employing more than 500workers.The functions of the

council would be to increase production, productivity, and overall efficiency

of the shop or department and assist management in achieving monthly/yearly

production targets. The joint council scheme recommended making the

participation scheme more effective. Any decision which has a bearing on

another shop or undertaking or establishment as a whole would have to be

referred to joint councils for consideration and decision. Again, joint councils

are prescribed for every industrial unit employing 500 or more workers.

(ii) Collective Bargaining

Collective bargaining is a technique adopted by the organisations

of workers and employers collectively to resolve their differences with or

without the assistance of a third party. It implies a collective negotiation of a

contract between the management’s representatives on one side and those of

workers/unions on the other side. It plays a significant role in improving the

labour management relations and in ensuring industrial harmony. Collective

bargaining helps in ironing out many minor differences and there are many

instances in which even major disputes are said to be settled without any

work-cessation or outside intervention. Its role in conflict resolution is very

significant. It builds up safety valves, allowing the opposite groups and the

excess steam to escape without blowing the whole mechanism to pieces.

193

Collective bargaining is gradually getting a foothold as a primary method of

settling industrial disputes in India.

(iii) Grievance Procedure

Grievances are symptoms of conflicts in the industry. Prompt and

efficient handling of grievances leads to satisfied workers who are an asset to

the industry. The successful handling of grievance by managers helps to prevent

industrial disputes in the organisation.

(iv) Tripartite Bodies

The purpose of tripartite consultative machinery is to bring the

parties together for mutual settlement of differences in a spirit of cooperation

and goodwill. These committees have been constituted to suggest ways and

means to prevent disputes. It includes Indian Labour Conference, Standing

Labour Committee, Industrial Committees and Tripartite Committee on

International Labour Organisation Conventions. The representatives of

workers and employers are nominated to these bodies by the Central

Government in consultation with all India organisations of workers and

employers.

(v) Code of Discipline

Code of Discipline is a set of self-imposed, mutually agreed

voluntary principles of discipline. The Code of Discipline, 1958, contains

matters such as arbitration procedure under code of discipline, model grievance

procedure laid, and criteria for recognition of unions and rights of recognised

194

unions. The code of discipline provides guidelines for the employers, the

workers and the unions.

(vi) Standing Orders

The standing orders regulate the conditions of employment from

the stage of entry to the organisation to the stage of exit from the organisation.

Standing Orders Act 1946 defines with sufficient precision the conditions of

employment under the employers and holds them liable to make the said

conditions known to workmen employed by them. These Orders regulate the

conditions of employment, discharge, grievances, misconduct, disciplinary

action, etc. of the workmen employed in industrial undertakings.

8.2.2 Statutory Machinery

Statutory machinery provides a legalistic way of settling disputes.

It comprises Conciliation, Court of Enquiry, Voluntary Arbitration and

Adjudication.

(i) Conciliation

Conciliation constitutes the cornerstone of the industrial relations

system in India. Conciliation is an art of gentle persuasion. Conciliation is a

process by which representations of workers and employers are brought

together before a third party with a view to persuading them to arrive at an

agreement by mutual discussion between them. Again, conciliation is a process

of peace making in industrial relations. Conciliation at the same time is

195

“a fire prevention agency and not merely a body whose function is to put out

fires once they have occurred”.2 The conciliation process has been referred to

as “the invisible stage of adjudication”.3 The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 states

that conciliation can be utilised either by appointing conciliation officers or

by constituting Board of Conciliation.Conciliation officer is appointed by the

appropriate Government to conciliate between the parties to the industrial

dispute. The conciliation officer is given powers of a civil court and he is

authorised to witness the parties on oath and can go into the facts and make

judgement which will be binding upon the parties. Thus, conciliation is an art

where the skill, tact, imagination and even personal influence of the conciliation

officer affect the success of the dispute. The conciliation officer is required

to submit his report to the appropriate Government along with the copy of

the settlement arrived at in relation to the dispute, or in case of failure, he has

to send an elaborate report detailing the reasons for the failure of conciliation.

Board of conciliation is appointed by the Government, if the conciliation

officer fails to resolve the differences between the parties. The Board must

submit the report to the Government within two months of the date on

which the dispute was referred to it. The Government has the power to extend

the period further by two months.

2. ‘Report to the Governor of Massachusetts on Labour Management Relations’, Industrial andLabour Relations Review, October, 1947, p.110.

3. Debi. S. Sani, ‘A Socio-Legal Study of Compulsory Adjudication in Industrial Relations’,Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, 1991, p.257.

196

(ii) Court of Enquiry

The Government appoints a court of enquiry to inquire into the matter

connected with or relevant to the industrial dispute. This enquiry is made only

when the conciliation proceedings fail to settle dispute. The court of enquiry,

primarily a fact-finding machinery, may consist of one or more persons to be

decided by the appropriate Government. The court of enquiry is expected to

submit its report within a period of six months from the commencement of

enquiry.

(iii) Voluntary Arbitration

Arbitration is a procedure in which a neutral third party studies the

bargaining situation, listens to both the parties and gathers information and

then makes recommendations that are binding on the parties. Voluntary

Arbitration is one of the recognised and democratic ways for settling industrial

disputes. It is the best method for resolving industrial conflicts and is a close

supplement to collective bargaining. Arbitration offers an opportunity for a

solution of the dispute through an arbitrator jointly appointed by the parties.

Arbitrators are named by the parties in the written agreement. The process of

arbitration saves time and money of both the parties to the dispute.

(iv) Adjudication

The ultimate remedy for the settlement of an industrial dispute is its

reference to adjudication. The Government appoints a third party to settle

industrial disputes which may be Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or

National Tribunal. Adjudication means a mandatory settlement of industrial

197

disputes by Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals or National Tribunals under

the Industrial Dispute Act or under any other corresponding State statutes. The

system of adjudication is the most significant instrument of resolving

disputes. A dispute can be referred to adjudication, if both the employer and

the recognised union agree to do so. The Government also takes the case to

adjudication even if the consent of the parties is not available. Then the

settlement machinery is called Compulsory Adjudication. The three bodies

are not in the hierarchical order and it is the Government’s prerogative to

refer a dispute to any of the three bodies, depending on the nature of the dispute.

Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals may be constituted by the State

Government, while national tribunal is constituted by the Central Government.

A Labour Court consists of one person only, who is normally a sitting or an ex-

judge of a High Court. Labour Courts consider the (i) legality of an order passed

by an employer under the standing orders, (ii) application and interpretation of

standing orders, (iii) discharge or dismissal of workman, (iv) withdrawal of any

customary concession or privilege, (v) illegality or otherwise of a strike or

lockout, and (vi) all matters not specified in the third schedule of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947.

Industrial Tribunal is also a one-man body. It has wider jurisdiction

than Labour Courts and also it can consider all matters specified in the Second

Schedule or the Third Schedule. Under the Third Schedule, the matters that are

within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals include wages, hours of work and

198

rest intervals, leave, shift work and retrenchment. But National Tribunals on

the other hand consider industrial disputes involving questions of national

importance or which are of such a nature that industries in more than one State

are likely to be interested or affected by such disputes. The machinery for the

settlement of dispute in India is given in Figure 8.1

Figure 8.1Dispute Settlement Machinery in India

Preventive Machinery Settlement Machinery(Voluntary or Non-statutory) (Statutory)

Workers Collective Grievance Tripartite Code of StandingParticipation Bargaining Procedure Bodies Discipline Orders

in Management

Conciliation Court of Enquiry Voluntary AdjudicationArbitration

Conciliation Conciliation Labour Industrial National Officers Board Courts Tribunals Tribunals

8.3 Dispute Settlement Machinery in Kerala

The legal machinery for the settlement of disputes in Kerala is the

same as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.The Act provides for the

investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. Even before the formation

Kerala State, the Travancore and Cochin Governments had established some

199

machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes. In Travancore, for instance,

the Board of Conciliation of Trade Disputes in the Coir Mats and Matting

Industry, appointed in 1938, virtually laid the foundations for industrial

conciliation in the State. The report of the Board greatly influenced the growth

of labour legislation in the State.

In Kerala, both statutory (conciliation and adjudication) and non-

statutory (voluntary negotiation) industrial dispute settlement machinery

operate side by side for the settlement of industrial disputes. The Industrial

Relations Board constituted in 1957 also helped to promote healthy labour-

management relations in Kerala. The Arbitration Board available for dispute

settlement in Kerala has been abolished in the year 1987 by the Government

of Kerala.4

8.4 Dispute Settlement Process in Kerala

Kerala has set up the whole gamut of machinery for the settlement

of industrial disputes as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.The

functions of the industrial relations machinery consist of maintaining industrial

relations in the State, enforcement of rules and laws, quasi-judicial functions

and welfare schemes . The statutory machinery consists of a number of

conciliation officers who are attached to the office of the Labour

Commissioner. Besides the Labour Commissioner, they include, (i) three

4. Government of Kerala, Administration Report, Department of Labour, Thiruvananthapuram,1987-88.

200

Regional Labour Commissioners; (ii) two Additional Labour Commissioners;

(iii) Chief Inspector of Plantation; (iv) 10 Inspectors of Plantations (v) nine

Deputy Labour Commissioners (vi) one Joint Labour Commissioner; (vii) 25

District Labour Officers; (ix) 19 Deputy Labour Officers; (x) 101 Assistant

Labour Officers and a number of welfare Assistants.

The three Regional Labour Commissioners are in charge of the

Regional Officers having their headquarters at Kollam, Ernakulam and

Kozhikode. They supervise and co-ordinate the activities of the department

except those of the plantation sector in their respective areas. The Chief

Inspector of Plantations with the status of Joint Labour Commissioner having

State wide jurisdiction, is in charge of the enforcement of various labour

legislation in the plantation sector. There are 10 inspectors of plantations to

perform duties in the specific jurisdictional areas in the plantation sector under

the Chief Inspector of Plantations. There are two Additional Labour

Commissioners. One is in charge of industrial relations and another is for

enforcement. There are nine Deputy Labour Commissioners assigned with

quasi-judicial functions having headquarters at Tiruvananthapuram, Kollam,

Kottayam, Ernakulam, Trichur, Kozhikode and Kannur. They are dealing with

cases arising out of the claims under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Minimum

Wages Act and Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. One Deputy Labour

Commissioner works in the Head Quarters under the Additional Labour

Commissioner (Industrial Relations). There is another Deputy Labour

201

Commissioner posted at Ernakulam for dealing exclusively with industrial

disputes. There are 12 District Labour Officers for enforcement and another

13 District Labour Officers for general purposes. District Labour Officers

attend to the general matters including maintenance of industrial peace in the

district and also look after the Acts and rules. 19 Deputy Labour Officers

function in different parts of the State as conciliation officers. A total of 101

Assistant labour officers Grade II having talukwise jurisdiction attends to the

statutory functions at the grassroots level throughout the State. A detailed

organisational chart of the dispute settlement machinery of the State is given

in Annexure VII.

The industrial disputes are settled mainly through the intervention

of the Conciliation Officers through the process of Conciliation. If the

Conciliation fails, the dispute is referred to Adjudication by Labour Courts/

Industrial Tribunals. For this purpose, four Labour Courts are functioning at

Kollam, Ernakulam, Kozhikode and Kannur and five Industrial Tribunals at

Kollam, Alappuzha, Idukki, Palakkad and Kozhikode.

The present chapter essays to assess the performance of dispute

settlement machinery in the public and private sector enterprises in Kerala.

The assessment has been made by considering the performance of both statutory

and non-statutory machinery in the disposal of industrial disputes and also the

observations of employees, trade union leaders and management personnel.

202

8.5 Most Likely Form of Dispute Settlement

In order to assess the perception of respondents-employees, trade

union leaders and management personnel as to the most likely form of dispute

settlement, six alternative methods of dispute settlement were given and they

were asked to rank according to their preference in the order of importance.

Their perception is assessed as under:

(i) Employees’ Perception

Table 8.1 shows that the employees in both the sectors have similar

perception as to the method of settlement of disputes. They all gave first rank

to conciliation. Second, third and fourth ranks were given to voluntary

negotiation, withdrawn and adjudication respectively.

Table 8.1Employees’ Perception as to the Most Likely Form of Dispute SettlementForm of dispute Public sector Private sector

settlement Weighted Rank Weighted Rankmean mean

Conciliation 5.54 1 5.61 1Voluntary negotiation 5.45 2 5.39 2Arbitration 1.00 6 1.00 6Adjudication 2.96 4 2.83 4Withdrawn 3.83 3 3.98 3Others 2.38 5 2.39 5

Source: Survey data.

(ii) Trade Union Leaders’ Perception

Table 8.2 reveals that the trade union leaders in the private sector

have the same perception as that of their employees as to the preferred forms

of dispute settlement,viz.conciliation. But the respondents in the public sector

203

ranked ‘voluntary negotiation’ as the most likely form of settlement. They

preferred ‘conciliation’ at the second place to settle the disputes. Their ranking

to all other methods are similar to that of the trade union leaders in the private

sector.

Table 8.2 Trade Union Leaders’ Perception as to the Most Likely Form of Dispute

Settlement


(iii) Management Personnel’s Perception

Like employees, management personnel in the public and private sectors

unanimously opined that conciliation was the most preferred form of dispute

settlement. Voluntary negotiation, withdrawn, and adjudication were the second,

third, and fourth form of settlement respectively by the respondents (Table

8.3).

Form of dispute Public sector Private sectorsettlement Weighted Rank Weighted Rank

mean meanConciliation 5.48 2 5.54 1Voluntary negotiation 5.50 1 5.46 2Arbitration 2.23 5 1.00 6Adjudication 3.00 4 2.83 4Withdrawn 3.88 3 3.94 3Others -- -- 2.50 5

204

Table 8.3Management Personnel’s Perception as to the Most Likely Form of Dispute

SettlementForm of dispute Public sector Private sector


Conciliation 5.59 1 5.64 1Voluntary negotiation 5.41 2 5.43 2Arbitration 2.43 5 2.57 5Adjudication 3.36 4 3.13 4Withdrawn 3.74 3 3.84 3Others -- -- -- --


The above observations as to the most likely form of dispute

settlement are similar to those of Arya P.P. (1982), Abdul Gani (1991) Kesar

Singh Bhangoo (1995) and Vasanthagopal R. (1998)

8.6 Method of Dispute Settlement Usually Used

The absence of effective dispute settlement systems and procedures

can result in widespread industrial conflict with adverse effect on worker-

employer relations. In Kerala, conciliation, voluntary negotiation, arbitration,

adjudication, and withdrawn are generally used to settle industrial disputes.

The perceptions of employees, trade union leaders, and management personnel

as to the method of settlement usually used are assessed as under:

(i)Employees’ Perception

Table 8.4 reveals that ‘conciliation’ and ‘voluntary negotiation’ were

the first two methods usually used by both the sectors for dispute settlement.

The other methods like adjudication and withdrawn were also be used for the

settlement of disputes.

205

Table 8.4Employees’ Perception as to the Method of Dispute Settlement Usually Used

Method of dispute Public sector Private sectorsettlement Weighted Rank Weighted Rank

mean meanConciliation 5.81 1 5.66 1Voluntary negotiation 5.13 2 5.30 2Arbitration 2.50 5 2.50 5Adjudication 4.07 3 4.00 3Withdrawn 2.81 4 2.91 4Others -- -- -- --



Like employees, trade union leaders also gave first and second

preference to conciliation and voluntary negotiation for settlement of disputes

(Table 8.5). Third and fourth preferences were accorded to adjudication and

withdrawn.

Table 8.5 Trade Union Leaders’ Perception as to the Method of Dispute Settlement

Usually UsedMethod of dispute Public sector Private sector





As in the case of employees and trade union leaders, the management

personnel also opined that conciliation and voluntary negotiation were usual

206

methods of dispute settlement (Table 8.6).While management personnel in

the public sector assigned third preference to withdrawn, their counterparts in

the private sector assigned third preference to adjudication.

Table 8.6 Management Personnel’s Perception as to the Method of Settlement Usually

UsedMethod of dispute Public sector Private sector




The above findings on the method of settlement usually used are

similar to those of Mathew George (1993) and Kesar Singh Bhangoo (1995).

But the Kerala average during the decade 1996-2005 shows ‘withdrawn’ as the

mostly used dispute settlement (36.88 per cent) followed by conciliation,

voluntary negotiation and adjudication ( Annexure VI).

8.7 Level of Management Involved in Dispute Settlement

The level of management involved in dispute settlement depends on

several factors, viz. type of dispute, nature of dispute, causes of dispute, number

of employees involved, etc. This section assesses the views of employees, trade

union leaders and management personnel on the levels of management usually

involved in dispute settlement.

207

(I) Employees’ Opinion

Most of the of employees in the public sector opined that (62.8 per

cent) middle level management was usually involved in dispute settlement (Table

8.7). Contrary to this, 53.6 per cent in the private sector averred that top level

management was usually involved in the settlement. However, a very few in the

public and private sector observed that lower level management was usually

involved. The chi-square test confirms a significant difference in the level of

management involved in dispute settlement.

Table 8.7Employees’ Opinion as to the Level of Management Involved in Dispute

SettlementLevels of Public sector Private sector

management Number Percentage Number PercentageTop level 31 36.0 105 53.6Middle level 54 62.8 90 45.9Lower level 1 1.2 1 0.5Total 86 100 196 100

Source: Survey data.χ2 = 6.272 with 1 df; significant at 5 per cent level.

(ii) Trade Union Leaders’ Opinion

In contrast to the opinion of the employees, a majority of trade

union leaders in the public sector (53.8 per cent) opined that top level

management was involved in dispute settlement (Table 8.8). But 46.2 per cent

noted that middle level management was usually involved in the settlement.

Obviously, the opinion of the trade union in the private sector was also different

from that of their employees. 56.7 per cent stated that middle level management

was largely involved in the settlement. But 40 per cent of them opined that top

level management was usually involved in it. However, the chi-square test finds

208

no significant difference in the level of management involved in dispute

settlement.

Table 8.8Trade Union Leaders’ Opinion as to the Level of Management Involved

in Dispute SettlementLevels of Public sector Private sector

management Number Percentage Number PercentageTop level 7 53.8 12 40.0Middle level 6 46.2 17 56.7Lower level -- -- 1 3.3Total 13 100 30 100

Source: Survey data.χ2 = 0.255 with 1df; not significant at 5 per cent level.

(iii) Management Personnel’s Opinion

Most of the management personnel in the public sector (76.2 per

cent) and the private sector (53.6 per cent) disclosed that top level management

was usually getting involved in the dispute settlement (Table 8.9). Meanwhile,

46.4 per cent in the private sector and 23.8 per cent in the public sector revealed

that middle level management was usually involved in the settlement. But the

chi-square test finds no significant difference in this regard.

Table 8.9Management Personnel’s Opinion as to the Level of Management Involved in

Dispute SettlementLevels of Public sector Private sector

management Number Percentage Number PercentageTop level 16 76.2 30 53.6Middle level 5 23.8 26 46.4Lower level -- -- -- --Total 21 100 56 100

Source: Survey data.χ2 = 2.376 with 1 df; not significant at 5 per cent level.

209

8.8 Ability of Management in Dispute Settlement

The success of dispute settlement depends to a large extent upon

the ability of management in handling industrial disputes. The perceptions of

employees, trade union leaders, and management personnel as to the ability of

management in dispute settlement are assessed as under.


There was a difference in the perception of employees in the public

and the private sector as to the ability of management in dispute settlement.

50 per cent in the public sector opined that the management’s ability was

moderate (Table 8.10). But, a considerable majority in the private sector

(72 per cent) averred that the ability of their management was high or very

high. The chi-square test also establishes this observation.

Table 8.10 Employees’ Perception as to the Ability of Management in

Dispute Settlement

ResponsesPublic sector Private sector

Number Percentage Number PercentageVery high 1 1.2 37 18.8High 32 37.2 104 53.1Moderate 43 50.0 30 15.3Low 10 11.6 24 12.3No opinion -- -- 1 0.5Total 86 100 196 100



A majority of trade union leaders in the public sector (53.8 per cent)

and the private sector (63.3 per cent) noted that the ability of their management

210

was high or very high (Table8.11).But 38.5 per cent in the public sector and

23.4 per cent in the private sector observed that their ability was moderate.

However, a very small percentage (7.7 per cent) in the public sector opined

that their ability was low. The chi-square test also finds no significant difference

in this regard.

Table 8.11Trade Union Leaders’ Perception as to the Ability of Management in

Dispute Settlement


Number Percentage Number PercentageVery high -- -- 4 13.3High 7 53.8 15 50.0Moderate 5 38.5 7 23.4Low 1 7.7 4 13.3No opinion -- -- -- --Total 13 100 30 100

Source: Survey data.χ2 =0.0599 with 1 df; not significant at 5per cent level.


Table 8.12 reveals that like trade unions, management personnel in

both the sectors opined that the ability of management personnel was ‘high’.

89.3 per cent of the respondents in the private sector obserbved that the ability

of management was high or very high. But in the public sector, though a majority

was in favour of the above view (52.4 per cent), 33.3 per cent viewed that the

ability was moderate. But the chi-square finds no variation in the ability of

management in dispute settlement.

211

Table 8.12 Management Personnel’s Perception as to the Ability of Management in

Dispute Settlement


Number Percentage Number PercentageVery high 2 9.5 22 39.3High 9 42.9 28 50.0Moderate 7 33.3 6 10.7Low 2 9.5 -- --No opinion 1 4.8 -- --Total 21 100 56 100


8.9 Position of Union, Management and Government in DisputeSettlement

Union, Management and Government are the three pillars of

industrial relations. The prevention of disputes and their early settlement depend

on their timely involvement.The perceptions of employees, trade union leaders,

and management personnel as to the position of these actors in dispute

settlement are assessed as under:


Most of the employees in the public sector (39.5 per cent) and the

private sector (53.1 per cent) opined that unions took all the initiative in the

settlement of disputes. While, 37.2 per cent in the public sector were in favour

of the Government, 41.3 per cent in the private sector were in favour of the

management (Table 8.13). The chi-square test also establishes this observation.

212

Table 8.13 Employees’ Perception as to the Position of Actors in

Dispute SettlementActors in dispute Public sector Private sector

settlement Number Percentage Number PercentageUnion 34 39.5 104 53.1Management 20 23.3 81 41.3Government 32 37.2 11 5.6Total 86 100 196 100



Most of the trade union leaders in the public sector(69.2 per cent)

and the private sector (86.7 per cent) opined that union was enjoying the power

in the settlement of disputes (Table 8.14). However, 23.1 per cent in the public

sector opined that Government was enjoying the power. Meanwhile, a small

per cent of trade union leaders in both the sectors remarked that the management

took the initiative for the early settlement. But the chi-square test shows a

significant difference in the position of the three actors in dispute settlement.

Table 8.14Trade Union Leaders’ Perception as to the Position of Actors

in Dispute Settlement


Actors in dispute Public sector Private sector settlement Number Percentage Number Percentage

Union 9 69.2 26 86.7Management 1 7.7 4 13.3Government 3 23.1 -- --Total 13 100 30 100

213

iii) Management Personnel’s Perception

Like employees and trade union leaders, a large majority of

management personnel (57.1 per cent) in the public sector noted that union

was enjoying the power in dispute settlement (Table 8.15). Contrary to this,

management personnel in the private sector (76.8 per cent) were of the view

that management was enjoying the said power.However, 28.6 per cent in the

public sector stated that Government had the upper hand. The chi-square test

also conforms to this observation.

Table 8.15Management Personnel’s Perception as to the Position of Actors in

Dispute SettlementActors in dispute Public sector Private sector

settlement Number Percentage Number PercentageUnion 12 57.1 9 16.1Management 3 14.3 43 76.8Government 6 28.6 4 7.1Total 21 100 56 100


8.10 Bargaining Power of Unions in Dispute Settlement

A trade union with mass employees support normally enjoys good

bargaining power. This power enables them to resolve many of their issues.

The bargaining power of the union from the point of view of employees, trade

union leaders and management is assessed as under:


Most of the employees in both the sectors opined that the bargaining

power of unions in dispute settlement was moderate. 36.1 per cent of the

214

respondents in the public sector remarked the bargaining power of unions was

high. But in the private sector only 13.8 per cent subscribed to this view(Table

8.16). Meanwhile, 21.4 per cent in the private sector opined that the bargaining

power of unions was low. But in the public sector only 5.8 per cent made this

observation. However, the chi-square test proves that the difference in the

perception of employees as to the bargaining power of unions in dispute

settlement in the public and private sector enterprises is significant.

Table 8.16 Employees’ Perception as to the Bargaining Power of Unions in Dispute

Settlement

Responses Public sector Private sectorNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Very high 10 11.6 37 18.9High 31 36.1 27 13.8Moderate 40 46.5 86 43.9Low 5 5.8 42 21.4No opinion -- -- 4 2.0Total 86 100 196 100



Unlike employees, most of the trade union leaders in the public

sector (69.2 per cent) stated that the bargaining power of unions was high. In

the private sector, like employees, trade union leaders also noted

(43.3 per cent) that the bargaining power of unions was moderate. But 23.1

per cent in the public sector observed the bargaining power of unions as low

(Table 8.17).Further, the chi square test shows that there is no significant

difference in the bargaining power among respondents.

215

Table 8.17 Trade Union Leaders’ Perception as to the Bargaining Power of Unions in Dispute Settlement



Like trade union leaders in the public sector, management

personnel also noted that the bargaining power of unions in dispute settlement

was high (57.1 per cent). Unlike employees and trade union leaders, a large

majority of management personnel in the private sector (50 per cent) opined

that the bargaining power of unions was high (Table 8.18). But the chi square

test shows no significant difference in the bargaining power of unions in dispute

settlement among management personnel.

Table 8.18Management Personnel’s Perception as to the Bargaining Power of

Unions in Dispute Settlement

Responses

Public sector Private sectorNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Very high -- -- 6 20.0High 9 69.2 10 33.3Moderate 1 7.7 13 43.4Low 3 23.1 1 3.3No opinion -- -- -- --Total 13 100 30 100

Responses


Very high 3 14.3 -- --High 12 57.1 28 50.0Moderate 5 23.8 15 26.8Low 1 4.8 12 21.4No opinion -- -- 1 1.8Total 21 100 56 100

Source: Survey dataχ2 = 2.041 with 1df; not significant at 5 per cent level.

216

8.11 Level of Satisfaction in the Performance of Dispute SettlementMachinery

The success of a dispute settlement machinery depends upon the

co-operation of employees, trade union leaders, management and also the

timely intervention of the Government. Success in settling disputes results in

harmony in the industry, which ultimately leads to more production and

productivity. The level of satisfaction of employees, trade union leaders and

management personnel as to the performance of dispute settlement machinery

is assessed as under:


Most of the management personnel in the public sector

(65.1 per cent) and the private sector (58.7 per cent) were satisfied with the

performance of the dispute settlement machinery (Table8.19). But,

16.3 per cent in the public sector and 15.8 per cent in the private sector were

dissatisfied with the performance of the settlement machinery. However, the

chi-square test finds no significant difference in the performance of the

settlement machinery among employees.

Table 8.19Level of Satisfaction in the Performance of Dispute Settlement Machinery as

Perceived by Employees Responses


Highly satisfied -- -- -- --Satisfied 56 65.1 115 58.7Neutral 16 18.6 49 25.0Dissatisfied 14 16.3 31 15.8Highly dissatisfied -- -- 1 0.5Total 86 100 196 100


217


Like employees, a majority of trade union leaders in the public sector

(53.8 per cent) and in the private sector (80 per cent) were also satisfied with

the performance of the dispute settlement machinery (Table 8.20). Meanwhile,

38.5 per cent in the public sector and 20 per cent in the private sector were

either neutral or dissatisfied in the performance. However, the chi-square test

shows no significant difference in this regard.

Table 8.20 Level of Satisfaction in the Performance of Dispute Settlement Machinery

as Perceived by Trade Union Leaders



It was found from Table 8.21 that 90.4 per cent of the management

personnel in the public sector and 83.9 per cent in the private sector were

satisfied in the performance of dispute settlement machinery. But

16.1 per cent in the private sector were neutral.

Responses


Highly satisfied 1 7.7 -- --Satisfied 7 53.8 24 80.0Neutral 3 23.1 3 10.0Dissatisfied 2 15.4 3 10.0Highly dissatisfied -- -- -- --Total 13 100 30 100

218

Table 8.21 Level of Satisfaction in the Performance of Dispute Settlement Machinery as

Perceived by Management Personnel


8.12 Reasons for the Success of Dispute Settlement

A majority of respondents (ie. employees, trade union leaders and

management personnel) in the public and private sector were either highly

satisfied or satisfied with the performance of the dispute settlement machinery.

Their perceptions are assessed as under:

(i)Employees’ Perception

Employees in both the sectors opined that ‘reasonable demand’ was

the main reason for the success of dispute settlement (Table 8.22). Timely

Government intervention, co-operative management and co-operative union

were the other reasons for the success.

Table 8.22Employees’ View as to the Reasons for the Success of Dispute Settlement

Responses


Highly satisfied 1 4.8 -- --Satisfied 19 90.4 47 83.9Neutral -- -- 9 16.1Dissatisfied 1 4.8 -- --Highly dissatisfied -- -- -- --Total 21 100 56 100

Reasons for success


Reasonable demand 4.02 1 4.54 1Co-operative management 3.57 3 4.09 2Co-operative union 3.35 4 3.80 3Timely Government intervention 3.78 2 2.30 4Others 2.00 5 2.00 5


219


Like employees, trade union leaders in the public and the private

sector also reported that ‘reasonable demand’ was the primary reason for the

success (Table 8.23). Again, ‘co-operative union’ was also another equally

important reason in the public sector .Government intervention and cooperative

management also helped significantly.

Table 8.23Trade Union Leaders’ View as to the Reasons for the Success of

Dispute Settlement



Unlike the earlier view, management personnel in the public and

private sector unanimously viewed ‘co-operative management’ as the main

reason for the success of dispute settlement (Table 8.24).Reasonable demand

and co-operative union were the other reasons for the success.

Reasons for success

Public sector Private sectorWeighted Rank Weighted Rank

mean meanReasonable demand 4.00 1 4.39 1Co-operative management 3.38 3 4.15 2Co-operative union 4.00 1 3.74 3Timely Government intervention 3.50 2 2.00 4Others -- -- -- --

220

Table 8.24 Management Personnel’s View as to the Reasons for the Success of Dispute

Settlement


The results are similar to those of P.D. Shenoy (1981)

8.13 Reasons for the Failure of Dispute Settlement

Though most of the trade union leaders and management personnel

were satisfied with the dispute settlement machinery, a small section of

employees in both the sectors were not satisfied. Their perception as to the

reasons for the failure of dispute settlement is assessed as under:


It is clear from Table 8.25 that employees in both the sectors had

the similar view regarding the first three reasons for the failure of dispute

settlement. Accordingly, non co-operative management, non co-operative union

and poor Government intervention were the main reasons.

Reasons for success


mean meanReasonable demand 3.50 4 4.26 2Co-operative management 4.06 1 4.43 1Co-operative union 3.76 2 3.86 3Timely Government intervention 3.58 3 2.88 4Others -- -- -- --

221

Table 8.25Employees’ Perception as to the Reasons for the Failure of

Dispute Settlement


The foregoing analysis reveals that there is a significant variation in

the performance of the dispute settlement machinery in the public and private

enterprises in Kerala. Thus, the null hypothesis H07 stands rejected.

CONCLUSION

1. Conciliation and voluntary negotiation were the most frequently used

methods of dispute settlement in Kerala. Further, these two methods were

the most likely forms of dispute settlement by employees, trade union

leaders and management personnel.

2. In spite of some difference among the respondents, most of them opined

that top and middle level managements were largely involved in the

dispute settlement. So also, the role of unions and management in dispute

settlement was very significant.

3. Most of the respondents in both the sectors were satisfied with the

performance of the dispute settlement machinery. Again, reasonable

Reasons for failure


mean meanNon co-operative management 4.63 1 4.87 1Poor Government intervention 3.64 3 4.50 3Non co-operative Union 4.50 2 4.60 2Unreasonable demand 3.33 5 3.00 4Others 3.39 4 1.06 5

222

demands, co-operative management and union were the main reasons for

the success of dispute settlement. Non-co-operative management, non-

co-operative union and poor Government intervention were the reasons

for the failure of dispute settlement.

4. Trade unions and Government play an important role in the settlement of

disputes in the public sector. But the respondents in the private sector

observed that union and management took good initiative for the earlier

and amicable settlement of disputes. Regarding the bargaining power of

unions, employees in both the sectors agree that the bargaining power of

union was ‘moderate’.

Chapter 8 PERFORMANCE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MACHINERY...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 8 PERFORMANCE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MACHINERY...