*Joint letter of 4 Officers' Organisatiins* sent to IBA on 7.05.2021.
*11BPS/-- Joint Note*
It seems that the signatories to the Joint Note itself are not sure about the interpretation of various clauses incorporated in the Joint Note they have signed on 11.11.2020.
They are still seeking clarification on various terms used in joint note signed by them about 6 Months back.
This itself shows that they have little freedom to have their own say in the issues settled at Indusrial Level and approved by the respective bank boards .
It indicates that IBA officials are *supremo* and what ever they decide and interpret is the *final* verdict
It appears that in the absence of access to vital data and information spread across various banks, the leaders
Have to give nod to each and everything as decided by IBA officials ..
The members are eager to know what are the circumstances that have put them in such an akward situation that they themselves are literally begging for favour from IBA.
Which are the forces that compell them to become irrelevant and then allege that *IBA is adamant*
The adamant body may refuse your demands and may not give ascent to few of demands on some grounds ..How it can be termed as adamant attitude ..
Secondly once settlement is signed inorporating certain benefits or provisions how they can be denied subsequently and Organisations representing lakhs of officers working in various banks are not able to demands implementation. Of *already agreed* benefits .
It's astonishing that it took 6 months for *Four Organisations* to seek clarification for proper implementation of provisions already incorporated in the settlement .
*Stagnation Increments*
It appears that *due to ambiguity* even the officers who are or were in service as on 11.11.2020 are deprived of benefit of additional stagnation increment due to them as per Joint Note Signed in the month of November 2020.
The joint letter is not giving any instance where such increment has *already* been released at least by some banks .
If any bank or some of the banks are able to interpret the provisions correctly as *deemed appropriate* by the leaders what are the difficulties for other banks to use the same interpretation as a *bench mark* and extend similar benefit to the officers working in their own bank .
Whether a sincere attempt was made by the units of officers organisations working in other banks to follow the same interpretation for releasing the stagnation increments.to eligible officers .
It appears that *none of the banks* have been able to understand the meaning of term used in Joint Note signed in November 2020 and approved by bank boards.
.
That itself shows that provisions are Incorporated without applying proper thought process.
Further in the month of January 2021 itself IBA has already *washed off* it's hand advising all banks to implement similar provision of 10BPS with due approval of their boards ..Thus it's quite clear that even IBA does not have *enough competence* to interpret the clause as agreed by them while finalising settlement with OUs.
The other party is also now putting on records that they are *equally (in) competent* to interpret clause incorporated in said settlement .
Further it's not a totally new concept ..It was used in earlier settlements signed till 2010 where by stagnation increments are released to officers in service uniformly from a specified date effective from a future date *after or near to finalisation of settlement.*
From 10BPS a major change was made under which periodicity of earlier released increments was reduced to shorter period making it applicable from retrospective date leading to reworking of time of earlier increments already released long back The recalculating due dates of release of earlier increment and fixing fresh pay with additional increments / last stagnation increment was to be released by *notionally* readjusting periodicity of earlier increments .
It appears that the said provision found cumbersome and difficult to implement ..
The ambiguity of term used in 10BPS might have alrady been faced for 5 years between 2015 to 2020 and *may be* the said benefits are still pending .(10BPS).
If it's still pending on what basis OUs agreed for repeating same blunder once again in 2020 .
It seems that there is some *invisible hand* that forces both the parties to incorporate ambiguous provisions which about *dozen* eminent personalities in banking field (who finalise settlement terms including of course IBA officials ) having thorough knowledge of banking are struggling hard to implements it on grounds.
*Ignorance is Bliss*
was told by some one in history
🥱🥱🥱🥱
No comments:
Post a Comment