Non supervisor wage settlement period was from 01/01/2009 to 31/12/2016. To match with the wage settlement period of the parent company, settlement was preponed notionally to 01/01/2007. 2007 to 2008, pay was revised but without effecting actual pay. The revision was taken only for calculation. The settlement was signed by union and management in January 2013 in presence of labor commissioner.
During the pending period of the wage settlement some of the workmen had got promotion as officers. As these promoted officers were non supervisors during the pendency of the wage settlement, that is from 01/01/2007, full benefit of the pay benefit was extended to them and their supervisory scale was arrived after taking the settlement benefit into account.
When signing the settlement, mangement introduced a clause to increase the working hours from 42 hrs per week to 48 hrs per week. For accepting the revised working hours an additional 6% pay was introduced and the same was added to basic pay. A condition was introduced to become eligible to get this additional 6% pay. Those who were non supervisors on 01/01/2007 and continue to be non -supervisor on the date of implementing the revised working hours that 13/01/2013.
Those who got their promotion after 01/01/2007, though they were covered by the wage settlement, they couldn't satisfy the second condition that is one should continue to be non supervisor when the revised working hours was implemented. So the non supervisors who got their promotion are denied the additional 6% increment. Subsequently, those who got the 6% additional incrtement also got their promotion. This has created a pay anomaly because the additional 6% pay is continuing for those who got promotion after the implementation of the revised working hours.
Question is (i)whether denying the additional 6% increment for those who covered in the settlement but got promotion before the settlment was signed is fair and as per law. (ii) As officers are following 48 hrs working hours before the non supervisory wage settlement was signed, the promoted officers are also following revised working hours well before the wage settlement was signed. So the condition to accept the revised working hours is met in their case. (iii) Those who got the additional 6% increment and got promotion are juniors to those who got promotion before signing the wage settlement. But the juniors are superceding in pay. Can it be corrected. Pl reply. Thank you. N. Jayaraj.
