PRAGOTI

In a ghastly turn of events in the Maruti Suzuki plant in Manesar, Gurgaon, a conflict between the management and the workers left one senior manager, the General Manager Human Resource (GM-HR), dead and many officials injured. There was fire in one of the office premises of the factory and near Gate 2 of the factory. This was a site for peaceful protests and sit-in during previous one-month long protest by the workers against dismissal and suspension of more than 60 workers in August-September 2011.

The Maruti-Suzuki management has complained in its FIR to the police that the fire had been started by the workers. The post-mortem report of the dead GM-HR says that both of his legs were fractured, and indicates that he died of burns as he could not escape the fire.

The violence and the death are condemnable, and the culprit/s must be punished through a proper inquiry. But it is also important to understand the factors that led to this incident.

The Backdrop

The workers' agitation in Maruti Suzuki Manesar plant is not a new phenomenon at all, particularly in the recent past. Earlier, in June 2011, the workers of the Manesar plant went on a strike. They were demanding one thing: recognition of a union of their own choice. This was a long standing demand of the workers of the Manesar plant, obstinately denied by the management always. The management responded high-handedly by dismissing 11 workers. After a 13 day strike a settlement was reached and the dismissed workers were reinstated. However, all the workers suffered wage cuts for participating in the strike, with regular workers’ wages cut for 26 days (i.e. double the number of days they were on strike).

On end-August 2011, the workers of the plant started an agitation against dismissal and suspension of more than 60 of their fellow workers and management’s insistence on signing a ‘good conduct bond’ by the workers. The management was adamant on workers’ signing the ‘bond’, without which no worker will be allowed to work. The management tried to instill discipline into their workforce by introducing a ‘good conduct bond’, which, among many things, listed such acts like,

1. Lack of proper personal appearance, sanitation and cleanliness including proper grooming
2. Conduct in private life prejudicial to the reputation of the company
3. Habitual neglect of cleanliness

as “major misconducts”¹, liable for major disciplinary actions like dismissal without notice, suspension without wages for 15 days etc. The workers protested against imposition of such ‘discipline’. The agitation went on for 33 long days; and without any single incident of violence.

Agitation & “Settlement”: Delay & Dilution of Union Formation

The one-month long agitation ended on 1st October, 2011 and both the parties came to a “settlement”. The management had their say on the ‘good conduct bond’ – every worker would sign it. Only 18 trainees who were suspended were taken back by the management; 44 suspended regular employees still remained under suspension. The discontent among the workers did not reach any concrete conclusion; like the fulfilment of a Union of their own.

From 7th October, the workers of the Manesar plant went on to strike, again. They alleged that contract workers and trainees were refused work when they reported for duty after the end of one-month agitation, which was a clear violation of the spirit of the agreement reached between the two parties after the end of strike on 1st October. The workers demanded that the casual workers be taken back, as regular workers had resumed their duties. They also demanded the reinstatement of 44 regular employees still under suspension. First the management responded in a strong-arm manner with more sacking and suspension of workers. But after a 14 day stand-off, the strike ended with the agreement that 64 permanent workers will be taken back while 30 more will still remain under suspension; 1200 contract workers and trainees will be allowed to resume their work; promises were made to set up a grievance redressal committee and a labour welfare committee. However, the issue of an independent union still remained unresolved.

The situation remained the same in this year, 2012, as well. The registration of the proposed new union at Manesar was being delayed beyond the target timeframe of end-January. After the company forwarded the application and its report to the state labour department of Haryana in end-January, it was this time, the labour department now who delayed the process. It is only in March, 2012, that the Maruti Suzuki Workers’ Union (MSWU) got registered with the labour department. However, till today, the promised grievance redressal committee and labour welfare committee are yet to be set-up. According to Para 9C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, “every industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances”. The fact that Maruti-Suzuki Manesar establishment doesn’t have a grievance redressal committee is a long-time violation of the law of the land by the MNC. It shows the management’s total lack of concern regarding discontent of the workers.

Even the union that was set-up had clauses that talked about compromises, introduced through management’s pressure, which ran counter to the workers’ inalienable right to form union of their own choice. One such clause states that the MSWU will not be affiliated to any central Trade Union. Certainly affiliation is something which depends upon the democratic decision of the union body. Even after getting the union registered, the workers were naturally disappointed with the management’s attitude to sabotage their rightful endeavors.

Building up Frustration

The immediate task that was in front of the newly formed MSWU was wage negotiations with the management. The wage structure of the workers hasn’t changed much as compared to last years’. The average wages of different category of workers in the Manesar plant during mid-year 2011 was as follows:

The component (v), called as ‘production incentive’ is a variable one; it depends on (a) production dependent upon sales of the company, and (b) number of holidays taken by a worker. On an average, if a worker takes 3-4 holidays in a month, his entire ‘variable’ wage component gets deducted. The deduction is irrespective of whether the worker has accumulated casual leave, sick leave or paid leave over time. Any leave leads to a pay cut. The worker resented this pay structure²; they demanded that the production incentive be dependent upon (a) the amount of work a worker is willing to do and is actually doing, and (b) that there should be no wage cut if a worker has accumulated leaves.

However, this year also, the wage structure and wage deduction practice has remained almost the same. As reported by the workers, there was no change in the wage rates of the permanent worker. The wages of the trainees have been increased by Rs. 300-400 in ‘production incentive’ component and Rs. 210 in the fixed component. The wages of contract worker has increased by Rs.35 perday on average on health and travel provision/benefits. The fixed component of apprentices’ wage has been increased by Rs.1000, and the variable component by Rs. 500. So, the present wage structure looks something like this:

The workers were agitated with such token increase of wages. Moreover, the exploitative wage deduction system has largely remained the same. This time, the company has introduced one minor relaxation: if a worker takes no more than four holidays in a quarter, his variable component of salary won’t be deducted. However, if it is more than four days in a quarter, his salary will be deducted as before, i.e. even if he has accumulated leaves. And, the calculations of the amount of ‘production incentive’ remained to be based on production dependent upon sales of the company, and not on the amount of work a worker is willing to do and is actually doing, as the workers demanded. The management seems to be saying that the workers should share both the prosperity and hardship of the company. Sounds reasonable, except for one fact: this year MSIL’s net-sale has contracted, in contrast to massive increases every year during the last decade, by 3% in end-March 2012 compared to the previous year. However, the component of expenditure on employees’ remuneration and benefits has increased by 20% (marginally higher than per-year increase post 2005-06) during the same time. If this increase is not on account of wage increase of the workers, which is clear from comparing the above two tables, this must be on that of the white-collar counterparts. This is clearly a double standard of sharing ‘prosperity and hardship’ and clearly resented by the workers. 

Immediate Spark & “Vandalism” 

Amid severe discontent among the workers regarding wages, the new union was negotiating with the management on the issue of wages. The previous offer of increased wages made by the management was not satisfactory to the workers. They felt that the increase is too meager³ – Rs. 6000 in first year, Rs. 2500 in second and Rs. 2000 in the third year. They also did not want to make a pre-commitment for next two years (and that too for increases of only Rs. 2000), keeping in mind the staggering increase of prices of the essential commodities. The apprehension is justified; from 2007 to 2011, their wages have increased by 5.5% whereas consumer price index has gone up by over 5o% during that same time, indicating a squeeze on the real wages of the workers. Furthermore, they feared that a big part of that increase will be included within the variable “production incentive” component, and with no promise from the management on removing the exploitative wage deduction mechanism, the workers feared that even that rise of wages will be just on-paper. They were demanding wages better than that offer. Management was dillydallying to take any position, acceptance or refusal, on that demand; this is something which workers had started to see as management’s strategy to bypass their issues by making the bargain stagnate⁴. 

On the other hand, surprisingly, amid such high tension the management was pushing increasing the speed of production on the assembly line. For the last 2-3 months, the management has increased the production speed, without increasing commensurate number of workers or relieving-workers. The management was also curtailing the previous two-time 7.5mins tea-breaks into 5mins each. The workers always had dissatisfaction with the original 7.5 mins tea-break time; they had to gulp tea and snacks while standing in toilet-queue or even inside the toilets. Further curtailing that meager break-time added to their frustration. 

This takes us back to one of the questions posed in the title of this article: is this incident an act of vandalism by the workers of the Manesar plant, albeit provoked by inhuman working conditions? Well, that answer can only come up through an independent inquiry. For there are far too many questions un-answered; till this incident, the allegation of violent and in-disciplined workforce has never found any credible support through any independent inquiry. The long agitations of 2011, one of which was one-month long, were completely democratic and peaceful. In fact, in one incident of violence, it was a family member of a contractor who open-fired on demonstrating workers, injuring three of them. Workers have always alleged the contractors to be the goons of the Company. This time also, workers claim that they were attacked by company’s goons inside the factory premises when talks were going on between the management and the workers on that fateful day. These allegations must also be investigated into. Before any inquiry, the possibility of management’s role in the violence must not be taken out of the account. 

Unfortunately, the history of the MNC’s labour disputes doesn’t show any practice of free and fair investigations and inquiries. The previous allegation from the management of ‘sabotage’ of products by the workers was never properly looked up through independent inquiries. This time also, in the name of ‘investigation’, a massive witch-hunt of the workers is taking place according to the will of the MSIL’s management and at the behest of the Haryana Government and its police. It begs a simple question that why so far, no complaint on the part of the workers in this case is accepted or registered by the police? The answer is simple too: the police which have a track record of arresting workers who came to depose before the state Labour Commissioner can’t be expected to accept or register complaints by the workers. Hence, it becomes more imperative to hold an independent investigation, like a judicial inquiry, into the matter rather than an investigation by a SIT headed by the top police officials. 

Conclusion 

The heart of the matter, still, lies in the grievances of the workers with the management and un-favourable working conditions. So, to go back to the other question - whether this whole incident is a part of the ongoing workers’ struggle – the answer is, well, it is definitely a situation which demands for democratic workers’ movement. It is for the sake of peace, and not for igniting violence, that organised democratic workers’ movement must be promoted. This ghastly incident only exposes the myth that curbing democratic rights of the workers to unionise at their own choice can bring peace in the industrial belts. Sadly, the big industries and particularly the MNC’s perceive that their profit-motive will be better served not through ensuring a peaceful, efficient and smooth production environment, but through exploiting the workers with low wages and sub-human working conditions; even if it comes at the cost of disturbing peace in industrial areas and lowering efficiency through loss of production days. That’s why we see the Gujarat government led by Narendra Modi is now using this opportunity to woo the MSIL with its more ‘flexi-labour-law’ regime. Unfortunately, this is the industrialization model of India – which at any cost opposes the constitutionally granted workers’ right to unionise, uses any opportunity to break and de-recognise trade unions, and imposes un-constitutional conditions like in this case by MSIL that MSWU will not be affiliated to any Central Trade Union. It is the duty of the State and the Government to see that the law of the land is followed and protected. In this case, the first step in that direction would be to set-up a free and independent inquiry to look into the matter. 

References:

1. Workers’ Struggle in Maruti Suzuki, Dipankar Mukherjee, Prasenjit Bose & Sourindra Ghosh, The Marxist, 2011.
2. The Hindu, OP-ED: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2490903.ece