Recent Trends in Labour Relations in Indian Automobile Industry:
the case of TKM and its Supply Chain
Surendra Pratap, Raghvendra Kumar and Raju BC1
2020
1. Political Economy of Automobile Manufacturing in India
India and probably other Asian developing countries as well are facing a serious crisis of
unemployment, underemployment, lack of decent employment and a crisis of shrinking spaces for
democratic rights and human rights in industrial relations. All the above factors also appear to be
correlated. In India, the liberalization of economy and related politico-economic dynamics has clearly
a negative impact on employment growth and on all other related factors. Employment growth in post
liberalization era has been consistently equal to or below the labourforce growth (Kerswell and Pratap
2018). While the pre-liberalization period saw employment growth largely proportional to the GDP
growth, in post liberalization period, GDP growth largely appears to be detached from employment
growth; Higher GDP growth may be accompanied with lower employment growth and vice versa,
which may largely be due to the fact that an increasing portion of GDP exists outside the real
economy, and not in manufacturing sector which is considered to be the major driver of employment
growth (Kerswell and Pratap 2018). In these situations expansion of organized manufacturing and
particularly the labour intensive manufacturing emerges as core strategy to resolve the crisis of
employment and also the crisis of decent employment. It is in this connection expansion of automobile
manufacturing sector has a special significance for the economy as a whole, as it emerges as a driving
force for many other manufacturing sectors as well. The automotive sector has been actually
considered as the mother of the manufacturing sector as it directly impacts the growth of several
manufacturing sectors which supply the raw materials for automobile manufacturing. For example,
major or significant proportion of production in manufacturing sectors like Iron and steel, Aluminum,
lead, rubber, plastics, Glass, machine tools, molds and dies, chemicals, capital goods, electrical and
electronics is targeted for automobile manufacturing. Similarly significant proportion of revenue in
service sectors related to Fuel supply, logistic, banking, insurance, sales and distribution,
service&repair largely depends on automobile industry.
The automobile industry in India contributes about 7% in country’s GDP (Bhattacharya et al 2014,
ACG 2019). Automobile sector’s share in total employment is also claimed to be about 7-8%.
Automobile sector also accounts for 4% of country’s total exports, 39% of FDI inflows and
contributes 17% to total indirect taxes collected (Bhattacharya et al 2014). Total direct and indirect
employment generated by this sector is claimed to be about 13 million-19 million (Bhattacharya et al
Surendra Pratap is Director of Centre for Workers Education, New Delhi; Raghvendra Kumar is General Secretary,
CITU, Bangalore South, Raju BC works with Garment Labour Union, Bangalore.
1
2014; ACG 20192). No reliable statistical data is available to justify these estimates. However, the
employment data on transport equipment manufacturing is consistently available and it shows that the
workforce in this industry increased from 0.6 million in 1999-00 to 1.5 million in 2009-10; thereafter
the employment growth stagnated and remained at 1.5million in 2011-12 (Mehrotra et al 20143). This
stagnationwas probably the result of the industrial restructuring under process in terms of automation
etc. and/or a crisis setting-in that was reflected in stagnant sales in 2012-13 (Bhattacharya et al 20144).
India is 4th largest automotive market in the world (ACG 2019). In the Commercial Vehicle market,
India is the second largest bus manufacturer, third largest Truck manufacturer, and largest Tractor
manufacturer (Bhattacharya et al 2014). The country is producing around 25mn vehicles, out of which
only about 3.5mn are exported, mainly to Africa, the Middle East, and South East Asia. India’s share
in global auto export market is only 0.53% and is placed at as low as 26th rank (ibid). In overall
domestic automobile sales, 77.4% is accounted by two-wheelers, 15.1% by passenger vehicles and
4.45% by commercial vehicles (ibid).
There are more than 30 OEM players in India offering more than 75 options in all categories of
vehicles. Total vehicle production is about 30,915,420 including passenger vehicles, commercial
vehicles, three wheelers, two wheelers and quadric-cycles (SIAM 2019b5). However, major share of
market in every segment is monopolized by only few companies. For example, in passenger car
section Suzuki monopolizes as high as 51% market share, and just six companies including Suzuki,
Hyundai Motors (16.2), Tata Motors (7) and Mahindra and Mahindra (7.3), Honda India (5.2) and
Toyota Kirloskar (4.5) monopolize 91.2 % of market. In Luxury car section about 70% market is
monopolized by just two companies-Mercedes Benz and BMW. In two wheeler section only two
companies, Hero Motocorp (36.2) and Honda India (27.2) monopolize about 64% of market and just
four companies including these two and TVS Motor (14.2) and Bajaj Auto (11.2) monopolize about
90 percent of the market. In three Wheeler section, Bajaj Auto alone monopolizes 58.5% of the
market, and only three companies including Bajaj Auto, Piaggio Vehicles (23.4) and Mahindra and
Mahindra (9) together monopolize more than 90% of the market. In Commercial vehicle section Tata
Motors alone monopolizes about 45% of the market, and only three companies including Tata Motors,
Mahindra and Mahindra (22.6) and Ashok Leyland (16.8) monopolize more than 83% of market.
(Table 1)
2
ACG
(2019).
Indian
Automobile
Industry
Outlook
2019,
available
at
https://www.autobei.com/autoreports/automotive/indian-automobile-industry-outlook-2019/, accessed on 24 June 2019
3
Mehrotra, S, Sinha, P. Sharmistha, K. Jajati, and A. Gandhi. 2014. “Why a Jobs Turnaround Despite Slowing Growth?”
New Delhi: Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, Government of India Occasional Paper
1/2014.
4
Bhattacharya, Souresh ,Mukhopadhyay, D. and Giri, Sunil (2014). Supply Chain Management In Indian Automotive
Industry : Complexities, Challenges And Way Ahead; International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains
(IJMVSC) Vol.5, No. 2, June 2014, available at http://airccse.org/journal/mvsc/papers/5214ijmvsc06.pdf, accessed on 26
June 2019
5
SIAM (2019b). Performance of Auto Industry during 2018-19, available at
http://www.siamindia.com/statistics.aspx?mpgid=8&pgidtrail=9, accessed on 24 June 2019
Table 1: Major Players in Indian Automobile Market in different segments
Companies
Market share in India in 2018
Passenger cars
Luxury cars Two
Wheelers
Maruti Suzuki 51
India
2.9
Bajaj Auto
11.2
Tata Motors
Commercial
vehicles
1.1
58.5
7
Mercedes Benz
44.2
38.5
Hero
MotoCorp
36.2
Honda India
5.2
BMW
27.2
27.5
Piaggio
Vehicles
Mahindra
Mahindra
Three
Wheelers
0.4
& 7.3
23.4
9
Ashok Leyland
22.6
16.8
TVS Motor
14.2
Hyundai Motor 16.2
India
TOYOTA
KIRLOSKAR
4.5
Ford India
2.9
2.4
Renault India
Nissan
India
2.4
Motor 1.2
Royal Enfield
3.9
Yamaha Motor
3.7
Eisher Trucks
and Buses
5.8
Force
Lts
7.8
Motors
SML Isuzu Lts
Atul Auto
1.1
6.1
Source: Taumar, Deepanshu, Nangla, Pratistha and Mishra, Shruti (2019). Complete Indian Auto
Sales Analysis 2018: CV sales cross one million
mark; available at
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/complete-india-auto-sales-analysis-2018cv-sales-crosses-a-million-mark/67549073, accessed on 9 July 2019
Automotive mission plan 2016-26 has proposed big initiatives to boost automobile manufacturing in
India, with an aim to increase the GDP contribution from automobile sector from 7% to 12%, which
may be more than 40% of manufacturing GDP (SIAM 20196), and also to make India emerge as the
third largest passenger vehicle market. It is expected that by 2026, passenger vehicle manufacturing
may increase between 9.4-13.4 million units, commercial vehicle between 2.0-3.9 million units, two
wheeler to grow to 50.6- 55.5 million, and tractors to 1.5 - 1.7 million units (ET 20157). The mission
plan hopes to increase exports multifold to reach 35-40 percent of overall output (ET 2015). It is also
expected that this expansion may also contribute to more than 60 million additional direct and indirect
jobs (Gupta et al 20198). Looking at the measures proposed or undertaken in automotive Mission Plan
6
SIAM
(2019).
Automotive
Mission
Plan
2016-26:
A
curtain
Raiser,
available
at
http://www.siamindia.com/uploads/filemanager/47AUTOMOTIVEMISSIONPLAN.pdf, accessed on 25 June 2019
7
ET
(2015).
Automotive
Mission
Plan
2016-26
unveiled,
available
at
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/automotive-mission-plan-2016-26-unveiled-here-are-the-keyhighlights/48772090, accessed on 20 June 2019
8
Gupta, Shivanshu, Huddar, Neeraj, Iyer, Balaji and Möller, Timo (2019). The future of mobility in India’s passengervehicle market, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/the-future-ofmobility-in-indias-passenger-vehicle-market, accessed on 22 June 2019
2016-26 and the emerging tendencies in the automobile industry, expansion of automobile
manufacturing and market may be a realistic plan but claims of job creation looks highly unrealistic;
rather it seems that employment intensity in automobile manufacturing may be reaching at very low
point.
2. Recent Trends in Automobile Industry
There are two most important and probably interdependent tendencies emerging in the automobile
industry.
First, Automation and particularly robotic automation is happening across many industries in India,
particularly from 2009, and it is estimated that automation may take away about 70% jobs in India.
This may naturally hit most badly to the formal sector jobs. Automobile sector is the current mainstay
of robotics and playing a leading role in expansion of robotic automation and it has also an impact in
terms of spreading this trend in other sectors as well, particularly the industries linked with its value
chain. The robots are increasingly installed in body shops, paint shops, powertrain and assembly lines
in almost all OEMs in automotive industry. But it is more interesting to note that robotic automation is
also spreading in the lower tiers of the value chain, and it isexpected that small and medium
enterprises in the value chain may lead more explosive growth in robotic automation as they are large
in numbers, and they may be compelled to adopt these technologies to cater the quality requirements
and Just-in-Time supply needs of OEMs. There was an increase of 30 percent in robotic sales in India
in 2017 and automotive sector accounted for more than 62% of all robotic installations. It is
considered that automotive sector in India has immense opportunities for robotic automation as it has
still a very low robotic density (85 per 10000 workers) compared to other developing countries for
example, China (505 per 10000 workers) and Indonesia (378 per 10000 workers). The pace of robotic
installations in automatic OEMs is reflected in the fact that in 2015, as high as 5000 robots were
working in Gurgaon and Manesar plant of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd in Haryana state. Other OEMs are
also not behind. During the same period Ford Sanand plant had 453 robots in the shop floor with up to
90 per cent of the work automated. Volkswagen India had 123 robots at its Pune plant.
Hyundai Motor India had 400 robots at its factory in Chennai. Similar are the situations in other
OEMS. The main trend is that the new plants of the OEMs emerge completely automated and the old
plant are gradually automated and gradually downsized. For example, Honda’s first plant in Manesar
(Haryana) has 65 automation processes and requires one person to produce one vehicle, while its
fourth plant established recently in Vithalpur (Gujarat) has 241 automation processes and requires
0.64 person/vehicle. This means 36 percent jump in productivity. Bajaj Auto sets an interesting
example of early use of robots, and gradually moving to productions of robots initially mainly for its
own manufacturing units and also for its supply chain. Production lines in Bajaj Auto’s manufacturing
plants in Akurdi, Chakan, Waluj and Pantnagar are dominated by Cobots, and this also facilitated
feminization of workforce, in terms that now women form almost 50% of workforce in Bajaj Auto. It
may also be interesting to note that with increasing automation in automobile sector, it is also
spreading in other industrial sectors linked to its value chain, for example, robot sales in the
rubber and plastics, metal and electrical and electronics industries increased by 46 percent in
2017. The robotic automation may have various advantages like increasing productivity and quality
standards as well as achieving better safety standards, but it seems that this is also driven by a motive
to end or at least shrink the space for unionization and collective bargaining to minimum possible
levels. In automotive sector generally a robot replaces only about three workers, and therefore
production by robots is 10 times costly than manual labour. However, robots may give advantage of
highest flexibility in production without any overhead costs and without any social unrest, which has
become so important factor for automobile industry in recent years. This may be one of the important
reasons why companies are aggressively moving for automation even when they have to heavily
compensate to the workers. For example, automation in Bosch Limited resulted in terminated 261
workers in 2017 and the company aggressively moved with its plan even when finally it had to pay a
compensation of about 1.5 million INR to each worker. (For details See: Ajay Gurjar 20199; Geeta
Nair 201610; TE Narasimhan 201811; IFR 201912; Prashant K. Nanda 201913; Das 201714; Amrit Raj
201715; Universalrobots 201916; Assembly 201917; and Lijee Philip 201518)
Second, Auto Industry appears to have entered in a crisis and it probably reflects an overall crisis of
Indian economy. The first major crisis (general crisis and not only specific to auto industry) emerged
in the wake of global financial crisis 2008-09 and then not so major but still critical crisis emerged in
2012-13 and then in 2015-16, and finally it appears to have entered in a major crisis in 2018-19.
9
Ajay Gurjar (2019). In India, the adoption of robots is set to increase, available at
https://yaskawaindia.in/YIND_Coverstory_AutomotiveProductsFinder_May'19.pdf, accessed on 10 July 2019
10
Geeta Nair
(2016). Bajaj Auto becomes robot maker; installs 120 Co-bots at three plants, available at
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/bajaj-auto-becomes-robot-maker-installs-120-co-bots-at-three-plants/351505/,
accessed on 10 July 2019
11
TE Narasimhan (2018). Indian automobile units employing robots to improve your car's efficiency, available at
https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/indian-automobile-units-employing-robots-to-improve-your-car-sefficiency-118051601579_1.html, accessed on 10 July 2019
12
IFR (2019). India´s robot sales surged by 30 percent, International Federation of Robotics, available at https://ifr.org/ifrpress-releases/news/indias-robot-sales-surged-by-30-percent
13
Prashant K. Nanda (2019). How automation is changing face of labour in India, available at
https://www.livemint.com/Industry/MMTriv0K4VbwGVPu2DP0MM/How-automation-is-changing-face-of-labour-inIndia.html, accessed on 10 July 2018
14
Das, Gautam (2017). Going, Going, Gone: Automation can lead to unprecedented job cuts in India, available at
https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/cover-story/going-going-gone/story/253260.html, accessed on 11 July 2019
15
Amrit Raj (2017). Robots sweep across Maruti Suzuki’s shop floor, available at https://www.livemint.com/, accessed on
10 July 2019
16
Universalrobots (2019). Why The World's Third Largest Motorcycle Manufacturer Opted For Universal Robots, available
at https://www.universal-robots.com/case-stories/bajaj-auto/, accessed on 10 July 2019
17
Assembly (2019 ). Industrial Robot Sales Reach Record Level in India, available at
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94722-industrial-robot-sales-reach-record-level-in-india, accessed on 10 July 2019
18
Lijee Philip (2015). Man vs Machine: Robots are replacing workers in auto plants in India, available at
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/man-vs-machine-robots-are-replacing-workers-in-auto-plants-inindia/49991064, accessed on 10 July 2019
During 2008-09 among various measures to reduce the cost to the company and boost their sales, the
government bail-out package included significant duty-cuts on the one hand, and lowering the interest
rates on auto loans on the other (ET 200819, 200920). 2012-13 crisis was more pronounced in
commercial vehicle sector. The medium and heavy truck segments shrunk by 26-29 percent in 201213, light commercial vehicles and buses also recorded a slowdown, overall industry was expected to
shrink by 19 per cent in 2013/14 (Madhavan 201421). The crisis was also reflected in the fact that in
2012, only 1.5 per cent of the loans for buying trucks were classified as non-performing assets, while
in 2013 the figure shot up to 4.4 per cent (Madhavan 2014). Again the government has to come out
with bailout package to save the auto industry from this crisis, which included funding of 10000 buses
under a fresh program under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, and a so called
modernization scheme mandating replacement of more than 10 year old trucks with new ones, and
offering incentives for this by 50% reduction in excise duty and sales tax, which amounted revenue
loss of 1.2 lakh INR per vehicle to the government (Madhavan 2014). The crisis again emerged in
2016, when sales were sliding down for better part of the year till the sudden announcement of
demonetization that brought sales to a screeching halt. Auto-industry in general witnessed de-growth
of 5.5 per cent in wholesale sales in November 2016, and the drop in retail sales was even worse
(India Today 201622). Finally in 2018-19, auto industry enters in to crisis that is all encompassing.
According to SIAM (Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers) over all domestic automobile sales
recorded a down fall of about 24 percent, from 2382436 units in August 2018 to 1821490 units in August 2019.
The Passenger vehicle sales declined by about 32 percent, commercial vehicles by about 39 percent and two
wheelers by about 23 percent. The overall domestic sales have fallen for the fifth consecutive month of
the Financial Year 2019-20. There was a decline of 18.71 per in July, 12.34 per cent in June, 8.62 per
cent in May and 15.93 per cent in April. (Varun 201923)
19
ET
(2008).Govt
unveils
Rs
30,700-cr
stimulus
package,
available
at
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/govt-unveils-rs-30700-cr-stimuluspackage/articleshow/3805950.cms?from=mdr, accessed on 11 July 2019
20
ET
(2009).Statae
Bank
Offers
auto
loans
at
10%
for
one
Year,
available
at
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/state-bank-of-india-offers-auto-loans-at-10-for-oneyear/articleshow/4163574.cms, accessed on 11 July 2019
21
Madhavan, N. (2014). Stuck, available at https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/features/stimulus-for-recession-hitcommercial-vehicles-sector-no-help/story/202678.html, accessed on 11 July 2019
22
India Today (2016). 2016: A year of ups and downs for the Indian automobile industry, available at
https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/auto-news/story/2016-a-year-of-ups-and-downs-for-the-indian-automobile-industry358837-2016-12-21, accessed on 11 July 2019
23
Singh, Varun (2019). Indian automobile crisis: Domestic sales decline 23.55 per cent in August 2019, India
Today, Sept 9, 2019, available at https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/indian-automobilecrisis-domestic-sales-decline-again-in-august-2019-1597197-2019-09-09, accessed on 24 November 2019
There has been an accompanying downfall in overall production of automobiles by about 19%, from
2816187 units in August 2018 to 2296711 units in August 2019(Varun 201924). In August there was
very small relief by way of 2.37 percent rise in overall automobile exports, from 411341 units in
August 2018 to 421107 units in August 2019; however, the commercial vehicle exports continued to
fall down drastically (Varun 201925).This de-growth is registered across various segments of the
industry and not concentrated to only one or two segments and therefore reflecting a general crisis of
auto industry. It is worth mentioning that the dip in the sales has been continuing from about last 12
months and the situation became so serious that Dealers were facing 50% more inventory than normal,
and therefore most of the passenger vehicle makers including Suzuki, Tata Motors, Mahindra and
Mahindra, Honda, Renault etc. had to announce shutdowns of their plants for 5 to 13 days in almost
every month from May-June 2019 (Thakkar et al 201926, Mathew 201927).The worst impact of these
slow-downs and shutdowns in OEMs was felt by the component suppliers (Kamat 201928).
The crisis in automobile industry reflects a general economic slowdown in India, and this is felt across
the industries and sectors, right from automobiles to scrap business and street vending. According to
the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) the GDP growth of India for 2019-20
has fell down to as low as 4.9 per cent, declaring that, “India is experiencing a decline in growth,
which is sharper than the global slowdown. The sharp decline in growth reflects a growth slowdown
across virtually all sectors. It is primarily being driven by a simultaneous deceleration of all the
drivers of aggregate demand” (Roychoudhury 201929).
It is clear from the above that the current crisis of automobile industry reflects on overall crisis of
economy. In earlier periods when sales in urban areas went down, sales in rural areas largely
compensated for it. But this is a kind of crisis when there in de-growth in sales in rural and as well as
urban areas, therefore reflects a larger crisis. Decline in overall automobile sales specifically reflect on
24
Singh, Varun (2019). Indian automobile crisis: Domestic sales decline 23.55 per cent in August 2019, India
Today, Sept 9, 2019, available at https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/indian-automobilecrisis-domestic-sales-decline-again-in-august-2019-1597197-2019-09-09, accessed on 24 November 2019
25
Singh, Varun (2019). Indian automobile crisis: Domestic sales decline 23.55 per cent in August 2019, India
Today, Sept 9, 2019, available at https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/indian-automobilecrisis-domestic-sales-decline-again-in-august-2019-1597197-2019-09-09, accessed on 24 November 2019
26
Thakkar, Ketan and Shyam, Ashutosh R (2019).
Auto companies slam brakes on production, available at:
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/passenger-vehicle/cars/auto-companies-slam-brakes-onproduction/69718795, accessed on 24 June 2019
27
Mathew, Promod (2019). There are so many unsold cars in India now that automakers are taking forced holidays,
available at: https://qz.com/india/1641222/siam-car-sales-may-2019-data-show-indias-auto-sector-is-in-dumps/, accessed
on 22 June 2019
28
Kamat, Vatsala (2019). Auto sector slowdown, tech changes a double whammy for auto component firms, available at
https://www.livemint.com/, accessed on 24 June 2019
29
Roychoudhury, Arup (2019). NCAER pegs India's FY20 GDP growth at 4.9% as slowing demand weighs, Business
Standard, November 16, 2019, available at https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ncaer-pegs-india-sfy20-gdp-growth-at-4-9-as-slowing-demand-weighs-119111601435_1.html, accessed on 24 November, 2019
the decreasing purchasing power of the people, and slow down on commercial vehicles sales
specifically reflect on the overall investment cycle slowdown.
Indian government has been trying to resolve this overall economic crisis by following policy
initiatives:
a) Facilitating a demographic shift in the population. This ultimately means mass destruction of
livelihoods, pauperization of rural masses and mass migration to urban centers. This may result in
drastically increasing the labour reserves in urban centers and thereby drastic decline in real wages.
This may have a double impact in terms of expansion of market: i) an increased population
trapped in complete dependence on market resulting in overall expansion of market for
commodities, and in increased use of transport which may boost the growth in automobile sector;
and ii) there may also be an expansion of population section with high purchasing power, not only
by capturing the resources after mass dispossession of the people, but also in general by complete
market dependence of the masses dispossessed.The Automotive Mission Plan 2016–26 hopes that
‘Rising incomes will also play a role, as roughly 60 million households could enter the consuming
class (defined as households with incomes greater than $8,000 per annum) by 2025 and labour
participation rate ‘could reach 67 percent in 2020, as more women and youth enter the job market,
raising the demand for mobility’ (Gupta et al 201930).
b) Automotive Mission Plan is attempting a complete transformation of automobile sector in terms of
jumping from BS-4 to BS-6 (Euro VI) vehicles in the name of tackling the emission standards.
This may compel replacement of existing vehicles by new vehicles. Government is incentivizing
this by its policy on end-of-life or Scrappage, which may offer lower taxes, discounts on purchase
prices, and simple compliance processes. Along with this, the government is promoting the
electric vehicles in big way. FAME1 (Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric
Vehicles) offers incentives to electric vehicles (EV) and hybrid EV buyers and FAME2 will
incentivize electrification of the public-transport fleet of buses and taxis, as well as facilitate
demand for all types of alternative fuel(Gupta et al 2019). To enable immediate adoption, a
nominal GST of 5% is proposed for electric vehicles as against 28% for other vehicles, and an
additional income tax deduction of Rs 1.5 lakh on the interest paid on the loans taken to purchase
EVs is proposed in new Budget (India Today 201931). These policy initiatives may certainly give a
big boost to the automobile industry.
c) Labour law reforms are particularly focused on following aspects: i) Reducing the labour cost by:
1) allowing huge proportion of low cost apprentices and reimbursing significant part of stipend to
employers; 2) reimbursing the social security contributions to employers; 3) maintaining the
Gupta, Shivanshu, Huddar, Neeraj, Iyer, Balaji and Möller, Timo (2019). The future of mobility in India’s passengervehicle market, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/the-future-ofmobility-in-indias-passenger-vehicle-market, accessed on 22 June 2019
31
India Today (2019).Budget2019:GSTonelectric vehiclesreduced to5 percent,buyersto getRs 1.5 lakhtaxbenefit, availableat
https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/budget-2019-gst-on-electric-vehicles-reduced-to-5-per-cent-buyersto-get-rs-150000-tax-benefit-1562720-2019-07-05, accessed on 11 July 2019)
30
minimum wages to the lowest possible level, and practically reducing the scope of collective
bargaining to effectively make the minimum wage as maximum wage; 4) highest possible level of
flexibility by facilitating ease of closure of business and ease of hire and fire as and when required,
without any significant overhead costs. The amendments already done or proposed in various
labour laws and related legislations are focused to largely achieve these objectives.
d) Industrial Automation emerges as one of the most important focus areas of the government, the
buzz word being the Artificial Intelligence. The government clearly identifies the areas where it is
to be promoted by policy initiatives to boost productivity, and one of the most important areas is
obviously the manufacturing. Well recognizing the fact that automation may result in huge job
losses, the government justifies it by saying that “As technology increasingly disrupts the nature of
jobs and shifts the benchmarks of technological aptitude, skilling and reskilling of workforce
forms an integral part of our approach to adopting AI. There is an emergent need for reskilling the
existing workforce and developing future talent in accordance with the changing needs of the job
market. This could be done via the adoption of decentralized teaching mechanisms working in
collaboration with the private sector and educational institutions to prescribe certification with
value. Furthermore, promotion of job creation in new areas, like data annotation needs to be
identified and promoted, as these would have the potential of absorbing a large portion of the
workforce that may find itself redundant due to increasing automation. (Niti Ayog 201832)
The above four factors are already underplay in automobile industry, whether with or without policy
support or legal backing; and its overall impact is disastrous for workers and reducing their collective
bargaining power to the minimum.
A recent report by labour activists working with the Gurgaon-Manesar automobile workers
movements (Amit and Nayanjoti 201833) revealed that in the last decade (before 2012-13) it was
observed as general tendency of companies increasingly splitting their production lines and shifting
increasing proportion of production from unionized units with less automation and greater proportion
of regular formal workers to new un-unionized units with greater automation and greater proportion of
irregular, contractual and informal workforce and hence less chances of unionization and collective
bargaining. This strategy clearly emerged to counter the comparatively a strong trade union movement
that emerged specifically in automobile industry of this region. In this strategy, along with shift of
production, generally the existing regular formal workers were not affected in terms of any job loss,
32
NitiAyog (2018). National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, NitiAyog, Govt of India, available at
https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf, accessed on 11
July 2019
33
Amit and Nayanjyoti (2018). Changes in Production Regimes and Challenges to Collective Bargaining: A study of the
Gurgaon Industrial Belt, CSE Working Paper 2018-18, Centre for Sustainable Employment, AzimPremji University,
Bangalore,
available
at
https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/SWI_2018_BackgroundPaper_AmitNayanjyoti.pdf, accessed on 26 June 2019
but it effectively reduced their collective bargaining power by dividing and dispersing them and
making them minority workforce by engaging greater proportion of contract workers in both old and
new units. However, in last 6-7 years we observe a completely new tendency. It appears that the shift
of production is now strategically accompanied with full closures of old units or partial closures with
downsizing of workforce and firing out even those regular-formal workers who had been working for
many years in the company. This is a clear indication of an overall industrial restructuring, rather than
simple traditional strategy to avoid and counter the trade unionism.
This is to be kept in mind that this is the period when some major labour laws were changed. For
example, apprentice act amended by the government of India in 2014 now allows: a) engaging larger
proportion of apprentices by removing earlier regulatory provisions and limits; and b) engaging any
one with 12th standard qualification as apprentices (in place of earlier provision for only ITI and
diploma trade apprentices and graduate apprentices) and offering reimbursement of significant part of
stipend to employers under NEEM scheme (National Employability Enhancement Mission).
Amendment in Employment (Standing Orders) Act in 2016 allowed engaging workers on fix term
contract (in place of earlier provision for only regular contracts or casual workers). It is also
interesting to note that automobile industry faced first major crisis in recent decades in 2008-09 which
was an impact of general crisis, but it largely entered in a systemic crisis in 2012-13 which is largely
continuing. Also, the new initiatives towards automation in automobile industry started from 2009 and
largely from 2012-13 it emerged as general feature of development and expansions in the industry.
Probably all these factors contributed in the emergence of the above trends of industrial restructuring
in terms of closure of old plants, firing the regular-formal-unionized workforce and establishing new
plants with more automated operations and downsized-more vulnerable-non-unionized workforce.
The above mentioned report (Amit and Nayanjoti 201834) has documented many cases of this ongoing
industrial restructuring, firing large numbers of workers without even following the legal procedures,
forced VRS (voluntary retirement scheme), repressions unleashed against workers and continuing
workers struggles around these issues. Some of the notable cases where shifting of production and
partial/full closure of units happened and where workers struggles are still going on includes
component suppliers like Omax Auto (Dharuhera), Rico Auto (Dharuhera), Automax (Binola),
Endurance (Manesar), Napino Auto (Gurgaon), and OEMs like Bajaj Auto (Gurgaon) etc. In others
cases without shifting the production or partial/full closure of factories the same industrial
restructuring is going on with almost same impacts on workers. In most cases this largely happened
after 2012. For example, in Maruti-Suzuki (Gurgaon), out of total 10000 workers, now there are only
34
Amit and Nayanjyoti (2018). Changes in Production Regimes and Challenges to Collective Bargaining: A study of the
Gurgaon Industrial Belt, CSE Working Paper 2018-18, Centre for Sustainable Employment, AzimPremji University,
Bangalore,
available
at
https://cse.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/SWI_2018_BackgroundPaper_AmitNayanjyoti.pdf, accessed on 26 June 2019
2200 regular-formal workers and the rest are placed in various categories of temporary/ informal
workers like company trainees, contract workers, apprentices, temporary workers (TW-1 and TW-2),
and student trainees. Interestingly all these workers do almost similar kind of work in production lines.
Similar is the case with India Japan Lighting-IJL (Bawal), in which out of total about 1000 workers,
there are only 89 regular formal workers, the rest are categorized as Diploma apprentice (400),
Graduate apprentice (100), NEEM apprentice (250), Company trainee (19) and contract workers
(200).In case of NSK Rane (Bawal), a major component supplier of Maruti Suzuki, out of total about
900 workers, only 122 are regular-formal workers, the rest are categorized as diploma trainee (400),
company trainee (100), and contract workers (250). Similar are the situations in other companies as
well. It is interesting to note that apprentices and trainees are now forming the majority of workforce,
and on the other hand, the apprentices of any category are legally not considered as workers and have
no labour rights, and trainees also have only limited rights.In unionized OEMs like Maruti Suzuki, the
wages of regular formal workers are about 30000-50000, the company trainee and company temporary
workers get about 20000, contract workers about 17000, diploma apprentices about 14000 and student
trainees get about 11000. In unionized component suppliers like NSK Rane and IJL, permanent
workers get about 25000-30000, company trainees about 15000, contract workers get minimum wage
which is about 8000-9000, graduate apprentices about 11000-12000, and student-trainees get about
5500. In non-unionized units wages and benefits are generally lower than the unionized units.
Interestingly, diploma apprentices in NSK Rane, who run 4 out of 5 assembly lines, went on strike in
2012 demanding production incentive, right to form and join union, regularization of their job after
completion of three years of apprenticeship, reduction of work load etc. The strike significantly
affected the production and supply of parts to Maruti-Suzuki, however, the company was not ready to
accept their demands at any cost. Lastly striking diploma trainees decided not to work for this
company anymore and resigned collectively. This was also because the injustice that they were facing
was legally sanctioned and they were not in a position to challenge it in any court of law. This
struggle clearly reflected the power and limitations of this workforce in exercising the right to
collective bargaining.
This is worth mentioning that the current economic slowdown is accelerating the above processes in
the automobile industry. Along with cutting productions, the companies are attempting to downsize
the workforce. In almost all the automobile assembling plants and tier I & II companies, large
proportion of contract workers are already fired and the process is still ongoing. According to the
information gathered from Trade union activists, about 3000 contract workers in Maruti Suzuki plants,
1500 in Mahindra&Mahindra, 1700 in Nishan Motors, 1700 in Yamaha Motors, 800 in Denso Corp
and Suzuki Motor Corp, 500 in Vee Gee Kaushiko Auto Parts, 800 in Wheels India, 350 in Bellsonica,
and 400 in Honda (HMSI) have already been fired. Moreover, there are also attempts to downsize the
regular-permanent workers in most of the companies. Among others, Toyota Kirloskar Motors India,
General Motors, Hero Moto Corp and Ashok Leyland have already announced VRS (Voluntary
Retirement Schemes) for permanent workers.
There is a general fear among workers that anyone can be in the next list of getting fired. In this
atmosphere the trade unions are largely compelled to go on defensive and there are rarely any big
protests-strikes in automobile companies in last few months. However, such silences are always
temporary. The Honda workers’ strike has already broken this silence. Honda workers (HMSI
Manesar plant) went on strike on 4th November against retrenchment of about 400 contract workers.
Regular workers are also participating in strike. On 22 November the workers organized 22 km march
from the Factory place to district labour commissioner’s office to highlight their grievances and
demands. On 23 November 2019 the company suspended 3 union office bearers including the
president of the union, along with 3 other workers. However, strike still continues as on 24th
November 2019.
3. The Toyota Motors in India
Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd (TKM) was established in 1997 as joint venture between Toyota
Motor Corporation Japan and Kirloskar Group India in Bidadi near Bangalore. As of now, the share of
Toyota is 89% and that of Kirloskar is 11%. Toyota Kirloskar Autoparts (TKAP) was established in
2002 at Bidadi as joint venture between Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan, Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd, Japan
and Kirloskar Systems Limited, India. It mainly produces Axles & Shafts, Transmissions and Engines,
for its own cars in India and well as for exports (TKAP website-https://www.tkap.com/). In 2008
TKM expanded its operations and established one more plant with greater capacity at the same place.
The twin plants of TKM in Bidadi are spread across 432 acres and have manufacturing capacity of
310000 vehicles per year. Later on Toyota also established one more manufacturing facility in
Gurgaon. Major vehicles manufactured in TKM’s facility include Innova, CorrollaAttis, Fortuner,
EtiosLiva, Etos Cross, Camry and Camry hybrid. Toyota also imports its vehicles like Land Cruiser,
Prado, Prius as completely built units to sell in Indian market. On the other hand, TKM also exports
Etios to South Africa, Mauritius, Zimbabwe, Sychelles, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Indonesia and Brunei, and
also exports Innova to Sri Lanka and Fortuner to Nepal.
TKM has more than 286 dealers spread across the country and 111 suppliers with majority of
important suppliers concentrated in the Bangalore region itself. Consistent with the general trends in
automobile industry in India many important suppliers of TKM are either joint venture companies of
the Toyota or joint venture companies of some other Japanese companies.
In recent years Toyota and Suzuki have established an alliance globally in terms of Toyota acquiring
4.94 per cent stake (96 billion yen) in Suzuki and Suzuki acquiring similar stake (48 billion yen) in
Toyota. These developments are well reflected in India and especially in case of TKM as well. The
two companies, TKM and Suzuki, have already entered an agreement of cross badging of products
like the Baleno and Brezza from Maruti and Corolla from Toyota. The first of them, the Baleno, was
recently rebadged and launched as the Glanza by Toyota.
4. Recent Trends of Labour Relations in TKM and its Supply Chain
The study was conducted in the month of December 2019. The study is mainly based on the extensive
interviews from office bearers of the factory unions and the workers. However, the information
provided by the workers was also corroborated from the relevant available documents on various
issues dealt in the study. Four factories are included in the study-Toyota Kirloskar Motors and its
three important suppliers including, Toyotetsu Auto Part, Tokai Rika Minda and Motherson
Automotive.
A. The Case of Toyota Kirloskar Motors
I. No Robotisation but Transforming the Workers in to Robots
The case of TKM presents a unique case in terms that when we are observing a general trend of
increasing Robotisation of workplace in automobile industry, this tendency appears to be completely
absent in TKM. Considering the fact that TKM operates in the same environment and face same set of
pressures and problems that are compelling other automobile companies to move towards
Robotisation of workplace, how Toyota is able to manage avoiding it?
This is also interesting to note that in a period when Robotisation is a dominant trend in global
automobile industry, Toyota in Japan claims to have started a reverse movement in terms of antiautomation or replacing automation with manual manufacturing. In 1930s Japanese people respected
those who used their hands to create products, i.e., craftsmen, who were also called Gods-Kami Sama,
and it seems that these Kami Sama is making a massive come back when humans are replacing the
robots (Ghosh 201735). It is claimed that the Toyota which is supposed to be one of the most
automated companies on the globe has started a manual manufacturing movement and has created
around 100 manual intensive workplaces in last three years in Japan, replacing robots with manual
35
MohulGhosh (2017).Toyota Starts Anti-Automation Movement; Replaces Machines With Human
Beings And The Results Are Fascinating!, available at https://trak.in/tags/business/2017/03/30/toyotaanti-automation-movement-machines-humans/, accessed on 12 July 2019
labour in hammering metal into crankshafts, metallurgy operations such as creating alloys, casting and
forging, manufacture of entire axle beams and manufacturing parts of chassis etc; the new slogan
being, “We need to become more solid and get back to basics, to sharpen our manual skills and further
develop them”, and “We cannot simply depend on the machines that only repeat the same task over
and over again” (Ghosh 2017)
TKM claims that it focuses on low cost automation and automation with human touch. Toyota
Kirloskar Auto Parts (TKAP) develops & encourages Low Cost Automation (LCA) or ‘Karakuri’
(achieving motion with no power or low power) defined as ‘a system where man & machine
collaborate & work together, meeting expectations of the Toyota way’ (Mohan Kumar 201836).
Similarly, Jidoka (automation with a human touch) means when a problem occurs, the equipment
stops immediately preventing defective products from being produced (Urs 201837), then it requires
human interventions to resolve the problems and correct errors, which may lead to further
improvements.
How Toyota is competitive, even more competitive than other automobile majors, even with far lower
level of automation in production processes? In TKM there are only few Robots in Paint Shop and
Weld Shop and there is no move towards Robotisation of workplace. This emerged as a big puzzle for
the researcher. The puzzle was finally demystified by a union office bearer at TKM by clearly and
systematically articulating that: “Toyota is not going towards Robotisation, rather, it is transforming
the workers in Robots, now only those may be able to save their jobs in TKM who are willing and
who have enough strength in their body to work like robots, or in other words, who are capable to
compete with robots.” This was then echoed by all TKM workers interviewed.
The TKMEU (Toyota Kirloskar Motors Employees Union) office bearers and other TKM workers
explained that after 2014, working conditions in TKM changed drastically, and looking at the
problems the workers are facing one can easily understand how they are compelled to work like
robots, or in other words, how they are compelled to transform themselves in to robots, if they want to
save their jobs.
i)
Robots don’t Require Toilet Breaks and TKM Expects Same from Workers
MOHAN KUMAR K G (2018) Automation &ControlLOW COST AUTOMATION — A CASE
STUDY, available at https://www.industr.com/en/low-cost-automation-a-case-study-2289389,
accessed on 18 July 2019
37
Anil Urs (2018).Toyota Kirloskar Motors showcases best practices, available at
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/toyota-kirloskar-motors-showcases-bestpractices/article25056470.ece, accessed on 18 July 2019
36
No worker can leave its workplace without permission from in-charge of the production line. The
workers go for toilets only after taking permission, but then also the line in-charge records it as
unauthorized absence from workplace. The total time taken in toilet breaks is recorded and calculated
on monthly basis for each worker and accordingly wages are deducted from their monthly salary for
this unauthorized absence. This is in clear violation of the labour laws of the land. The Factories Act
clearly directs that the workers cannot be restricted from taking toilet breaks, whenever they need. On
the other hand, wage cuts for toilet breaks amounts engaging in practice of forced labour.
ii)
Robots don’t Require any Leave and TKM Expects Same from Workers
After 2014 it became increasingly difficult for workers to get any leave even when they are eligible.
Leaves are not granted and if workers go on casual leave even after properly informing the
management this is recorded as unauthorized absenteeism and wages are deducted from the salary of
workers. This is completely against the law. The management is legally bound to sanction the leaves
they are eligible for; and moreover, they have also right take relevant number of casual leaves even
without prior sanction from the management. The union filed a complaint to Deputy Labour
Commissioner in July 2016 with details of deductions made from the salary of 626 workers during
this period. The cumulative amount deductions in the period ranged from minimum 400 to 340000 for
different workers. These deductions are made for unauthorized absence, the major part of which
comes from recording the leaves and toilets breaks as unauthorized absence.
It is also interesting to note that in a situation when management wants to stop the work we observe a
reverse situation, i.e., the workers do not want to go on leave but management compels them for the
same. For example, in current period of slow down in automobile industry there are days when
production is stopped by the management. In such situations legally the management is obliged to pay
the workers layoff wages. However, the management considers it as leave for workers (a kind of
forced leave) and asks the workers work on certain weekly offs so that the said leaves can be shown
as compensation for weekly offs. This is legally unjustified but the practice continues.
iii)
Robots don’t Need Breaks to Eat, Drink or Rest and TKM Expects the Same from
Workers
Indian labour laws provided in Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Factories Act 1948, clearly provides
for 8 hours as normal working hours and 9 hours as normal working day. The normal working day
includes 8 hours work and one hour of break including all lunch and tea breaks etc. The laws are very
clear that no worker shall be required or allowed to work more than that explained above, and it
means that this cannot be violated even by making agreement with union or workers. But in TKM
this is systematically violated by making an agreement with union. Without understanding this issue,
the office bearers of the TKMEU in 2016 signed an agreement with management to make 8.35 hours
of work within a normal working day of 9 hours. Because of this the breaks for the food and rest
became minimum and painful. This is in a condition, when some parts of the breaks go in managing
the workplace before leaving and travelling to the canteen. For example, according to workers, there is
one break for 10 minutes but the effective break time for them is really only 8 minutes. This has made
their life a hell. This is not only in clear violation of labour laws but also a kind of unpaid extra
working hours for 35 minutes. The current union is continuously raising this issue with the
management, but management is not ready to entertain any discussion on this issue on the ground that
this is part of ongoing agreement with earlier union, and that the issue may be opened for discussion
during the time of negotiations for next agreement.
iv)
Speed of Robots can be Increased by Programming and TKM Expects the Same from
Workers
The automotive assembling work is divided in various sub-assembling works of parts and components
and each worker has specified tasks that he has to continuously perform. Now, to speed up the
production process further TKM has done an intensive R&D in terms of identifying each and every
action or each and every body movement of worker and standardized a time in seconds for each
particular action or body movement. In this way, there are two takt time- one for the complete task,
i.e., takt cycle time, and the other for each and every action in course of performing that task, takt
time for each action. Moreover, in each action, time for actual action and walk time is also separately
standardized. For example, the takt cycle time for the task of Frame Loading for Fortuner Model
578W is fixed at 2.38minutes (December 2018). Then this takt cycle time is divided in 30 action steps,
for example, picking up pendant s/w X right hand, then move frame loading jig x frame dolly skid,
then transfer frame jig x downward, then check side member bkt x frame, then temporarily place x
frame dolly, then pickup loading jig x standard position and so on…. In all these action steps work
time and walk time is separately fixed and they are all in seconds and some are fixed to the level of
one tenth of a second.
Now suppose a worker could not complete the task in given takt cycle time, i.e, 2.38 minutes and is
only able to reach at 25th action step (total being 30 steps), then total takt time fixed for remaining 5
steps is recorded for deduction from his wages. This is recorded for all workers, calculated on
monthly basis and results in deduction from monthly salary of the workers.
Two strategies have been used to further speeding up the production process:
a) Walk time in most of the action steps is completely eliminated, only in few actions it still remains
but reduced to the minimum, i.e., 1.1 seconds to 1.7 seconds in our example. This means the body
of worker is fixed at one place and he has to stretch its body and move its shoulders and arms to
perform various actions. This is typical to Robots. Mostly the body is stretched towards only one
side and rarely at the other side and this creates serious posture related health problems.
b) There are continuous attempts, year by year, to decrease the time allotted for each action in all
assembling tasks. This compels the workers to really work like Robots. The stress during work
has increased to unbearable levels.
Any change in the working conditions or the workload can be legally justified only when it is not in
violation of law, not with any possibility of affecting the health and safety of workers and done in
consultation and agreement with workers or the union. However, in this case, the union claims that it
has not been even consulted before bringing such changes in workload in terms of intensification of
work to unbearable levels, and that it is unilaterally imposed by the management. According to the
union office bearers they were unaware about what kind of R&D has been done? If any R&D was
done, it certainly did not take human factor in to consideration or assumed them as Robots.
According to union, to justify the takt cycle time the example is taken from most efficient workers at
particular time. However, it is not rocket science to understand that even the same most efficient
worker cannot maintain the same level of productivity for whole working day. On the other hand, all
the workers cannot be at same efficiency level, efficiency may differ according to age and health
conditions. This is why takt cycle time can be determined on the basis of average efficiency and not
the highest efficiency. However, such factors are not considered in fixing the takt times of various
actions of a task and takt cycle time of the task.
Before 2014 the standard practice of allotting lighter work to the workmen suffering from medical
infirmities was followed, but after 2014 this practice was discontinued and such persons were also
compelled to share the same workload as others.
The union continuously raised this issue that after 2014 the workload has been continuously increased
without any justification and this is unilaterally imposed on workers without any consultation with
union.
It is also interesting to note that from 2014 there is no significant increase in workforce but there is
almost consistent increase in production over the years, without any automation of production
processes. This explains how the workload on workers and intensification of work gradually increased
to unbearable levels.
v)
Robots do not Complain and TKM Expects the Same from Workers
The union is consistently raising all the above issues since 2014, but there is no response from the
management. Not only this, the workers are individually raising the issues of wage deductions done in
the name of unauthorized absence from workplace (related to toilet breaks) and unauthorized
absenteeism (related to leaves), but management is not even receiving and acknowledging their
letters/complaints.
vi)
Robots do not exercise Unionism and Collective Bargaining and TKM Expects the Same
from Workers
It appears that there are three interlinked aspects of management strategy: a) Zeroing the unionized
workforce (permanent workers and zeroing the unionism, b) reducing the labour cost to the minimum
by engaging the most vulnerable workforce of apprentices and contract workers or fix term workers,
and c) periodically changing the workforce to engage only those who are capable of working as
Robots and retaining them only till they can work so. Then this may be more competitive and cost
effective strategy than engaging the Robots, as the Robots require maintenance during idle periods,
but vulnerable workforce can be thrown out without any overhead costs.
The workplace harassment in terms of intensification of work to the unbearable levels, deduction of
wages for toilets breaks and leaves or in other words not allowing leaves and toilet breaks, reducing
the time of breaks within working hours, and simply not listening to any complaints as explained
above seems strategically directed to compel most if not all permanent workers to leave the job
themselves and replace them with vulnerable workforce of apprentices and contract workers.
According to workers, whenever they complain about the high workload and ask for justification of
the same, they receive the simple oral reply-the workload will be the same, if anyone is not able to
cope with this, he may leave the job.
Minimizing the number of permanent workers may save huge costs as their wages are 2-3 times
higher than temporary workers. Currently the average salary of permanent workers is about 35000
(ranging from 26000 to 70000 depending on length of service), on the other hand, the wages of trainee
workers is 18000-20000, contract workers 15000-18000 and that of apprentices is about 12000 per
month. This clearly shows the benefits of replacing permanent workers with temporary workforce.
However, the major objective behind this may be to end the unionism and collective bargaining,
which is also the sole reason for increase in wages of permanent workers.
From 2014 or even earlier, there has been almost no new recruitment in permanent category of
workers. Moreover, actually the number of permanent workers reduced over the years. A number of
workers were suspended/terminated/dismissed. Also many workers had to go for Voluntary separation
scheme to leave the job in 2007, then 2017 and then in 2019. Probably this loss of workforce was
compensated by increasing the number of apprentices. But there was no increase in total workforce.
Apprentices are legally not considered as workers and they can neither form nor join union. Contract
workers or fix term workers are legally considered as workers but can be hired and fired periodically
and therefore it becomes next to impossible for them to exercise the right to union and collective
bargaining. It is interesting to note that the proportion of apprentice workers gradually increased to
1000 in early 2019, along with 1500 contract workers. There are only 3500 permanent workers
including the suspended workers. So the vulnerable workforce already forms 50% of the workforce.
The benefits of engaging the vulnerable workforce of apprentices and contract workers was well
demonstrated in recent slowdown in automobile industry, when they were fired in large numbers
without any overhead cost to the company. In TKM as well, most of the contract workers are
discontinued, and out of 1000 apprentices 700-800 were discontinued.
Dynamics of Voluntary Separation Schemes (VSS) launched by the management in 2017 and 2019
also explains how the workers who are unable to bear the workload are compelled to leave the job.
VSS scheme of 2017 (02 February-03March 2017) spells its objective as follows: “In order to support
permanent Team Members in Grade 8 who are not able to perform their normal job due to various
reasons, the management is pleased to announce Voluntary separation scheme.” As obvious, the
scheme openly says that there are workers who are not able to cope with the workload and they need
to go. VSS Scheme of 2019 (23 September-22nd October 2019) says the same thing but in a cover of
beautiful words. It was named ‘Nava Jeevana Yojane’ (New Life Scheme) and the objectives were
spelled as follows: “In order to support employees financially to ensure carrier change and achieve
their aspiration goals/desired carrier by voluntary separation from organization.” About 370 workers
had to opt for VSS in 2017 and about 250 had to opt for this in 2019. Therefore, from 2017 to 2019
about 620 workers have already left the job by opting VSS. According to workers, this is a kind of
daily conversation in the company: whoever is not happy with the work and conditions in the
company, may take VSS and go. And this creates a possibility that in coming days/months many more
may have to opt for VSS. According to workers, the management has already declared that in current
situations the company has an extra workforce of 1020. Therefore, attempts towards further
downsizing the permanent workforce may continue.
The compensation offered in VSS 2019 is as follows:
Years of remaining service before retirement age (58)*3 months last drawn salary
One month last drawn salary for every completed year of service
Service appreciation amount of Rs 60000 for every completed year of service
Total amount will be not more than 45 Lakh (even if actual calculation is higher)
The above amount is the extra payment offered other than the benefits provided under labour laws like
gratuity, PF, leave encashment etc. The Income tax shall be deducted at source on total amount of
payment.
In overall terms, the number of permanent workers decreased from 4200 in 2010 to 3500 (including
the suspended workers) in 2019.
II. Impact on Health and Family Life
The most common health problem that the workers are facing is Varicose Vein.
Other common problems are Back pain, Mental Stress, Blood Pressure, Kidney problems, Lungs
problem, gastric problems and diabetes.
Over exhaustion after work and continuous mental stress is also creating problems in their family life.
After work when they go home, they are not in a position to even talk normally to their wife and
children. In a way they become aliens in their own family. The workers reported that there are
workers who recently faced divorce, although there is no clear evidence to say that the divorce
happened because of above problems, but certainly these problems also played a role in it.
III. Victimisation for Unionism
TKMEU has a long history of struggle and so also a long history of victimization for unionism. It is
also interesting to note that the struggles on certain issues appear to be continuing in some form or the
other, for example, the issue of work load, forced overtime, victimization for union activities etc.
The plant one of Toyota Kirloskar Motors (TKM) in Bidadi started production in 1999 and Toyota
Kirloskar Motors Employees Union (TKMEU) was formed in 2001-02. Since then the process of
collective bargaining continued with many ups and downs and many phases of workers struggles. The
first two strikes happened in April 2001, the first lasted for two days and the second lasted for 10 days.
During this period one active member of union was suspended. The third strike started after this action
by the management in 2002, and it followed the lockout by the management which lasted for 53 days.
The strikes in 2001-02 were mainly around the demands: a) management must stop interfering and
coercing with organizing activities of the union members; b) reduce the gap between two shifts to
only 30 minutes instead of 3-4 hours, to end the scope of 4 hours forced overtime; c) give an
appreciation amount to all workers for producing more than 50,000 vehicles up to December 2001; d)
fix definite workload and production targets; e) end the practice of forced overtime on working days
and weekly offs, and f) a reasonable wage hike.
In 2002, two more demands got included: a) revoking the suspension of Mr Girish and dismissal of
Mr Suhas D.Wagh (Manager, Weldshop), and b) permission for Mr Leelakrishnan (state general
secretary of INTUC and legal advisor of TKMEU) to participate in all bilateral discussions with
management on behalf of union, which management was denying. Lastly, after 53 days of lockout the
management accepted the major demands of workers including change in shift timings and ending
forced overtime and significant hike in salary. (Jayaramiah and Jose 200638; The Hindu 200239)
In 2004-05, TKMEU put forward a charter of demands before management for collective bargaining
agreement. The major demand of the union was wage hike. Again there was a strike as the demands
were not met. During this period about 15 employees were suspended (The Hindu, 200540), and hence
revoking the suspension also became a major demand. It was during this period the union got
affiliated with CITU (Centre of Indian Trade Unions), and the management refused to attend the
conciliation arranged by the labour department on two occasions as it was not ready to accept
participation of any external (CITU) representative in negotiation process (Jayaramiah and Jose
200641). Finally an agreement was reached between the management and union for 15% wage hike,
but the company also warned that it may shift its production to North India if industrial climate does
not improve in Karnataka (Giriprakash 200542). The suspension of 15 employees was not revoked and
management insisted to conduct independent inquiry and only after that their fate can be decided.
In 2006, on the basis of outcomes of disciplinary proceedings, out of 15 suspended employees 3 were
terminated and one was reinstated. The enquiry against the rest 11 suspended workers was still
pending. The union opposed this action challenging the findings of disciplinary proceedings and
discontent among workers against this action resulted in a strike. After two days of workers agitation
management declared a lockout in the factory on January 8, 2006. Finally the management announced
lifting of lockout from January 21, 2006 on-ward, however, it mandated that all workers reporting to
38
Jayaramiah, Jaishankar and Jose, Reema (2006). Toyotas bumpy ride, available at
https://www.financialexpress.com/archive/toyotas-bumpy-ride/151985/0/, accessed on 18 July 2019
39
The Hindu (2002). Toyota Kirloskar workers go on indefinite strike, available at
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/01/17/stories/2002011702090300.htm, accessed on 18
July 2019
40
The Hindu (2005). Taking back suspended staff Toyota, union to meet tomorrow, available at
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-corporate/Taking-back-suspended-staffToyota-union-to-meet-tomorrow/article20278502.ece, accessed on 18 July 2019
41
Jayaramiah, Jaishankar and Jose, Reema (2006). Toyotas bumpy ride, available at
https://www.financialexpress.com/archive/toyotas-bumpy-ride/151985/0/, accessed on 18 July 2019
42
Giriprakash, K. (2005). Toyota, workers ink pact for 15 pc more wages Co urges Govt to improve
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tpindustrial
climate,
available
at
corporate/Toyota-workers-ink-pact-for-15-pc-more-wages-Co-urges-Govt-to-improve-industrialclimate/article20277506.ece, accessed on 18 July 2018
duty must sign a good conduct undertaking (ICMR 200643). The union ended the strike but challenged
the good conduct undertaking, and after conciliation proceedings failed on this issue it was referred to
the labour court for adjudication. The strike and lockout ended but workers kept on raising their
demands for reinstatement of all suspended workers, abolition of contract worker engagement system,
clearly defining the period of traineeship, improvements in working conditions and wages. It is also
worth mentioning that during this period the National Federation of Japanese Workers-Zenroren
extended its strong and active support to the struggle to Toyota India workers.
Up to 2007, total 42 workers including union office bearers were victimized and placed under
suspension. Out of these 13 were reinstated, 28 opted for VSS (as it was the only option for them for
avoiding dismissal), and the case of one worker was pending in court.
There was again a phase of struggle in 2014. In 2014, there were a total of 6,400 employees workers
out of which 2200 are contract workers. Almost all 4,200 regular workers were formal union members
and contract workers even if not formally members support the cause of the union. According the
union accounts published in media, the major issue behind the strike was the denial of any wage
increment last year. Moreover, the union was also continuously raising the demand for improvements
in safety standards on the ground that in last few years many workers were injured on the production
line. There were almost 10 months of negotiations on the charter of demands put forward by the union.
Bipartite negotiations failed and then the Labor Department of the Government of Karnataka
conducted 7 tripartite meetings in order to reach a settlement. These conciliation efforts have also not
resulted in any agreement. According to the accounts of the management published in media that as
these conciliations were going on, certain sections of workers resorted to work stoppages, abuse and
threatening of supervisors and the company was left with no other option but to declare a lockout of
the premises. However, the union denied all these allegations. According to the accounts of Additional
Labour Commissioner published in media, the workers were demanding a Rs. 4,000 pm ($65.5) hike,
which was not agreeable to management. Finally management declared lockout on March 16. As the
lockout entered the second week, management also demanded that workers to sign a good conduct
bond pledging they would not engage in any slowdowns, strikes or other job actions, but the workers
refused. Later the lockout was lifted but the management was not ready to take workers in without
signing good conduct bond. 10 leaders of the TKMWU began a hunger strike on April 2 against such
repressive measures of the management. On April 6, state police violently attacked dozens of Toyota
Kirloskar Motors (TKM) workers on hunger strike. Two of the workers, already weak from hunger
strike, were severely injured and hospitalized. According to published accounts of the Shanmuga
Gowda, then vice president of the Toyota Kirloskar Motors Workers’ Union (TKMWU), early Sunday
at around 1 am in the night nearly 40 policemen suddenly appeared and using violence forced workers
on hunger strike to board in the company bus to go to hospital. They bounced, beat and kick the
43
ICMR (2006). IR Problems in Toyota, available at
http://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Human%20Resource%20and%20Organization%20Be
havior/HROB088.htm, accessed on 20 July 2019
workers. Only after large number of workers ran to the spot, the police violence was ended.
Management also suspended 32 workers. However, the relay hunger strike of workers continued till
April 19th 2014. Lastly the state government issued an order on 19th April that the lockout was not in
accordance with the provisions of the law (section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act), the
management’s condition to sign the ‘good conduct’ letter before entering the plant does not arise. All
issues, including wage hike and suspension were referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication.
Therefore the protest ended and the work was resumed. (CWE 201444)
This was a kind of victory for workers and defeat for management. However, immediately after this
management started unilaterally changing the service conditions in the nature of harassment workers
and union members. This is clearly reflected in the union letter dated 11 June 2014 to the management
challenging these actions as illegal and unjustified and raising following issues:
After the prohibition of lockout by the government you have unilaterally introduced the
disciplinary rules intentionally against the prevailing/customary/existing practices with
malafide intentions in order to harass workmen bearing grudge against them for their just
and legitimate trade union activities during 16 March to 21 April 2014
You have altered the timings of arrival of buses in each shift changing the earlier practices
You have changed the turn stile gate harassing the employees to wait near gate as against
the earlier practice
‘Shift and process changing’ of workmen (the workers can be asked to work at any work
positions and in any shift), as against the past practice
Introducing new practices for attending natural calls etc
Refusing leave to the workmen and treating the leave period as ‘un-authorized
absenteeism’ although the information was given by individually
Treating as ‘no work- no pay’ under the guise of ‘missed hour’. This is increased in large
scale. You are not informing in advance with serving notices to the workmen and
unilaterally deduct their wages. This apart you are not receiving and acknowledging the
individual letters/complaints given by the workmen.
Burden of workmen load is increased without any standard normal and imposing the same
without consultation of union
Withdrawing light work to the workmen who are suffering from medical infirmities.
Adopting unfair labour practices and victimization policies against the active members of
the union.
The Union is consistently raising these issues but even when wage settlements have been done,
including the one in 2016 and in 2019, the management never came out for a constructive dialogue on
CWE (2014). Story of Recent Toyota Workers Struggle in Karnataka, available at
https://workerscentre.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/story-of-recent-toyota-workers-struggle-inkarnataka/, accessed on 20 July 2019
44
these issues and hence they are not yet resolved. Rather, the conditions have worsened over the years.
In the settlement between TKM and TKMEU in December 2016 an illegal agreement was done for
increasing the daily working hours from 8 hours to 8.35 hours, in a return for 5 day working week in
place of 6 day week. However, 5 day working week was with a condition that: a) Two days additional
work during weekend holidays on quarterly basis will reflect in each year’s calendar on tentative basis
(considered as OT payment as per rules), and b) calendar adjustment can be done any time..…..and
have 6 working days if required in a week to accommodate festival holiday/holiday adjustments, and
in such event the sixth working day would be treated as normal working.
On the other hand, a domestic enquiry was conducted against 32 workers who were suspended during
the period of lockout in 2014. The enquiry concluded in 2017. On the basis of findings of enquiry 12
out of 32 were reinstated in December 2017 and 17 were proposed to be dismissed. Out of these 17 to
be dismissed, 10 were protected workmen including general secretary and 9 executive body members
of the union. Hence the management dismissed 7 workers and filed application in the Industrial
Tribunal under section 33 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission for dismissal of protected
workmen. The permission was not granted till 2019, and during this whole period all these protected
workmen were on the roles of company in state of suspension and paid subsistence allowance by the
company according to law. It is interesting to note that on 9th October 2019 the management withdrew
its application seeking permission for dismissal from Industrial Tribunal by filing a Memo dated
09.10.2019 and then dismissed all the above protected workmen without permission from Industrial
Tribunal. And then management filed an application in Industrial Tribunal under section 33(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of their act of dismissing these protected workmen.
The union challenged the dismissal of 7 workers and also dismissal of protected workmen separately
in the Industrial Tribunal and the case is still pending.
In the meantime a new union body was elected for 2019-20 and the union by its letter dated
02.04.2019 addressed to General Manager of the company sought recognition of 36 office bearers of
the union as protected workmen. However, the management in its letter dated 05.04.2019 recognized
only 28 office bearers of union as protected workmen, and declined to accord the status of protected
workmen to 8 office bearers of union including the general secretary of the union Sharanappa Dengi
and 7 other executive committee members. The union has challenged the management’s decision of
not according the status of protected workmen to these 8 office bearers of the union. The case is
pending in labour department.
This is worth emphasizing here that the management’s actions in the context of the protected workmen
are not only in complete disrespect of law of the land but also in violation of company’s own standing
orders.
Section 33 of Industrial disputes defines the protected workman as: “a workman, who, being a
member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union connected with the
establishment, is recognized as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.” And that: “In
every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognized as protected workmen for the
purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein
subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred
protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules
providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any,
connected with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and
recognized as protected workmen.”
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 mandates that: “no employer shall, during the
pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any
protected workman concerned in such dispute- (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected
workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such
proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected
workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding
is pending.”
Standing Order (section 28.18) of TKM says that: “If, on account of the action taken or proposed to be
taken against the employee, it becomes necessary to obtain permission of any authority under section
33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (this is in reference to the protected workmen), the employee
may be suspended from work without pay pending the grant of such approval or permission. If the
employee has already been suspended from work pending enquiry, the suspension shall continue till
the grant of approval or permission as aforesaid.”
However, the company dismissed the protected workmen without getting permission from the relevant
authority.
It is also worth mentioning that the wages for 32 days (16 March 2014 when lockout was declared by
management to 21 April 2014 when work was resumed after government declared the lockout as
illegal) was also not paid to the workers.
In 2019 collective bargaining agreement between union and management was done after long
negotiation but without any conflict, however, the above issues remain unresolved.
Currently union is organizing protest for once every week for 4 hours (outside the working hours) and
the major demands of the union include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Stop wage cuts by treating toilet breaks and duly taken leaves as unauthorized absence
Stop victimizing for union activities, take back all dismissed workers
Stop illegal practice of 8.35 hours of work and practice 8 hours of work
We are not Robots! Rationalize the work load on the basis of average efficiency of workers.
Share the R&D exercise with workers and consult union before any change in workload
Allot lighter workload to workers (as before 2014) suffering with medical infirmities
Stop compulsory overtime
Pay layoff wages for no work days and not adjust it with coming weekly offs
Acknowledge and respond to the workers complaints
Caption: Weekly protest of TKM workers in front of the factory gate. They organize protest with
pictures of Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh. In their hands they are holding their demand slogans.
B. The case of Tokai Rica Minda India Pvt Ltd (TRM)
TRM is a joint venture company of Japanese company Tokai Rica and Indian company UNO Minda
established in 2008 in KIADB Industrial area, Neelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural. TRM
manufactures automotive seat belts, locks and keys for Toyota.
I. Structure of Workforce and Downsizing
There are a total of about 600 workers out of which about 170 are female workers. Permanent workers
are about 200, out of which 90 are female workers, apprentice (NEEM45) workers are about 150-200
out of which 80 are females, contract workers are about 150. There are more than 80 probation
workers and more than 20 trainees. There were 100 Female permanent workers, but 10 of them
resigned either after marriage or after getting any government job.
Recently management orally informed that 30 existing contract workers and 10-15 existing female
apprentice workers are made permanent, but they have not received any formal communication yet
and it is not confirmed yet.
A clear cut trend of downsizing the workforce is reflected in the fact that total workforce decreased
from 1000 to 600 in last few years. However during the same period number of management staff
increased from 60 to 150. In recent automobile slow down about 100 contract workers were
discontinued.
II.
Increasing Workload, Intensification of Work and Problems of Women workers
The production in the company consistently increased over the years, however, there was no increase
in workforce and actually it decreased. There were no installments of Robots as well. This reflects on
increasing workload on existing workforce. According to workers, the work targets are already very
high, and over and above, the line in-charge creates consistent pressure to get more production than
normal targets.
Most pressing problem is shrinking of workplace space for workers. This is creating serious problems
for women workers. To speed up the production process or to reduce the takt cycle time, the walk
time (to pick parts) is completely eliminated and workplace space is reduced to the minimum. The
work places are structured in such a way that while performing action steps in production process
shoulders and hands of adjacent workers touch each other, in a way disturb each other. In the
workplace women and men workers generally work adjacent to each other and therefore women
workers always get touched by adjacent men workers and they feel irritated. At times when there is
National Employability Enhancement Scheme of government under which a part of stipend of apprentices is
reimbursed to the employers
45
need for more production, then more workers are added in the same space, and then it becomes really
difficult to work.
This appears to be in violation of the Factories Act 1948, Section 16 (Overcrowding), which mandates
that: “No room in any factory shall be overcrowded to an extent injurious to the health of the workers
employed therein” and that “there shall be in every workroom of a factory in existence… at least 14.2
cubic metres of space for every worker employed therein, and for the purposes of this sub-section no
account shall be taken of any space which is more than 4.2 metres above the level of the floor of the
room.” Following the above, the length and width of the space for each workers needs to be not less
than 2m*1.7metres.
This problem was raised by the workers with management but they got straight forwards answerwhoever is not able to work, can leave the job.
The intensification of production process has reached to the level that the workers do not have any
breathing space. They actually work like robots, no space for relaxing the body even for seconds. Like
Robots, standing at one place, without any movement of legs, they continuously perform the action
steps by movement of shoulders and hands.
III.
Disciplinary actions against workers for taking Toilet breaks
Workers can take any toilet or drinking water breaks only after getting permission from line in-charge.
They call the line in-charge by ringing a bell and when line in-charge comes and gives permission
then only they can go. The permission is generally granted but line in-charge always shows anger,
uses vulgar and insulting language against workers, even women workers, whenever they ask
permission for toilet breaks. This is why the workers try to avoid toilet breaks as much as possible,
and ask for it when it becomes unavoidable. But many times even after ringing bell, the line in-charge
takes lot of time to come there to grant permission, even after coming there keeps on arguing before
granting permission. This creates serious problems for workers as they have to stand there when
holding back has already become difficult. During the period, the life of women workers becomes a
hell, when they need breaks for changing sanitary pads and when they face insulting and humiliating
questions from male line in-charges.
This issue was again and again raised by workers, but management never took it seriously. However,
on demand of workers management has started providing sanitary pads in the toilets for women
workers. (Also see: https://www.facebook.com/1391337431011376/videos/1441722739306178/)
However, even after all this, the management records the toilet break time taken by workers and
calculate it for whole month. Then show-cause notice is sent to workers for why they took so much
toilet break time in the month. There is no deduction of wages, but show-cause notices itself are so
insulting and humiliating for particularly women workers. It becomes really humiliating and insulting
especially for women workers to reply these show cause notices.
IV.
Health Problems
The workers are facing following health problems emanating from conditions of work:
1. Avoiding drinking water so that they do not need toilet breaks, and avoiding going to toilets
beyond normal holding capacity. This is creating health problems like, kidney stone,
abdominal pain etc.
2. Congested workplace, no space for free body movement, continuously standing and working
in uncomfortable positions, no free movement of legs, movement of only shoulders and hands
and that also on only one side. This is creating posture related health problems. Most common
problems are reported to be varicose vein.
V.
Victimization for Unionism
Tokai Rika Minda Employees Union was formed on 6th January 2018 and it got affiliated with the
central union CITU (Centre of Indian Trade Unions). Women workers play significant role in the
union, they hold the posts of Joint Secretary and Vice President and some others are executive body
members.
The Union sent letters to management intimating about the formation of trade union and requesting a
meeting with office bearers of the union, however, the management simply did not respond to any of
their letters.
Rather than engaging with the union, Management started unfair labour practices to end the union.
The management floated an yellow union-the so called internal union and started using pressure and
threat tactics to compel the workers to leave the existing union and join the newly floated yellow
union. They were able to compel some probationers and trainees to join the yellow union who were
made office bearers of this union. They started compelling other workers to sign on a plain paper
which was supposed to be used as their letter of consent for joining the yellow union.
The union repeatedly wrote the management against this unfair labour practice but the management
went ahead with its game plan. Then many workers whom the management was compelling to sign on
plain paper filed individual complaints in the office of State Human Rights Commission (HRC) and
Police. The union also filed application in the office of Deputy labour Commissioner (DLC), Assistant
Labour Commissioner (ALC) and Registrar of Trade Unions requesting to take action against this
unfair labour practice by the management, but no action was taken.
In the mean time the union also filed a complaint of forced overtime in the office of Inspector of
Factories. The union also complained against use of temporary workforce in perennial nature of jobs
in permanent positions. The union also filed complaints in labour department against management
personnel using filthy language against workers and threatening them for engaging in trade union
activities. However, no action was taken on these complaints.
Finally, on 19th February 2018 the union sent a warning letter to the management as well as the office
of DLC that if management is not stopping unfair labour practices in terms of using pressure and
threat tactics to compel workers joining the yellow union, and if not recognizing the TRMEU and not
coming forward for negotiations on charter of demand submitted by TRMEU then the workers will be
forced to start protest action in the form of:
a) Wearing Red strip while on work from 26/02/2018
b) Wearing Demand badge while on work from 05.03.2018
c) One day strike on 12.03.2018
Not getting any positive response from the management, the workers started their protest from 26th
February 2018. They started wearing Red strips while on work. Only after this the DLC intervened.
On 6th March 2018 a tripartite meeting was held in the office of DLC and DLC advised both parties
maintain industrial peace and resolve the dispute in peaceful manner. DLC promised the workers that
he will look in to the matter and see that justice is done to the workers. On this promise the union
decided to withdraw the strike planned for 12th march 2018.
However, rather than initiating negotiations with union, the management started victimizing the
workers. On 7th March 2018, the very next day of the meeting in DLC office, the management
terminated 5 probation workers and suspended 4 permanent workers without following any legal
procedures. Victimization continued and from 12 March to 23 March 8 more probation workers were
terminated and 5 more permanent workers were suspended. Moreover, the management more
aggressively moved to float the yellow union by using pressure and threat tactics to compel workers to
leave TRMEU and join yellow union and thereby marginalize the membership of TRMEU. The union
wrote complaint letters to state home minister, chief minister, state human rights commission, state
women commission, various authorizes in labour department and various authorities in police
department, but no action was taken against the management and victimization of workers continued.
Therefore, the union started hunger protest from 15th march 2018, they were working but not eating
whole day.
On March 26, DLC again intervened and promised reinstatement of all workers and on this promise
the workers ended the hunger protest.
After this the tripartite conciliation proceedings started in the office of DLC. However, on 4th April
management denied to accept any demands of the union and therefore the conciliation failed. The
harassment of workers further increased.
On 13th April 2018, the union filed an application in the office of DLC raising an industrial dispute on
the issue that the management is in the process of illegally terminating probationers and trainees enmass. The union argued that these probationers and trainees have already successfully completed their
probation/training period and virtually working as permanent workers. No letter was issued to them
after completion of probation/training, which inherently meant that they were absorbed as permanent
workers. But now they are being targeted because of their union activities and that their termination
amounts unfair labour practice. The union also requested the labour department to direct the
management to issue confirmation letters to all such trainees and probationers as permanent workers.
DLC office registered the complained and the letters were issued for the conciliation proceedings on
this issue to be held on 5th May 2018.
Under the provisions of 33(1a) of the industrial dispute, if any issue is pending conciliation
proceedings in the labour department, then no further actions can be taken by both parties without
prior permission from labour department. However, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings
the management terminated 4 probation workers on 30th April 2018. The management terminated the
services of these workers during pendency of conciliation proceedings and without taking permission
from labour department, and hence these actions stand illegal under section 33(1a) of ID Act.
Observing the management taking actions in complete disrespect of law and also the inabilities of the
authorities in enforcing the law, the workers in complete helplessness and anger, spontaneously
stopped the work on 30th April 2018. They remained inside the factory and declared that they will not
move out until the management recognizes their union, comes for negotiations with union and stops
victimization of workers. In a way, they occupied the factory.
They continued their strike and remained inside the factory facing all odds, no facility to take bath or
change cloths, nothing to eat. They faced a hell but were determined to not leave the factory unless
their problem was resolved.
The strike was continuing when on 4th May management declared a lockout of the factory, probably
this was necessary to force workers out of factory. Management posted a Notice dated 4th May
declaring suspension of production operations from 4th may, 6am, directing the workers to vacate the
factory premises. The same day at around 9.30am a big force of 200 police men and bouncers of
private agencies and certain management staff beat and forcibly dragged the workers out of factory
premises. Women workers alleged that they were molested by the male police and bouncers. Several
workers including women workers received severe bodily injuries and one worker faced a bone
fracture. Cloths of many women workers were tore down. All this showed that violence was used to
break the strike. The police forcefully loaded all workers in a bus and transported them to Police
station.
Getting this news more than 1000 industrial workers from the region reached the police station and
surrounded it. They demanded to release the workers and do justice to them. The police had taken
more than 150 male and female workers in to custody. Due to strong protest from more than 1000
workers surrounding the police station, the police released all of them same day evening. The police
filed the FIR against workers on 4th May, but have not filed any charge sheet yet. The workers were
released, however the situation is still not clear, the workers fear that the police in collusion with
management can file charge sheet any time which may lead to further victimization of workers.
The management soon filed an application in Additional Civil Judge, JFMC, Nelamangala for
granting ad-interim order for temporary injunction restraining workemen/union from any
assembly/demonstration within the radius of 250 m of company premises. An interim order for
restraining the workers from assembly within the radius of 150 meter was granted applicable till next
hearing. However, in final order dated 04.06.2018, the court granted interim injunction for restraining
the workers from assembly/demonstration within the radius of 80 meter only. The court opined that
the demonstration by the employees is protected under the article 19 of the constitution, and that the
demonstration should be under the purview of the management so that the management considers the
demands of the workers and comes forth for negotiations.
On record the management revoked the lockout on 7th May 2018; however, actually it was revoked on
15th May 2018. The management asked the workers to sign good conduct undertaking. Initially the
workers opposed, but there was no way out and hence finally they decided to give good conduct
undertaking in the name of union rather than individually.
However, the victimization did not end here. On 3rd May 2018, 20 permanent workers were suspended
for participation in strike with charges of machine damage, provoking the workers and threatening the
management etc. On 19th May, 4 more probationer/trainee were terminated. From June 23 to June 29,
2018, 10 permanent workers were suspended and 13probationer/trainees were terminated.
In July 2018, Chairman of State women commission, DLC and some other authorities visited the
factory and requested to revoke the suspensions/terminations of workers. The management apparently
agreed to take back all workers in job, but without any continuity of service, and they will be
transferred to Chennai plant. It simply means they have to accept that all actions of management was
justified and on mercy the management was rehiring them fresh, and they have to lose all benefits of
length of service. But the worst condition was transfer to Chennai plant which was not possible to
accept for most of workers. The union did not accept these conditions.
Due to continuing victimization the workers started indefinite relay hunger protest from 27th June 2018
to 4th July in two batches. In first batch 6 workers including 3 women workers were on hunger strike
and in second batch from 4th July 5 workers including 2 women workers were on hunger strike. Then
Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police and DLC met the workers on hunger strike and
assured that they will see that their problem is resolved. Hunger strike was ended on this assurance.
However, the problem was not resolved and management was not ready for any negotiations with
union. Therefore the workers again started their hunger strike from 3rd October 2018, which ended
again with assurance from authorities. But problem remained as such. During this period the workers
complained to all authorities including Chief Minister, Labour Minister, Home Minister, State Human
Rights Commission, State Women Commission and labour department officials, but no action was
taken and the situation remained as such.
The management on 18th February 2019 locked out 24 active members of the union and refused to
provide any work to them. Further, on 19th February management locked out the rest of 71 members
of the union. It is to be kept in mind that termination of 33 workers and suspensions of 27 workers
have already been done. After the lockout of the above workers, almost all unionized workers were
thrown out of the factory.
On 7th June 2019, the government declared this lock out as illegal. However, then also management
again demanded a good conduct undertaking before the workers are allowed inside factory. The
workers having no option, this time also they decided to give undertaking in the name of union rather
than individually. No wages were paid to the workers for the lock out period. The union challenged
this and the case is pending in labour court.
The workers have continued their struggle in various forms. For two months, June and July 2019, all
terminated and suspended workers organized protest demonstrations day and night in front of DLC
office.
As on 23rd December 2019, 33 workers (probationers/trainees) stand terminated from service out of
these 11 are women workers. Moreover, 27 permanent workers stand suspended out of which 4 are
women workers. The domestic enquiry against suspended workers has been concluded recently and
now workers have to file their objections, after which the management may take action accordingly.
The workers fear that all of them may face dismissals.
It is also worth mentioning that rather than recognizing the union, the management has recently started
working on another form of unfair labour practice to end the union. The management is trying to sign
individual wage agreements with individual workers. Probably management has succeeded to sign
about 50 such agreements till date.
The union has filed a complaint in the office of labour secretary against continuing unfair labour
practices and victimization of workers by the management. The complaint is still pending. The case of
terminations and suspensions during pendency of conciliation i.e., the violation of section 33 (1a) of
Industrial Disputes Act is also pending in the office of labor secretary. A case related to termination of
services of probationers/trainees is also pending in District Civil Session Court.
The wages of workers are one of the lowest in the industry. The wages of permanent workers range
from Rs 10500 to 15600 per month depending on length of service. The wages of probation workers,
apprentices and contract workers are near about 10500 per month.
The workers have been continuing their struggle in various forms. Their demand badge highlights the
following demands:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Promptly consider the fair demands of workers
Recognize labor union
Implement the labor laws
Respect workers
Regularize the Probationary/ Trainee workers who have completed the eligibility conditions
Stop the harassment of women workers
Caption: Protest March of Tokai Rica Minda Workers.
Caption: TRM workers starting hunger strike.
Caption of above 4 photos: Police and Bouncers dragging the TRM workers out and loading them in
Bus to take them to police Station on 4th May 2018 to break the strike of 30April to 4 May 2018
The Union’s proposed memorandum of settlement includes the demands for wage increment for
permanent workers, Rs 3000 increment in wages of probationer after completion of probation period,
7 casual leaves and 15 privilege leaves per year, medical insurance policy for those outside the
coverage of Employees Insurance scheme (ESI), and group accident insurance policy etc.
C. The Case of Toyotetsu India Auto parts Pvt Ltd (TTIA)
TTIA manufacturing facility is located adjacent to TKM plant in Bidadi, Bangalore. TTIA
manufactures various parts and accessories for motor vehicles and their engines, e.g., brakes, gear
boxes, axles, road wheels, suspension shock absorbers, radiators, silencers, exhaust pipes, steering
wheels, steering columns and steering boxes etc. The company mainly supplies the chasis parts to the
Toyota.
TTIA engages 196 permanent workers, about 900 contract workers and about 100 Apprentice workers.
There has been consistent downsizing of permanent workers. The number of permanent workers
decreased from 278 in 2007 to 196 in 2019. From 2006 there is almost no recruitment of permanent
workers. The number of contract workers increased. However, now there is more focus on increasing
number of apprentice workers and consistent with this recently 100 contract workers were converted
in to apprentice workers. This is also interesting to note that the number of Robots also increased
recently. In 2010 there were only 4 Robots but now there are total 19 Robots. Generally a Robot
replaces 3-4 workers.
Victimization for Unionism
TTIA employees union has been recognized by the management and there are periodic wage
settlements. However, in 2011 there was a conflict between union and the management. This was the
time when negotiations for the next wage settlement were going on and the management was not
ready to accept the demands of the union. However, the issue that emerged in the conflict was not
linked with this process.
There had been a problem of oil leakage in C-5 Stamping and Pressing Machine for more than a week
in early March 2011 and despite complaints from the workers and the union the leakage was not
corrected. Finally on 19th March it resulted in an accident, when at around 9.40pm in second shift the
worker Kusumadhar who was working on this machine slipped in the oil and fell down. He received
serious injuries in his backbone.
According to workers and union office bearers, at the time of accident when Kusumadhar was in pains
and workers were trying to take him to hospital, the response management personals was that nothing
has happened to him and that he is doing drama. It was because of this the conflict started, there were
heated verbal arguments between workers and the management which resulted in physical clashes also.
This is beyond doubt that there was oil leakage problem in C-5 machine, and union complained about
this to management and when management did not do anything then union also complained to
Inspector of Factories on 14 March 2011 (5 days before the accident took place). The union again
wrote to Inspector of factories on 22 March informing about the accident. Inspector of factories then
on 23 March wrote a letter to the company referring the complaint letter of the union dates 14 March
and 22nd March 2011. Moreover, the treatment records of BGS Global hospital for worker
Kusumadhar also shows that he received injuries in back bone due to fall after which he was admitted
by workers in the hospital.
According to the union, Kusumadhar was first hospitalized in BGS Global hospital by fellow
workmen due to seer negligence of the staff of the management and later being discharged on
23.03.2011, he was advised rest for 30 days from the date of discharge. That due to acute back pain he
had further taken treatment in Sulya in Dakshina Kannada district from 25.04.2011 to 22.05.2011. He
reported to duty on 24.05.2011. But the management did not allow resuming his duty. He was asked
to appear before the company medical officer Dr KA Srinavasa Prasad of Malya Multi speciality
hospital, Jayangar. Thereafter he was allotted the regular work on 31.05.2011.
However, Management consistently maintained its position that no accident happened and that it was
stage managed by the workers Kusumadhar, who was executive body member of the union, and that
this was to pressurize the management to accept the wage increment demanded in union’s charter of
demand for wage settlement and which management found unusually very high. Management also
challenged the validity of the hospital report mentioning the injuries and treatments to the worker.
After the incident on the night of 19th March, the workers went to the police station and filed their
complained for registering the FIR (First Information Report). Their complaint was filed as Complaint
copy number 173, dated 19.03.2011, at 11.15pm. The management also filed a police complaint on
next day evening and their complaint was filed as complaint copy number 174, dated 20.03.2011 at
6pm. It was logical and justified to register the FIR of the workers as they were first complainant and
file the management’s complaint as B-report. But police registered the FIR of management against
workers and made the worker’s complaint as B-report. According to workers this is how the case of
workers was systematically weakened.
On the Other hand, on 24 workmen were suspended on 26.03.2011 on the ground of alleged
misconduct claimed to have occurred on 19.03.2011. Later the show cause notice and charge sheet
was also sent to workers Kusumadhar on April 18, 2011 and he was also suspended. Management
initiated a domestic inquiry against all suspended workers.
The union sent a letter to the management dated 07.09.2011, seeking Postponement of departmental
proceedings in response to the management letter dated 29.08.2011 for initiating domestic enquiry
against suspended workers, on the ground that the criminal case is pending on the same
matters/incidents which is the subject matter of domestic enquiry as well. The charge leveled by the
management are grave in nature and relied on the documents pertaining to the same incident on which
criminal proceedings are pending trial in CC No 114/2011. This is established law that if departmental
proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges
are alleged to be grave in nature which involves complicated question of law, it is desirable that the
departmental proceeding is postponed till the conclusion of criminal case.
However, the management did not stop the proceedings of domestic enquiry and hence the union filed
suit before Civil Judge (Junior division), Ramnagara for staying disciplinary proceedings till
conclusion of criminal case, since the charges in charge sheet dated 18 April emanated from the
alleged incident on 19th March on which criminal proceedings are going on. The Civil Judge granted
stay on the domestic inquiry vide order dated 13.10.2011. The management challenged this judgment
before Principal Civil Judge (senior division) Ramanagara. This court modified the order vide order
dated 27 Jan 2012, but maintaining the stay on domestic enquiry. Them management challenged this
judgment in High court and High Court also maintained the stay by its order dated 15th July 2012.
Then management challenged this judgment in Supreme court and the apex court passed its order
dated 21 Jan 2014 directing that the domestic enquiry may wait for one year to let the criminal case
end, however, if criminal case does not end in one year then domestic enquiry can be conducted even
when criminal proceedings are still pending.
Therefore, domestic enquiry started after one year from 16.02.2015 and enquiry officer submitted its
report with findings on 05.12.2016, declaring the workers guilty of charges including absence of
workplace during working hours, riotous and disorderly behavior within company premises,
threatening-abusing-intimidating or assaulting any superior, preaching of or inciting others to commit
act of violence, shouting inflammatory, derogatory slogans etc. Thereafter the management dismissed
all 25 workers in August 2017.
It is interesting to note that, during the same period, the management gave an offer to suspended
workers that if they resign and accept the full and final settlement, then management may not dismiss
them and criminal cases may also be withdrawn. But the workers rejected this offer. According to
union, this communication from management was not on company letter head and was on plain paper
without any signature, and therefore they were not able to use it as any evidence.
The workers challenged the act of dismissal in Industrial tribunal arguing that whole case of
management was cooked up to victimize the workers for union activities and therefore the action of
management was illegal. They also argued that the management’s case itself is full of contradictory
facts. In its application to police station management mentions 30 workers involved in the incident but
in its charge sheet to workers for domestic enquiry mentions only 25 workers and moreover the
charge sheet was issued only after a lapse of one month after the incident. They also argued that the
management does not make any mention of accident that was behind the whole incident.
The case is still pending in the industrial tribunal. But the workers stand dismissed. They were
receiving 75% of wages during the period of suspension, but after dismissal they are not paid any
wages.
On the other hand the criminal proceedings were still continuing on the same incident with same set
of facts. On 27th February 2018, one of central trade unions-CITU (Centre of India Trade Unions) filed
a memorandum in High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore administrative department seeking transfer of
all criminal, civil and labour cases pertaining to the Toyota companies from Ramanagara district
courts to any other district court on the ground that the annual cultural and sports meet of Judicial
department of Ramanagara organized on 21st January 2018 was sponsored by Toyota including the
Food, T-shirts and various events in the meet. Therefore, TTIA workers also filed an application in the
court and requested the postponement of proceedings in their cases on the above grounds. However,
their request was not entertained and they were not successful in getting their case transferred to any
other court. Finally, the judgment was delivered on 24th January 2019, according to which they were
found guilty, but not sentenced for any jail term, rather, they were convicted under PO Act, which
means that they were free for all practical purposes but they will remain under observation of a
probation officer for one year. This also shows that the court did not find the charges strong enough to
award them prison sentence. This judgment was delivered by the Junior Sessions Court and now the
workers have challenged it in Senior Sessions Court. After Junior Sessions Court’s judgment the
management dismissed 5 other suspended workers as well.
The union has been able to consistently work for the benefit of workers and the able to sign collective
bargaining agreements with the management. In 2011 the wages of permanent workers was about
12000, but by virtue of collective barraging their wages in 2019 range from 20000 to 40000 per month
depending on the length of service. The wages of contract workers is about 12000 and Apprentices
also get near about the same.
The Ongoing Struggle
After the dismissal of the 25 workers by the management in 2017, the union started a continuous sit in
protest demonstration in front of the factory. The demonstration continues till date. The demands of
the union include:
1. Stop victimization for unionism
2. Take back all dismissed workers
3. Withdraw criminal cases against workers
Caption: The protest camp of Toyotetsu Auto Parts workers (869th day): two victimized members of
union (left) and CITU representative (right)
D. The Case of Motherson Automotive Technology and Engineering
(MATE)
MATE is an Indian company and one of the largest suppliers of moulded parts- assemblies & modules
to Indian automotive industry. Along with the production facility located in Bidadi, Bangalore, MATE
has 8 more production facilities in India, including in Chennai, Puducheri, Noida, Manesar, Pune,
Tapukhera, Sanand, and Walajabad. MATE supplies injection mouldings to Toyota.
MATE Bidadi plant has about 120 permanent workers, 150 contract workers and more than 100
apprentice workers. MATE workers have a long story of struggle and so also the victimization for
unionism. Permanent workers in the MATE are probably one of the lowest paid workers in this
category in whole industry. This is because even after a long struggle and facing consistent
victimization the company has not recognized their union for collective bargaining yet and hence the
wage revision is pending for many years. It is interesting to note that the permanent workers in MATE
get the same wages as that of Apprentice workers, i.e., INR 12000 per month.
Victimization for Unionism
At the onset it must be mentioned that in India there is a gap in central labour laws in terms of
absence of any provisions for compulsory recognition of trade unions by employers for collective
bargaining. Trade Union Act 1926 has no provision for compulsory recognition of trade union for
collective bargaining. Although it is inherent in the trade union law that the employers are bound to
recognize the trade union for collective bargaining, because otherwise the trade union law itself
becomes meaningless. But the central law leaves the space for the state governments to frame the
rules for the process of recognition of trade unions. So far, only the state of Maharashtra, West Bengal,
Kerala, Bihar and Odisha have rules for recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining. The
labour law of the state of Karnataka still lacks any rules directing the employers to recognize the trade
unions for collective bargaining. This gap in law provides the space for employers to deny or keep
hanging the issue of recognizing the union for collective bargaining for exceptionally long periods.
After the formation of Unions the workers present the charter of demand and request the employers to
come forward for negotiations, then delaying tactics and repression of workers starts. Finally the case
goes to the labour department, then labour courts and then High Court and Supreme Court and the
collective bargaining is stalled for exceptionally long period. This is a kind of naked and brutal
injustice. Only if the labour movement in the factory and the labour solidarity in industrial region are
strong, then only the workers are able to compel employers to come forward for collective bargaining.
This problem is clearly reflected in the long struggle and sufferings of MATE workers. MATE
Employees Unions was formed in Bidadi plant in December 2013. Union presented a charter of
demand to the management. But rather than coming forward for negotiations on the charter of demand
the management started victimizing the workers. Soon after 7 office bearers of union were transferred
to the MATE plants in other states. They included General Secretary, Treasurer and Vice President
and 4 other executive body members of the union. This was an attempt to kill the union in infancy.
However, the workers strongly opposed this victimization and entered in a long phase of
multidimensional struggle, including legal battle and gathering solidarity from other automobile sector
unions in the region. It is interesting to note that they did not go on strike, but continued their struggle
in other various forms.
The union office bearers articulate that the real victimization started in 2014, because in the same year
the union became part of an initiative to form the federation of unions in Toyota supply chain.
In the year 2014 during the Toyota lockout and Toyota workers struggle, a great initiative was taken
by 10 automobile factory unions in the region to form a Federation of Trade Unions of Toyota
Suppliers. MATE Employees Union was one of these 10 unions. This initiative was launched in a
demonstration organized at Freedom Park in Bangalore in solidarity for Toyota Workers Struggle.
This initiative boosted the morals of automobile workers in the region and horrified the employers.
After this event large scale victimization of the MATE union members started. There were two
batches of suspension of union members. First the union president and two other member were
suspended and then soon 8 other members were suspended.
There were no serious grounds for suspension of workers. For example, 13 more workers were
suspended in 2015 only because they complained to HR manager regarding quality of food in canteen,
and charges leveled on them were in the nature of creating groupism and inciting workers, and bad
behavior and use of bad language against supervisor.
Up to 2016, total 34 workers were victimized. 25 workers were suspended out of which 12 were
dismissed after domestic enquiry and 13 still remain in state of suspension. 9 others were transferred
to the plants located in other states. The union challenged all these case of victimization.
The cases of all these suspensions, dismissals and transfers are pending in labour department and
labour courts. The management has not yet recognized the union and the wage settlement is pending
since 2013. The case of recognition of union is also pending in the labour court. It is also interesting
to note that whenever the workers went on strike the management deducted 8 days wages from salary
of workers for one day of strike. The union did not go on strike in the factory for its own cause, but it
participated in various solidarity strikes, for example, Solidarity strike in support of Toyota workers
struggle in 2014, all India General strikes in various years and other solidarity actions in the region.
This wage cut is also challenged by the union and the issue is still pending in the labour court.
As we mentioned earlier, the wages of permanent workers remains one of the lowest and equal to the
wages of Apprentice workers, i.e., INR 12000 per month. The wages of contract workers is about
10000 per month.
There has been no new recruitment in the company after 2014, even when the workforce strength
decreased due to suspensions/terminations/transfers, and on the other hand, the production consistently
increased. After 2014 seven new Robots were installed in the company including one in paint shop, 4
in assembly and 2 in grinding. Thus the total number of Robots now reached 29.
The Ongoing Struggle
The union has adopted a unique form of struggle from 2014. While at work in the factory they wear a
black mask and big red sticker with demand charter on their chest. Despite objections from
management they are continuing this protest along with now and then organizing demonstrations
outside the factory.
The workers have been raising the following major demands:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Recognize the union, start negotiations on charter of demand and sign a wage settlement
Stop Victimizing the workers and take back all suspended/dismissed/transferred workers
No forced transfers
Regularize the contract workers
Equal pay for equal work
Medical benefits to the workers
Caption: In protest Motherson Automotive workers bearing black mask and demand badge while at
work.
It may be worth mentioning here that currently a long strike has been going on in Tamil Nadu plant of
MATE. The strike started on 26th August 2019 and still going on. Around 9th December 2019 they
organized a strong protest by surrounding the factory. The major demands of these workers are also
almost the same: recognize the union, sign a wage settlement and take back all workers victimized by
way of suspensions and dismissals.
5. Conclusions
Currently the automobile industry in India is facing a slow down and large number of contract
workers are being fired across the industry and across the automobile supply chain. Moreover, most, if
not all, automobile majors have also resorted to downsize the permanent workforce by way of offering
voluntary retirement schemes which are in practice forced retirements.
It appears that this downsizing is not going to be reversed even after economic recovery in automobile
sector, as there is another accompanying move of Robotisation of the workplaces. Robots are being
installed in large numbers in most automobile companies and in their supply chain.
However, Toyota represents an exception in terms that rather than Robotization of workplace, it is
attempting to achieve the same or better gains by way of intensification of work process, in other
words, by way of transforming the workers in to Robots, as the workers call it. This is reflected in the
working conditions of Toyota Kirloskar Motors and Japanese supplier company Tokai Rika Minda. In
both the companies workers are virtually compelled to work like machine and take toilet breaks also
becomes a sin or in other words a disciplinary issue. These companies are adopting the strategy of
reducing the number of permanent workers to the minimum, running the production by mainly
engaging most vulnerable section of workers, with majority of apprentices who have legally no labour
rights. They can be hired and fired as and when required and without any overhead costs. Moreover
only those workers may be engaged who can work like robots and till the period they are able to work
like robots. This strategy enables the company to get all benefits that are expected by engaging the
robots, i.e., efficiency, flexibility, cost effectiveness and end unionism and collective bargaining. The
workers are facing unimaginable hardships and serious health problems. Women workers in Tokai
Rika Minda are really facing hell due to these conditions.
The victimization of workers for unionism has emerged a very serious common problem in TKM and
its supply chain.
In complete disrespect to the laws of the land and the standing orders of the company the TKM
management has been harassing the union office bearers who are declared as protected workmen
under the law. In 2017, the management dismissed 17 workers for union activities in 2014 and out of
these 10 were protected workmen including general secretary of the union and 9 other executive body
members. Moreover, TKM management has been denying the protected workmen status to 8 out of 36
office bearers of the newly elected union body, including the newly elected general secretary and 7
other executive body members. In Toyotetsu Auto Parts, 25 workers are facing victimization for union
activities, including the many union office bearers with protected workmen status under the law.
In two Toyota suppliers, Tokai Rika Minda and Motherson Automotive, the workers union is not
recognized even after exceptionally long struggle. Tokai Rika Minda workers have been facing
unimaginable repression and victimization continuously just for their determination to exercise the
right to union and collective bargaining. Till date their union is not recognized and the management is
aggressively engaged in unfair labour practices. A total of 60 workers including 15 women workers
are facing victimization for union activities. In Motherson Automotive 33 workers are facing
victimization for union activities. Denial of recognition of union has created unimaginable hardship to
the Motherson Automotive and Tokai Rika Minda workers, their wages remain one of the lowest in
the industry and far below the living wage.
Surendra Pratap