Are UFBU militant leaders engaged in collective bargaining or collective begging?

Following questions have been agitating the minds of every vigilant banker and they must peep into the minds of every banker:

(1) Is our wage scale on par with government employees and other similarly placed Public Sector employees? What happened to the pay-parity granted to the workmen by the Sastry Award of 1953? What is the present status of our Officers, whose pay scales were equated with that of the Govt officers under the Pillai Committee Recommendations?

(2) What made Shri Harvinder Singh, Genl. Secretary of AIBOC to say: “Dilution in our salaries vis-a-vis Government Officials has taken place over a period starting from 1982 and the gap has widened with successive settlements”. (AIBOC Circular No. 2014/08)

(3) Is there any mention in our joint charter of demands about this pay-parity with govt employee that was upheld in our favor more than 50 years ago?

(4) Don’t our leaders know that only a 35% to 40 % wage increase in the present settlement can bridge the gap and bring us on par with the government employees?

(5) What made the UFBU to quantify its demand at 30%, then climb down to 25% and also state that they are willing to reconsider (reduce) it further?

(6) Are these militant leaders engaged in collective bargaining or collective begging?

Answers to above questions clearly and undoubtedly establish that ideal system of bilateral negotiation across the table has not lived up to the expectations and aspirations of bankers and with the successive bipartite settlements position of bankers have downgraded through widening of gap in salaries on the one hand and increase in business hours, volume of work and responsibilities on the other.

We bankers are truly committed and devoted to bring bankers equal and at par with Central Government and other similarly placed public sector employees.

Who is responsible for present pathetic conditions of bankers?

One of the main reasons for this pitiable state of our salaries is the Pension Settlement of 1993 and its ineffective monitoring by the UFBU. The retired leaders of UFBU became selfish after retirement and in order to gain benefits, they colluded with Indian Banks Association and agreed illegally for something which is still harming the bank employees till date and would continue to harm in future too if not rectified. We give below the main reason behind present low salary of bank employees making their lives miserable and pathetic.

The Bank Employees Pension Regulations of 1995, only mandates the banks to contribute to the pension fund every month and also to fill up, short fall, if any, every year by making an assessment through actuarial investigations. There is absolutely no provision for filling it up from the wages and wage revision of the employees.

When that being the case, during the last three settlements, the UFBU has permitted IBA to allocate 8.25% of the wage revision (due to the employees) to fill up the shortfall in the pension fund, during the 7th BPS. At the time of 8th BPS, the employees, including the PF optees, were forced to part with 9.25% of wage revision to the pension fund. At the time of the 9th BPS, under the guise of offering one more pension option, the PF optees (numbering around 3 lakh employees)were forced to part with Rs. 1800 crores from their arrears. Against this unlawful settlement, as many as 17 different writ petitions were filed throughout the country. Now they have all been clubbed and transferred to the Supreme Court for adjudication.

Why discriminatory classification of Employees have been permitted in terms of benefits of Pension in identical and similar situation resulting into interest groups and break in our Unity?

Constituent Unions of UFBU permitted IBA to discriminate employees in identical and similar situation as a result following three groups have been created:

(1) Those who became entitled for Pension through Pension Regulation 1995 without any contribution to Pension Fund.

(2) Those who became entitled for Pension through Bipartite Settlement dated 27.04.2010 after contributing Rs. 1800 Crore in Pension Fund

(3) Those who joined banks on 01.04.2010 have been denied benefits of existing Pension Fund and have been brought under New Pension Scheme.

Can it be said with any stretch of imagination that UFBU was having any authority or locus standi to enter into settlement for those had not joined the services of the Bank at the signing of 9th Bipartite Settlement and were neither members of the constituent unions of UFBU nor they had authorized or mandated these unions to sign settlement on their behalf? These employees account for about 25% of the existing workforce and there number would continue to increase because of rapid retirement of existing employees. It is estimated that by 2015, percentage of these employees in total number of employees would be around 75%.

As the UFBU is permitting a portion of the pension cost being reduced from the wages, these new recruits, who are in no way beneficiaries of the old scheme, will be parting with a portion of their due salaries for filling up a fund which they cannot enjoy.

Why retired and tired leaders are enjoying unfettered rights to decide the fate of working employees in utter violation of constitution of unions?

Most of the leaders negotiating on behalf of bankers are retired and tired. In terms of Constitution of Unions they seized to be Ordinary Member of the Unions the day they retired from services of their banks and consequently seized to be office bearers of the Unions. They continued to enjoy the post of principal office bearer of the Unions in utter disregard of the Constitution of the Unions. They have managed to get status of special member of the Union after their retirement but in terms of the provisions made in constitution of union, the question of their becoming Special Member prior to their retirement was in respect of non-existing member as the question of becoming a special member would arise only after retirement and provisions with regard to membership made in constitution don’t permit ordinary and special membership to one person concurrently at one and same time. There becoming special member subsequent to retirement is also illegal in terms of the provisions of unions in as much as they ceased to be office bearers of the Unions immediately after their retirement and were not authorized to participate in meetings without getting status of special member through an application to the union and its approval by executive of the Union. Similarly these leaders have changed the Charter of Demands approved by the national executive of their respective unions in the name of Common Charter of Demand without approval from members. Not only this they are reducing the demands in whimsical and arbitrary manner and giving call of strike without following the procedure incorporated in the constitution of the union.

*Forwarded as received.*