TRADE UNIONS OR TRADERS’ UNIONS

TRADE UNIONS OR TRADERS' UNIONS

The God of Trade Unions created awareness in me one day.  He told me that if I got anything it is because of the unions.  Those who believed in Him are in cheer.  And those with no faith in Him are in plight.  Till that time I believed that what the bank was paying me was for the work I was doing.  As doubts do not dissipate in my immature mind, I pray to Him that I may be clarified on the following:

The statute of the nation said under Pension Regulation 52.1 that pension becomes payable from the day following the date of retirement.  But you consented in the Joint Note that it shall be paid to all the retired from a divine date of 27.11.2009 propounded in it. 

Regulation 5.3 and 11 make the banks the sole contributor to the Pension Fund.  Regulation 7 excludes a contribution other than the initial transfer of CPF of the employee at the time of joining pension scheme to Pension Fund. Yet you offered a bounty by way of 2.8 times pay for November, 2007 be paid by employees and 56 percent of CPF by the employees to the Pension Fund for getting pension.  The contributions derogated the extant regulations.

In the Joint Note it was concluded that IBA will forward it to the government for approval and further action in terms of section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 /1980 as the Joint Note was in the nature of amending the Pension Regulations which was statutory.  So long as this is undone, the Regulations prevail.  Section 19.1 of the Act lays down that amendment to a regulation can only be through notification in the gazette.   Sections 19.1 and 19.4 lay down that amendments that prejudice what is done earlier under a regulation shall not be made.  Section 19.4 further mandates that any amendment has to be laid in the Houses of the Parliament for a period of 30 days immediately after it is made for the nod of the Houses.  Will the leader or dealer explain why He is not challenging the breach of this condition by IBA and banks.   What is the consideration for remaining tight lipped on it when any of the signatories is entitled to challenge it.  The contributions and pension denied are unlawful as the Joint Note has no force of law for non-compliance with its clause 10.

The Record Note was a record.   Prior to signing it You declared that Bipartite Settlement will not be signed without settling retiree issues first.  A record was created agreeing that no contractual relationship exists for banks with the retirees.  Very true.  The relationship was statutory, arising out of Pension Regulations. It was not contractual.   The relationship was reduced into law through Pension Regulations much earlier.  There was nothing to settle at the point of time.  The only thing was that the Pension Regulations in force are breached in toto. 

It is the managements that collect the subscriptions regularly through check off and levies at the time of each settlement without authorization from members for you.  If they do not do this, unions will be non-existent. So unions have to be grateful and give the quid pro quo to them. This is why in earlier settlements too a portion of the wage increase agreed upon was set aside for pension funds and the remainder alone was shared uniformly among pension optees and CPF optees.  How much was the amount credited to Pension Funds from each wage hike is not known.   In spite of such contributions, Pension Funds had a deficit as Funding gap which was filled by the contributions of 2.8 times pay and 56 percent of CPF.

Bankers had a higher pay than government officials four decades back.  Now when a sub-postmaster draws Rs.75,000/- as pay, the Manager of a Nationalised bank gets Rs.50,000/- The bank officer works for six days and for extended hours in hectic mode. The government officer reaches the office leisurely and packs off by 4-00 O'Clock. The former now gets less than two-thirds of what the latter gets.  A unique   achievement of Unions during past four decades!

When section 10.7 of the Act gives a prior charge to superannuation funds over the profits of banks by permitting banks to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as reserves, lesser salary and pension for the irksome job is paid for declaring and paying higher profits to the government every year to pay   fat compensation to its employees.  Are the unions unaware of the statutory provisions and continue to be a party to the deceit of members in gross derogation of laws?

Out of tax money, the government pays huge salary and pension to its employees.  The exchequer itself meets the pension and increased pension in educational institutions run by private managements.  It also pays huge pension to people's representatives elected for a short term of five years, out of tax money.  Only in the case of bank employees who put in their life into the process of nation building, adequate salary and pension are denied, that too out of their own deferred wages and out of the profits they make.

Unions need not secure any fresh benefit, but ensure that what is agreed upon and conferred by the statute  through the Bank ( Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 are given.  If they do not have the stuff to ensure that what is already sanctioned is delivered, it is for the leaders to consign their flags and banners to flame and refrain from sucking the blood of the members continuously.   IF ANY ONE HAS GUTS THE JOINT NOTE THAT IS BREACHED IS TO BE CHALLENGED TO PROVE THE METTLE. 

C N VENUGOPALAN Former Director (GoI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore

& Ex-Manager Union Bank of India ceeyenvee@gmail.com 9447747994