Workers Part ILO Usable

8/4/2019 Workers Part ILO Usable

1/22

Relationship between Rights of Association and Representation and

Occupational Safety and Health

Joint consultation and participation can be effective only in an environment

where there is adequate recognition of and respect for the right of employers

and workers to associate freely and for their organizations to be able torepresent their interests effectively. In a very real sense, therefore, respect for

the right to organize can be seen to be an essential precondition of an effective

occupational safety and health strategy at both the national and international

level and at the workplace. That being the case, it is necessary and appropriate

to look more closely at ILO standards relating to freedom of association, bearing

in mind their application in the context of the prevention of work-related injury

and disease and the compensation and rehabilitation of those who have incurred

such injury or disease. Freedom of association standards require that there be

proper recognition in law and practice of the right of workers and employers to

form and to join the organizations of their choice and of the right of thoseorganizations, once established, to formulate and to implement freely their

programmes.

Rights of association and representation also underpin tripartite (governments,

employers and workers) cooperation in the field of occupational health and

safety. Such cooperation is promoted in the context of ILO standard-setting, for

example, by:

enjoining governments to consult with representative organizations of

employers and workers in relation to the formulation and implementation of

policy on occupational health and safety at the national or regional level (e.g.,Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162), Article 4 and Occupational Safety and

Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), Articles 1 and 8)

encouraging joint consultation and cooperation on occupational safety and

health matters at the level of the workplace (e.g., Prevention of Major Industrial

Accidents Convention, 1993 (No. 174), Article 9(f) and (g))

requiring the joint participation of employers and workers in the formulation

and implementation of occupational safety and health policy in the workplace

(see especially Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155),

Articles 19 and 20 and Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 1981

(No. 164), para 12).

ILO and Rights of Association and Representation

The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by

the employers was one of the methods and principles set out in Article 41 of the

original Constitution of the ILO. This principle now finds express recognition in

the Preamble to the Constitution as one of the essential preconditions of the

establishment of social justice, which is itself seen as the essential precondition

of universal and lasting peace. Together with the principle of tripartism, it is also

accorded express recognition in Article I of the Declaration of Philadelphia, which


2/22

was appended to the Constitution in 1946. This Constitutional endorsement of

the importance of respect for the principles of freedom of association helps

provide one of the juridical bases for the capacity of the Fact-Finding and

Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association and the Governing Bodys

Committee on Freedom of Association to inquire into alleged breaches of the

principles of freedom of association.

As early as 1921 the International Labour Conference adopted the Right of

Association (Agriculture) Convention (No. 11), which requires ratifying States to

secure to all those engaged in agriculture the same rights of association and

combination as to industrial workers. It does not, however, say anything about

the rights which are to be accorded to the industrial workers with whom those

engaged in agriculture are to enjoy parity! Attempts to adopt a more general

instrument dealing with freedom of association in the 1920s foundered upon the

rocks of employer and government insistence that the right to form and join

trade unions must be accompanied by a correlative right not to join. The matterwas re-opened in the period immediately after the Second World War. This duly

resulted in the adoption of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories)

Convention, 1947 (No. 84), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the

Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and

Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are among the most important and the most widely

ratified of all ILO Conventions: as of 31 December 1996, Convention No. 87 had

attracted 119 ratifications, while No. 98 had attracted 133. Between them they

embody what can properly be regarded as the four key elements in the notion of

freedom of association. They are regarded as the benchmark for the

international protection of freedom of association for trade union purposes, as

reflected, for example, in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights. Within the ILO structure, they form the basis for the

principles of freedom of association as developed and applied by the Governing

Bodys Committee on Freedom of Association and the Fact-Finding and

Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association, even though in technical

terms those bodies derive their jurisdiction from the Constitution of the

Organization rather than the Conventions. They also constitute a major focus for

the deliberations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventionsand Recommendations and of the Conference Committee on the Application of

Conventions and Recommendations.

Despite the pivotal role of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, it should be appreciated

that they are by no means the only formal standard-setting instruments which

have been adopted under the auspices of the ILO in the field of freedom of

association. On the contrary, since 1970 the Conference has adopted further four

Conventions and four Recommendations dealing in greater detail with various

aspects of the principles of freedom of association, or with their application in

certain specific contexts:


3/22

the Workers Representatives Convention (No. 135) and Recommendation

(No. 143), 1971

the Rural Workers Organizations Convention (No. 141) and Recommendation

(No. 149), 1975

the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention (No. 151) and

Recommendation (No. 158), 1978

the Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 154) and Recommendation (No.

163), 1981

Principles of Freedom of Association

The core elements

The core elements of the principles of freedom of association as embodied in

Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are:

that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the

right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to

join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization (Article

2 of Convention No. 87)

that organizations of employers and workers, once established, should have

the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives

in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate

their programmes (Article 3(1) of Convention No. 87). Furthermore, the public

authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or

impede the lawful exercise thereof (Article 3(2))

that workers are to enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union

discrimination in respect of their employment (Article 1(1) of Convention No.

98)

that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where

necessary, to encourage and to promote the full development and utilization of

machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers and employers

organizations and workers organizations, with a view to the regulation of termsand conditions of employment by means of collective agreements (Article 4 of

Convention No. 98)

All of the guarantees provided by Convention No. 87 are subject to the proviso

set out in Article 8(1): in exercising the rights provided for in this Convention

workers and employers and their respective organizations... shall respect the law

of the land. This in turn is subject to the further proviso that the law of the land

shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be applied so as to impair, the

guarantees provided for in this Convention.

It should also be noted that by virtue of Article 9(1) of Convention No. 87 it ispermissible, but not necessary, to qualify the application of the guarantees set


4/22

out in that Convention to members of the police and of the armed forces. Article

5(1) of Convention No. 98 is to the same effect, while Article 6 of that instrument

stipulates that the Convention does not deal with the position of public servants

engaged in the administration of the State, nor shall it be construed as

prejudicing their rights or status in any way.

The right to join

The right of workers and employers to form and to join the organizations of their

choice is the pivot of all of the other guarantees provided by Conventions Nos.

87 and 98 and by the principles of freedom of association. It is subject only to

the qualification set out in Article 9(1) of the Convention. This means that it is

not permissible to deny any group of workers other than members of the police

or the armed forces the right to form or join the trade unions of their choice. It

follows that denial or restriction of the right of public servants, agricultural

workers, school teachers and so on to form or join the organizations of their

choice would not be consistent with the requirements of Article 2.

It is, however, permissible for the rules of a trade union or an employer

organization to restrict the categories of workers or employers who may join the

organization. The point is that any such restriction must be the result of the free

choice of the members of the organization it must not be imposed from

outside.

The right to associate set out in Article 2 is not accompanied by any correlative

right not to associate. It will be recalled that earlier attempts to adopt a general

freedom of association convention failed because of the insistence by employerand some government delegates that the positive right to associate must carry

with it a negative right not to associate. This issue was again raised in the

context of the debates on Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. However on this occasion

a compromise was effected whereby the Conference adopted a resolution to the

effect that the extent to which trade union security devices (such as the closed

or agency shop and check-off arrangements for trade union dues) were

permissible or otherwise was a matter to be determined by national law and

practice. In other words, the Conventions are considered neither to condone nor

to condemn the closed shop and other forms of union security device, although

such measures are not regarded as acceptable if they are imposed by law ratherthan adopted by agreement of the parties (ILO 1994b; ILO 1995a).

Perhaps the most difficult issue which has arisen in the context of Article 2

relates to the extent to which it can be said to endorse the notion of trade union

pluralism. In other words, is it consistent with Article 2 for the law to limit,

directly or indirectly, the right of workers (or employers) to form or join the

organization of their choice through the application of administrative or

legislative criteria?

There are two sets of competing interests in this context. On the one hand,

Article 2 is clearly meant to protect the right of workers and employers to choosethe organization to which they wish to belong and to choose not to belong to


5/22

organizations with which they are out of sympathy on political, denominational

or other grounds. On the other hand, governments (and indeed trade unions)

may argue that the excessive proliferation of trade unions and employer

organizations which may be an incident of unrestricted freedom of choice is not

conducive to the development of free and effective organizations or the

establishment and maintenance of orderly industrial relations processes. Thiswas an issue of particular difficulty in the Cold War era, when governments often

sought to restrict the range of unions to which workers could belong on

ideological grounds. It remains a highly sensitive issue in many developing

countries where governments, for good reason or ill, wish to prevent what they

see as the excessive proliferation of trade unions by placing restrictions on the

number and/or size of unions which can operate in a given workplace or sector of

the economy. The ILOs supervisory bodies have tended to adopt a fairly

restrictive approach to this issue, permitting trade union monopolies where they

are the result of the free choice of the workers in the country concerned and

permitting the adoption of reasonable registration criteria, but takingexception to legally imposed monopolies and unreasonable registration

criteria. In doing so, they have attracted considerable criticism, especially from

governments in developing countries which accuse them of adopting a

Eurocentric approach to the application of the Convention the point being that

the characteristically European concern with the rights of the individual is said to

be inconsistent with the collectivist traditions of many non-European cultures.

Organizational autonomy and the right to strike

If Article 2 of Convention No. 87 protects the fundamental right of employers and

workers to form and to join the organization of their choice, then Article 3 can be

seen to provide its logical corollary by protecting the organizational autonomy of

organizations once established.

As the wording of Article 3(1) clearly indicates, this would include the drafting,

adoption and implementation of the constitutions and rules of organizations and

the conduct of elections. However, the supervisory bodies have accepted that it

is permissible for the public authorities to impose minimum conditions upon the

content or administration of rules for the purpose of ensuring a sound

administration and preventing legal complications arising as a result of

constitutions and rules being drawn up in insufficient detail (ILO 1994b).However, if such conditions are excessively detailed or onerous in application

then they are likely to be adjudged to be inconsistent with the requirements of

Article 3.

Over the years the supervisory bodies have consistently taken the view that the

right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize protected by

Convention No. 87 (ILO 1994b):

The Committee (of Experts) considers that the right to strike is one of the

essential means available to workers and their organizations for the protection of

their economic and social interests. These interests not only have to do withobtaining better working conditions and pursuing collective demands of an


6/22

occupational nature, but also with seeking solutions to economic and social

policy questions and to labour problems of any kind which are of direct concern

to the workers.

This is one of the most controversial aspects of the entire jurisprudence relating

to freedom of association and in recent years in particular it has come in forvigorous criticism from employer and government members of the Conference

Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. (See, for

example, International Labour Conference, 80th Session (1993), Record of

Proceedings, 25/10-12 and 25/58-64 and International Labour Conference, 81st

Session (1994), Record of Proceedings, 25/92-94 and 25/179-180.) It is, however,

a firmly entrenched feature of the jurisprudence on freedom of association. It

finds clear recognition in Article 8(1) (d) of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and was endorsed by the Committee of

Experts in its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective

Bargaining (ILO 1994b).

It is important to appreciate, however, that the right to strike as recognized by

the supervisory bodies is not an unqualified one. In the first place, it does not

extend to those groups of workers in relation to whom it is permissible to

attenuate the guarantees set out in Convention No. 87, namely members of the

police and armed forces. Furthermore, it has also been determined that the right

to strike may legitimately be denied to public servants acting as agents of the

public authority and to workers engaged in essential services in the sense of

services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health

of the whole or part of the population. However, any restrictions upon the right

to strike of workers in these latter categories must be offset by compensatory

guarantees, such as conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event

of a deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties

concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and

implementing the procedure, which should furthermore provide sufficient

guarantees of impartiality and rapidity: arbitration awards should be binding on

both parties and once issued should be implemented rapidly and completely

(ILO 1994b).

It is also permissible to impose temporary restrictions upon the right to strike in

times of acute national emergency. More generally, it is permissible to imposepreconditions such as balloting requirements, exhaustion of conciliation

procedures and so on, upon the exercise of the right to strike. However, all such

restrictions must be reasonable and... not such as to place a substantial

limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations.

The right to strike is often described as the weapon of last resort in collective

bargaining. If Article 3 is interpreted so as to protect the weapon of last resort, it

seems reasonable to suppose that it must also protect the process of collective

bargaining itself. The supervisory bodies have indeed taken this view on a

number of occasions, but in general they have preferred to base their

jurisprudence on collective bargaining upon Article 4 of Convention No. 98. (For


7/22

more detailed discussion of the ILO jurisprudence on the right to strike, see

Hodges-Aeberhard and Odero de Dios 1987; Ben-Israel 1988).

The autonomy of organizations of employers and workers is also addressed in

Articles 4 to 7 of Convention No. 87 and in Article 2 of Convention No. 98. Article

4 provides that such organizations must not be liable to be dissolved orsuspended by administrative authority. This does not mean that trade unions or

employers organizations cannot be deregistered or dissolved where they have,

for example, engaged in gross industrial misconduct or have not been run in

accordance with their rules. But it does mean that any such sanction must be

imposed through a duly constituted court or other appropriate body, rather than

by administrative diktat.

Article 5 protects the rights of organizations to form and join federations and

confederations and also the right of organizations, federations and

confederations to affiliate with international organizations of employers and

workers. Furthermore, according to Article 6, the guarantees set out in Articles 2,

3 and 4 apply to federations and confederations in the same way as to first level

organizations, while Article 7 stipulates that the acquisition of legal personality

by organizations of employers or workers must not be made subject to

conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of

Articles 2, 3 and 4.

Finally, Article 2(1) of Convention No. 98 requires that organizations of

employers and workers are to enjoy adequate protection against acts of

interference by each other or each others agents or members in their

establishment, functioning or administration. In practical terms, it seemssomewhat unlikely that trade unions would or could effectively interfere with the

internal functioning of employer organizations. It is quite conceivable, however,

that in certain circumstances employers or their organizations would seek to

interfere with the internal affairs of workers organizations for example, by

providing some or all of their funds. This possibility finds express recognition in

Article 2(2):

In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers

organizations under the domination of employers or employers organizations by

financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under thecontrol of employers or employers organizations, shall be deemed to constitute

acts of interference within the meaning of this Article.

Protection against victimization

For the guarantees set out in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 to be meaningful in

practice, it is clearly necessary that individuals who exercise their right to form

or join organizations of workers be protected against victimization on account of

having done so. This logic finds recognition in Article 1(1) of Convention No. 98,

which, as indicated, requires that workers shall enjoy adequate protection

against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. Article1(2) takes the matter further:


8/22

Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to:

(a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not

join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership;

(b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of unionmembership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours

or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

Anti-union discrimination for these purposes would include refusal to employ,

dismissal and other measures such as transfer, relocation, demotion,

deprivation or restrictions of all kinds (remuneration, social benefits, vocational

training) which may cause serious prejudice to the worker concerned (see also

Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), Article 5(a), (b) and (c),

as well as ILO 1994b, para.212).

Not only must there be comprehensive protection against anti-uniondiscrimination as defined, but by virtue of Article 3 of Convention No. 98, there

must also be effective means of enforcing those protections:

Legal standards are inadequate if they are not coupled with effective and

expeditious procedures and with sufficiently dissuasive penal sanctions to ensure

their application ... The onus placed on the employer to prove the alleged anti-

union discriminatory measures are connected with questions other than trade

union matters, or presumptions established in the workers favour are additional

means of ensuring effective protection of the right to organize guaranteed by the

Convention. Legislation which allows the employer in practice to terminate the

employment of a worker on condition that he pay the compensation provided for

by law in any case of unjustified dismissal... is inadequate under the terms of

Article 1 of the Convention. Legislation should also provide effective means for

implementing means of compensation, with the reinstatement of the dismissed

worker, including retroactive compensation, being the most appropriate remedy

in such cases of anti-union discrimination (ILO 1994b).

Collective bargaining

The guarantee set out in Article 4 of Convention No. 98 has been interpreted so

as to protect both the right to engage in collective bargaining and the autonomyof the bargaining process. In other words it is not consistent with Article 4 for

employers and workers to be denied the right to engage in collective bargaining

if they wish to do sobearing in mind that it is not inconsistent with the

Convention to deny these rights to members of the police or the armed forces

and that the Convention does not deal with the position of public servants

engaged in the administration of the State. Not only must the parties be free to

engage in collective bargaining if they so choose, but they must be permitted to

reach their own agreement on their own terms without interference by the public

authorities subject to certain qualifications for compelling reasons of national

economic interest (ILO 1994) and to reasonable requirements as to form,

registration and so on.


9/22

Article 4 has not, however, been interpreted as protecting the right to

recognition for purposes of collective bargaining. The supervisory bodies have

repeatedly emphasized the desirability of such recognition, but have not been

prepared to take the further step of determining that refusal to recognize and/or

the absence of a mechanism whereby employers can be obliged to recognize the

unions to which their employees belong constitutes a breach of Article 4 (ILO1994b; ILO 1995a). They have justified this interpretation on the basis that

compulsory recognition would deprive collective bargaining of its voluntary

character as envisaged by Article 4 (ILO 1995a). As against that, it might be

argued that the ostensible right to engage in collective bargaining must

inevitably be compromised if employers are to be free to refuse to engage in

such bargaining notwithstanding that they have the right so to bargain if they

wish. Furthermore, permitting employers to refuse to recognize the unions to

which their employees belong seems to sit somewhat uneasily with the duty to

promote collective bargaining, which appears to be the principal purpose of

Article 4 (Creighton 1994).

Application of Freedom of Association Principles in the Context of

Occupational Safety and Health

It was suggested earlier that ILO standards relating to occupational safety and

health endorse the concept of bipartite or tripartite involvement in three

principal contexts: (1) the formulation and implementation of policy at national

and regional level; (2) consultation between employers and workers at the level

of the workplace; and (3) joint participation between employers and workers in

the formulation and implementation of policy at the level of the workplace. It

should be clear from the foregoing that the effective involvement of employers

and (especially) workers in all three contexts is crucially dependent upon

adequate recognition of their rights of association and representation.

Respect for the right to form and to join organizations is clearly an essential

precondition of all three forms of joint involvement. Consultation and

participation at the governmental level is feasible only where there are strong

and effective organizations which can be seen to be representative of the

interests of their constituencies. This is necessary both for ease of

communication and so that government will feel constrained to take seriously

the views expressed by the representatives of employers and workers. A fortiori,consultation and participation at the level of the workplace is a realistic

proposition only if workers have the capacity to form and to join organizations

which can represent their interests in discussions with employers and their

organizations, provide back-up resources for worker representatives, assist in

dealings with public inspectorates and so on. Theoretically, worker

representatives could operate at the level of the workplace without having any

necessary connection with a more broadly based organization, but the reality of

power relations in most workplaces is such that they are unlikely to be able to do

so in an effective manner without the support of an industrial organization. At

the very least, workers must have the right to have their interests represented inthis manner if they so choose.


10/22

The organizational autonomy of employer and worker organizations is also an

essential precondition of meaningful participation at all levels. It is necessary, for

example, that worker organizations should have the right to formulate and to

implement their policies on occupational safety and health issues without outside

interference, for purposes of consultation with government in relation to: (1)

issues such as the legal regulation of hazardous processes or substances; or (2)the formulation of legislative policy relating to compensation for work-related

injury or the rehabilitation of injured workers. Such autonomy is even more

important at the level of the workplace, where worker organizations need to

develop and maintain a capacity to represent the interests of their members in

discussion with employers on occupational safety and health issues. This might

include having rights of access to workplaces for union officials and/or health and

safety specialists; invoking the assistance of the public authorities in relation to

hazardous situations; and in certain circumstances organizing industrial action in

order to protect the health and safety of their members.

To be effective, organizational autonomy also requires that trade union members

and officials be accorded adequate protection against victimization on grounds

of their trade union membership or activities, or on account of their having

initiated or participated in legal proceedings relating to occupational safety and

health matters. In other words, the guarantees against discrimination set out in

Article 1 of Convention No. 98 are as relevant to trade union activity relating to

occupational safety and health as to other forms of union activity such as

collective bargaining, membership recruitment and so on.

The right to engage in autonomous collective bargaining is also a crucial element

in effective worker participation in relation to occupational safety and health. The

guarantees set out in Article 4 of Convention No. 98 are important in this

context. However, as indicated, those guarantees do not extend to the right to

be recognized for purposes of such bargaining. On the other hand provisions

such as Article 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No.

155) may be seen as coming very close to requiring trade union recognition in

the context of occupational safety and health:

There shall be arrangements at the level of the undertaking under which:

representatives of workers in an undertaking are given adequate informationon measures taken by the employer to secure occupational safety and health

and may consult their representative organizations about such information

provided they do not disclose commercial secrets;

workers and their representatives in the undertaking are given appropriate

training in occupational safety and health;

workers or their representatives and, as the case may be, their

representative organizations in an undertaking, in accordance with national law

and practice, are enabled to inquire into, and are consulted by the employer on,

all aspects of occupational safety and health associated with their work...


11/22

In practical terms it would be very difficult to give effect to these provisions

without according some kind of formal recognition to the role of workers

organizations. This in turn serves to emphasize yet again the importance of

adequate recognition of rights of association and representation as a

precondition of the development and implementation of effective occupational

safety and health strategies at both the national and enterprise level.

WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT (I) (i) Introduction: Three

groups of managerial decisions affect the workers

of any industrial establishment and hence the workers must have a say in it.

Economic decisions methods of manufacturing, automation, shutdown, lay-offs,

and mergers. Personnel decisions recruitment and selection, promotions,

demotions, transfers, grievance settlement, work distribution. Social decisions

hours of work, welfare measures, questions affecting work rules and conduct of

individual workers safety, health, and sanitation and noise

control. Participation basically means sharing the decision-making power with

the lower ranks of the organization in an appropriate manner. Definitions: The

concept of WPM is a broad and complex one. Depending on the socio-political

environment and cultural conditions, the scope and contents

ofparticipation change. International Institute of Labour Studies: WPM is

the participation resulting from the practices which increase the scope for

employees share of influence in decision-making at different tiers of

organizational hierarchy with concomitant (related) assumption of

responsibility. ILO: Workers participation, may broadly be taken to cover all

terms of association ofworkers and their representatives with the decision-

making process, ranging from exchange of information, consultations, decisions

and negotiations, to more institutionalized forms such as the presence

ofworkers member on management or supervisory boards or

even management by workers themselves (as practiced in Yugoslavia). The

main implications ofworkersparticipation in management as summarized

by ILO: Workers have ideas which can be useful; Workers may work more

intelligently if they are informed about the reasons for and the intention of

decisions that are taken in a participative atmosphere. (I) (ii) Objectives:

According to Gosep, workers participation may be viewed as: An instrument

for increasing the efficiency of enterprises and establishing harmonious relations;

A device for developing social education for promoting solidarityamong workers and for tapping human talents; A means for achieving


12/22

industrial peace and harmony which leads to higher productivity and increased

production; A humanitarian act, elevating the status of a worker in the society;

An ideological way of developing self-management and promoting industrial

democracy. Other objectives of WPM can be cited as: To improve the quality of

working life (QWL) by allowing the workers greater influence and involvement in

work and satisfaction obtained from work; and

This Text should be used as reference for MLFIR. Students should also go through

websites, books and take guidance from their respective faculty members. Vikas

Shrivastava Page 1

To secure the mutual co-operation of employees and employers in achieving

industrial peace; greater efficiency and productivity in the interest of the

enterprise, the workers, the consumers and the nation.

Importance: Unique motivational power and a great psychological value.

Peace and harmony between workers and management. Workers get to see

how their actions would contribute to the overall growth of the company. They

tend to view the decisions as `their own and are more enthusiastic in their

implementation. Participation makes them more responsible. They become

more willing to take initiative and come out with cost-saving suggestions and

growth-oriented ideas. (I) (iii) Essential condition for WPM: The success

ofworkers portion in management depends upon the following conditions.

The attitude and outlook of the parties should be enlightened and impartial so

that a free and frank exchange of thoughts and opinions could be possible.Where a right kind of attitude exists and proper atmosphere prevails the process

ofparticipation is greatly stimulated.

Both parties should have a genuine faith in the system and in each other and be

willing to work together. The management must give the participating

institution its right place in the managerial organization of the undertaking and

implementing the policies of the undertaking. The labor, on the other hand, must

also whole heartedly co-operate with the management through its trade unions.

The foremen and supervisory cadre must also lend their full support so that theaccepted policies could be implemented without any resentment on either side.

Participation should be real. The issues related to increase in production and

productivity, evaluation of costs, development of personnel, and expansion of

markets should also be brought under the jurisdiction of the participating bodies.

These bodies should meet frequently and their decisions should be timely

implemented and strictly adhered to. Further, o Participation must work as

complementary body to help collective bargaining, which creates conditions of

work and also creates legal relations. o There should be a strong trade union,which has learnt the virtues of unit and self-reliance so that they may effectively


13/22


14/22

Communication and subsequently relations between the workers

representative and the workers suffers after the former assumes directorship.

He or she tends to become alienated from the workers. As a result, he or she

may be less effective with the other members of the Board in dealing with

employee matters. Because of the differences in the cultural and educational

backgrounds, and differences in behaviour and manners, such an employees

representative may feel inferior to the other members, and he or she may feel

suffocated. Hence, his or her role as a director may not be satisfying for either

the workers or the management. Such representatives ofworkers on theBoard, places them in a minority. And the decisions of the Board are arrived at

on the basis of the majority vote.

2. Participation through ownership: This involves making the workers

shareholders of the company by inducing them to buy equity shares. In many

cases, advances and financial assistance in the form of easy repayment options

are extended to enable employees to buy equity shares. Examples of this

method are available in the manufacturing as well as the service sector.

Advantage: Makes the workers committed to the job and to the organization.

Drawback: Effect on participation is limited because ownershipand management are two different things. 3. Participation through complete

control: Workers acquire complete control of themanagement through elected

boards. The system of selfmanagement in Yugoslavia is based on this concept.

Self-management gives complete control to workers to manage directly all

aspects of industries through their representatives. Advantages: Ensures

identification of the workers with their organization. Industrial disputes

disappear when workers develop loyalty to the organization. Trade unions

welcome this type ofparticipation. Conclusion: Complete control by workers is

not an answer to the problem ofparticipation because the workers do not

evince interest in management decisions. 4. Participation through Staff andWorks Councils: Staff councils or works councils are bodies on which the

representation is entirely of the employees. There may be one council for the

entire organization or a hierarchy of councils. The employees of the respective

sections elect the members of the councils. Such councils play a varied role.

Their role ranges from seeking information on the managements intentions to a

full share in decision-making. Such councils have not enjoyed too much of

success because trade union leaders fear the erosion of their power and prestige

if such workers bodies were to prevail. 5. Participation through Joint Councils

and Committees: Joint councils are bodies comprising representatives of

employers and employees. This method sees a very loose form ofparticipation,

as these councils are mostly consultative bodies.


15/22



Shrivastava Page 4

Work committees are a legal requirement in industrial establishments employing

100 or more workers. Such committees discuss a wide range of topicsconnected to labour welfare. Examples of such committees are welfare

committee, safety committee, etc. Such committees have not proven to be too

effective in promoting industrial democracy, increasing productivity and reducing

labour unrest. 6. Participation through Collective Bargaining: Through the

process of CB, management and workers may reach collective agreement

regarding rules for the formulation and termination of the contract of

employment, as well as conditions of service in an establishment. Even though

these agreements are not legally binding, they do have some force. For CB to

work, the workers and the employers representatives need to bargain in the

right spirit. But in practice, while bargaining, each party tries to take advantageof the other. This process of CB cannot be called WPM in its strongest sense as in

reality; CB is based on the crude concept of exercising power for the benefit of

one party. WPM, on the other hand, brings both the parties together and

develops appropriate mutual understanding and brings about a mature

responsible relationship. 7. Participation through Job Enlargement and Job

Enrichment: Excessive job specialization that is seen as a by-product of mass

production in industries, leads to boredom and associated problems in

employees. Two methods of job designing job enlargement and job enrichment

are seen as methods of addressing the problems. Job enlargement means

expanding the job content adding task elements horizontally. Job enrichmentmeans adding `motivators to the job to make it more rewarding. This is WPM in

that it offers freedom and scope to the workers to use their judgment. But this

form ofparticipation is very basic as it provides only limited freedom to a

worker concerning the method of performing his/her job. The worker has no say

in other vital issues of concern to him issues such as job and income security,

welfare schemes and other policy decisions. 8. Participation through

Suggestion Schemes: Employees views are invited and reward is given for the

best suggestion. With this scheme, the employees interest in the problems of

the organization is aroused and maintained. Progressive managements

increasingly use the suggestion schemes. Suggestions can come from variouslevels. The ideas could range from changes in inspection procedures to design

changes, process simplification, paper-work reduction and the like. Out of

various suggestions, those accepted could provide marginal to substantial

benefits to the company. The rewards given to the employees are in line with the

benefits derived from the suggestions. 9. Participation through Quality Circles:

Concept originated in Japan in the early 1960s and has now spread all over the

world. A QC consists of seven to ten people from the same work area who meet

regularly to define, analyze, and solve quality and related problems in their area.

These circles require a lot of time and commitment on the part of members for

regular meetings, analysis, brainstorming, etc. Most QCs have a definite life

cycle one to three years. Few circles survive beyond this limit either because


16/22

they loose steam or they face simple problems. QCs can be an excellent bridge

between participative and non-participative approaches. For



Shrivastava Page 5

QCs to succeed in the long run, the management needs to show its

commitment by implementing some of the suggestions of the groups and

providing feedback on the disposition of all suggestions. Training in problem-

solving techniques is provided to the members. QCs are said to provide quick,

concrete, and impressive results when correctly implemented. Advantages:

Employees become involved in decision-making, acquire communication and

analytical skills and improve efficiency of the work place. Organization gets to

enjoy higher savings-to-cost ratios. Chances of QC members to get promotions

are enhanced. The Indian Scenario: Tried by BHEL, Mahindra and Mahindra,

Godrej and Boyce among others. Experienced mixed results: o M&M (jeep

division) with 76 QCs has experienced favourable results. Technical problems

got solved. Workers got to get out of their daily routine and do something

challenging. Trade unions look at it as: A way of overburdening workers, and

An attempt to undermine their role. 10. Empowered Teams: Empowerment

occurs when authority and responsibility are passed on to the employees who

then experience a sense of ownership and control over their jobs. Employees

may feel more responsible, may take initiative in their work, may get more work

done, and may enjoy the work more. For empowerment to occur, the following

approach needs to be followed as compared to the traditional approach: Element

Organizational structure Job designManagement role Leadership Information

flow Rewards Job process Traditional Organization Layered, individual Narrow,

single task Direct, control Top-down Controlled, limited Individual, seniority

based Managers plan, control, improve Empowered Teams Flat, team Whole

process, multiple tasks Coach, facilitate Shared with the team Open, shared

Team-based, skill-based Teams plan, control, and improve

Features of empowered or self-directed teams: Empowered to share

various management and leadership functions. Plan, control and improve

their work. Often create their schedules and review their performance as a

group. May prepare their own budgets and co-ordinate their work with otherdepartments. o Usually order materials, keep inventories and deal with suppliers.

o Frequently responsible for acquiring any new training they might need. o May

hire their own replacement to assume responsibility for the quality of their

products or services



Shrivastava Page 6

Titan, Reliance, ABB, GE Plastics (India), Wipro Corporation and Wipro InfoTech

are empowering employees both frontline as well as production staff, and areenjoying positive results. 11. Total Quality Management: TQM refers to the


17/22

deep commitment, almost obsession, of an organization to quality. Every step in

companys processes is subjected to intense and regular scrutiny for ways to

improve it. Some traditional beliefs are discarded. High quality costs more.

Quality can be improved by inspection. Defects cannot be completely

eliminated. Quality in the job of the QC personnel. New principles of TQM are:

Meet the customers requirement on time, the first time, and 100% of the time. Strive to do error-free work. Manage by prevention, not correction. Measure

the cost of quality. TQM is called participative because it is a formal

programme involving every employee in the organization; making each one

responsible for improving quality everyday.

12. Financial Participation: This method involves less consultations or even

joint decisions. Performance of the organization is linked to the performance of

the employee. The logic behind this is that if an employee has a financial stake

in the organization, he/she is likely to be more positively motivated and involved.

Some schemes of financial participation: Profit-linked pay Profit sharing andEmployees Stock Option schemes. Pension-fund participation. Pre-requisites

for successful participation: Management and operatives/employees should

not work at cross-purposes i.e. they must have clearly defined and

complementary objectives. Free flow of communication and information.

Participation of outside trade union leaders to be avoided Strong and

effective trade unionism. Workers education and training. Trade unions and

government needs to work in this area. Trust between both the parties.

Workers should be associated at all levels of decision-making. Employees

cannot spend all their time in participation to the exclusion of all other work.



Shrivastava Page 7

Limitations ofparticipation: Technology and organizations today are so

complex that specialized work-roles are required. This means employees will

not be able to participate effectively in matters beyond their particular

environment. Everybody need not want participation. The role of trade unions

in promoting participative management has been far from satisfactory.

Employers are unwilling to share power with the workers representatives.

Managers consider participative management a fraud.



Shrivastava Page 8

(I) (v) Reason for Limited Success : 1. Firstly, the fundamental difficulties in the

way lie in the concept itself. There is a basic conflict of interests between

the workers and the owners of the business enterprise.Participation involves

parting with power. Managements have been reluctant to part with their

authority and prerogative to manage the enterprises. Similarly trade unions have

not been prepared to divest themselves of their power manifested in bargainingand pressure. 2. Secondly, multiplicity of trade unions and factionalism has been


18/22

a serious obstacle in the way ofworkers participation in management. In

view of the claims and counter claims, apathy and willingness, hostility and

cooperation displayed by rival unions or their factions, designation ofworkers

representatives on the participative forums often becomes a very difficult task.

3. The government with its anxiety of maintaining cordial relations between

labour and management, increasing production and productivity, achievingplanned targets and accelerating the pace of economic and industrial

development, came forward with different schemes

ofworkers participation in management. Many employers and trade unions

still considers them as imposition from outside. Its enforcement by law or

compulsion would thwart the very purpose of scheme and would act as serious

constraint on its successful implementation. 4. Fourthly, both managements and

trade unions have often complained of a plethora of joint bodies in Indian

industries for example, works committees, joint management councils, shop

councils, unit councils, plant councils, establishment councils, canteen

committees, production committees, safety committees, welfare committees,grievance committees , and so on. Thus, it is natural for them to become

bewildered by this multiplicity of joint bodies. 5. Another hurdle has been lack of

specific arrangements for sharing the gains ofparticipation. Workers are

assured in a vague manner, that they would gain if production increases and

quality of products improves as a result ofparticipation, but vague and remote

expectations cannot be expected to enthuse the workers. A prior arrangement

for sharing the fruits ofparticipation is a necessary condition for the success of

the scheme on a lasting basis. 6. It is the government in India which is more

anxious for the establishment of the schemes ofparticipation than the parties

which have to work them out. However, displaying an attitude of cooperationwith the government in maintaining industrial harmony, most national

organizations of employers and trade unions supported the schemes at the

national forums, but they have generally failed to enthuse their affiliates about

the usefulness of the schemes. 7. Lastly, it has also been realized that lack of

education and training with regard to the content, process, utility and other

relevant aspects ofparticipation have also proved an impediment to the

growth ofworkers participation in the country.

(I) (vi) Suggestions for Improvement: For the successful initiation and functioning

of the institutions ofworkers participation in management, serious attentionhas to be given to the removal of the hurdles (as above). Efforts should be made

to stir up the management and workers at the local or enterprise level to

understand the schemes and to derive concrete benefits from them. The

government efforts should be confined to giving guidelines and to remove the

impediments in the way, for example, reducing trade union rivalry by amending

trade union laws, regulating procedural aspects of collective bargaining,

expanding workers education programme and evolving a system of sharing the

fruits of participation.



Shrivastava Page 9


19/22



Shrivastava Page 10

(I) (vii) Evolution of participative management in India: The beginning towards

WPM was made with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which made WorksCommittees mandatory in industrial establishments employing 100 or

more workers. The Industrial Policy Resolution adopted by the government in

1956 stated that there should be some joint consultation to ensure industrial

peace, and improve employer-employee relations. The functions of both these

joint bodies were to be consultative and were not binding on the management.

The response to these schemes was encouraging to begin with, but gradually

waned. A study team was appointed in 1962 to report on the working of joint

councils and committees. The team identified some reasons for their failure. o No

concrete steps were taken to remove the difficulties, or change the pattern of

participativemanagement. During the emergency of 1975-77, the interest inthese schemes was revived by the then Prime Minister by

including Workers Participation in industry in the governments 20-point

programme (refer for detail Page 246 of Industrial Relations, Trade Unions and

Labour Legislation by P.R.N.Sinha, Indubala Sinha, Seema Priyadarshini Shekhar).

The government started persuading large enterprises to set up joint

consultative committees and councils at different levels. The Janata

Government who came to power in 1977 carried on this initiative. It was again

emphasized by the Congress government who came back in 1979. This

continued in a nonstatutory vein till the late 1980s, and the response from the

employers and employees stayed Luke-warm. Then, the 42nd Amendment to theConstitution was made. Now, Article 43-A reads: The State shall take steps, by

suitable legislation, or in any other way, to secure

the participation ofworkers in the management of undertakings,

establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry. Thus,

participative management is a constitutional commitment in India. And then,

on May 30, 1990, the government introduced

the Participation ofWorkers in Management Bill in the Rajya Sabha. o The

bill requires every industrial enterprise to constitute one or more `Shop-Floor

Councils at the shop floor level, and `Establishment Council at the

establishment level. These councils will have equal representation of employersand employees. Shop-Floor councils enjoy powers over a wide range of functions

from production, wastage control to safety hazards. The Establishment Council

enjoys similar powers. The bill provides for the constitution of a Board

ofManagement of every corporate body owning an industrial establishment. o

The bill also provides for penalties on individuals who contravene any provision

of the bill. In spite of all these efforts, only the government and the academicians

have been interested in participative management. But

participative management is staging a comeback. The compulsions of emerging

competitive environment have made employee involvement more relevant than

ever before. Managers and the managed are forced to forget their known stands,


20/22

break barriers, and work in unison. Managers and workers are partners in the

progress of business.



Shrivastava Page 11

Workers' Participation at TISCO Since Tata Iron and Steel Company are the

pioneers in establishing joint consultation in India, it is worthwhile to look

at workers' participation at TISCO. Closer association of employees

with management at TISCO began in 1919 and was formalized in August 1956.

The purpose was to promote increased productivity, provide a better

understanding to the employees of their role and importance, and to satisfy the

urge for self expression. The scheme as set up at TISCO consist f a three-tiered

system with joint department councils (JDCs) constituted at the departmental

level. Next, joint works councils (JWC) for the entire work, and at the top the joint

consultative council ofmanagement (JCCM). The specific functions of these

three bodies were as follows: JDCs were to study operational results and

production problems, advice on the steps deemed necessary to promote and

rationalize production, improve productivity and discipline and economize cost.

Promotion of welfare and safety, encouragement of suggestions and

improvement of working conditions also fell within their purview. JWCs were to

discharge special function of reviewing every month the working of JDCs and

other committees such as Suggestion Box Committee, Safety Committee,

Canteen Managing Committee, etc. JCCM was given the task of

advising management on production and welfare and also looking at matters

referred to by JDCs and JWCs In order to ensure that these committees did not

overlap the functions of other committees, separate task groups were formed.

Special courses were offered to prepare both management and union

representatives to effectively utilize the facility. TISCO's experience

with workers' participation has been satisfactory. From 1957 to the middle of

1972 JDCs have discussed a total of 14,104 suggestions of which 70.3 per cent

have been implemented. These suggestions have covered a wide range of topics

and issues, but the most important point to remember, perhaps, is that the

councils have been successful in involving workers equally in the process of

production.



Shrivastava Page 12

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (II) (i) Meaning: Collective bargaining is process of joint

decision making and basically represents a democratic way of life in industry. It

is the process of negotiation between firms andworkers representatives for the

purpose of establishing mutually agreeable conditions of employment. It is a

technique adopted by two parties to reach an understanding acceptable to both

through the process of discussion and negotiation. ILO has defined collective

bargaining as, negotiation about working conditions and terms of employment


21/22

between an employer and a group of employees or one or more employee,

organization with a view to reaching an agreement wherein the terms serve as a

code of defining the rights and obligations of each party in their

employment/industrial relations with one another. Collective bargaining involves

discussions and negotiations between two groups as to the terms and conditions

of employment. It is called collective because both the employer and theemployee act as a group rather than as individuals. It is known as bargaining

because the method of reaching an agreement involves proposals and counter

proposals, offers and counter offers and other negotiations. Thus collective

bargaining: is a collective process in which representatives of both

the management and employees participate. is a continuous process which

aims at establishing stable relationships between the parties involved. not only

involves the bargaining agreement, but also involves the implementation of such

an agreement. attempts in achieving discipline in the industry is a flexible

approach, as the parties involved have to adopt a flexible attitude towards

negotiations.

Importance: Collective bargaining includes not only negotiations between the

employers and unions but also includes the process of resolving labor-

management conflicts. Thus, collective bargaining is, essentially, a recognized

way of creating a system of industrial jurisprudence. It acts as a method of

introducing civil rights in the industry, that is, the management should be

conducted by rules rather than arbitrary decision making. It establishes rules

which define and restrict the traditional authority exercised by

the management. Importance to employees Collective bargaining develops a

sense of self respect and responsibility among the employees. It increases thestrength of the workforce, thereby, increasing their bargaining capacity as a

group. Collective bargaining increases the morale and productivity of

employees. It restricts managements freedom for arbitrary action against the

employees. Moreover, unilateral actions by the employer are also discouraged.

Effective collective bargaining machinery strengthens the trade unions

movement.



Shrivastava Page 13

The workers feel motivated as they can approach the management on various

matters and bargain for higher benefits. It helps in securing a prompt and fair

settlement of grievances. It provides a flexible means for the adjustment of

wages and employment conditions to economic and technological changes in the

industry, as a result of which the chances for conflicts are reduced. Importance

to employers It becomes easier for themanagement to resolve issues at the

bargaining level rather than taking up complaints of individual workers.

Collective bargaining tends to promote a sense of job security among employees

and thereby tends to reduce the cost of labor turnover to management.

Collective bargaining opens up the channel of communication betweenthe workers and the management and increases worker participation in


22/22

decision making. Collective bargaining plays a vital role in settling and

preventing industrial disputes.

Documents

Workers Part ILO Usable