Mohit Case Analysis

7/29/2019 Mohit Case Analysis

1/17

CASE ANALYSIS-1

Industrial Conflict and Unrestat TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR

MOTOR Company


2/17

Introduction

Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC), the worlds second largest automobilemanufacturer, had entered into the Indian market in 1997 through a joint venturewith Kirloskar Group.

The equity in b/w these two was in ratio of 89:11 respectively.

The new entity was called Kirloskar Motor Private Limited (TKM). TKM established itsmanufacturing facility at Bidadi near Bangalore in the Indian state of Karnataka.

The case deals with the labour unrest in the Bidadi plant.

On January 08, 2006, the workers of the plant went on strike, which was followed bya lockout by the company.

The conciliation process failed to resolve the dispute. Hence, the government resolveit.

THE DISPUTE On 5th Jan,2006- Three workers dismissed out of out of fifteen thathad been suspended in February. Reasons-They were guilty of misconduct whichinclude violent behaviour, disruption of work and assault on a supervisor.

The TKM Employee Union declare a strike.


3/17

Isuues/Problems The strike by the union was to demand reinstatement of 3employees who has been suspended, but management was not

agree for this.

The Union also demanded an improvement in the workingconditions at the plant.

Beacause of the strike, The Management declare an indefiniteLockout.

TKMEU on the other handalleged that the management was tryingto curb union activities by victimizing those who are parcticipatingin Union activities.

In response the employee union said thad 3 employees weredismissed because they were actively participating in tradeunion.They further said the working conditions at plant was slavelike.

The production was reduced to 30 vehicles per day from 90 vpd.


4/17

Causes of Dispute s

The cause of suspend 3 employees was:

They were guilty of misconduct which includeviolent behaviour, disruption of work andassault on a supervisor.

The cause of strike was:

Suspension of 3 employees.

The working conditions of the plant.


5/17

Parties with reference to the

problem The parties with reference to the problem was:

TKM(Toyota Kirloskar Motor pvt. Ltd.) TKMEU(Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union)

And other was the Government.

The conciliation process failed to resolve the dispute. Hence, the government, inorder to maintain its investor-friendly image, prohibited the strike.

To resolve the conflict when the Sate Labour Authoroties(SLA) called both parties fora conciliatory meeting.

After the meeting the DLC gave the following suggestions:::

The dismissal order for the three employees should be kept in abeyance until the IndustrialTribunal gave its judgement.The lockout should be lifted. No disciplinary action should be

taken against the protesting workers.

The workers should withdraw the strike in order to maintain a peaceful work atmosphere.


6/17

Result

The Government of karnataka banned the strikeby TKM workers.

After a union meeting, the TKMEU announced

that it was withdrawing its strike.

TKM did not face any major problems due to thestrike of the workers and the lockout at its plant.

The production was carried by those employeeswho are not part of the union. They produced 30vehicles per day.


7/17

Solution

FOR EMPLOYERS::

Employers should watch over on desires and needs ofemployees.

Employees should follow rules and regulations.

Employers shoud behave properly with the employers.

FOR EMPLOYEES::

Emloyees should follow rules and regulations.

Employees should respect the siniors.

Employees should work actively and with honesty.


8/17

Do you think that the lockout declared by

the Toyota Motors was legal? Why? Do you

think strike by the workman was illegal? Why

or why not?

Ans:

According to me the lockout waslegal because the strike was illegal,

because the union did not give thenotice before 14 days.


9/17

How would you interpret the above incident

from the industrial relation perspective? Give

your suggetion rectify the problem.

Ans: suggetions are same as solutions:

FOR EMPLOYERS::

Employers should watch over on desires and needs ofemployees.

Employees should follow rules and regulations.

Employers shoud behave properly with the employers.

FOR EMPLOYEES::

Emloyees should follow rules and regulations.

Employees should respect the siniors.

Employees should work actively and with honesty.


10/17

END OF CASE STUDY-1


11/17

CASE ANALISYS-2

The Airport Authority Strike

Against Privatization


12/17

introduction

In feburary 2006, the employees of the Airport Authority ofIndia struck work in protest against the privatization of theprivatization.

The Indian governments ambitious plan to privatize the

modernization of the countrys two biggest airports atMumbai and Delhi sparked off another major controversy,leading to strike, protests, threats, complaints andaccusations.

Thousand of Airport Athorities of India employees went onan indefinite strike against the governments privatizationplans and a bidder who lost out moved the courtchallenging the airport bids.


13/17

Issues/Problems relating to the

stike The government awarded the modernization

contractfor the Delhi and Mumbai airports,thecountrys two busiest airport to two privateconsortia.

The union of employees of AAI raised afundamental question, were the airports in Indiaso badly maintained that they needed to bemodernized.

The government invited bids and financialtenders from private companies to build andmaintain the two airports.


14/17

Parties with reference to the

problem

The government.

The employees of AAI.

Some major political partiessupporting the strike.


15/17

Causes of Dispute

The main problem was that there are 449 airports in thecountry, among these the AAI owns and manages 5international airports, 87 domestic airports and 28 civilenclaves at defense airfields and provides air traffic serviceqver the entire Indian airpace and adjoning ocean areas,but the infrastructure at all the airport has remained much

below international benchmarks.

The reason behind strike was that the airport employeesfeared that they will lose jobs if the government went wentahead with the modernization and eventual privatization.

Because employees thank that the private companies thatwere going to rebuild these airports would throw out them.


16/17

Solution

The employees should had to waitfor the modernization after that ifthey were dismissed then they

should take any action.

The government should made surethat their jobs were secure.


17/17

END OF CASE STUDY-2Thank You

Documents

Mohit Case Analysis