CASE STUDY - I PRATHAMESH STEEL (PVT.) LTD.

Prathamesh Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. founded 15 years before by Mr. A.M. Bapat was having booming time. At that time, Mr. Bapat, worked both in the office and in the factory and knew his men and they knew him. Production standard were always maintained and labour turnover was practically non-existing. As the business mushroomed, the number of employees has progressively increased. Thus, Mr. Bapat's greetings and conversation with his workers became less frequent. In fact, he had so many things to do, that he could no longer supervise the factory. Thus, he hired another man, Mr. Godse as a plant supervisor. As this time though the number of workers increased to about 500, labour turnover and absenteeism increased along with the labour cases. The only thing that decreased was productivity. In order to meet the situations, Mr. Bapat granted substantial increase in wages which were already high and made some arrangements for increment earnings based on merit rating on seniority. Yet labour turnover and absenteeism continue at a high rate. On investigation, it was found that the new plant supervisor lacked the patience and understanding which is necessary for dealing with the employees. When something was found wrong, he was scolding the employees but no attempt was made to find the case of faulty work. Meanwhile, labour unrest developed. The ,Worker began to complain about working on Saturdays and not having either time or facilities change from work clothes to original dresses after work, about toilet facilities etc. Some of the claims were' not found sufficiently justified or easy to meet. Mr. Bapat offered to workers as compensation, a new rise in wages with more liberty in allowing vacation time all of which the company could well afford.

Questions1. Were the steps taken by Mr. Bapat right?2. What do you think he should have done in order to improve the situation?

CASE STUDY - II A STUDY OF PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT

One of the workers, Sunil Pawar is a worker in the Production Department and works as a driller. He is in the company for past five years and all the while he has been working as a driller only. He record of service has been generally good, except for one warning for remaining absent for two days without permission. In the early years of service, he used to be rude to his superiors and quarrelsome with his co-workers. But there is nothing about this on the record, because no serious view was taken about this by the superiors. In the past eight months, since the new management took over the control of Neptune Engineering Company, there is a change in the policy. The new management has taken a stricter approach in enforcing discipline.

One day, at 8.00 p.m., at the time of starting of the shift Sunil went to his supervisor saying that some guests has arrived unexpectedly at his house in the morning and he wanted leave for that day. The supervisor told him that since few more workers were already absent in the Department he could not grant him, leave. Instead he asked Sunil to work on the press machine. On that day because the regular press operator had not come and there was a large backlog which must be cleared today. Sunil declined to obey the instruction. He said, "I will work on my machine only and not on any other machine", and he went to his usual drilling machine. After some time he left a leave application on the supervisor table. He was not seen on the shop floor throughout the day.

The supervisor had reported the case to his manager and the manager wants your opinion as the Senior Consultant to the company.

Questions1. Comment on the events that have taken place.2. Suggest the course of action.

CASESTUDY - III SONA AND RUPA COMPANY

The Sona and Rupa Company manufactured wooden toys of various kinds; wooden animals, pull toys, and the like. One part of the manufacturing process involved spraying paint on the partially assembled toys. This operation was staffed entirely by women. The toys were cut, sanded and partially assembled in the wood room. Then they were dipped into shellac, following which they were painted. The toys were predominantly two coloured; a few were made in more than two colours. Each colour required an additional trip through the paint room.

For a number of years, production of these toys had been entirely and work. However, to meet the tremendously increase in demand, the painting operation had recently been re-engineered so that the eight operators (all women) who did the painting sat in a line by an endless chain of hooks. Those hooks were in continuous motion, past the line of operators and into a long horizontal oven. Each woman sat at her own painting booth so designed as to carry away fumes and to backstop excess paint. The operator would take a toy from the tray beside her, position it in a jig inside the painting cubicle, spray on the colour according to a pattern, then release the toy and hand it to the hook passing by. The rate at which the hooks moved has been calculated by the engineers so that each hook before it passed beyond her reach.

The operators working in the pain room were on a group bonus plan. Since the operation was new to them, they were, receiving a learning bonus, which decreased by regular amounts each month. The learning bonus was scheduled to vanish in six months, by which time it was expected that they would be on their own, that is, able to meet the standard and to earn a group bonus when they exceeded it.

By the second month of the training period. Trouble had developed. The employees learned more slowly than had been anticipated, and it began to look as though their production would stabilize far below what was planned for. Many of the hooks were going by empty. The women complained that they were going by too fast, and that the time study man had set the rates wrong. A few women quit and had to be replaced with new operators, which further aggravated the learning problem. The team spirit that the management had expected to develop automatically through the group bonus was not in evidence except as an expression of what the engineers called “resistance". One woman whom the group regarded as its -leader (and the management regarded as the ring-leader) was outspoken by voicing the various complaints of the group before the foreman; the job was messy one, the hooks moved too fast, the incentive pay was not being correctly calculated, and it was too hot working so close to the drying oven.

A consultant who was brought into this picture worked entirely with and through the foreman. After many conversations with him, the foreman felt that the first step should be to get the employees together for a general discussion of the working conditions. He took this step with some hesitation, but he took on his own volition.The first meeting, held immediately after the shift was over at four o'clock in the afternoon was attended by all the eight operators. They voiced the same complaints again: the hook sent by too fast, the job was too dirty, the room was hot and poorly ventilated. For some reason, it was this last item that they complained of most. The foreman promised to discuss the problem of ventilation and temperature with the engineers, and he scheduled a second meeting to report back to the employees. In the next few days the foreman had several talks with the engineers. They and the superintendent felt that this was really a trumped-up complaint, and that expense of any effective corrective measure would be prohibitively high.

The foreman came to the second meeting with some apprehensions. The operators, however, did not seem to be much put out, perhaps because they had a proposal of their own to make. They felt that if several large fans were set up so as to circulate the air around their feet, they would be much more comfortable. After some discussion, the foreman agreed that the idea might be tried out. The foreman and the consultant discussed the question of the fans with the superintendent, and three large propeller-type fans were purchased.

The fans were brought in. The women were jubilant. For several days the fans were moved about in various positions until they were placed to the satisfaction of the group. The operators seemed completely satisfied with the results, and the relations between them and the foreman improved visibly.

The foreman, after this encouraging episode; decided that further meetings might also be profitable. He asked the operators if they would like to meet and discuss other aspect of the work situation. They were eager to do this. The meeting was held, and the discussion quickly centered on the speed of the hooks.

The operators maintained that the time study man had them at an unreasonably fast speed and that they would never be able to reach the goal of filling enough of them to make a bonus. The turning point of the discussion came when the group's leader frankly explained that the point wasn't that they couldn't work fast enough to keep up with the hooks, but they couldn't work at that pace all the day long.

The foreman explored the point. The employees were unanimous in their opinion that they could keep up with the belt for short periods if they wanted to. But they didn't want because if they showed they could do this for short periods they would be expected to do it all day long. The meeting ended with an unprecedented request: "Let us adjust the speed of the belt faster or slower depending on how we feel". The foreman agreed to discuss this with the superintendent and the engineers.

The reaction of the engineers to the suggestion was negative. However, after several meetings it was granted that there was some latitude within which variations in the speed of the hooks would not affect the finished product. After considerable argument with the engineers, it was agreed to tryout the operators' idea. With misgiving~, the foreman had a control with a dial marked 'low, medium, fast' installed at the booth of the group leader; she could now adjust the speed of the belt anywhere between the lower and upper limits that the engineers had set.

The operators were delighted and spent many lunch hours deciding how the speed of the belt should be varied from hour to hour throughout the day. Within a week the pattern had settle down to one which the first half-hour of the shift was run on what the operators called a 'medium' speed (a dial setting slightly above the point marked 'medium'). The next two-and-a-half hours were run at 'high' speed the half-hour before lunch and half hour after lunch were run at 'low' speed. The rest of the afternoon was run at 'high speed' with the exception of the last 45 minutes of the shift, which was run at 'medium'.

In view of the operators' reports of satisfaction and ease in work, it is interesting to note that the constant speed at which ,the engineers has originally set the belt was slightly below medium on the dial of the contro that had been given to the women. The average speed at which they were running the belt was on the high side of the dial. Few, if any empty hooks entered the oven, and inspection showed no increase of rejects from the paint room.

Production increased, and within 2 weeks (some 2 months before the scheduled ending of the learning bonus) the operators were operating at 30 to 50 per cent above the level that had been expected under the original arrangement. Naturally their earnings were correspondingly higher than anticipated. They were collecting their base pay, a considerable piece-rate bonus, and the learning bonus which, it will be remembered, had been set to decrease with time and not as a function of current productivity. The operators were earning more than many skilled workers in other parts of the plant.

Questions

1. From the angle of job Enrichment, which core job dimension or job characteristic was most influenced by new system of group regulated speed? Evaluate the reported success of the case against the principles of Job Enrichment.2. Comment on the method of payment to the operators. How good do you think such a system is?3. Would you consider the initial discontent of the operators as a ~grievance/?Why or why not?4. How would you characterize the involvement of the operators after the introduction of group-regulated speed?5. Review your understanding of the characteristics of effective workers; participation against the backdrop of the case.

CASE STUDY-IVOLD ORDER CHANGETH?

Modern Industries Limited (MIL) in Bangalore is an automobile ancillary industry. The company started manufacturing automotive components over two decades ago in a small way and has grown steadily over the years, employing over 4,000 persons at present with the turnover exceeding Rs.100 crores. Its products are selling well and earning a sizeable amount of profits.

The company is controlled and managed by an industrialist family. known for their shrewdness and business acumen. They are among the first generation industrialists who started their industrial ventures in a modest way, during the early phase of industrialisation in the country and along with the growth of automotive industry, MIL also grew up.

The present Chairman, Mr. Suresh Shah had been with the company right from it's inception; He started his career as an engineer trainee, rose to the position of the Managing Director and in 1983 became the company's Chairman. As a result, he is acquainted with every minute detail and also with every employee who has been in the company for long. He continues to keep in close touch with them and is easily accessible to all of them, overruling hierarchy. A high premium is placed on their loyalty and their long services are valued. The Chairman of the company firmly believes that each one of them has contributed significantly towards the growth of the company. In the light of the fact that the company maintained a "strong utilitarian culture" all along, the contribution of each and every employee had to be substantial and they were rewarded accordingly. At the same time, there were many instances, where the services were terminated due to inadequate performance.

Mr. Janardhan Thakur joined MIL as a training instructor, over two decades ago. Prior to that, he served as an instructor at an Industrial Training Institute. He had himself obtained the craft instructors' certificate from ITI. He was 35 years old and his main task was to

recruit young persons as trainees, either under the Apprentices Act or as company trainees and then train them as craftsmen. Most of these trainees were absorbed to meet the growing needs of the company, and Mr. Shah used to personally involve himself in the process of recruitment and training of craftsmen. Mr. Thakur was directly reporting to Mr. Shah, despite the vast gap in the hierarchy. Mr. Thakur was promoted to the rank of training Superintendent in 1980, though there was not much change in his job content. The growing phase of the company was practically over by that time, and the Apprentice training became a mere statutory activity. The company did not have the vacancies to absorb the trained apprentices, and therefore, Me. Shah's involvement in apprenticeship training also receded. The training activity became a subsidiary activity and was not given much importance. The winds of change were blowing through MIL also. Mr. Anil Shah, the son of the founder industrialist took over as the Managing Director of MIL in 1983, whereas Mr. Ramesh Shah continued to be the Chairman of the company.

The young MD was full of new ideas. He wanted to revitalise the company from all aspects and diversify into high technology areas. He wanted to modernise the present plant and change the management style from the traditional direct control approach to a systems controlled approach. A modern computer was bought and computerisation was introduced.

The company had to face many problems while introducing these changes. One of the major hurdles was the problem of a number of senior employees, who were not adequately qualified or developed, but had grown into senior positions. Earlier the touchstone was loyalty and hard work rather than competence. In the light of this situation, new competent professionals had to be hired to introduce the changes.

MIL was well-known for its aggressive personnel policies. Anyone who joined the company had to struggle hard for his survival as the company was ruthless in sacking those who were not meeting the requirements. It was particularly so in case of the new appointees, which in turn necessitated them to be ruthless in their work The older employees felt threatened and resented the changes and the consequent pressures. Therefore, they collectively approached the Chairman and requested him to intervene and safeguard their interests. The Chairman, who was not himself happy with all the changes, issued instructions to the MD, to the effect that no old employee be dislocated. The new MD had no other option but to comply with the order.

The MD was interested in trying out the HRD approaches to train all the employees, particularly employees who were turning out to be deadwoods. He hired Mr. Kumar in 1984 as a Training Manager. Mr. Kumar was basically an engineer but had considerable experience with a multinational company in the field of HRD, particularly in Training and Management Development. He reorganised the training set up by inducting two Assistant Managers. Mr. Thakur was next to the Assistant Managers in the hierarchy 'and reported to Mr. Kumar directly and continued to manage the affairs related to apprenticeship training.

Until Mr. Kumar came along, Mr. Thakur had enjoyed the position of the head of the training division, though there was no other training activity apart from apprenticeship training. He was operating independently and was reporting directly to the MD. He continued to do so even after the organisation had grown in proportion. Mr. Thakur felt demoted in the new set up. Fie lost his position and individuality in the organisation, and his pride was seriously hurt. He was not prepared to accept Mr.Kumar as his boss .and he started behaving in an irrational manner. He resented the vast gap created between him and the top man in the new structure.

Mr. Kumar tolerated him with the hope that Mr. Thakur would reconcile himself to the changes, in time. Unfortunately, he continued to behave in the same way and there was no improvement even after one year. When Mr. Kumar tried to counsel him, Mr. Thakur demanded to be promoted to the level of Assistant Manager, as he happened to be the senior most person in the department.

Kumar promised to look into his demand. On a careful analysis of the personal docket of Mr. Thakur and all the previous documents, he found out that Mr. Thakur was over promoted and also over paid for the job that he was doing. Leave alone being entitled for further promotion, Mr. Thakur was not even fit for his present position.

The company did not have a formal performance appraisal system. It's products were selling well, the profitability was good and accordingly all the employees were rewarded well. Promotions and extra increments were given arbitrarily based on the personal likes and dislikes of the top man, rather than on any objective analysis of performance or potential of an individual. No formal manpower planning or organisational planning existed. No efforts were made to forecast implications of such a system in future. On the whole, the company did not have any formal projection for the future.

The company followed the practice of giving long service .certificates and awards to all those who had completed 20 years of service in the company. Mr. Thakur had got his certificate only recently. There were several employees belonging to Mr. Thakur's category. All of them united and met both formally and informally to discuss their strategies and demands. They used to put up their grievances to the management collectively. They had established a very strong rapport with the Chairman, Mr. Shah. Mr. Kumar presented all the facts to Mr. Thakur to convince him that his promotion was not possible. As the latter was not used to the kind of logic presented by Mr. Kumar, he dismissed all his arguments as sophisticated jargon, irrelevant to the context of his company. He was particularly bitter about the fact that his promotion was turned down whereas there were several people with similar background who have got their promotions. Therefore, there was further deterioration in his behaviour. He started ignoring the directions of Mr. Kumar and worked as per his own whims and fancies, behaving arrogantly. He even went to the extent of challenging Mr. Kumar that he could neither promote him nor demote him in the prevailing situation. So long as he was protected by the Chairman of the company, there was nothing for him to worry about and his job was practically secure.

Mr. Kumar optimistically hoped that Mr. Thakur could overcome his frustration and anger over a period of time. Unfortunately, even after another six months there was no sign of any progress. In fact, the situation deteriorated further with Mr. Thakur becoming more confident in his belief that' Mr. Kumar was powerless to deal with him. He turned out to be a drag in the department, purposely creating problems for Mr. Kumar.

In MIL the annual increments and general raises were given as a policy to every employee which is termed as. the "Janata raise" Mr. Thakur was quite sure that he would get his Janata raise and reconciled himself to that. Mr. Kumar tried to stop this raise but could not do so. There were several bullies belonging to Mr. Thakur's category in the organisation and one of the tasks of the Training Manager was to handle such people. Though he had organised a few training workshops in the behavioural areas, it had not brought about the required attitudinal changes. Right under his nose he had a person whose behaviour he was not able to amend. Mr. Kumar realised that the desired changes were not possible, so long as the "flat security" was there.

Due to a change in the governmental policy, there were several new competitors to MIL and the MD felt there was a strong need and urgency to bring in changes in the organisation, to make it more dynamic and competitive. It was no longer possible to carry on the organisational dead woods. Mr. Kumar was under great pressure to look into all such cases in the organisation, on a priority basis. When he explained his difficulties, the MD suggested that he should approach the Chairman to apprise him of the facts.

Mr. Kumar met the Chairman and apprised him of the situation particularly citing the example of Mr. Thakur. The Chairman, in turn attributed the blame to Mr. Kumar himself, questioning him as to why a faithful and normal employee had turned into a problematic case under Mr. Kumar within one year.

Mr. Kumar is now left with no alternative but to ignore Mr. Thakur and continue in his efforts to change the other difficult employees. However, he will not have the moral right to intervene in such cases.

Alternatively he could simply promote Me. Thakur and buy peace irrespective of whether he deserves it or not.

Questions1. Is it right on the part of the Chairman to protect the senior employees, thereby causing problem to the new MD?2. Is the Chairman not over-rewarding long service?3. Are the senior employees too sensitive and over reacting to the changes?4. Did the MD adequately prepare the ground for introducing the changes? Was he too hasty?5. Would it not have been wise for Mr. Kumar to promote Mr. Thakur without bothering about the logic which is not applicable in MIL?6. Is the assumption of the Training Manager that 'Over protection is the root cause of trouble' right?

CASE STUDY - VPRODUCTION SUPERVISOR: RAM LAL

Ram Lal was recruited directly by the Kanpur Textile Mills as a temporary spinning supervisor in July 1966. At the time of his appointment, he was given a salary of Rs. 300 which included basic pay and other allowances. He was then 27 years old, a bachelor with no dependants. He had a smart and pleasant personality. He had passed his matriculation examination from a local High School and had about one year's experience as a spinning supervisor in a similar textile mill in the same city. In the present job, he had to work under the Assistant Spinning Master and to supervise about 100 workers in the mills. The mills operated three shifts a day changing once a week in anti-clockwise direction. Ram Lal's performance in the beginning as a spinning supervisor as found to be uniformly efficient. His attitude towards the mills, superiors and co-supervisors was reported to be favourable. He was held in high esteem by his superiors, fellow-supervisors and workers. Sometimes he used to initiate informal parties and get-togethers in the canteen of the mills. On the recommendation of his superiors the management confirmed him in the job on 1st October, 1967.

In January, 1968 there was a vacancy in the spinning department because of the resignation of another supervisor. Girdhari who was working in a neighbouring mill at a salary of Rs. 330, applied for this position. The Assistant Spinning Master who knew him personally recommended to the Factory Manager that Girdhari was a highly skilled supervisor and that he might be considered for the job. On his recommendation the Factory Manager hired him at a salary of Rs. 350. According to the Factory Manager, Ram Lal was unhappy over the appointment of Girdhari. Consequently, he started to interfere in the smooth functioning of Girdhari' s department.

It was noted in December 1968 that the output of Ram Lal's shift was markedly below the standard of the mills. He was frequently found to be late in attending the mills. Sometimes, he applied for leave while staying at home without any prior permission. His attitude was described by the management as 'pro-labour'.

Once Girdhari visited the Assistant Spinning Master (A.S.M.) and the following conversation took place:

Girdhari : Good morning, Sir.

A.S.M. : Good morning, Mr. Girdhari. How are you?

Girdhari : Thank you Sir, I am quite well.

A.S.M. : Your output is excellent in the mills. I don't know what has happened to Ram Lal. I remain constantly worried about the output from his department. Do you know why that output is so much below the standard?

Girdhari: Why not, Sir! That is known to everyone in the mills. For example, Kalu, Jagdish and Kirti who are supposed to be working under him, do not actually do any work for the mills though they receive their full salary from the mills.

A.S.M.: How is that possible?

Girdhari : Sir,Ram Lal sends these men to their homes and their time cards are always turned to indicate a full day's work. In another case, Manohar was constantly absent in Ram Lal's department for a long period of time. Ram Lal punched his time card at intervals so as to retain his employment in the mills. There is more to it than this, Sir. He leaks out certain confidential information to the workers. He is very clever. He wants to win their confidence and create a good impression of himself on them.

A.S.M.: What sort of confidential information has been leaked out?

Girdhari : He has told each of his men that Banwari, one of my men, is going to win a cash reward of Rs. 100 as the most efficient worker of the mills this year. This is a mischievous move. He claims that the management is showing favouritism, as Banwari really stands nowhere.

A.S.M. : O.K., I shall take care of him.

The Assistant Spinning Master visited Ram Lal's department on the same day in the afternoon but he could find nothing wrong in his department with the exception that Ram Lal was chatting with a few workers. The Assistant Spinning Master informed the Factory Manager on the same day that Ram Lal was engaged in gossiping with a group of workers at many times during a day. On the basis of several informal reports of the Assistant Spinning Master, the management formed the opinion that Ram Lal did not cooperate with his superiors and co-supervisors in the mills. According to the management, Ram Lal became an "unconvincing, lethargic and arrogant" man.

The Assistant Spinning Master informed the Factory Manager on 20th August, 1970 that in spite of his repeated verbal warnings, Ram Lal did not care to improve his behaviour. After one week Ram Lal received the following letter from the Factory Manager.

Dated: 27th August, 1970

ConfidentialTo,Shri Ram Lal,Spinning Supervisor

1. You were given perfect doff-control setting as seen by the Assistant Spinning Master and the Factory Manager which has not been maintained.2. Reasons for breakages should have been investigated as the same frames numbers 7, 8 and 9 were in perfect running condition in the earlier and the next shifts.3. You have left 100 spindles idle for no explicable reason, as reported by the supervisor who has taken charge from you.4. Evidently the work was not controlled by you.5. You should be able to detect, if at all, there is any delinquence on the part of those who are responsible for spoiling the work. The responsibility of the proper running of the department is solely yours.6. It has been found that you are not regular in your attendance and are in the habit of applying for leave while sitting at home without any prior intimation and/or permission.7. It has been brought to my notice that you are allowing some of ,your men to enjoy leave unauthorisedly.8. It has been reported that you are in the habit of divulging secret and confidential information of the management to various unauthorised persons.

In future, you are expected to maintain satisfactory performance and proper discipline in the department.

S.P. WadhawaFactory Manager

Unfortunately, Ram Lal did not respond positively to the above warnings. On the other hand, the management was fed up with his arrogant behavioral patterns but did not know how to sack him.

Evidently, he became a problem-employee. His behaviour did not improve despite repeated counselling by his superiors. The management finally decided to serve him with a charge-sheet as follows:

October 16, 1970

Confidential

ToMr, Ram Lal,Spinning Supervisor

Following are the charges against you and you are asked to submit your explanation within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet failing which disciplinary action will be taken against you. 1. Production in your shift on 5th, 8th, 12th and 15th instant has been very low in spite of repeated verbal and written warnings2. In spite of repeated warnings you continue to be unpunctual in your attendance and also continue to handle the operations of the department in a Casual and indifferent way, Detail as follows :(a) On 10th instant the reeling department was handed over without belts for six reels and thin bobbins accumulated near the conditioning tank.-(b) On l1th instant, the spinning department was handed over in a very bad condition with overlapping and many ring frames were not gaited properly.(c) On 15th instant while you were handing over the charge of the spinning department, it was also found that two ring frames were stopped without gaiting and seven ring frames were not gaited properly and also there was heavy overlapping.(d) You attended to your shift duties on 12th, 15th and 16th instant very late thereby causing dislocation in the arrangement of the shift.(e) In spite of repeated warnings and advice you failed to maintain proper discipline in the department.

In view of the above it is clear that as a responsible employee of the mills you have neither improved your punctuality nor work efficiency. Moreover, you have also failed to maintain discipline in the department. You are therefore required to submit your explanation within the aforesaid time limit as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you which may even include termination of your services from the mills.

S.P. WadhawaFactory Manager

Ram Lal replied to the above charge-sheet as follows:

Dated: October 17. 1970ToThe Factory ManagerRef. : Your letter dated October 16. 1970.

Respected Sir,

On October 15, 1970 I agree that I could not hand over the charge of spinning department in a proper manner because I could not manage the work of the department due to various domestic reasons. I assure you Sir that I will hand over the charge of the department in a proper manner in future. I also assure you that I shall maintain my production high in future. However, I am surprised to know from your letter that I do not maintain discipline in the department and leak-out confidential information to workers. I am sure you will agree with me that whenever I do any good work, other supervisors feel jealous and report to you stealthily against me. Please do not pay heed to these rumours. Since I am

the senior supervisor in the mills, I request you to kindly give me an opportunity to prove my capability in the future. I also assure you, Sir, that I shall maintain discipline in the department. Thanking you and assuring you of my sincere services always.

Yours faithfully,(Ram Lal)

Spinning Supervisor

The management observed that in spite of his above assurance, he neither maintained the production standard nor enforced discipline in the department. He could not also improve his behavioural patterns in the mills.

Questions1. What is the central problem in this case?2. What corrective measures do you propose to solve this problem?3. Prepare a systematic report for the management as a consultant psychologist analysing the pros and cons in detail.

CASE STUDY - VI LOSING A GOOD MAN

Sundar Steel Limited was a medium-sized steel company manufacturing special steels of various types and grades. It employed 5,000 workers and 450 executives.

Under the General Manager (Production), there were operation, maintenance, and services groups, each headed by a chief. The Chief of Maintenance was Shukla and under him Mukherjee was working as the Maintenance Engineer. The total strength of Maintenance was 500 workers, 25 executives, and 50 supervisors.

Chatterjee was working in Maintenance as a worker for three years. He was efficient. He had initiative and drive. He performed his duties in a near perfect manner. He was a man of proven technical ability with utmost drive and dash. He was promoted as Supervisor. Chatterjee, now a Supervisor, was one day passing through the Maintenance Shop on his routine inspection. He found a certain worker sitting idle. He pulled him up for this. The worker retaliated by abusing him with filthy words. With a grim face and utter frustration, Chatterjee reported the matter to Mukherjee. The worker who insulted Chatterjee was a "notorious character", and no supervisor dared to confront him. Mukherjee took a serious view of the incident and served a strong warning letter to the worker.

Nothing very particular about Chatterjee or from him came to the knowledge of Mukherjee. Things were moving smoothly. Chatterjee was getting along well with others. But after about three years, another serious incident took place. A worker came drunk to duty, began playing cards, and using very filthy language. When Chatterjee strongly

objected to this, the worker got up and slapped Chatterjee. Later, the worker went to his union and reported that Chatterjee had assaulted him while he was performing his duties. Chatterjee had no idea that the situation would take such a turn. He, therefore, never bothered to report the matter to his boss or collect evidence in support of his case.

The union took the case to Shukla and prevailed over him to take stern action against Chatterjee. Shukla instructed Mukherjee to demote Chatterjee to the rank of a worker. Mukherjee expressed his apprehension that in such a case Chatterjee will be of no use to the department, and the demotion would affect adversely the morale of all sincere and efficient supervisors. But Chatterjee was demoted.

Chatterjee continued working in the organisation with all his efficiency, competence, and ability for two months. Then he resigned stating that he had secured better employment else where. Mukherjee was perturbed at this turn of events. While placing Chatterjee's resignation letter before Shukla, he expressed deep concern at this development.

Shukla called Chief of Personnel for advice on this delicate issue. The Chief of Personnel said, "I think the incident should help us to appreciate the essential qualification required for a successful supervisor. An honest and hardworking man need not necessarily prove to be an effective supervisor. Something more is required for this as he has to get things done rather than do himself."

Mukherjee said," I have a high opinion of Chatterjee. He proved his technical competence and was sincere at his work. Given some guidance on how to deal with the type of persons he had to work with, the sad situation could have been avoided." Shukla said, "I am really sorry to lose Chatterjee. He was very \honest and pain-staking in his work. But I do not know how I could have helped him. I wonder how he always managed to get into trouble with workers. We know they are illiterates and some of them are tough. But a supervisor must have the ability and presence of mind to deal with such men. I have numerous supervisors, but I never had to teach anybody how to supervise his men." Questions1. What is the main problem in the case?2. Do you think the decision taken by Shukla is in keeping with the faith, trust and creating developmental climate in the organisation, critically evaluate?3. What would you have done, if you were in place of Shukla?4. Do you agree with what Chief of Personnel has said? What is he pointing towards saying that something more is required to be an effective supervisor, explain?5. Mukherjee is pointing towards "guidance" Is he indicating' towards enhancing competencies of the employees to perform their job more effectively. Do you agree?6. Do you think counselling/mentoring may help improving rough and I tough employees?7. Is the present situation likely to affect the work motivation? HRD systems have great relevance to employee motivation. As G.M. what developmental interventions would you recommend to improve work motivation and dyadic relationship.

CASE STUDY VII SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO

Bharat Steel Structures Limited was a large public sector undertaking having 40,000 employees. It’s Fabrication Shop fabricated structures and paired various equipments. The shop was headed by the Deputy Works manager (Mechanical), who reported to the Works Manager (Mechanical), who in turn reported to the General Manager (Works). Sharma joined the company in 1980 as a Fabricator Grade II, which was a skilled job. His job was to fabricate and repair different equipments under his supervisor's guidance.Initially Sharma was sincere, well behaved, and dedicated. Soon he became one of the best workers in the shop. After some time, however, Sharma started losing interest in his job and gradually became indifferent.

Frequently he picked up quarrels with his fellow workers on trivial issues. Mahto, Supervisor of Sharma's shift, reported against him to the I Deputy Works Manager. Mahto complained that most of the time Sharma was not available at his work place, and even when he was available he was found gossiping with other workers. The Deputy Works Manager orally warned Sharma and told him to improve his performance; otherwise suitable action would be taken against him.

On June 18, Sharma and Mahto were in the morning shift (6 a.m. to 2 p.m.). At 12.30 p.m. Mahto left the shop and went to the Administration Building, which was outside the plant premises to enquire about a file. Mahto informed the Deputy Works Manager before leaving the shop. At 12.40 p.m. Mahto was assaulted and manhandled on the road just outside the main gate. Mahto was taken to the hospital by some workers. Mahto lodged a complaint that Sharma had assaulted him.

Sharma was subsequently charge-sheeted by the Deputy Works Manager for misconduct and was asked to reply within seven days. The charge-sheet said:

1. "On June 18 at 12.45 p.m. you assaulted Mahto on the road outside the main gate while he was going out of the plant. During the previous week he had reported about your lack of interest in work and frequent absence from work place without permission. Instead of improving your performance, you assaulted him, apparently because he had complained against you." 2. "You were absent from your duty without permission between 12.30 p.m. and 1.40 p.m. on June 18."

In his reply of June 29 (within seven days as required) Sharma alleged that the Deputy Works Manager had certain malice against him as he had not obliged him by manufacturing and supplying a cupboard for his household use. The manager had concocted the case to victimize him. Moreover, he claimed that he and Mahto were present on their duty up to 1.45 p.m. Hence, the question of his assaulting Mahto did not

arise. He further stated that he was on good terms with Mahto. The Works Manager did not find the reply to be satisfactory and constituted an enquiry committee consisting of the Senior Manager (Training) and the Senior Personnel Officer. Sharma fully participated in the enquiry and was assisted by a coworker.

The committee held Sharma guilty of the misconducts mentioned in the charge-sheet.The Works Manager was thinking about the action to be taken against Sharma and how to avoid such situations in future.

Questions1. Identify the problem in the case.2. How do you see the act of Sharma? Critically evaluate with reference to his reply to the enquiry committee.3. How would you tackle the problem to avoid recurrence of such incidents, if you were the Works Manager?4. Do you see any role of organizational climate as a factor? Comment.

CASE STUDY - VIII NATIONAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

National Manufacturing Company is a public limited concern having its factory at Yamunanagar with its registered office in Delhi. It employs 1,200 workmen, who are organised into a union called the "NationalManufacturing Company Mazdoor Union". Ramjas, a fitter in the engineering department, is the president of the union, and he commands considerable .respect among the workmen.

On 30th April 1983, about 20 employees of the company led by Ramjas met the works manager and asked him that May I be declared a holiday. The works manager expressed his inability to oblige the union. Then the situation took an ugly turn. There was exchange of hot words. Ramjas accused the works manager of being anti-working class and a callous despot.

The same evening, Ramjas addressed a gate meeting. He asked the workers to observe May Day in a fitting manner. A resolution condemning the attitude of the works manager was also adopted at the meeting.

At the start of the shift at 8:00 a.m. the next day, i.e. May Day, Ramjas went to the factory, collected a number of workmen, including several office-bearers of the .union, and went from department to department urging the workmen to stop work. Within a short time a large number of workmen left their" work place and streamed out. A flag hoisting ceremony was held outside the factory gate. Ramjas exhorted the workers to join the May Day rally later in the evening. The factory did not work for the rest of the day.

The management issued a charge-sheet to Ramjas on 3rd May 1983 giving details of the charges and stated that those acts amounted to gross misconduct, under Standing Orders 24(a), (c), (g), (k), (p). (For text ofthe Standing Orders see Annexure 1). Ramjas was required to submit his explanation in the following language:

You are hereby required to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the service of the company. (For charge-sheet see Annexure II)

It was stated in the charge-sheet that Shri P.C. Gupta, the legal advisor of the company, would hold the enquiry on the charge-sheet at 11.00 a.m. on 10th May, 1983 in the Conference Room of the factory.Ramjas refused to accept the charge-sheet. Therefore, it was sent to him by registered post on the same day and a copy thereof was displayed on the notice-board of the company. The registered cover was received back with the remarks "refused to accept". Ramjas, however, appeared for the enquiry and asked in writing that he be permitted to be defended by a lawyer or alternatively by Pritam Singh, the General Secretary of the union, who was not an employee of the company. The request of Shri Ramjas was turned down by the enquiry officer. Ramjas walked out from the enquiry room stating that he could not expect justice from the legal adviser of the company who was biased in favour of the management and that he was not being given proper opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer recorded the statements of the management witnesses and concluded the enquiry proceedings. He found Ramjas guilty of all the charges levelled against him. He submitted his findings to the works manager. The works manager referred the same to the secretary of the company at the head office for advice. The secretary wrote back that Ramjas should be dismissed. Accordingly, the works manager issued a letter to Ramjas terminating his services with immediate effect stating that all the charges levelled against him were found proved and that he was guilty of misconduct for which dismissal was the proper punishment.

The punishment inflicted upon Ramjas was assailed by the union on the following grounds: 1. The charge of insubordination and subversive of discipline in passing resolution condemning the works manager was not a misconduct and, as such, no enquiry could be held against him. 2. The charge-sheet was invalid inasmuch as the management being biased against him had already made up its mind to dismiss him and that holding of the enquiry was just a legal formality. 3. No opportunity was given to him to defend ~imself.4. The proceedings of the enquiry recorded in his absence were not binding on him and no punishment could be awarded on the basis of the same.5. The appointment of the legal adviser of the company as the enquiry officer was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 6. The works manager, being himself involved in the incident, was interested in the outcome of the enquiry and could not act as the punishing authority.

7. The works manager in the circumstances could not and did not apply his mind independently in deciding the quantum of punishment. 8. He was victimized for his trade union activities and for being the president of the union.

ANNEXURE I

24. (a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience alone or in combination with another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.(c) Striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any statute or the standing orders. (g) Entering or leaving or attempting to enter or leave the factory except in accordance with these standing orders. (k) Threatening or intimidating any officer or employee on the factory premises.(p) Deliberately making false, vicious, or malicious statements, public or otherwise, against any officer or employee of the company.

ANNEXURE II

To,

Shri Ramjas,Fitter, Engineering Department,Token No. 1760

Whereas on 30th April 1983 you along with other 20 of your colleagues went to the office of the works manager Shri Randhir Singh and on his declining your request to declare 1st May 1983 as a general holiday, you entered into heated arguments and used undesirable language against him,and whereas on the evening of the same day, i.e., 30th April, 1983, you organised and spoke at a meeting outside the factory premises where a resolution condemning the works manager was passed.. Whereas on the morning of 1st May, 1983 you along with other workmen of the factory moved from department to department and incited the workers to stop work. This resulted in workmen walking out of the factory premises for the day. The above acts of omission and commission on your part amount to misconduct under Section 24(a), (c), (g), (k), and (p) of the Standing Orders.You are hereby required to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the service of the company.Please take note that an enquiry under the provisions of the Standing Orders in the matters of the above charge-sheet will be held by Shri P.C. Gupta, Legal Adviser of the Company, at 11:00 a.m. on 10th May 1983 in the Conference Room of the factory.You are hereby required to present yourself for the enquiry on the aforesaid date, time, and place.

In view of the gravity of the misconduct mentioned above, you are also hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect.

Questions1. Was Ramjas justified in raising the demand for May-Day holiday on the 30th April, and getting the work stopped on 1st May?2. Was management justified in taking disciplinary action against Ramjas. If so, was the chargesheet drafted and served on him properly?3. Was the enquiry conducted in conformity with principles of Natural Justice? If not, on what grounds it can be declared vitiated.4. Is the punishment of dismissal in proportion to the offence committed? What is the possibility of its being set aside or reduced by the Labour Court, or the higher court.

CASE STUDY -IX A DEFIANT WORKER

Mr. X aged 25, who had been working in a large scale textile unit in Madurai was referred to the Social Worker by the Labour Relations Department for a social investigation of the defiant behaviour exhibited by him in the work place. He had absented from work many a time due to certain disturbing habits.

Mr. X had committed serious acts of misconduct, riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours on 10-1-1982 as (1) he came to the Mill in a drunken state and quarrelled with his co-workers and(2) Abused the supervisor using foul language.

On a cursory perusal of the past records of the deviant worker, the social worker came to know that Mr. X had absented himself continually for 176½ days during 1981. In addition, he had availed himself of 21 days' medical leave and 22 days' casual leave. As a result of his indisciplined behaviour, the company had taken the following disciplinary action against him:

(1) He was suspended three times for 30 days by the Labour Relations Department for absenting himself from work for more than six consecutive days on two occasions and once for committing a serious act of misconduct. (2) He was suspended as many as 5 times for being absent from the workspot.(3) Once he was fined half of his salary maximum for carelessly allowing the cotton to wrap on the cylinder roll.(4) He was given a final warning on 27-8-1982 regarding his habitual absence.

During the preliminary interview the Social Worker had with Mr. X, he came to know that Mr. X was married and had studied upto 6th standard. He had been drawing a salary of Rs. 800 and had put in six years of service as a 'Worker' in the Blow Section. As to the family background, Mr. X is the youngest son of his parents. He lost his father and

mother when he was 7 years old. Since then his eldest brother had been looking after him. In order to know more about the socio-cultural background of Mr. X, the factors which had driven him to indulge in alcoholism and the causes for his indisciplined behaviour in the work place, the Social Worker paid visits to his house many a time and conferred with his family members. In the course of an interview he had with the eldest brother of Mr. X, the Social Worker gathered information about Mr. X's life history right from the schooling. This revealed that Mr. X, was never interested in schooling and frequently absented from the class. He was associated with a gang of friends who used to take him to films regularly 'when Mr. X was in the fifth standard.

During his youth, Mr. X seemed to take active interest in politics and ultimately fell under the influence of gangsters, through whom he had developed certain vices such as consuming alcohol, ganja and gambling.

Seeing the deteriorating moral and social life of Mr. X his brother procured a job for him 'in the local textile unit so that Mr. X could settle down and assume certain responsibilities in life. As years rolled by, Mr. X got married but in course of time he started developing a feeling of hatred towards his wife in as much as he did not like her physical appearance. His marital life lasted only for three months after which the nuptial bondage had broken, once and for all. Dissatisfied with the kind of life he was leading, Mr. X began to consume alcohol regularly only to become an addict. He started playing ducks and drakes with all his savings and the income derived from his land too. His brother began to reject him for he was beyond redemption and finally drove him out of the house.

Mr. X's supervisor, while interviewed by the Social Worker, stated that Mr. X's relationship with him and co-workers had been unsatisfactory. He was not efficient in his work. Often times, he quarrelled with the Supervisor and other workers when he came to the workspot under the influence of alcohol. The Supervisor was of the view that though Mr. X has been counselled and punished on many occasions, he has not repented for the acts of misconduct he had committed.

Understandably, the factors contributing to the deviant behaviour that Mr. X might be the lack of parental care during his childhood, his association with gangsters, marital disagreement due to dissatisfaction in his sexual relations, failure on the part of the management to discover the problem at an early stage and control the same, etc., and this might lead us to assume that Mr. X had developed disturbing habits such as alcoholic addiction and chronic absenteeism owing to very factors indicated above. When the Social Worker pleaded with the Labour Officer to grant pardon to Mr. X for the repeated deviant acts exhibited by him, the Officer explained that though Mr. X was given the absolute final warning, the latter had absented himself for about 45 days even after receiving the same and therefore, he asserted, that he had no other option but to dismiss Mr. X from service.

Questions

1. Is it not the moral and ethical responsibility of the employer to be concerned about the quality of life of the deviant worker?2. How could the misbehaviour of the worker be constructively corrected without penalty?3. Suppose the deviant worker had been counselled by the Supervisor/ Manager rather than progressively penalized, would he have been dismissed from service?4. Is the procedure adopted by the organisation for disciplining the errant behaviour of the worker justifiable?5. Could the termination of the defiant worker's services have been avoided?6. What rehabilitative measures could be adopted for preventing and correcting the deviant behaviour of workers whu had exhibited habit disturbances in the work place?

CASE STUDY -X SARVODAYA STRUCTURALS LIMITED

Sarvodaya Structurals Limited was engaged in the fabrication of heavy structurals. The company had six shops besides engineering, accounts, personnel, sales, and administrative departments. It employed 7,000 men. The chief executive of the company was the General Manager.

In one of the shops employing 1,000 men, 900 tons of structurals were fabricated every month. The day-to-day management of the shop was entrusted to the Manager, who was assisted by the Senior Foreman. The three main sections of the shop were Preparation, Marking, and Finishing.

In the Marking and Finishing Sections, the work was supervised by two foremen each. The Preparation Section was under the direct supervision of the Senior Foreman, who, in addition, planned and coordinated the work of all the three sections. The Preparation Section was responsible for the collection and. classification of works orders, for reading intricate machine and structural drawings, determination of priorities for execution of orders, checking bills of materials, and processing raw materials for fabrication. This section had 200 men on the rolls.

In 1961 the shop started receiving heavy orders, and as the workload increased considerably, the Senior Foreman was unable to cope with it. On the Manager's recommendation, the General Manager sanctioned two new posts of foremen for the Preparation Section. Two Progress Incharges attached to the Senior Foreman were thus rendered surplus and their principal work, namely, reporting progress of work in the shop, was transferred to the Production Planning Department. This action of the General Manager had the concurrence of the Manager. The In-charges themselves were not transferred to the Production Planning Department, as this had its own departmental men to take care of this work. They continued on the rolls of the shop, awaiting orders for transfer to vacancies of equivalent grade in other shops.

The minimum qualifications for the recently created posts of foremen, prescribed by a Joint Committee, were a diploma in engineering and five years' experience in a structural shop. The posts were advertised for in the organization but none of the applicants was found suitable for appointment. The In-charges concerned, who were non-matriculates, did not apply, as they did not possess the prescribed qualifications. The posts were, therefore, advertised in the press. Three outside candidates applied. Only one appeared for the interview and he was not considered suitable for appointment.

The case of the two surplus In-charges did not come within the purview of the grievance procedure in operation in the company, as it involved a change in the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Foreman. As, however, they were powerful members of the Union executive, the Secretary of the recognized trade union took up their case for appointment as foremen with the General Manager. The Union Secretary argued that they had been doing part of the foremen's job before the posts were created and, in the absence of suitable candidates they should be preferred for promotion. The General Manager maintained that the men concerned were not qualified for the posts and did not posses the technical background required to perform the Foreman's duties. The written job-descriptions of the posts of Progress In-charge and Foreman prepared by the Joint Committee indicated that the job content of the former was only about 25 per cent of that of a foreman, and only, on the administrative side. They did not supervise the work of the Preparation Section in any way, where there were mistries in line for promotion. The latter, though good in their own area, could not be promoted as they were not technically qualified to hold the higher position.

After prolonged discussion, the General Manager conceded that in the circumstances, the In-charges would be given an opportunity to prove their fitness for the job. It was also agreed that in the first place, test specifications for the posts of Foreman would be worked out by a Joint Committee and given to the men concerned. If they wished, they would also be given guidance for a period of three months, to learn the job. They would then be subjected to a test by the Training Officer, and if .they passed the test, they would be promoted to foremen.

The Manager communicated this decision to the Senior Foreman in the presence of the two men. He readily agreed to give them the necessary guidance whenever they requested it. However, they maintained that "the decision was not only to give them guidance when asked for, but full-time training and guidance in order to enable them to pass the test". On hearing this, the Senior Foreman remarked: "I have no one to spare primarily for the purpose of training them to pass the test. "

Questions1. What is the main problem in the case?2. Identify and discuss the stage and action required to tackle the problem before it became a grievance. Comment on the role of the management.

3. Critically evaluate the grievance and the follow-up action. Evaluate the union-management compromise and its possible consequences with your own point of view, in detail.4. If you were the manager of the "shop", how would you handle the problem, after the senior foreman's remark about sparing the "in-charges" for three months?