Update : UFBU IS MEETING ON 7th SEPTEMBER 2009 at CHENNAI to discuss further course of action.
You are kindly aware that in the backdrop of a series of agitational programmes and strike actions in the banking sector in 2007/08 , at the intervention of the Central Government and by mutual agreement between UFBU and IBA, an MoU was signed on 25-2-2008 ( copy enclosed) covering the important demands of the UFBU. Based on the MoU, UFBU withdrew all agitational programmes and strike actions and restored normalcy.
The main contents of the MoU are as under:
“ The representatives of the IBA agreed to hold discussions with the United Forum of Bank Unions [UFBU] on 3rd March 2008 to set a definite time frame for holding discussions on each of the UFBU’s following proposals.
1) Reconcile the actuarial calculations relating to pension with a view to consider extending one more option of pension to the remaining employees who are under CPF.
2) The issue of allowing coverage to the employees and officers through pension scheme recruited in the banks between 1-11-93 and 28-9-1995 which will be once again taken up with the Government for reconsideration.
3) As regards restoration of compassionate appointment scheme, the IBA requested the UFBU to suggest improvement, modifications etc. to the scheme to enable IBA to refer the matter to the Government for further consideration.
4) On the demand of UFBU that proper recruitment is not taking place in banks resulting in increased workload for the employees and officers, the representatives of IBA maintained that recruitment is a bank specific function. However, the UFBU maintained their own view that the IBA should advise the banks to ensure adequate recruitment in the banks through proper procedure etc.
5) As regards outsourcing, the representatives of IBA agreed to discuss the matter with UFBU keeping in view the existing parameters and regulatory guidelines.
6) As regards merger of the public sector banks the representatives of IBA submitted that there are no directions or guidelines from Government of India to banks on the subject of merger/consolidation of banks and as such the demand is premature. The UFBU did not agree to the view of IBA and strongly maintained that IBA should ensure that management of Banks should not proceed with the merger unilaterally without addressing the concerns of the Unions.
7) As regards revision of wages the representatives of IBA submitted that the machinery has been set in motion and once the mandates from all the banks are available bilateral negotiations will commence.
The representatives of UFBU brought to the notice of CLC(C) during conciliatory proceedings held on 22nd February 2008 that some of the banks have been violating the pension regulation by excluding the newly recruited officers from the existing pension scheme and offering them an alternative pension scheme without amending the pension regulation which is discriminatory and beyond the competence of the concerned banks. ”
You will kindly observe that nowhere in the MoU, neither the IBA raised the issue of introduction of the new Pension Scheme nor the Unions agreed to make it a part of the discussions in the proposed discussions. On the other hand, we objected to some of the Banks trying to unilaterally introduce such a scheme and this has been recorded in the MoU also.
You will further recall that after signing the MOU, in the very first round of meeting held on 3-3-2008 between IBA and UFBU it was agreed that the issue of pension option should be resolved within a period of three months. But we are now observing the anniversary of that MoU and yet the issue remains unresolved.
In this regard we are constrained to bring to your kind attention the following:
1. The MoU is a culmination of a long drawn struggle on our demand for another option for pension. IBA agreed to consider our demand on our recognising the need for and agreeing to sharing a portion of the additional cost. On our part we have stood by our commitment and even offered to take a substantial share of Rs.1500 crores out of the total additional cost.
2. Instead of finalizing and resolving the issue of pension option with mutually acceptable cost sharing, the IBA Negotiating Committee has been asking for our consent to introduce the Central Government’s New Pension Scheme for the new recruitees as a pre-condition for extending another option for the existing employees to join the pension scheme.
3. The MoU dt. 25 2 2008 does not contain any pre-condition by the IBA that our demand for another option for pension would be considered only on the condition that this new pension scheme would be accepted by us for the new employees.
4. The pension settlement dated 29 10 1993 stipulates that all the new recruitees from 1-11-93 would be governed only by the pension scheme as outlined in that settlement. Pension Regulations have also reiterated this service condition.
5. No central trade union or the unions of the Central/State Government employees have so far accepted this new Pension Scheme. The Parliament is also unable to pass the Bill on the Pension Regulatory Authority. Even for the Government employees, the full details of the scheme are really not worked. We learn that even the amount accumulated in the Fund has not been invested so far.
6. The IBA has also not outlined the full details of the new scheme which it wants to impose on the new recruitees in Banks from now on. Can any trade union accept a new scheme the details and implications of which are not known ?
7. Notwithstanding all these, you should appreciate that UFBU has offered that upon IBA providing us the full details of the proposed new pension scheme, we shall be willing to discuss with an open mind, the feasibilities of introduction of the new scheme to the new recruitees who will join the bank in future if such a scheme is going to be really beneficial to them. But the present exercise of working out the cost sharing and extension of pension option to the existing employees should not be linked up with the discussion on the new pension scheme.
8. Our above offer itself is a major deviation from the MoU dated 25-2-2008 and is in fact beyond the mandate to us from our constituency.
9. When IBA and Bank managements are conscious about the cost and quite rightly too, it must be kept in mind that on all earlier occasions like the 7th and 8th Bipartite settlements, we have recognized the additional cost and have agreed to account for the same in the wage revision even though the Pension Settlement does not provide for the same.
10. IBA suddenly taking a rigid position that the new pension scheme, the full details of which are not made known to anyone, should be accepted by the unions or foisted on the new recruitees as a pre-condition to extend an option to the present employees is unfair and unreasonable.
11. From the UFBU, during discussions held on 21-2-2009, having regard to the longstanding bilateral relationship between IBA and our Unions and the earnestness to find solution to the issue raised by IBA, we have offered as under.
a) Existing scheme to continue.
b) IBA should give the full details of their proposed new pension scheme.
c) After study of the new scheme, IBA & UFBU can discuss the feasibility of introducing the new scheme after one year.
d) In the meantime, the issue should be delinked and option for the existing employees should be extended by finalizing the sharing formula without any further delay.
You will appreciate that the above suggestions are well-meant and reasonable.
We have been informed that our above suggestions would be discussed in the next Managing Committee meeting scheduled on 27-2-2009.
WAGE REVISION:
Similarly you are aware that our demands for wage revision have been submitted as far back as October, 2007 and given the increasing roles and responsibilities of the employees and officers in the banking industry, the increased volume of work and productivity, etc., there is a need and expectation for a fair wage revision. But the offer made by IBA so far does not meet such expectations and does not form a reasonable basis for an early settlement of the demand.
Hence the present avoidable conditionalities and stand points of IBA and the delay in the settlement of our demands are creating unrest amongst the rank and file. We are afraid that if the IBA would persist with such an approach and attitude, we may have to revive the agitational programmes and strike actions which would inevitably disturb the present peaceful and cordial industrial relations in the banking sector.
In view of the above, we urge upon you to intervene in the matter for an expeditious settlement of our demand for pension option and wage revision on the basis of the MoU signed between IBA and UFBU on 25-2-2008 and the subsequent discussions held between UFBU and IBA and spare the industry of the avoidable industrial unrest.
Source AIBEA.
