PROJECT REPORT ON

Industrial relations

BY

MAHESH S. WANI
EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATION & TRADE UNION

Industrial relations are a multidisciplinary field that studies the employment relationship.
Industrial relations are increasingly being called employment relations because of the importance
of non-industrial employment relationships. Many outsiders also equate industrial relations to
labour relations and believe that industrial relations only studies unionized employment
situations, but this is an oversimplification.

Objectives of Industrial Relations

 To enhance the economic status of workers.
 To reduce conflict of the organization.
 To make good relation with subordinates.
 To develop relation with other.
 To participate in decision making.
 To extent and maintain industrial democracy.
 The Origins and Evolution of the Field of Industrial Relations
The term industrial relations often connote the study of relations between management and
organized labor. However, it originally described the entire range of labor issues. In The Origins
and Evolution of the Field of Industrial Relations, Bruce Kaufman argues that the redefinition is
more than a change in terminology, and he offers the reader an academic history of the industrial
relations field now more commonly known as human resources.

The book meticulously outlines the evolution of industrial relations. Kaufman charts how
industrial relations began with optimistic goals at the start of the 20th century, grew through the
middle of the century, and declined as an academic enterprise in the 1980's.

Academics and practitioners at the turn of the century had great interest in promoting better
relations between workers and management to reduce tensions and increase productivity in
factories at a time of turbulence caused by labor unrest. Pursuing research into this area, which
became known as industrial relations, academics developed theories designed to moderate these
tensions by improving management practices and proposing labor legislation.

The field's growth developed into two branches as some academics pursued an approach referred
to in the book as "science building," while others more interested in practical problem solving
headed in a different direction. The interplay between these two positions on questions of
personnel policy is a major theme in the book.

Industrial relations originally included the entire spectrum of labor and management issues and
addressed such topics from a neutral, third party perspective. Labor and management were
regarded as equal parties with a need to find common ground. Beginning as a subcategory within
industrial relations, the development of personnel management theories signaled a schism in the
field by focusing on management issues. The terms industrial relations and personnel
management were not interchangeable, but represented distinctly different perspectives that were
reflected in how personnel managers and academics pursued their subjects. The more updated
approach of industrial relations is human resources, which was a development of personnel
management.

As the book follows developments through the middle of the 20th century, it describes how other
academic fields such as sociology and psychology influenced industrial relations. Industrial
relations began to incorporate industrial psychology as it applied to labor problems from the
perspective of human relations. At the same time, the Great Depression helped spawn New Deal
labor legislation such as the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, which
were critical developments that continue to have an impact on labor relations.

Kaufman defines the decade between 1948 and 1958 as the "golden age" of industrial relations.
Unions experienced strong growth in membership and influence, and employer-employee
relations became the primary topic of debate in the field. Recognizing this development,
universities such as Cornell and Yale, and the University of Chicago established industrial
relations programs.

The final chapters are devoted to a discussion of the decline since the 1960's of industrial
relations as an academic field. As an example, Kaufman cites universities that have renamed
their industrial relations programs: many schools once known for their fine industrial relations
curricula have incorporated in their name the more popular term human resources. Kaufman
maintains that renaming these academic programs represents more than a name change and
instead illustrates a shift away from union-oriented issues such as collective bargaining.

At the book's conclusion, Kaufman recommends that, despite its decline, industrial relations can
survive as an academic discipline if it turns to a stronger multidisciplinary approach. This can be
accomplished even if the task requires abandonment of the name industrial relations for the more
progressive term "employee relations." He envisions a broader approach that will enlist scholars
from a number of fields pursuing a common goal of producing quality research that incorporates
cross-discipline approaches and more relevant, problem solving research using primary data
sources.

A benefit of an historical account is that it puts current human resource theories in perspective.
The book looks back to a time when Frederick Taylor and scientific management theories were
considered a reform movement that promised a more enlightened approach to managing workers
and when a personnel department at a factory was considered to be the vanguard of labor-
management relations.

With some theorists now talking about the need to return decision-making directly to workers
and work teams, Kaufman reminds the reader of a time when control was in the hands of the
shop foreman who could hire and fire at will and how this policy changed slowly in favor of
personnel departments in which centralized, bureaucratic decision-making was seen as fairer and
more efficient.

Reflecting the author's academic background, the book is well documented and includes an
extensive list of reference works. Practitioners of industrial relations may not fully know the
historical background of their field. For them--and others--this book provides a needed
foundation for the study of human resources.
 Pre-Independence India of evolution of industrial relations policies
The State intervention in labour/industrial relations matter had its beginning when the British
Government in India was constrained to protect its commercial interests in this country.

The I.L.O. Publication observes, far from protecting the interest of labour, the earlier attempts to
regulate labour consisted of enactments such as the Assam Labour Act, the Workmen's Breach of
Contract Act, 1859,and the Employers' and Workmen's (Disputes) Act of 1860. These Acts
aimed at protecting the social system against labour rather than protecting labour against the
social system.

Deterioration of working conditions, because f greater development of industrial units; unduly

low wages and consequent dissatisfaction among the working class; growing indiscipline of
workers; stained relations between labour-management; the formation of ILO; the emergence of
AITUC (1920) and demands for higher wages, improved conditions of work and living-led to
serious industrial troubles and created labour problems of large dimensions. The situation
became unmanageable in Bombay and Bengal. Hence, committees were appointed to look into
the matter.

“The beginning of the industrial relations' dynamics can be traced back'. As one author puts it,
“to the inception of the Indian Labour Conference as far back as 1942, by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,
when the policy of bringing together the three parties, namely, the Government, Management
and Labour on a common platform as a consultative tripartite forum for all matters of labour
policy and industrial relations was accepted.

When the Second World War broke out, the Government of India passed in Defense of India
Rules and incorporated in them Section 81A, which : (i) banned strikes and lock-outs in any
trade with a view of ensuring continuous supplies for the requirements of the war, and (ii)
provided for compulsory adjudication of industrial disputes.
 RECENT TRENDS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Whether attributable to employer strategic choices or more fundamental environmental changes
that govern those choices, U.S. industrial relations have clearly undergone significant change in
recent years and are likely to experience further dramatic change in the years ahead. As already
noted, unionization has declined dramatically. With that decline, collective bargaining has
diminished in importance as a mechanism for setting employment terms of U.S. workers; rates of
increases in wages and benefits for unionized workers frequently lag behind those of their
nonunion counterparts (although the union-nonunion wage differential is still estimated to be
fairly sizable, in the range of 10 to 20 percent with a higher differential for benefits); strike
activity has set new record lows; and union political "clout" is seriously questioned. Many U.S.
unions have undergone unprecedented soul-searching in their efforts to develop strategies to
respond to these changes. Mergers between unions, new forms of membership and new
membership benefits, and new organizing, bargaining, and political strategies and tactics have
been proposed and implemented as part of union efforts to reverse their decline. In the 1994
report The New American Workplace: A Labor Perspective —compiled by the Committee on the
Evolution of Work of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO)—unions expressed a much more positive stance toward union-management
cooperation than is usually attributed to them. But in 1995, John Sweeney, then-president of the
Service Employees International Union, launched an almost unprecedented and successful
challenge to the incumbent leadership of the AFL-CIO, stressing a renewed commitment to
organizing as a central theme. Since Sweeney's election as AFL-CIO president, the federation
has made substantial changes in staff, strategies, and tactics. The AFL-CIO and some of its
affiliates seem to have taken more aggressive approaches to organizing, bargaining, and politics
under Sweeney's leadership. As yet there has not been a dramatic turnaround in union organizing
success. In fairness to Sweeney, the contemporary decline of unionization has been in the
making for roughly 50 years, and expectations for a quick turnaround might be unrealistic. In
bargaining, a large-scale strike in 1997 by the Teamsters against the United Parcel Service was
hailed by some as indicating that labor still had clout, as the Teamsters were able to achieve
some important gains. But attempts to play a larger role in the 1996 national elections achieved
only limited success, and appear to have spurred efforts by union opponents to limit union
political activity.

Public policy makers have also considered other significant changes. Early in his first term,
President Bill Clinton appointed a Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations
(headed by Dunlop and including many academics as well as union and management
representatives) to offer recommendations for public policy changes. Some scholars argue that
the present legal framework governing union formation and union-management relations in most
of the private sector (e.g., the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 or Wagner Act, as amended
by the Labor Management Relations Act or Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, and other legislation) may
have been reasonably well-suited to the United States of the 1930s and 1940s, but that
subsequent economic and social changes necessitate significant amendments or even a major
overhaul. Among the issues the commission considered were whether current legal bans on
company-dominated unions unduly intrude on legitimate employee participation programs in
nonunion firms; whether statutory protections of employee rights to join and form unions are
adequate, and how to effectuate those rights in the face of intense employer opposition; and
whether public policy can promote a more cooperative and less adversarial relationship between
employers and employee organizations.

Some scholars (such as Bruce E. Kaufman and Morris M. Kleiner, editors of Employee
Representation: Alternatives and Future Directions) assert that employee representation is a
more fundamental issue than representation of employees by unions, noting that many nonunion
firms willingly establish some form of representation system, and that the public is more
supportive of this principle than of union representation. Coupling these observations with the
current low level of union representation (and perhaps with the conclusion that the decline of
unions is irreversible), some have proposed that the United States should seriously consider
establishing works councils similar to those in many European nations. Works councils are
legally mandated employee representation mechanisms independent of unions which require that
all employees (usually in establishments with a minimum number of employees, perhaps ten)
elect representatives to the works council to confer with management and to ensure that workers'
statutory rights are observed. Although they generally do not bargain over wages and benefits,
works councils address many of the issues that U.S. unions have traditionally addressed,
including layoffs, discipline systems, and workplace safety.

Even in a Democrat-controlled Congress, any major changes to labor relations law could face
stiff opposition. After more business-friendly Republicans gained a slight majority in Congress
in the 1994 elections, prospects for any significant changes in legislation appeared to evaporate.
Relatively strong performance for the economy during most of the 1990s probably contributed to
Congressional inaction as well.
 TRADE UNION
A trade union (British English) or labor union (American English) is an organization of
workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions.
The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members
and negotiates labour contracts (collective bargaining) with employers. This may include the
negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and
promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. The agreements negotiated by the
union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on
other non-member workers.

Over the last three hundred years, many trade unions have developed into a number of forms,
influenced by differing political objectives. Activities of trade unions vary, but may include:

 Provision of benefits to members: Early trade unions, like Friendly Societies, often
provided a range of benefits to insure members against unemployment, ill health, old age
and funeral expenses. In many developed countries, these functions have been assumed
by the state; however, the provision of professional training, legal advice and
representation for members is still an important benefit of trade union membership.

 Collective bargaining: Where trade unions are able to operate openly and are recognized
by employers, they may negotiate with employers over wages and working conditions.

 Industrial action: Trade unions may enforce strikes or resistance to lockouts in

furtherance of particular goals.

 Political activity: Trade unions may promote legislation favorable to the interests of their
members or workers as a whole. To this end they may pursue campaigns, undertake
lobbying, or financially support individual candidates or parties (such as the Labour Party
in Britain) for public office.
 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF TRADE UNIONS IN INDIA
Trade union as per Trade Union Act 1926 – “ Any combination formed primarily for the
purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or workmen and workmen
or employers and employers or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or
business and includes any federation of two or more trade unions.”

From the above definition it is clear that Trade union is not just an association of the workmen of
a factory or a trade or a business but also can be formed by officers and managers.  Trade union
movement in India was started and led by philanthropists and social organizations and not by the
workers.

Bombay Presidency - by servants of India society

Eastern India - by Brahmo Samaj

South India centered on Madras - by Theosophical Society

Trade union is a direct product of Industrialization and a very recent development. In India, the
foundation of modern industry was laid between 1850 and 1870. Prior to that trade was confined
to individuals and families like craftsmen and artisans. They had expertise and specialized skills
which was inherited by their offspring’s. After Industrial revolution, these people started losing
their individual identities and had to join factories to earn their livelihood and compete with mass
production. There was a psychological dislocation as they were losing their identities.

Indian trade union movement can be divided into three phases.

The first phase falls between 1850 and 1900 during which the inception of trade unions took
place. During this period of the growth of Indian Capitalist enterprises, the working and living
conditions of the labour were poor and their working hours were long. Capitalists were only
interested in their productivity and profitability. In addition to long working hours, their wages
were low and general economic conditions were poor in industries. In order to regulate the
working hours and other service conditions of the Indian textile laborers, the Indian Factories
Act was enacted in 1881. As a result, employment of child labour was prohibited. Mr. N M
Lokhande organized people like Rickshawalas etc., prepared a study report on their working
conditions and submitted it to the Factory Labour Commission. The Indian Factory Act of 1881
was amended in 1891 due to his efforts. Guided by educated philanthropists and social workers
like Mr. Lokhande, the growth of trade union movement was slow in this phase. Many strikes
took place in the two decades following 1880 in all industrial cities. These strikes taught workers
to understand the power of united action even though there was no union in real terms. Small
associations like Bombay Mill-Hands Association came up.
The second phase of The Indian trade union movement falls between 1900 and 1947. this phase
was characterized by the development of organized trade unions and political movements of the
working class. It also witnessed the emergence of militant trade unionism. The First World War
(1914-1918) and the Russian revolution of 1917 gave a new turn to the Indian trade union
movement and organized efforts on part of the workers to form trade unions. In 1918, B P Wadia
organized trade union movements with Textile mills in Madras. He served strike notice to them
and workers appealed to Madras High Court because under ‘Common Law’, strike is a breach of
law. In 1919, Mahatma Gandhi suggested to let individual struggle be a Mass movement. In
1920, the First National Trade union organization (The All India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC)) was established. Many of the leaders of this organization were leaders of the national
Movement. In 1926, Trade union law came up with the efforts of Mr. N N Joshi that became
operative from 1927.

The third phase began with the emergence of independent India (in 1947), and the Government
sought the cooperation of the unions for planned economic development. The working class
movement was also politicized along the lines of political parties. For instance Indian national
trade Union Congress (INTUC) is the trade union arm of the Congress Party. The AITUC is the
trade union arm of the Communist Party of India. Besides workers, white-collar employees,
supervisors and managers are also organized by the trade unions, as for example in the Banking,
Insurance and Petroleum industries.