Chapter -III

&Discussions

IntroductionThe relations between employees, their collectives and employers are

dependent on a number of factors, some of which are under the control of the

management while others form part of the larger socio-politico-economic

environment over which management has little or no direct control. However,

these factors have an overriding influence in determining the employment

relations in any industry and organisation.

The major shifts in the economic, political and social spheres witnessed

worldwide in the last nearly two decades and the unprecedented

developments in the field of science and technology and their wider

application in industrial processes have greatly changed the employment

conditions, labour movement and the entire environment at workplace.

Globalisation of business has gained momentum in the last nearly two

decades. The private sector has been dominating over public sector in a free

market-driven economy and the service-economy is now over-shadowing the

manufacturing economy throughout the world including India. The business

organisations are using more automotive technologies in production and

distribution processes than ever before. Industries are now adopting flexible

production techniques due to the convenience created by the innovative

technologies allowing firms to engage more employees on casual, temporary

and part-time basis than on permanent and full-time basis. The terms and

conditions of employment are negotiated on individual basis rather than

through collective bargaining.

Innovative technologies particularly the automation and

communication technologies have revolutionized business and facilitated

industrial restructuring through outsourcing of back-office functions,

establishing multiple production sites, contracting certain processes to

vendors and consequently these actions have helped firms in downsizing

their permanent workforce.

The wave of proactive human resources management practices has

taken many activities which were in the domain of labour unions and the

61

strength of organized labour has been receding in the recent decades in terms

of the size of union membership and the emergence of non-union firms.

A major shift was initiated in the economic policy of our country in

early 1991 by opening up the economy and integrating it with the global

economy in a big way and deregulating industries. It was immediately

followed by radical reforms in financial sector ineluding banking seetor.

These reforms besides other things included entry of more foreign sector

banks and opening of new commercial banks in the private sector,

disinvestment in public sector banks, etc.

These reforms led to a new phase in Indian commercial banking sector

as a new crop of techno-sawy, non-union private sector commercial banks

alongwith a number of foreign sector banks with new and innovative

products with the state-of-the art technology have come up in the last 18 years

which have been increasing their market share every year. This has put up

pressure on the existing public and the old private sector banks to compete

with these new generation private and foreign sector banks. In the changed

business environment, both bank managements as well as bank employees of

existing public and old private sector banks came under stress to perform

better. Consequently the public and old private sector banks are trying to

catch up with their new business rivals. The once-strong bank trade-unions

have been losing their influence as an active actor in the employment relations

system.

The new generation bank employees are comparatively more educated

(both academically as well as technically), enthusiastic, ambitious, who want

information and work autonomy and have a desire to participate in the

decision-making process relating to their job and work.

These changes have greatly impacted the employer-employee relations

in commercial banks.

62

Determinants of Employment Relations in BanksBefore discussing the results of the study, it is deemed desirable and

appropriate to present the various determinants of employment relations in

the commercial banking industry in India in the prevailing economic and

business environment.

These determinants have been identified after going through a detailed

review of the relevant literature and holding a chain of interactions and

deliberations with a number of bank employees of various cadres and bank

trade unionists in different commercial banks.

The following were the determinants of employment relations in

commercial banks in India in the contemporary economic and business

environment.

1. SalaryMonetary benefits in the form of a salary is one of the most important

and vital consideration in any contract of employment irrespective of the

nature of contract i.e. whether the job is permanent, semi-permanent,

temporary, full-time or part-time. In fact salary package is considered to be

one of the strongest considerations in determining employer- employee

relations in any employment. Most of the employment relations revolve

around the factor of monetary benefits particularly in economically

underdeveloped and developing countries.

The salary include pay, allowances and other monetary perquisites

attached to a post or a position The issues involved in salary are pay fixation,

its adequacy and the comparative levels with similar employments .These are

very crucial issues and need lot of deliberations and thought.

2. PromotionsEmployees have a natural desire and aspirations to grow and move

ahead in their organizations by moving on to higher positions having

additional powers, perks, and responsibilities. Hence promotion chances or

avenues in any organization are an incentive for attracting and retaining

competent and meritorious employees in the organizations. "Promotion is a

63

double-edged weapon. If handled carefully, it contributes to employee

satisfaction and motivation, if mishandled it leads to discontentment,

frustration, skepticism and bickering among the employees and culminates in

high rate of labour turnover"(Aswathapa,2005:506)

Issues relating to employees' promotion often figure in the negotiations

between the employers or the management and employees' organizations.

Two major issues in promotions are the availability of promotion avenues and

the criteria of promotion for employees. Usually promotions are based either

on seniority or length of service and or some merit or a combination of both.

The question whether the promotions are based on seniority or merit or a

combination of both of these, is dependent on a number of factors such as

whether the organization is unionized or governed by civil service

requirements and how merit is defined and measured.

3. Grievances HandlingWhen two persons or parties perceive or look at something from

different angles, differences is a natural phenomenon. Likewise, in

employment relations, the differences or grievances between employees and

the management or between employees themselves are bound to be there.

However, it is imperative for the management or the employer to listen to the

grievances of the employees and resolve them to their complete satisfaction

for building congenial and conducive relations with the employees.

Michael J. Jucius defines grievances as any discontent or

dissatisfaction, whether expressed or not and whether valid or not, arising out

of anything connected with the company that an employee thinks, believes or

even feels, is unfair, unjust or inequitable( Jucuics,.1955)

Grievances may arise due to many factors such as working conditions,

management policy and alleged violation of collective agreements, any laws

or practices or from personal maladjustment. A good management redresses

grievances as they arise, excellent management anticipates and prevents them

from arising. Management can know about the simmering even before they

64

turn into actual grievances through several means such as exit interviews,

gripe boxes, opinion surveys and open policy.

4. Participation & InvolvementThe traditional management system was based on "span of control and

chain of command' and 'control and supervision' where one group manages

and takes decisions and another group obeys and works. Such a system leads

to dehumanized workplaces and employees feel boring, frustrating and

alienated in such atmosphere. Today's employees' are knowledgeable

workers and have higher psychological aspirations; they need information,

participation and have an urge to contribute.

"The employees, in traditional management system, are treated as cog

in the machine, rather than as an intelligent, capable human being who has a

natural urge for association and cooperation. He, under such a system,

becomes more interested in higher benefits and less work. When more

production is required, incentive schemes are worked out and implemented.

But after some time, this also does not sustain his interest in work. This results

in strain/ stress in the organization" (Singh, 2003:208)

Employees' participation leads not only to enhanced productivity,

satisfying the employees' urge for self-expression but more importantly for

achieving industrial peace and creating favorable employment relations

through increased co-operation in the industry.

The degree to which management can go for participation varies from

organization to organization depending upon the technology used, the

products, processes and the people. Participation may be either "ascending"

in which employees are provided opportunities to influence decisions at

higher levels such as Board, ownership-level through their representatives or

otherwise or it can be " descending-type" where employees are provided

opportunities to plan and make decisions about work or work-related issues.

5. Training and DevelopmentChange is an all-pervasive and the only inevitable reality. It knows no

boundaries of time and space However, changes in the recent times have been

65

so fast and radical that it has no parallel in the history of modern man. Peters

(2000) says, the world is changing more fundamentally than it has in

hundreds of years.

In the present age of information society and highly intense and

complex global level competitive business environment with fastest ever

innovations in technologies, managements are under constant pressure to

perform better and deliver best quality products and services at competitive

prices to survive and grow. Management today not only demand new and

enhanced task skills from their employees but higher order thinking skills

that are not only easily picked up within the constraints of existing jobs, nor

even in everyday life. The urge to constantly improve the quality of products

and services makes great demands for extensive learning and development in

organizations.

The changes in the socio-economic environment have also enhanced

the expectations of the employees about their job content and quality of life.

Today's knowledge workers expect regular and best trainings not only for

their better performance but also for increasing the prospects for their career

growth. Therefore, employees training and development has assumed greater

importance for creating a favorable employment relations environment in the

organizations. The employees of today particularly in banking organizations

expect regular trainings and development programmes in different emerging

areas of banking business and also want these training to be effective enough

to add value to their growth prospects in the organization.

6. Fair Employee TreatmentThe nature of employment relations has seen a number of changes over

last two decades or so. The composition of new generations' employees is

quite diversified and heterogeneous. These employees are comparatively

better educated, knowledgeable and technically more qualified. The number

of female employees has been increasing over the years. In the Indian context

persons belonging to socially underprivileged sections such as scheduled

castes, scheduled tribes and physically challenged have joined business

66

organizations over these years particularly the public sector organisations.

Now government of India is contemplating to provide for reservation of jobs

for these socially under-privileged sections even in private sector

organizations.

The banking business is operated through a net work of branches;

hence bank employees are expected to have greater mobility in terms of their

postings. This heterogeneity and diversification and the mobility has been

adversely effecting employment relations in the industry with perception of

discrimination, lack of impartiality and favoritism in employees' treatment

with regard to their postings, transfers, promotions, deputation to trainings

and executive development programmes, etc.

7. Employee WelfareEmployee welfare is a means of securing, preserving and increasing

the efficiency of employees and has an indelible impact on the employment

relations. Employees' welfare means anything done for the comfort and

improvement of social or intellectual status of the employees over and above

the wages paid under the contract of employment.

Employee welfare is flexible and elastic and differs widely with time,

region, industry, social values or customs, degree of industrialization, the

general socio-economic development of the people and political ideologies

prevailing at a particular time. It is modified according to the age-groups,

socio-cultural background, mental and economic status or educational level of

the employees in various industries.(Mamoria, Mamoria and Gankar, 2003)

Commercial banks in India provide different kinds of welfare facilities,

both intra-mural and extra-mural. These include medical facilities, maternity

benefits, leave travel concessions, leave encashment, concessional loans for

housing and consumer durables, group insurance, gratuity, pension, death

and superannuation relief, etc. Some of these welfare facilities are provided

under the provisions of statutes or under the terms of the employment

contract or according to collective agreements and some facilities are

provided voluntarily by the employers.

67

8. Job Security & SafetyOne of the basic concerns of the employees of any cadre in any

organization is on the question of security of the job and the safety of their

interests during the course of discharging of their duties. The nature of

banking business is considered to be very risky for all the branch employees.

The branch staff is exposed to the risk of bank dacoities and robberies, etc.

which over the years have been rising particularly in areas confronted with

serious law and order problems. While on one hand, the branch employees

are expected to deliver the best, efficient and competitive services to the

people and achieve set business targets in view of the heightened intense

competition in the industry, on the other, the branch staff particularly the

branch head is often held accountable for loans and advances turning bad.

The branch staff in general and the branch head in particular work under

threats of punishments for any loans turning bad in spite of exercising all

prudent norms. Branch managers or branch heads are even given various

punishments for such negligence whether deliberate or otherwise, ranging

from difficult postings to even dismissal from services and or recoveries from

their salaries. Therefore, the elements of security of job and safety of

employees' interests in such risky and extra-ordinary conditions are very vital

in creating a favorable employment relations environment in the

organization.

9. Delegation & DecentralizationCommercial banks operate through a network of branches and are, as

such, relatively decentralized organizations. Hence considerable authority is

passed on to the branch staff particularly the branch head for proper and

effective functioning of the branch.Decentralisation is elaimed to lead to better

decisions in banking organizations because it is the branch employees who

not only are closest to the bank customers but have a direct daily face-to face

relationship with the them.

68

The degree to which formal authority, both for routine day-to-day

working and authority for sanctioning loans and advances to the bank

customers, differs from bank to bank and branch to branch depending upon a

number of factors. Since branch employees' performance is largely measured

by the quality of their services and the meeting of the business targets set by

the bank managements, therefore it is not only desirable but also imperative

upon managements to delegate reasonable amount of authority and work

autonomy to the branch staff in general and to the branch head in particular.

This is essential for creating conducive and cordial relations between the

employees and the bank management. Branch heads should not only have

authority for routine day-to-day affairs at the branch level but should also be

delegated fair amount of financial authority for recommending and

sanctioning of advances to the customers in the given competitive business

environment. The staff subordinate to the branch head also needs sufficient

work autonomy for their proper and effective performance.

10. Performance Recognition & AppreciationOne of important features of human resources is that each individual

has a distinct and unique personality and as such each individual's

performance is different from the others. Therefore, the performance of each

employee is measured formally to know his current performance on various

factors like, job knowledge, quality and quantity of output, initiative,

leadership abilities, supervision, dependability, co-operation, judgment,

versatility, potential for future performance, etc.

In the commercial banking industry the performance of branch

employees is measured on both quantitative and qualitative factors as

mentioned above. However, two major issues are the presence of a sound,

scientific and objectivity-based system for the evaluation of the employees'

performance which is perceived by the employees as unbiased and without

an element of favoritism towards any group of employees or individual

employee and is able to identify the performers over the non-performers. The

other issue is the appreciation of the performers by various incentives and

69

rewards. Any lapse on this account leads to serious conflicts among the

employees and the management or amongst the different groups of

employees and sags the morale of the performers who are ignored because of

a faulty employee performance evaluation system and effects the overall

performance of branch and the bank..

11. Trade UnionismEmployees' unions are considered to be an important and active actor

in employment relations system. However, studies have shown contrast

results on the role of unions in improving employment relations. Some

studies such as those by Freeman(1976), Freeman and Medoff (1979, 1984)

have found out positive results of unions on employer-employee relations

while others such as Make and Meredith(1986) have found negative results of

unions on employment relations,.

However, owing to various reasons( prominent among them being the

global restructuring of production, the switch over from a manufacturing-

based to a service-based economy and the removal of trade barriers with the

resultant globalization of the world economy, introduction of technologies

and out-sourcing of back-office operations thereby reducing the size of

permanent workforce, flexible production techniques allowing engagement of

part-time, contingent and other non-standard forms of workforce, economic

restructuring through splitting of production sites to different locations and

reduction of labour costs and increase in employee rule compliance, changing

demographics of employees, the emergence of a new model of Human

Resources Management), trade unions strength over the last two decades or

so have been decreasing both in numbers and in size.

In the context of Indian commercial banking industry, major financial

sector reforms were introduced in the post-1991 liberalization of the Indian

economy which allowed setting-up of new banks in the private sector and a

greater entry to foreign sector banks. Consequently, a number of new private

sector banks came into being besides entry of more foreign sector banks with

latest technologies and new management practices and most of these banks

70

are non-union firms. These developments have brought the public and old

private sectors banks under pressure for meeting intense business

competition from these new business rivals. Thus bank trade unions also

came under stress in this changed environment.

12. AutomationIn early 1980s, the increasingly competitive market put firms under a

great deal of pressure. Companies were faced with the challenges of

introducing greater flexibility and quality in production, better delivery

systems and a greater stress on orienting their services to customers needs

(Mamkoottam, 2000)

The challenges posed by the global market were most daunting in

1990s because firms were required to attain higher levels of productivity and

flexibility simultaneously (Bessant, et al; 1990)

The new technological opportunities and the strategy pushed by these

helped the firms meet this challenge. However, owing to generally adverse

industrial relations environment in the country, employees and their unions

put great resistance to the introduction of technologies and automation of

business operations fearing its adverse impact on the security of their jobs.

Therefore, automation of operations emerged as a major irritant in the

employment relations.

In the context of Indian commercial banking industry, computerization

was bitterly opposed by the employees and their unions since its introduction

in 1980's (Mankidy, 1998) In spite of settlements in 1983 and 1987 for limited

introduction of technology in banks between Indian Banks Association (IBA),

an amalgam of bank employers in India, and bank unions, no major headway

could be made for automations of banking services.

However, following the massive financial sector reforms in the wake

up of the opening of the Indian economy in 1991 paved way for the entry of

new private and foreign sector banks in big way with the state- of-the-art

technology and more proactive HR policies, the managements of the public

and the old private sector banks with left with no options except to accept to

71

meet this challenge by introducing the similar technologies and services for

their survival and growth. But the employees' and their unions being

apprehensive of this radical introduction of automation in banks on their

basic interests such as job security, promotion chances, etc, considered them

hostile to a cordial employment relations environment in their organisations.

13. Customer ServiceBanking is a service industry and customer service is the hallmark of

commercial banking industry. It is the quality of services at the bank counters

which gives distinctive and competitive edge to the players in the industry.

"Peter Druckers' observation that customers define business is most true for

banks than any other industry" (Singhal, Sushila, 1987:l)It is here that

customers needs, beliefs, perceptions and cognitions remain supreme and

influence the needs and goals of banks at the organizational level.

The growing competitive business environment in the global market

economy has been exerting constant pressure on organizations to perform

better for their survival and growth. Consequently managements have been

demanding better and effective productivity from their employees, resulting

in possible strain on employment relations.

Employment Relations in BanksAt the very outset, the overall employment relations perception of the

employees of commercial banks is presented for a broader understanding of

the existing employment relations in the commercial banking industry. For

this purpose the total scores of the participants on all the 26 elements of

employment relations have been aggregated and classified into three levels

i.e. high, moderate and low categories as depicted in Table 3.1 The

respondents scoring 203 and above out of the maximum theoretical score of

260 have been categorized as 'high', those scoring between 144-202 have been

categorized as 'moderate' and those scoring below 144 have been categorized

as 'low'. This classification has been done after processing the mean values

and standard deviations of the employees' on all the 26 elements of

72

employment relations. These results in Table 3.1 reveal that the majority of

bank employees (62.6%) perceived moderate level of 'employment relations',

whileas 20.4% employees perceived 'high' level of employment relations and

17% of employees perceived 'low' level of employment relations

The classification of employees' perception into three different levels

of employment relations gives only a broader picture of the bank employees'

overall view of employment relations environment in the banking industry.

Table 3.1

Index of Employment Relations in Banks(n=441)

Level of ER Seores Frequency Percentage

High 203 & Above 90 20.4

Moderate 154 -202 276 62.6

Low Below 154 75 17.0

Total 441 100.0

For a detailed view of the 'employment relations' in commercial banks,

Table 3.2 contains vital statistics such as mean percentages and standard

deviations on all the elements of the employment relations in the commercial

banks.

A perusal of data provided in the aforementioned Table reveals that

the bank employees perceive various elements of employment relations with

varying degrees. The mean percentages on different elements of employment

relations range between a high of 93% and a low of 44.3%.

A pathological analysis of the contents of Table 3.2 (given on next

page) shows that the bank employees are conscious of the importance of

effective and efficient customer services at the branch counters in shaping

their employment relations because both the elements of the dimension of

'customer service' have been ranked No. 1 and 5 respectively by the

73

employees among the 26 elements of employment relations with a mean score

of 93.4% and 79.9% respectively

Table 3.2Ranking Order of the Elements of Employment Relations in Banks (n=44i)

Elements of ER

Mean

SeoreStandardDeviation

Mean

% Rank I

Salary Adequacy 6.00 2.09 60.0 17Salary Comparison 5.70 2.18 57..0 19Promotion Avenues 6.89 2.08 68.9 13Promotion Policy 6.78 2.01 67.8 1 4Grievance Listening 6.66 2.31 66.6 15Grievance Redress 5.76 2.30 57.6 18Participation 5.47 2.44 54.7 21Involvement 4.43 2.41 44.3 26Trainings Regularity 7.25 1.84 72.5 10Training Effectiveness 7.76 1.65 77.6 6Employee Treatment. 6.94 2.02 69.4 12Fair Postings/Transfers 5.49 2.56 54.9 20

Welfare Facilities 7.31 1.72 73.1 9Welfare Comparison 6.09 2.32 60.9 16Job Security 4.57 1.87 45.7 25

Job Safety 7.51 1.78 75.1 8Decentralization 8.32 1.77 83.2 4Delegation/work Autonomy 7.73 2.09 77.3 7P.E.System 7.21 2.13 72.1 11Performance Appreciation 5.09 3.05 50.9 23

Unionism 4.71 2.11 47.1 24

Unionism vs. Proactive HR 5.43 2.28 54.3 22

Automation Vs.Employee. Concern 8.43 1.30 84.3 3Auto. Vs. O Efficiency 8.57 1.46 85.7 2Customer .Service. 9.34 1.01 93.4 1Em ployees' Role in C.S. 7.93 1.69 79.3 5

74

Employees of the public sector and old private sector banks, who bitterly

opposed computerization of banking operations and processes in 1980s and

up to early 90s, have realized the inevitability of automation in the banking

sector for increasing operational efficiency and profitability of banking

orgnisations Both the elements of the dimension of 'automation' have been

placed at rank number 2 and 3 in the ranking order with mean score

percentage of 85.7 and 84.3 respectively

The table results confirm that the bank employees have allayed the

fears of any adverse impact of automation in the banking organizations on

their basic concerns such as promotion chances, job security, etc. and instead,

bank employees today believe automation as one of the main reasons for the

increased operational efficiency and profitability of banking orgnisations and

placed them at 2nd and 3rd ranks in the overall rankings amongst the

elements of employment relations

The competitive business environment has necessitated a better degree

of work autonomy and delegation of authority to the bank employees at the

branch level for efficient and effective working of the banks.

The bank employees are enjoying sufficient work autonomy and

decentralization in discharging their day-to-day duties as the element of

decentralization/delegation was placed at 4th rank by the respondents in the

overall rankings with a mean score percentage of 83.2.

This is the age of knowledge, innovations and technology. Never has

world in its known history changed so fast and rapid as it is changing now.

People have to keep pace with the changing times by updating their

knowledge and skills to be successful in their pursuits. It is true also for

organizations. Accordingly the knowledge and skills of bank employees have

to be updated for the survival and growth of both the organization as well as

the employees in today's fast changing world and intense business

competition where knowledge and skills get obsolete in no time. The bank

managements of all sectors whether public or private, seem to have risen to

the occasion by imparting adequate and effective trainings to their staff.

75

Employee training and development seems to be getting proper attention in

commercial banks because respondents placed the adequacy of trainings at

rank number 10 with a mean score percentage of 72.5 and effectiveness of

their trainings at rank number 6 with a mean score of 77.6% and these mean

score indicate that bank employees perceived both these elements of the

dimension of 'trainings' with satisfaction in the context of their relations with

the bank managements.

The employees of the commercial banks seem to be fairly satisfied with

their job safety and working conditions at the branches (mean score75.1%) the

adequacy of welfare facilities provided by their employers (mean score

73.1%), their promotion avenues in their respective organisations (mean score

68.9%) and the promotion policy (mean score 67.8%) being pursued by their

managements as these elements of employment relations stand in the median

ranks in the ranking hierarchy.

However, the elements with low mean scores and consequently lowest

rankings order indicate that these elements are straining the relations between

the bank employees and their managements from employees' perspective.

The data speaks that the elements of involvement and participation in

decision-making process (mean score 44.3% and 54.7 and rank 26th & 21st

respectively), job security (mean score 45.7%, rank 23th), performance

appreciation (mean score 51.2% & rank 23rd), fair postings with a mean score

percentage of 54.9, & rank 20th, employees' grievance redressal and

comparative favourability of salary package with mean score percentage of

57.6 and 57% & rank 18th &19th respectively.

The industrial relation system around the world has under gone a

major change due to the following reasons:-

• emergence of a more cooperation-oriented HR over conflict-oriented IR

and a dominating role of employers in IR

• increasing globalisation of economic activities,

76

• availability of more flexible production techniques paving way for

engagement of part-time, contractual , casual workforce over

permanent employees

• use of advanced technologies in business operations and the

consequent out-sourcing of back-office and other functions by

organisations,

• overriding role of market economies and chaotic global-level

competitive business environment pressurizing managements for

achieving better standard of performance for survival and growth,

• changing demographic composition, attitudes and educational level of

contemporary workforce,

• enterprise-level collective bargaining replacing industry-level

collective agreements

The trade unions which had been occupying an important role in

shaping and balancing the employer-employee relations in orgnisations have

been losing their influence particularly in commercial entities. The

commercial banking industry which was one of the few industries in India

having very strong trade unions with a country-wide coverage and influence,

has been witnessing declining trade unionism. The changes that swept work

places across the globe, have also affected Indian banking industry as trade

unions in banks have been losing their strength in influencing the

employment relations in the industry as is revealed by the low mean score

(47.1%) and a ranking of 24th among 26 elements.

The mean percentages and the rankings of various elements of

employment relations of the bank employees give only a partial view and an

incomplete picture of the employment relations in the banking industry

Therefore, these are further supplemented with the element-wise level

concentration of bank employees on the high, moderate and low level of

employment relations. These level concentrations of bank employees on each

element of employment relations have been presented in Table 3.3. A broad

77

perusal of results reveals that various elements of employment relations are

spread over the levels carrying uneven frequency percentages

Table 3.3

Element-wise Level Concentration on Employment Relations in Banks (n=44i)Level Concentration 1

Elements of ER High Moderate Low I

f % f % f % I

Salary Adequacy 186 42.1 116 26.3 139 31.6Salary Comparison 135 30.5 135 30.5 171 39.0Promotion Avenues 246 55.9 84 19.0 111 25.1Promotion Policy 238 53.9 95 21.5 108 24.6Grievance Listening 244 55.4 96 21.8 101 22.8Grievance Redress 164 37.2 176 24.0 171 38.8Participation 188 42.7 61 13.8 192 43.5Involvement 183 41.5 65 14.7 193 43.8Training Adequacy 319 72.3 55 12.5 67 15.2Training Effectiveness 128 29.1 227 51.5 86 19.4Employee Treatment. 298 67.6 91 20.7 52 11.7Fair Postings/Transfers 243 55.1 105 23.8 93 21.1Welfare Facilities 270 61.3 105 23.8 66 14.9Welfare Comparison 114 25.7 204 46.1 123 27.8Job Security 61 13.8 185 42.0 195 44.2Job Safety 55 12.4 268 60.8 118 26.8Decentralization 198 45.0 169 38.2 74 16.8Delegation 101 22.9 255 57.8 85 19.3P.E.System 61 13.8 308 69.8 72 16.4Performance Appreciation 128 29.0 163 37.0 150 34.0Trade Union Need 239 54.3 101 22.9 101 22.8Proactive HR 130 29.6 137 31.0 174 39.4Auto vs .Emply Concerns 136 30.8 258 58.5 47 10.7Auto. Vs. 0 . Efficiency 170 38.4 229 52.0 42 9.6Customer Service 324 73.4 - - 117 26.6Employees Role in C.S. 366 83.1 - - 75 16.9

78

A deeper examination reveals that about 60% to 80% employees

reported high level of employment relations on the elements of employees'

role in customer service (83%), customer service as a tool of competition

(73%), adequacy of trainings (72%), fair treatment to employees (67.6%) and

welfare facilities provided to the employees. It is indicates that bank

employees were fairly satisfied with the adequacy of their trainings, the

equitable treatment to all cadres and categories of employees by the

managements, the adequacy of welfare facilities and the deliverance of

efficient customer services for promoting good relations with the

managements

About 70% of the employees rated performance evaluation system and

61% of employees rated job safety respectively on moderate level. Over half of

the employees rated the elements of 'automation vs. employees' concerns'

(58.5%), 'decentralization/work autonomy' (57.8%), 'automation vs.

operational efficiency' (52%) and 'trainings effectiveness' (51.5%) on moderate

or median level in the overall employment relations

This indicates that bank employees considered their performance

evaluation system, their working conditions at branches, the automation of

banking operations, operational autonomy at the branch-level and the quality

of their trainings as least strainers in their employment relations.

Over half of the employees' rated the elements of 'promotion avenues'

(55.9%), 'grievance looking' (55.4%), 'fair postings/transfers' (55%), unionism

(54.3%) and 'promotion policy' (54%) on high level indicating that these

elements were less strainers in their employment relations. However, the

elements of 'job security', 'involvement' and 'participation', 'unionism vs.

proactive HR policies', comparative favorability of salary, grievance redressal

and performance appreciation were rated low by a majority of bank

employees with 44.2%, 43.8%,43.5%, 39.4%, 39%, 38.8% and 34% respectively

being concentrated on low level on these elements.

. These percentages point out that employees perceived lack of

involvement in decision-making process relating to their job and work, lack of

79

proactive human resource policies, inadequate salaries in comparison to

foreign sector banks, unsatisfactory redressal of their grievances and lack of

appreciation to the performers over non-performers as the major irritants in

developing and maintaining cordial and healthy relations with their

managements..

About 41% of employees rated salary adequacy on high level while as

about 32% rated it on low level signaling huge disparities in the salaries of the

bank employees.

Inter-Sector Employment Relations in

Commercial Banks

Organisational characteristics such as the nature of ownership i.e.

whether the organisation is in public, private, co-operative or joint ownership,

the size of the organization i.e. whether the organisation is a large, medium or

small, age of the organization, the reach of the organization i.e. whether the

organisation has a local, regional, national or international business spectrum

and other such features influence the employment relations in an

organisation.

The commercial banks for the study have been objectively selected and

classified on the basis of their specific organizational characteristics.

Accordingly the banks have been classified as public sector, old private sector

and new private sector banks having national reach i.e. having a branch

network throughout the country. It is for this reason that foreign sector

commercial banks, co-operative banks and regional rural banks have been

excluded from the purview of this study as these banks' branch network is

confined to either to a few metro cities or in a particular region or few districts

and are, as such, on non-level playing with the commercial banks selected for

the study.

Table 3.4 gives comparative vital statistics about employment relations

perception of the employees in the public sector, the old private and the new

private sector commercial banks. A glance at the comparative statistics

80

presents an overall and a broader overview of the employment relations in

the three sectors of commercial banks in India. An analysis of the vital

statistics reveals the following:-

Table 3.4An Overview of Inter-Sector Employment Relations in Banks

| UnitPublie Sector Old Pvt.Sector New Pvt.

Sector

Sample Size 216 119 106

Mean Seore 162.4 172.5 217.9

Standard Deviation 30.7 26.6 13.9

Publie Sector Vs

Old Private

Publie Sector Vs

New Private

Old Pvt. Sector

VsNew Private

‘t’ value -4.10 -25.40 -19.93

Level of Sig.(p) <.01 <.01 <.01

ANOVA(T values) 159.93

1 Level of Significance <.01

The employees working in new private sector bank experienced overall

better employment relations than those in the public and old private sector

banks as they had a mean score of 217.9 compared to 172..5 and 162.4

obtained by the employees of old private sector and public sector

respectively. Similarly the employees of old private sector experienced overall

better employment relations than their public sector counterparts as they a

better mean score of 172.5 compared to 162.4 obtained by public sector

employees. The differences in the mean scores on overall employment

81

relations among the three sectors were statistically significant at 99% level of

confidence as confirmed by the 'f' value of 159.93 (p<.01)

However, the difference in the mean scores between public and new

private sector was more significant (-25.40) than those between the new and

old private sectors (-19.93). This confirms that the overall employment

relations environment in new generation private sector bank was better than

that of both the old private and the public sector banks. Similarly these mean

scores also reveal that the old private sector bank has comparatively better

employment relations environment than the public sector banks. Thus it is

established that the nature of organisation is correlated to the employment

relations in the banking sector.

For a clearer picture on the employment relations in the three sectors of

banks, it is feasible to see the data given in Table 3.5 which presents the

overall level concentration of the employees' on employment relations.

Table 3.5Inter-Sector Comparison on Overall Level Concentration on ER in Banks

LevelConcentration On ER

Public Seetor Old Private Sector

New Private Sector

Total

f % f % f % f %

High 40 18.3 24 20.3 23 21.8 86 19.5

Moderate 121 56.1 67 56.2 61 57.4 249 56.4

Low 55 25.6 28 23.5 22 20.8 106 24.2

Total 216 100.0 119 100.00 106 100.0 441 100.00

A microscopic analysis of the result data given in Table 3.5 establishes

a common trend in the overall level concentration on employment relations

among employees of the three sectors of the commercial banks, that,

irrespective of the sector, bank employees had more or less on similar

82

perception because about 56 to 57 percent of employees were concentrated on

moderate level of employment relations, around 18 to 22 percent employees

were concentrated on high level whileas 21% to 25% employees where

concentrated on low level of employment relations. However, public sector

banks had more employees on low level (25.5%) than old private sector

(23.5%) and new private sector banks had (20.8%) on low level. Similarly new

private sector bank had 21.8% employees concentrated on high level of

employment relations against 18.29% employees in public sector banks

whileas old private sector bank had 20.2 % employees on high level. These

results further endorse that: (a) employees of new private sector bank

experienced comparatively better overall employment relations than their

public and old private sector counterparts, and (b) the old private sector bank

employees experienced comparatively better overall employment relations

than their public sector counterparts.

For a deeper and further analysis of employment relations in the three

sectors of commercial banks, Table 3.6 portrays the element-wise comparative

level concentration of the employees of public sector, old private sector and

new private sector commercial banks.

An insight into the results given in Table 3.6 reveal that the majority of

the employees of all the three sectors were on high level on the elements of

'employee treatment', 'employee welfare' 'performance evaluation system'

and 'customer service as a tool of competition' indicating that the employees'

of commercial banks were comfortable enough on these elements vis-a-vis

their relations with their managements.

The majority of the employees of all the three sectors of banks were

concentrated either on high or moderate level on the elements of 'trainings

adequacy', 'effectiveness of trainings' and 'customer service' which indicate

that the employees of all the three sectors were satisfied with the adequacy

and the effectiveness of the trainings given to them and also considered

quality customer services essential for cementing good relations with their

managements.

83

Table 3.6Inter-Seetor Level Concentration Comparison on Elements of Employmeut

Relations in Banks

Elements of Employment

Publie Sector(n=216)

Old Pvt. Sector(n=119)

New Pvt. Sector 1 (n=106)

Relations High%

Moderate%

Low%

High%

Moderate%

Low%

High%

Moderate%

Low I%

Salary Adeq. 38 21 41 44 33 23 51 38 19Salary Compa 25 34 41 46 25 29 19 81 -Promo Avenues 47 20 33 53 22 25 54 46 "Promo Policy 41 23 33 51 29 20 49 51 -Grie. Listening 47 23 30 48 30 22 55 45 -Gre. Redressal 48 25 27 35 27 38 38 62 -Participation 33 38 39 36 26 38 53 37 10 1Involvement 23 16 61 29 32 39 27 47 26 |Trainings Adq 60 11 29 9 70 21 74 26 -Trainings.Effe 73 12 15 34 53 13 58 48 -Emp.Treatmen 64 22 14 62 38 - 75 25 -Fair Postings 47 25 28 25 55 20 65 35 -Emp. Welfare 54 30 16 56 19 15 65 35WelfareComp. 17 56 27 13 47 40 61 20 19Job Security 14 82 4 38 32 30 21 24 55

Job Safely 15 60 25 70 - 30 30 46 24Decentralization 33 45 22 57 43 - 66 34 -Delegation 14 59 27 32 68 - 32 38 30P.E. System 58 19 23 62 38 - 71 29 -Perfor.Apprec. 25 26 49 25 49 26 79 21 -Unionism 37 34 29 29 46 25 1 14 86TU vs.ProHR 42 25 33 43 57 - 15 51 3 4Auto & Emp. 15 69 16 28 72 - 91 9 -Auto & Effic 29 59 12 27 73 - 97 3 -Customer Ser. 67 33 — 73 27 - 97 3 -Emp Role CS 9 81 9 17 83 - 86 14 -

Besides this, the results data given in Table 3.6 also reveal that most of the

employees of new private sector were concentrated either on high or

moderate level on all the element of employment relations except on the

elements of unionism and job security with 86% and 55% of the employees

being concentrated on low level on these elements. This further corroborates

84

that the employment relations environment in new private sector banks was

quite better than in the public and the old private sector banks. However, the

low level on the element of job security and unionism reflect that employees

in new private sector banks were more apprehensive about the security of

their job and also considered trade unions irrelevant in their employment

relations.

The employees of the old private sector bank were concentrated more

between high to moderate level on all the elements of ER except the elements

of 'participation and involvement', 'employee welfare comparison' and

'performance appreciation'. This clearly indicates that the employees of old

private sector bank perceived lack of involvement in decision-making process,

lack of appreciation and encouragement to the performers over non­

performer and inadequate welfare facilities in comparison to other banks as

the major irritants in their employment relations.

The employees of public sector banks were concentrated more between

high to moderate level on the elements of promotion avenues, promotion

policy, grievances handling, trainings, employees' treatment, fair postings,

employee welfare, job security, job safety, decentralization, delegation,

performance evaluation system, unionism, automation and customer service.

This indicates that employees of public sector banks perceive good promotion

avenues and a fair promotion policy in vogue in their banks. They also

perceive that there is a grievance handling system in place in their banks but

were not satisfied with the redressal of their grievances. The public sector

bank employees also believe that the managements treat various categories of

employees with equity and without any discrimination. These banks have

also delegated sufficient authority to their branch employees to meet the

challenge of intense competition in the industry. Moreover, the trade unions

still play an active actor in the industrial system of public sector banks.

However, a majority of public sector bank employees were

concentrated on low level on the element of 'involvement and participation in

decision-making process', 'appreciation of performers over non-performers',

85

'salary adequacy' and comparative favourability of salary. This reflects that

the employees of public sector perceived these elements as the most strong

irritants and obstructions in creating and maintaining a cordial employment

relation environment in their organisations. These findings further

corroborate the variation in the employment relations in the three sectors of

commercial banks.

For a deeper analysis of employment relations in the three sectors of

banks, an element-wise ANOVA given in Table 3.7 and 't' and 'p' values

given in Table 3.8 reveal that the mean score differences in all the elements

of employment relations of the three sectors were statistically 'significant.'

However, the 'f'(ANOVA) value on the elements of performance appreciation

(322.03), fair postings/transfers (163.50), employees' involvement (145.28),

grievances redressal (138.03), welfare comparison (136.88), trade unionism vs.

proactive HR (117.35) and employees' role in customer services (107.24) were

more glaring and significant than on other elements of ER thereby indicating

that employee perception these elements of ER had huge variations among

the three sectors of the commercial banking industry.

An analysis of the't' and 'p' values given in Table 3.8 reflect that the

employees of public and old private sector commercial banks shared similar

perception on the elements of promotion avenues, participation and

involvement, employee treatment, unionism, 'automation vs. operational

efficiency7, 'customer service as tool for competition' and employees' role in

customer services as 'p' value on these elements of their employment

relations were statistically non-significant (NS).

However, the Table results also reveal that the employees of the public

sector banks had negative't' values on the elements of salary adequacy,

grievances listening, grievances redressal, employee involvement, trainings

effectiveness, fair postings/transfers, decentralization, delegation,

performance evaluation system, performance appreciation, unionism vs.

proactive HR and automation vs. employees concerns over their counterparts

in the old public sector banks . This certifies that the employees of old private

86

sector perceived better employment relations on these elements over their

public sector counterparts

Table 3.7

Element-wise ANOVA on Inter-Sector ER Perception in Banks (n=44i)

Elements of Employment Relations ‘f values ‘p’value

Salary Adequacy 13.74 0.00Salary Comparison 67.60 0.00

Promotion Avenues 69.60 0.001 Promotion Policy 90.90 0.00I Grievance Listening 90.26 0.001 Grievance Redress 138.03 0.00I Participation 60.69 0.001 Involvement 145.28 0.00I Trainings Regularity 83.28 0.001 Training Effectiveness 46.66 0.00

Employee Treatment 55.78 0.001 Fair Postings/Transfers 163.50 0.001 Welfare Facilities 86.73 0.001 Welfare Comparison 136.88 0.001 Job Security 67.04 0.00

Job Safety 8.65 0.00I Decentralization 35.09 0.00

Delegation 32.79 0.00Performance Evaluation System 91.65 0.00Performance Appreciation. 322.03 0.00Trade Unionism 83.65 0.00Unionism vs. Proactive HR 117.35 0.00Automation vs. Employee Concerns 88.65 0.00Automation Vs. Operational Efficiency 75.41 0.00Customer. Service 17.85 0.00Employees Role in Customer Service. 107.24 0.00

87

Table 3.8An Element-wise Inter-Sector Comparison of Employment Relations in Banks

Elemeuts of Employment

RelationsPublic Seetor

(n=216)

Old Pvt. Seetor

(n=119)

NewSeel

(n=l

‘t’ and ‘p’ valuesPvt.tor06)

PublicSector

VsOld

Pvt.Seetor

Publle Sector Vs

New Pvt. Sector

Old Pvt.Seetor

Vs New Pvt Seetor

Mean SD Mean

SD Mean SD ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t ’ ‘P’Sal. Adequacy 5.6 2.4 6.3 2.0 6.8 2.0 -3.76 0.0 -4.97 0.0 -1.90 NS

1 Sal.Compari 5.3 2.2 4.8 2.3 7.8 1.5 2.48 0.0 -12.70 0.0 -13.4 0.01 Promo Ave. 5.8 2.2 6.3 2.3 8.9 1.3 1.64 NS -15.81 0.0 -12.5 0.01 Promo Pol. 5.8 2.3 6.5 2.1 9.0 1.0 3.25 0.0 -19.71 0.0 -14.5 0.01 Gre. Listening 6.1 2.1 6.5 2.1 9.0 1.0 -2.25 0.0 -19.47 0.0 -15.1 0.0

Gre. Redress 2.8 2.1 5.6 2.4 8.8 1.0 -3.71 0.0 -25.85 0.0 -16.9 0.0| Participation 5.2 2.7 5.5 3.3 8.6 1.8 -0.91 NS -14.56 0.0 - 11.0 0.0

Involvement 3.5 2.1 4.8 2.6 7.9 1.7 -5.89 0.0 -21.10 0.0 -12.5 0.0Trainings Adq 6.6 2.3 7.8 1.8 9.5 0.9 -4.51 0.0 -18.95 0.0 -13.7 0.0Trgs. Effect 7.2 2.2 8.2 1.8 9.3 1.3 -5.88 0.0 -11.23 0.0 -5.5 0.0Emp.Treatme 7.0 1.8 6.9 1.8 8.9 1.3 0.51 NS -11.79 0.0 -11.1 0.0Fair Postings 4.7 2.2 5.2 2.3 9.1 1.7 -2.15 0.0 -20.89 0.0 -16.9 0.0Emp. Welfare 6.6 1.8 6.6 2.0 9.2 1.1 0.12 NS -16.97 0.0 -14.6 0.0Welfare Com. 5.6 1.6 5.1 1.9 8.6 2.2 3.58 0.0 -12.64 0.0 -13.9 0.0Job Security 5.8 1.4 4.5 2.3 2.6 2.1 7.29 0.0 9.86 0.0 3.71 0.0Job Safety 7.5 1.7 7.2 1.6 8.0 1.7 2.57 0.0 -2.33 0.0 -4.10 0.0Decentralizatl 7.7 2.2 9.0 1.3 9.0 1.6 -10.9 0.0 -7.78 0.0 -2.31 0.0Delegation 7.6 1.6 8.6 1.2 7.0 2.1 -8.44 0.0 2.80 0.0 4.98 0.0P.E. System 6.5 2.1 6.9 1.7 9.4 1.0 -2.64 0.0 -18.64 0.0 -16.0 0.0Perfor.Apprec 3.7 2.0 5.2 2.4 9.8 0.8 -7.43 0.0 -42.25 0.0 -24.3 0.0Unionism 6.0 1.9 5.0 2.3 3.0 1.6 0.95 NS -11.91 0.0 8.96 0.0TU vs.PHR 4.0 2.0 6.1 2.3 7.6 1.3 -9.28 0.0 -18.54 0.0 -7.26 0.0Auto vs Emp. 7.9 1.3 8.4 1.1 9.7 1.1 -5.60 0.0 -13.56 0.0 -9.26 0.0

| Auto vs. Effic 8.3 1.4 8.3 1.2 9.9 0.4 0.32 NS -19.00 0.0 -17.8 0.0C.S. 9.3 10 9.4 0.9 9.9 0.4 -1.64 NS -9 .00 0.0 -6.4 0.0Emp.Role CS 7.4 1.6 8.1 1.1 9.7 0.7 -1.78 NS -19.48 0.0 -14.9 0.0

The't' values further reveal that employees of new private sector bank

were experiencing better employment relations over both the public as well as

old private sector bank employees on all elements except the elements of

unionism, delegation of authority and job security

88

This shows that the employees of the new private sector were more

concerned about security of their job than their counterparts in public and old

private sector banks. Similarly, the employees of new private sector did not

consider trade union as relevant actor in employment relations in banking

sector in the contemporary economic environment.

These employees also perceived a lesser degree of delegation of

authority at the branch level.

The above analysis leads to the conclusion that the on the whole

employment relations in new generation private sector banks were

comparatively better than in the public sector and the old private sector

banks. Similarly the employer-employee relations in the old private sector

bank under study were found to be better than that in the public sector banks.

The analysis of the statistical data results given in Table No. 3.4, Table

3.6, Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 clearly establish that there were variations in the

employment relations amongst the employees of:

(a) Public and old private sector commercial banks,

(b) Public sector and new private sector commercial banks and

(c) Old private sector and new private sector commercial banks.

This clearly validates the hypothesis No.l of the study.

In order to find out the elements that were strainers and stressors on

the employment relations in the three sectors of commercial banks, mean

percentages on all the individual elements of employment relations in the

three sectors of commercial banks and their rankings are presented in Table

3.9.

The mean percentages and ranking order on all the elements of the

employment relations in public, old private and new private sector banks

reveal that employees of all the three sectors had a unanimous opinion on

efficient and effective customer services and employees' role in effective

customer services on harmonizing their employment relations with their

managements.

89

Table 3.9Element-wise Inter-Sector Comparative Rankings of ER in Banks

Elements of ER

Public Sector Old Private Sector

New Private Sector I

Mean%

Rank Mean%

Rank Mean% Rank |

Salary Adequacy 55.8 19 63.1 15 67.7 23Salary Comparison 53.0 20 48.1 24 77.6 20Promotion Avenues 58.4 15 62.9 16 88.7 15Promotion Policy 58.2 16 64.6 14 89.7 13.5Grievances Listening 61.0 13 65.2 13 91.0 11Grievances Redressal 48.2 22 55.6 18 87.5 16Participation 52.2 21 54.7 19 86.7 17Involvement 35.0 26 47.6 25 78.6 19Trainings Adequacy 65.6 11 73.7 8 94.8 6Trainings Effectiveness 72.2 8 82.3 6 92.4 8Fair Employee Treatment 69.8 9 69.1 11 89.7 12Fair Postings/Transfers 47.6 23 51.8 21 91.4 10Employee Welfare Facilities 66.4 10 66.7 12 92.2 9Welfare facilities Compari 56.4 18 50.8 22 86.1 16Job Security 57.8 17 45.3 26 35.8 25

Job Safety 75.4 6 71.8 9 80.1 18Decentralization 77.0 4 89.6 2 89.7 13.5Delegation/Work autonomy 75.6 5 85.6 3 69.9 22Performance Eva. System 65.4 12 69.7 10 94.0 7Performance Appreciation 37.2 25 51.8 20 95.8 5Trade Unionism 60.0 14 50.5 23 40.1 24

Unionism vs. Pro HR 43.4 24 61.1 17 76.0 21Automations vs. Empl Con 78.8 3 84.5 4 96.4 4Automation vs. Op.efficienc 82.6 2 83.0 5 100.0 1Customer Service 93.6 1 94.5 1 99.2 2Employees’ Role in C/S. 74.2 7 81.1 7 97.2 3The ranking order also certify that the employees of the public sector and old

private sector now believe that automation in banks have not only increased

the operational efficiency but also improved the profitability of the banks as

both the elements of the dimension of 'automation' have been ranked in the

top order by the employees of these banks.

90

The mean percentages and rankings further reveal that bank

employees of all the three sectors perceive a fair degree of work autonomy

and safe working conditions as these elements have higher mean averages

and ranking orders. The employees also perceive that managements give a

fair treatment to various categories/cadres of employees.

The low mean percentages and consequent lowest ranking order by the

employees of public sector banks indicate that the following elements have

the potential to cause adverse reaction to the chemistry of relations between

employment relations:-

i. Involvement and participation of employees in the decision-making

process (mean 35.0% & 52.2%, rank 26th & 21st respectively)

ii. Performance Appreciation (mean 37.2% rank 25th )

iii. Unionism vs. Proactive HR policies (mean 43.4%, rank 24th ),

iv. Employees' fair postings/transfers (mean 47.6% , rank 23rd ),

v. Satisfactory redressal of employees' grievances (mean 48.2% rank

22nd),

vi. Comparative favourability of salaries and welfare facilities (mean

53.0% and 56.4%, ranks 20th and 18th respectively),

vii. Salary adequacy (mean 55.8%, rank 19th)

viii. Job security (mean 57.8 %, rank 17th ),

ix. Promotion avenues and promotion policy (mean 58.4%and 58.2 %,

ranks 15th and 16th respectively).

The employees of public sector banks were by and large satisfied on

other elements of employment relations.

Similarly the elements that could or were straining employment

relations in the old private sector bank were:-

i. Job security (mean percentage 45.3, rank 26th)

ii. Involvement and participation in the decision-making process (mean

47.6 and 54.7, ranks 25th and 19th respectively)

iii. Salary and welfare facilities in comparison to new private sector and

foreign sector banks (48.1% & 50.8%, rank 24th & 22nd)

91

iv. Employees' fair postings transfer (mean 51.8 & rank 21st)

v. Performance Appreciation (mean 51.8, rank 20th )and

vi. Satisfactory redressal of employees 'grievances (mean 55.6, rank 18th)

The employees of new private sector who experienced overall better

employment relations over their counterparts in both public sector and old

private sector banks, yet their relations with their management were under

stress on the following elements of employment relations:-

i. Job security (mean 35.8%, rank 25h),

ii. Adequate salaries commensurate to their job responsibilities( mean

67.7%, rank 23rd) and

iii. Delegation of authority ( mean 69.9, rank 22nd)

Besides the ranking order reveal that the employees of new private

sector bank do not perceive trade unions effective in checking the arbitrary

powers of the managements today as they placed the element of trade

unionism at rank number 24th in the ranking order with a mean percentage of

40.1.

Employee Hierarchy and Employment Relations in

Commercial Banks

A number of studies have been conducted to examine the correlation

between employer- employee relations and employees' designations/their

positions in the organizational hierarchy. This study makes yet another

attempt in this direction.

The employees of commercial banks have different designations but

for the purpose of this study, the employees have been categorized into three

groups of hierarchies namely- (1) the branch heads, (2) the other officers

including all officer-level staff posted at the branch and (3) the clerical-level

staff including special assistants, clerks, cashiers, cashier-cum-clerks, typists,

computer operators, record-keepers, assistant cashiers, etc but excluding

peons, orderlies and guard or watchman. The ratio of officers (both branch

92

heads and the other officers) and clerical employees was 68:32 as per the

study

The vital statistics given in Table 3.10 reveal that there were significant

differences in the overall employment relations among the three hierarchies of

bank employees.

Table 3.10An Overview of Hierarchy-wise Employment Relations in Banks

UnitEmployee Hierarchy

Branch Heads Other Officers Clerical-levelStaff

Sample Size 34 305102

Mean Seore 199.6 190.1 133.9

Standard Deviation 17.1 21.3 14.1

Braneh Heads Vs.

Other officers

Braueh Heads Vs.

Clerical-level Staff

Other Offieers Vs.

Clerieal-levelStaff

‘t’ value 5.07 38.47 35.26

Level of Sig.(p) <.01 <.01 <.01

‘f value 748.67

Significance<.01 1

The branch heads with a mean score of 199.6 perceived comparatively

better employment relations than the other officers and the clerical-level

staff. (The other officers and the clerical-level staff had mean scores of

191.1and 133.9 respectively.) These differences in their mean scores were

93

statistically significant as confirmed by their't' value results. The branch heads

perceived better employment relations than the other officers ('t' 5.07) and far

better employment relations than the clerical-level staff ('t'38.47)Similarly the

other officers perceived better employment relations than clerical-level

employees ('t' 35.26)

For a closer and a microscopic analysis of the employment relations

among the three hierarchies of bank employees, Table 3.11 presents the

overall level concentration among the three hierarchies of bank employees on

overall employment relations.

An insight into the Table results reveal that the majority of the

employees of the three hierarchies were converged on the moderate level of

employment relations with 70% of the branch heads, 60% of the other officers

and around 67% of the clerical staff concentrated on the moderate level

whileas about 18% of the branch heads, 23.65% of 'other officers' and only

16% of the clerical-level staff were concentrated on high level.

Table 3.11

Employee Hierarchy & Overall Level Concentration on ER in Banks

Level Concentration On ER

Employee Hierarchy

Branch Heads 'OtherOfficers'

Clerical-levelstaff

Total

f % f % f % f %

High 6 17.9 75 23.5 16 16.1 87 19.8

Moderate 24 70.2 183 59.6 68 66.8 284 64.4

Low 4 11.9 51 16.9 17 17.1 70 15.8

Total 34 100.0 305 100.0 102 100.0 441 100.0

Among the three designations, a minimum 11.92% of the branch

heads were concentrated on low level while as around 17% each from 'other

94

officers' and clerical-level staff were concentrated on low level. This is a

reaffirmation that : (a) branch heads perceived comparatively better

employment relations than the 'other officers' and the clerical-level staff,

and (b) the 'other officers' perceived comparatively better employment

relations than the clerical- level staff.

For still further microscopic examination of the employment relations

environment among 'the branch heads', 'the other officers' and the clerical-

level staff; it is desirable to analyze the element-wise statistics of the three

hierarchies of bank employees' alongwith their 'f' values and't' values given

in Table 3.12 and 3.13.

A glance at the ANOVA value results in Table 3.12 reveal that there

were huge variations in the mean scores among 'the branch heads', 'the other

officers' and the 'clerical-level staff' on all the elements of employment

relations and the differences were statistically significant.

Though there were variations in the 'f' value among the three

hierarchies of bank employees on all elements of employment relations but

the difference on the following elements were least-

job security (11.30), customer service as competition tool (26.18), job

safety (26.36), trade unionism (38.65), employees' role in customer service

(73.94), automation v/s operational efficiency (75.53), fair postings (86.71),

automation vs. employees' concerns (87.03), training effectiveness (89.71),

welfare comparison (91.73) and delegation (99.16) This indicates that

employees of all the three designations shared a near similar perception on

these elements of employment relations.

But the most prominent and significant variations, ('f' values) were on

the elements of 'involvement'(395.34), 'promotion avenues' (373.14)

'participation' (357.43), promotion policy (258.21), grievance listening (247.65),

grievance redressal (243.09), 'comparative favourability of salaries' (226.69),

'performance appreciation' (224.21) 'performance evaluation system' (220.41),

'training adequacy' (207.36), 'decentralization' (196.72), 'trade unionism vs.

proactive HR' (171.44) and salary adequacy (147.16)..

95

Table 3.12Element-wise ANOVA on Inter-Hierarchy Employment Relations in Banks

Elements of Employment Relations T value ‘p’value

Salary Adequacy 147.16 0.00Salary Comparison 226.69 0.00Promotion Avenues 375.14 0.00Promotion Policy 258.21 0.00Grievance Listening 247.65 0.00Grievance Redress 243.09 0.00Participation 357.43 0.00Involvement 395.34 0.00Trainings Regularity 207.36 0.00Training Effectiveness 89.67 0.00Employee Treatment 124.94 0.00Fair Postings/Transfers 86.71 0.00Welfare Facilities 122.80 0.00Welfare Comparison 91.73 0.00Job Security 11.30 0.00Job Safety 26.46 0.00Decentralization 196.72 0.00Delegation o f Authority 99.16 0.00Performance Evaluation System 220.41 0.00Performance Appreciation. 224.21 0.00Trade Unionism 38.65 0.00Unionism vs. Proactive HR 171.44 0.00Automation vs. Employee Concerns 87.03 0.00Automation Vs. Operational Efficiency 75.53 0.00Cus. Service 26.18 0.00Employees’ Role in Customer Service 73.94 0.00

These huge 'f' values confirm that the branch heads, the other officers

and clerical-level employees' perceptions on these elements of employment

relations were poles apart. These results are in compatible with the previous

results.

For analysing the statistical significance in the mean score differences

on all the individual elements of the employment relations between

(a) branch heads and other officers

(b) branch heads and elerical-level employees and

(c) the other officers and the clerical-level staff

Table 3.13 presents the't' and 'p' value amongst the three hierarchies

i.e. the branch heads, the other officers and the clerical-level staff.

96

Table 3.13Inter-Hierarchy Element-wise Comparison of Employment Relations in Banks

Branch Other Clerical-level “t’ and ‘p’ ValuesElements of Managers Offieers StaffER (n=34) (n=305) (n=102) BH vsOO BH vs CS OO vs CS

Mean

S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t’ ‘P’Sal.Adequacy 6.9 1.9 6.8 1.8 4.1 1.8 0.5 NS 13.2 0.0 15.4 0.0Sal.Compari 6.6 1.9 6.6 1.9 3.5 1.5 0.2 NS 17.4 0.0 20.8 0.0Promo Ave. 8.0 1.1 7.6 1.7 3.9 1.9 3.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 22.1 0.0Promo Policy 7.8 1.3 7.5 1.8 4.3 3.2 2.2 0.0 19.7 0.0 18.5 0.0Gre. Listening 8.1 1.3 7.5 1.8 4.6 1.9 4.2 0.0 21.3 0.0 17.7 0.0Gre. Redress 6.8 1.9 6.8 2.1 3.3 1.0 0.1 NS 18.8 0.0 21.2 0.0Participation 9.1 1.4 6.0 2.6 3.1 1.7 16.2 0.0 35.9 0.0 15.0 0.0Involvement 7.6 1.3 4.8 2.2 2.1 0.7 15.7 0.0 45.9 0.0 17.1 0.0Training Adq 8.3 1.1 8.2 1.4 4.0 2.2 0.7 0.0 16.1 0.0 15.8 0.0Trgs. Effect 8.8 1.3 8.3 1.5 6.5 2.5 3.6 0.0 11.5 0.0 9.6 0.0Emp.Treatmnt 8.2 1.0 7.8 1.6 5.8 1.9 3.3 0.0 15.0 0.0 12.1 0.0Fair Postings 6.5 2.2 6.4 2.5 3.8 2.3 0.3 NS 11.0 0.0 12.0 0.0Emp. Welfare 8.1 1.2 7.6 1.7 5.5 2.1 3.8 0.0 14.7 0.0 11.7 0.0Welfare Com 6.4 1.9 6.8 2.0 4.4 1.8 -1.8 NS 9.8 0.0 13.2 0.0Job Security 5.5 2.3 5.1 1.9 4.5 1.9 1.9 NS 4.4 0.0 3.3 0.0Job Safety 7.2 1.4 8.0 1.6 7.0 1.8 -5 .5 0.0 1.0 NS 6.4 0.0Decentralizati 9.4 1.2 9.0 1.2 6.6 2.1 2.8 0.0 15.9 0.0 15.1 0.0Delegation 6.8 2.5 8.8 1.0 7.0 1.6 -9.3 0.0 - 1.0 NS 13.6 0.0P.E. System 8.1 1.2 8.0 1.4 5.2 2.1 1.3 NS 16.1 0.0 16.9 0.0Perfor.Apprec 7.4 1.9 5.7 2.8 2.6 1.2 7.5 0.0 7.4 0.0 16.7 0.0Unionism 4.0 2.0 5.4 2.2 6.0 2.1 7.1 0.0 -8.9 0.0 2.4 0.0TU vs.PHR 6.3 2.0 6.3 1.8 3.4 1.8 1.8 NS 15.2 0.0 16.7 0.0Auto vs Emp. 9.0 1.2 8.6 1.2 7.5 1.2 3.7 0.0 12.1 0.0 10.4 0.0Auto vs Effici 9.2 1.0 8.8 1.4 7.7 1.1 4.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 9.4 0.0C.S. 9.8 .0.5 9.4 .0.9 9.2 1.0 5.9 0.0 8.1 0.0 3.1 0.0Emp.Role CS 8.9 1.0 8.1 1.4 7.1 1.6 6.6 0.0 12.6 0.0 7.2 0.0

A through scrutiny of the results given in Table 3.13 reveal that the

branch heads and the other officers shared similar perception on the

elements of salary adequacy, favorable comparison of salary, grievances

redressal, fair postings/transfers, adequate welfare facilities, favourable

comparison of welfare facilities, performance evaluation system and

unionism vs. proactive HR policies as the 'p' value on all these elements of

employment relations between these two hierarchies of bank employees were

non-significant(NS) at 95% confidence interval. (p<.05)

The branch heads had better mean scores than the other officers on

the elements of 'promotion avenues', 'promotion policy', 'grievances

listening', 'participation' and 'involvement', 'trainings adequacy' and

97

'trainings effectiveness', 'fair employee treatment', 'job security',

'decentralization/delegation', 'unionism', 'performance appreciation',

'automation vs. employee concerns', 'automation vs. operational efficiency',

'customer service as a competition tool' and 'employees' role in customer

service'. These better scores endorse that the branch heads experienced

favourable relations with their managements on these elements of

employment relations. However, the other officers had better scores over

branch heads on the elements of 'job safety' and 'decentralization/delegation

of authority'. This reflects that holding the branch heads responsible for the

loans turning bad inspite of exercising all prudent norms by them and the

limited financial authority enjoyed by them in sanctioning advances and loans

at the branch level as per the exigencies of the business stresses their relations

with their managements.

There were "non-significant" differences in the mean scores of the

branch heads and the clerical-level staff on the elements of job safety and

delegation of authority/non-interference by superiors in the disposal of

routine work indicating that branch heads and the clerical staff were both

enjoying sufficient work autonomy for the disposal of their routine jobs at the

branches. The clerical-level staff had better score on the element of 'unionism'

than the branch heads indicating that clerical-level staff considered unions

more relevant and essential in balancing their relations with the management

than did the branch managers.

The differences between the other officers and clerical-level staff were

"significant" on all the elements of employment relations conveying that

compared to clerical-level bank staff, the other officers perceived better

relations with their managements on all the elements of employment

relations.

The mean scores of three designations of bank employees on various

elements of employment relations invariably give an incomplete picture of

employment relations. Therefore, it is feasible to analyse the level

concentration of the three hierarchies of bank employees on all the individual

98

elements of employment relations. Table 3.14 gives the percentage of level

concentration of the branch heads, the other officers and clerical-level staff

on the elements of employment relations.

The branch heads as well as the other officers were mostly

concentrated on the moderate level on both the elements of the dimension of

salary while as clerical-level staff was concentrated between moderate to low

levels on the element of 'salary adequacy' and low level on the element of

'favorable comparability of their salaries. This clearly reflects that the branch

heads and the other officers of the commercial banks were more satisfied

with their salary and its comparative favourability than that of clerical level

staff.

Both, 'the branch heads' and 'the other officers' of commercial banks

under study were mostly concentrated on moderate level on both the

elements of the dimension of 'promotion' i.e. promotion avenues and

promotion policy, but the clerical-level staff was mostly concentrated on low

level on the element of 'promotion avenues' and on moderate level on the

element of 'promotion policy' indicating that the bank officers perceived more

opportunities of promotion than did the clerical level staff.

The branch heads and the other officers were concentrated mostly on

moderate level on both the elements of the dimension of 'grievances handling.

But the clerical-level staff was concentrated on moderate level on the element

of 'grievances listening' whileas they were low level on the element of

'satisfactory redressal of grievances' This again reflects the huge difference in

the perception between the two hierarchy of bank employees viz. the officers

and the clerical staff on the grievance handling mechanism in the banking

industry.

The 'branch heads' were mostly concentrated on high level on the

element of 'participation' and 'involvement. However, the other officers were

on moderate level on the element of 'participation' whileas they were low

level on the element of 'involvement'. But the clerical-level staff' was on low

level on both elements of the dimension of 'participation & involvement'. This

99

explains that the clerical level staff in commercial banks still aspires to be

involved in the decision-making process relating to the job.

The branch heads and other officers were concentrated on high level on

the element of adequacy of trainings and development programmes whileas

the clerical staff was concentrated on low level. However, on the element of

effectiveness of trainings and development programmes, the branch heads

were on high level, whileas the other officers and the clerical staff was

concentrated mostly on moderate level. All the hierarchies of bank employees

were satisfied with the regularity and quality of their trainings, yet the clerical

staff had a grudge about the regularity of trainings given to them in

comparison to their officers.

The level concentration of bank employees on the element of 'fair

treatment to different categories of employees by the management' was

mostly moderate in all the three groups of employees of the commercial

banking industry. However, on the element of fairness and objectivity in

postings/transfer, the level differed between the officer-level staff i.e. branch

heads and other officers and the clerical-level staff. The officers' were

concentrated on moderate level on this element whileas the clerical-level staff

was concentrated on low level. This indicates that officers' postings/transfers

were fairer and objectivity- based than that of the clerical-level employees'.

The branch heads and the other officers' were concentrated on

moderate level on the element of 'adequacy of welfare facilities' but the

clerical-level staff' was concentrated between moderate to low level. Again on

the element of 'comparative favorability of welfare facilities in the commercial

banks', the branch heads and the other officers were concentrated on

moderate level while as the clerical-level staff was mostly concentrated on

low level. This is again a reflection of the variation in the perception of these

two hierarchies of bank employees on this dimension of their employment

relations.

On the element of job security 'the branch heads' and 'the other

officers' were concentrated mostly on moderate level but the clerical-level

100

staff was concentrated on the low level. However, on the element of safety of

interests in risky situations and the safety of working conditions in the

branches, all the three groups of employees' were mostly concentrated on

moderate level. This indicates that the clerical level bank staff considered

their job more insecure than the bank officers'. However, all the hierarchies of

bank employees perceived their working conditions safe and sound.

The branch heads and the other officers' were concentrated on high

level on the element of decentralization & delegation but the clerical-level

staff was on low level. However, on the element of delegation of financial

authority to branch heads and non-interference by the superiors in the routine

work of the 'other officers' and the clerical-level staff, the branch heads and

'the other officers' were concentrated on moderate level and clerical staff's

concentration was distributed between moderate to low level. This is

indicative of the changed work environment in banks. The bank officers as

well as the clerical level staff enjoyed work autonomy though the clerical staff

perceived a lesser degree of autonomy.

On the element of 'presence of a sound performance evaluation

system' the branch heads and other officers were concentrated mostly on

moderate level (73% and 62% respectively). However, the clerical-level staff

concentrated mostly between low to moderate level (78%) on this element. On

the element of appreciating and rewarding performers over non-performers,

the level differed among the three hierarchies of employees. The branch heads

were mostly concentrated between low to moderate level (44% and 32%)

whileas 'the other officers' were concentrated mostly on moderate level (59%)

and the clerical-level staff was concentrated mostly on low level (74%). This

sums up that though banks have a performance system in place but the

performers were not encouraged and appreciated by proper rewards over the

non-performers. This was a major grudge particularly among the clerical level

staff.

101

Table 3.14Employee Hierarchy & Element-wise Com parative Level Concentration on ________________ Employment Relations in Banks_________________

Elements of ERBranch Heads

(n=34)Other Officers

(n=305)Clerical-level Staff

(n=102)Hig

h%

Moderat

e%

Low%

High%

Moderat

e%

Low%

High%

Moderat

e%

Low%

SalaryAdequacy 10 77 13 5 81 14 28 39 33Salary Compari 10 78 12 7 72 21 13 35 52

Promotion Ave. 15 72 13 16 78 16 32 26 43Promotion Pol. 12 67 21 14 79 7 12 55 33GrievanceListn. 23 63 14 15 76 9 9 58 33Gre. Redressal 1 85 14 11 70 19 15 33 52

Participation 64 36 - 12 52 36 16 21 63

Involvement 9 69 23 20 22 58 - 5 95

Trainings Adq 21 75 4 27 62 11 33 25 42

TrainingEffect 49 46 5 32 57 11 10 63 27Empl.Treatment 21 73 6 16 65 19 29 41 30Fair Postings/ Tranfrs 17 58 25 20 46 34 21 26 53

Emp. Welfare 20 68 12 17 54 29 28 37 35Welfare Comp. 9 75 16 18 69 13 5 36 59

Job Security 25 40 35 14 45 41 2 44 54

Job Safety 6 87 7 23 62 15 2 86 12Decentralization 76 - 24 57 39 4 41 53 4Delegation 11 8 31 42 56 2 4 53 43P.E. System 20 73 7 20 62 18 22 34 44

Perfor.Apprec. 24 32 44 17 59 23 26 - 74

Trade Unionism 17 29 54 34 43 43 40 28 32TU vs. ProHR 9 74 17 39 39 32 19 27 54

Auto vs. Emp. 58 - 42 37 56 7 2 76 22Auto vs. 0 . Efficien 63 - 37 48 45 7 7 74 19C .S . 93 - 7 73 - 27 55 45 -Emp.Role in CS 48 52- - 25 75 - 65 22 13

On the element of unionism, the branch heads were mostly on low

level (54%) while as 'the other officers' were mostly between moderate to low

102

level (43% & 43%) and the clerical-level staff was mostly between high to

moderate level (40%&28%) indicating that clerical level staff posed more faith

in the unions for checking the arbitrary powers of the management. But the

branch heads did not consider unions effective in their employment relations.

However, the hierarchy of other officers did rely on trade unions in their

employment relations.

On the element of unionism vs. proactive HR policies, the branch

managers' were concentrated on moderate level (74%) but other officers were

concentrated mostly between high to moderate level (39% & 39%) whileas the

clerical-level staff was mostly on low level (54%) These level concentration

differences among the three hierarchies of bank employees indicate that

branch heads and other officers in commercial banks did believe that unions'

role in ER had been curtailed to some extent due to the application of

proactive HR policies. However, the clerical level staff did not subscribe to

this view.

The branch heads and the other officers were concentrated on high and

moderate levels respectively on the element of 'automation & employees'

basic concerns' while as clerical-level staff concentrated on moderate level.

This indicates that bank employees of all hierarchies shared almost similar

perception on this element of their employment relations.

On the element of ' automation & operational efficiency' the branch

heads were mostly on high level and the other officers were concentrated

between high to moderate level, whileas the clerical-level staff was

concentrated on moderate level. This difference in the perceptions between

the officers' staff and the clerical staff of banks reflects the sharp division

between the two on the automation of operations in the industry.

On the element of 'customer service as the effective tool for meeting

competition in the banking industry' all the three hierarchies of bank

employees were mostly on high level. But on the element of 'role of

employees in ensuring effective services to the customers', the level was

103

spread between low to high among branch heads whileas it was mostly low

among the other officers and high among the clerical-level staff.

The analysis of data of Table 3.14 makes it clear that both the officers

hierarchies, i. e.the branch heads and the other officers were mostly on high

and or moderate level on most of the elements of employment relations

whileas the clerical-level staff were mostly on low or moderate level on most

of the elements of employment relations., which is a reaffirmation of the poor

employment relations perception amongst the clerical-level staff in

comparison to the officers-level employees i.e. branch heads and other officers

who perceived comparatively better employment relations

The analysis of the result data given in Tables 3.10, 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14

clearly validate the hypothesis No. 2 of the study that among the bank

employees, employment relations of branch managers or branch heads

would be different from those of the employees subordinate to the branch

heads i.e. other officers and clerical-level staff .

A pathological analysis of the mean percentages on individual

elements of employment relations obtained by branch heads, the other

officers and clerical staff and their rankings given in Table 3.15, reveal the

following:-

The bank employees of all the three hierarchies were satisfied on the

dimensions of 'customer service' and 'automation' as reflected by the mean

scores and the rankings on the elements of these dimensions of ER.

The high mean score percentages obtained by the branch heads on the

elements of promotion avenues (80.2), policy promotion (78.1), grievances

listening (81.3), participation (91.3), involvement (76.4) training adequacy

(83.0), training effectiveness (88.4), fair employee treatment (82.2), employee

welfare facilities (81.1), job safety(71.9), decentralization (93.9), performance

evaluation system(81.5), and performance appreciation(74.1) indicate that the

branch managers were satisfied on these elements of their employment

relations.

104

Similarly, the high score percentages obtained by the other officers on

the elements promotion avenues (76.1), policy promotion (74.8), grievances

listening (75.0), training adequacy (82.1), training effectiveness (83.5), fair

employee treatment(77.9), employee welfare facilities (75.9), job safety (80.0),

decentralization (90.4), delegation/non-interference (88.1) and performance

evaluation system (79.9) indicate that this hierarchy of bank employees was

by and large satisfied on these elements of their employment relations.

However, the clerical-level staff of public and old private sector

commercial banks were perceiving strained relations with their managements

on most of the elements as is visible from the low mean percentages obtained

by them.

The branch heads considered trade unions least effective in their

employment relations as they placed the element on the last rank (rank 26th )

whileas the other officers considered trade unions a little effective in

balancing their relations with the management as they placed it at rank

number 22nd but the clerical-level staff who perceived overall poor

employment relations, considered trade unions essential in checking the

arbitrary powers of the management as they placed this element at rank

number 9.

However, the branch heads who experienced comparatively overall

better employment relations over other two hierarchies of employees i.e. than

the other officers and clerical-level employees, obtained low mean

percentages and rankings on the elements of trade unionism, job security,

welfare facilities comparison, fair postings/transfers, salary comparison,

unionism vs. Proactive HR, grievance redressal, and salary adequacy. This

indicates that the branch heads perceived security of their jobs, fairness in

postings/transfer, favourability of their welfare facilities and salaries in

comparison to foreign sector banks, unionism vs. proactive HR policies, and

satisfactory redressal of their grievances as the major strainers on their

relations with their managements as these were placed in last of the ranking

order with job security raking 25th , favourable welfare facilities ranked at 24th'

105

fair postings/transfers ranked 23rd, and salary package ranking at 22nd-

unionism vs. proactive HR policies at rank 21st and grievance redressal at

rank number 20th.

Table 3.15Employee Hierarchy & Element-wise Comparative Rankings of Employment

Relations in Banks

Elements of ER Branch Heads Other Officers Clerical-levelEmployees

Mean%

Rank Mean%

Rank Mean% Rank

Salary Adequacy 69.4 18 68.5 16 41.5 18Salary Comparison 65.9 22 65.6 19 32.7 23Promotion Avenues 80.2 13 76.1 12 39.0 19

Promotion Policy 78.1 14 74.8 15 42.7 17Grievances Listening 81.3 11 75.0 14 45.7 14

Grievances Redressal 68.2 20 68.0 17 32.8 22

Participation 91.3 4 60.4 23 31.4 24

Involvement 76.4 15 47.7 26 21.4 25Trainings Adequacy 83.0 8 82.1 7 52.4 12

Trainings Effectiveness 88.4 6.5 83.5 6 64.8 8Fair Employee Treatment 82.2 9 77.9 11 58.3 10Fair Postings/ Transfers 64.7 23 64.0 20 37.9 20

Employee Welfare Facilities 81.1 12 75.9 13 55.3 11Welfare facilities Compari 63.7 24 67.4 18 44.3 16Job Security 55.2 25 51.1 25 45.2 15

Job Safety 71.9 17 80.0 9 70.1 6Decentralization 93.9 2 90.4 2 65.7 7Delegation/Work autonomy 68.4 19 88.1 3 70.9 5Performance Eva. System 81.5 10 79.9 10 51.7 13

Performance Appreciation 74.1 16 57.1 24 26.2 26Trade Unionism 47.4 26 61.4 22 59.0 9Unionism vs. Pro HR 66.3 21 63.7 21 34.3 21Automations vs. E. Concerns 90.5 5 86.0 5 74.8 3Automation vs.O Efficiency 92.3 3 87.7 4 77.0 2C/S 98.5 1 94.5 1 91.8 1Employees’ Role in C/S. 88.4 6.5 81.5 8 71.3 4

106

Similarly, the 'other officers' in public and old private sector banks

who experienced comparatively better employment relations than the clerical-

level employees in these banks placed following elements of ER in the last of

the ranking order. Involvement in decision-making' (rank 26th ), 'job security'

(rank 25th ) performance appreciation (rank 24th ), unionism vs. proactive HR

policies (rank 22nd ), salary and welfare facilities in comparison to foreign-

sector banks (rank 19th and 18th respectively) and satisfactory redressal of

employee grievances (rank 17th ). This indicates that these elements stressed

their relations with their managements.

The clerical-level employees had lowest scores on most of the elements

of employment relations among all the three hierarchies of bank employees

but the elements which had most adverse impact on their relations with their

managements were; appreciation to performers over non-performers (rank

26th), involvement/participation in decision-making process relating to their

work (rank 25th & 24th ), favourable salaries in comparison to other

banks(rank 23rd ), satisfactory redressal of their grievances (rank 22nd)

unionism vs. proactive HR policies(rank 21st), fair postings(rank 20th),

adequate promotion avenues (rank 19th) adequate salary commensurate to

their job responsibilities and experiences (rank 18th ) , sound and fair

promotion policy (rank 17th ), welfare facilities comparison with other banks

(rank 16th ), job security (rank 15th ), grievances listening (rank 14th ),

Performance evaluation system (rank 13th ) adequacy of trainings (rank 12th )

and adequacy of employee welfare facilities (rank 11th)

The variations in the mean values between bank officers'- both branch

heads, other officers and the clerical-level staff were so huge that the last

ranked elements for the officers had a mean score percentage of 55.2 whileas

the last ranked element for the clerical-level had a mean score of 21.4%.

The analysis of the employment relations of the branch heads, the

other officers and the clerical-level employees of the commercial banks

clearly prove the hypothesis that the employment of the three hierarchies of

bank employees differ and

107

a) That the branch heads had better employment relations than the other

officers and the clerical-level employees, and

b) That the 'other officers' of banks enjoy better employment relations than

the clerical-level employees.

Employees' Personal Characteristics & ER in Banks

The personal characteristics of the employees such as their gender, age,

work experience, education level, etc., help in forming and shaping their

perceptions. Therefore, an attempt is made to study the correlation between

personal characteristics of commercial bank employees and their employment

relations. The personal variables selected for the study include employee

gender, employee age, employee work experience, employee educational

qualifications and lastly the union affiliation of the employees.

Employee Gender & Employment Relations

Table3.16An Overview of Gender-wise Employment Relations in Banks

Unit Male Employees Female Employees

Sample Size 379 62

Mean Score 175.0 174.5

Standard Deviations 34.4 31.5

Malevs.

Female Employees

‘t’ value -1.66

‘p’value Non-significant

X2 1.216

‘p’ value Non-significant

108

The scrutiny of the demographic data of the participants revealed that a

majority of 85.91% employees in commercial banks were male whileas the

female employees' constituted 14.09% of the bank staff.

The vital statistics of mean scores, standard deviations, values of

significances, etc. of male and female bank employees given in Table 3.16

reveal that there was no significant difference in the overall employment

relations perception of these two groups of bank employees. This is confirmed

by both the't' test value of -1.66 and X2 value of 1.21 between the two groups

which are both statistically non-significant at 95% confidence level..

However, for a deeper probe on the employment relations between

male and female bank employees, an element-wise scores and their statistical

significance, are given in Table 3.17

The analysis of the mean scores on the individual elements of the

employment relations of male and female bank employees reveal that male

employees experienced better employment relations on the elements of

'participation and involvement in decision-making process, 'automation vs.

employees concerns', 'customer service as a competition tool', and 'employees

role in customer service' over their female counterparts, while as the female

employees seemed to more satisfied with the fairness and objectivity of their

postings/transfers and the degree of work autonomy than their male

counterparts (p.<.05).This indicates that female employees were enjoying

suitable postings and a better work environment than their male counterparts

but less involvement in the decision- making-process as compared to their

male employees. Similarly, male bank employees were more convinced with

the importance of customer services in the banking organisations and

employees' role in effective customer services, and had better degree of

agreement with the notion of automation not being adverse to employees'

basic concerns..

An analysis of the data given in Table 3.18 depicting the level

concentration of male and female employees on the overall employment

relations perception reveal that almost 77% of both male and female bank

109

employees were concentrated between high to moderate level of employment

relations whileas around 23%-24% of both sexes of bank employees were

concentrated on the low level. These level concentrations reaffirm that there

was no significant difference in the overall perception of the employment

relations between male and female bank employees

Table 3.17An Element-wise Comparison of Employment Relations o f Male & Female Bank _________________________________EmployeesElements o f Employment Relations

Male(n=379)

Female(n=62)

‘t’ and ‘p’ values

Mean

S.D. Mean

S.D. t PSalary Adequacy 6.0 2.4 6.3 2.2 -1.40 NSSalary Comparison 5.5 2.4 5.6 2.3 .0.50 NSPromotion Avenues 6.6 2.4 6.2 2.8 1.34 NSPromotion Policy 6.5 2.3 6.5 2.4 0.03 NSGrievance Listening 6.7 2.7 7.0 2.1 ,-1 .7 0 NSGrievance Redressal 5.7 2.5 5.8 2.5 -0.47 NSParticipation , 6.0 3.0 5.1 2.9 2.64 0.00Involvement 4.7 2.7 3.9 2.4 2.82 0.00Trainings Adequacy 7.3 2.2 7.0 2.6 1.42 NSTrainings Effectiveness 7.9 2.1 7.7 2.1 0.57 NSFair Employee Treatment 7.2 1.9 7.3 1.8 -0.38 NSFair Postings /Transfers 5.4 2.7 6.4 2.4 -3.47 0.00Welfare Facilities 7.1 2.0 6.7 2.2 1.59 NSWelfare Comparison 5.9 2.2 6.3 2.1 -1.75 NSJob Security 4.9 2.0 5.6 1.9 -3.15 0.00Job Safety 7.4 1.6 8.0 1.9 -2.60 0.01Decentralization 8.3 2.0 8.6 1.9 -1.51 NSDelegation/ Work Autonomy 7.7 1.9 8.6 1.9 -5.40 0.00Performance Eva. System 7.1 2.1 7.2 2.2 -0.26 NSPerformance Appreciation 5.2 2.9 4.8 2.7 1.36 NSTrade Unionism 5.6 2.1 6.0 2.2 -1.66 NSUnionism vs. Proactive HR 5.5 2.4 5.3 2.4 0.81 NS

Automation vs. Employee Concerns 8.5 1.3 7.7 1.6 4.19 0.00Automation vs. Op. Efficiency 8.6 1.3 7.9 1.6 3.95 0.00Cus. Service 9.3 0.9 9.2 1.0 1.99 NSEmployees’ Role in CS 8.1 1.6 7.9 1.5 1.96 NS

110

Table 3.18

Employee Gender & Overall Level Concentration on Employment Relations

LevelConcentration on ER

Gender of Bank Employees |

Male Female Total |

f % f % f %

High 70 18.4 9 14.3 79 18.0

Moderate 217 57.4 39 62.6 256 58.0

Low 92 24.2 14 23.1 106 24.0

Total 379 100.00 62 100.00 441 100.00

Employee Age & Employment Relations

The employees were categorized into three age groups viz. Group-I

(employees below the age of 30 years, i.e. younger employees), Group-II

(employees within the age group of 30- 45 years, i.e. median aged employees)

and Group-Ill (employees above the age of 45 years, i.e. the eldest

employees).The ratio of the three groups in the banking industry as per the

study was found in the ratio of 25:32:43.

Before analyzing the results of correlation between employment

relations and employee age, it is desirable to go through the age profile of the

bank employees, both sector-wise and designation-wise for a correct analysis

on the correlation between age and employment relations of bank

employees.

Sector-wise Age Profile of Bank EmployeesAn analysis of the personal features of the participants reveal that the

sector-wise ratio of bank employees in the three age groups was 18:31:51 in

public sector banks, 19:45:36 in old private sector bank and 92:8:0 in new

generation private sector banks, which establishes that a majority of 51% of

employees in public sector banks were above the age of 45 years whileas a

111

majority of 45% of employees in old private sector bank were in the age

group of 30-45 years. In comparison to this, an overwhelming majority of

92% of the employees in the new private sector bank were young with age

below 30 years and there were no employees above the age of 45 years

working in the branches of new generation private sector bank which

confirms that most of the younger employees in the banking sector in the

recent years have been absorbed by the new generation private sector banks

while as minimum fresh employees have been recruited in the public sector

and old private sector banks in the recent years.

The number of employees of all new private sector banks has been

rising phenomenally right from their inception and in case of the new

generation private sector bank under study i. e. HDFC Bank, the number of its

permanent employees has risen from 4791 in 2002-03 to 21477 in 2006-

07(Source: A Profile of Banks 2002-07, www.rbi.org). In contrast to this the number of

permanent employees of most of the public sector has either reduced or risen

marginally in the same period e.g. the number of employees of Union Bank of

India has marginally increased from 25706 in 2002-03 to 27536 in 2006-07

while that of Vijay Bank, another public sector bank under study has fallen

from 11723 to 10765 during the same period and that of J&K Bank, an old

private sector bank under study has also marginally fallen from 7112 to 6829

during the same period that is 2003-03 to 2006-07. (Source: A Profile of Banks 2002- 2007, www.rbi.org) This has been because of the retrenchment of staff of the

public and old private sector banks through 'voluntary retirement schemes'

resorted in the post-reform era of 1991s.

Designation-wise Age Profile of Bank EmployeesThe demographic data of the participants of the study reveal that the

ratio of branch managers in the three age groups was 18:3:79, revealing that a

majority of the branch managers (79%) were above the age of 45 years and

only 21% branch managers were in the age groups of 30-45 years and below

30 years. The ratio of other officers' in the three age groups was 31:26:43

revealing that 43% of the other officers posted in the branches of commercial

112

banks were above the age of 45 years while as 26% were in the age group of

30-45 years and 31% officers at the bank branches were below 30 years of age.

The ratio of clerical-level staff in the three age groups was 37:58:5 revealing

that 58% of clerical-level staff in the public and old private sector banks were

in the age group of 30-45 years and 37% of clerical-level staff was below the

age of 30 years, only 5% of clerical-level staff was above the age of 45 years.

There are no clerical-level posts in new private sector banks as the rninimum

entry level in new private sector banks is assistant manager.

Table 3.19

UnitEmployee Age |

Group-1 (Age below 30 Years)

Group-2 (Age 30-45 Years)

Group-3 I(Age above 45 Yrs) |

Sample Size 110 141 1 9 0

Mean Score 192.8 154.3 179.2Standard

1 Deviation35.3 28.6 27.7

Group-1Vs

Group-2

Group-1Vs

Group-3

Group-2Vs

Group-3

‘t’value 11.17 4.15 -9.62

I Level of Sig.(p) 0.000 0.000 0.000

ANOVA 79.53I Level of Sig.(p) <.01

The vital statistics given in Table 3.19 reveal that there were significant

difference in the mean scores of the three groups of bank employee (T value

79.53 and 'p' value <.01.) The result data also reveal that the younger bank

employees aged below 30 years, i.e.(Group-l) with a mean score value of

113

192.8 perceived comparatively better employment relations than Group-2 and

Group-3. Similarly Group-3 employees experienced comparatively better

employment relations than Group-2.

For further investigation on the correlation between employee age and

employment relations, it is imperative to analyse the level concentrations of

bank employees on the overall employment relations perception of bank

employees as given in Table 3.20

The Table 3.20 results reveal that 47.5% employees of Group-1 were on

high level of employment relations while as the corresponding figures for

Group-2 and Group-3 were 19.0 and 13.6 respectively. Similarly about 66% to

70% of the Group-2 and Group-3 employees were respectively on moderate

level of employment relations compared to 30% in Group-1. A maximum of

22.78% of the employees who were on low level belonged to Group-1, whileas

only 15% to 16% of Group-2 and Group-3 employees were on the low level.

Table 3.20Employee Age and Overall Level Concentration on ER in Banks

Level Concentration

on ER

Bank Employees’ AgeGroup-1

(Age below 30 Years.)

Group-2 (Age 30-45Y )

Group-3 (Age Above 45

years) Total

f % f % f % F %

High 52 47.5 26 18.7 26 13.6 104 23.5Moderate 33 29.7 93 65.9 132 69.6 259 58.7

Low 25 22.8 22 15.4 32 16.8 78 17.7Total 110 100.00 141 100.00 190 100.0 441 100.0

The overall level concentrations age-wise employment relation does

not give a very clear picture of ER perception of bank employees. Hence an

element-wise analysis of the employment relations has been made with the

objective of making the employment relations of bank employees of different

age groups clearer and understandable.

114

A thorough examination of the data given in Table 3.21 reveal that

employees of all age groups had good & similar perception on their job safety

& working conditions at their places of work as the't' value between Group-I

employees vs. Group-2, Group-1 vs.Group-3 and Group-2 vs. Group-3 were

non-significant on both these elements of employment relations.

Table 3.21Employee Age & Element-wise Comparison of Employment Relations in Banks

Elements ofEmploymentRelations

Group-1(Below30Year(n=110)

Group-2 (30-45 Yrs) ( n=141)

Group-3(Above(n=190)

‘t’ and ‘p’ values |15 ) G1 vs. G2 GI vs. G3 G2 vs. G3 1

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t’ ‘P’ jSal.Adequacy 6.1 2.2 5.3 2.3 6.5 2.1 3.48 0.0 -1.96 NS -6.18 0.0

Sal.Compari 6.4 2.4 4.2 2.2 6.0 2.1 8.57 0.0 1.76 NS -8.73 0.0Promo Ave. 7.7 2.3 5.3 2.3 6.8 2.2 9.64 0.0 3.94 0.0 -6.90 0.0

Promo Pol. 7.9 1.9 5.5 2.2 3.5 2.2 11.15 0.0 6.63 0.00 -5.34 0.0

Gre. Listening 7.7 2.2 5.5 2.2 7.1 1.9 9.96 0.0 3.34 0.0 -8.48 0.0

Gre. Redress 7.1 2.6 4.5 2.4 5.8 2.1 9.99 0.0 5.48 0.0 -6.31 0.0

Participation 7.0 2.8 4.1 2.4 6.5 3.1 10.60 0.0 1.72 NS -9.82 0.0

Involvement 5.6 3.0 3.2 1.9 5.1 2.7 9.09 0.0 2.01 0.0 -9.24 0.0

Training Adq 8.4 1.9 6.4 2.5 7.3 1.9 8.79 0.0 5.83 0.0 -4.45 0.0Trgs. Effect 8.9 1.5 7.1 2.27. 7.9 1.4 9.17 0.0 5.58 0.0 -4.10 0.0Emp.Treatme 7.8 2.2 6.5 1.9 7.6 1.4 5.90 0.0 1.10 NS -6.86 0.0Fair Postings 7.1 3.1 4.5 2.4 5.6 2.1 8.77 0.0 5.45 0.0 -5.35 0.0Emp. Welfare 8.1 2.0 6.3 2.0 7.0 1.7 8.67 0.0 5.88 0.0 -4.12 0.0WelfareComp 7.1 2.8 5.2 2.0 5.8 1.6 7.07 0.0 5.12 0.0 -3.67 0.0Job Security 3.7 2.0 4.8 1.9 5.9 1.6 5.41 0.0 11.4 0.0 -6.33 0.0Job Safety 7.6 1.8 7.4 1.7 7.5 1.6 0.98 NS 0.48 NS 0.66 NSDecentraliza 8.3 2.2 7.6 2.2 8.9 1.5 3.32 0.0 -2.70 0.0 -7.30 0.0.Delegation 7.2 2.6 7.8 1.7 8.1 1.4 -2.25 0.0 -4.07 0.0 -2.58 0.0P.E. System 8.0 2.2 6.2 2.2 7.3 1.8 7.94 0.0 3.58 0.0 -5.99 oo

Perfor.Appre. 7.1 3.2 3.9 2.3 4.9 2.4 10.66 0.0 7.66 0.0 -4.40 0.0Unionism 3.9 2.1 5.6 2.2 5.6 2.2 -7.38 0.0 -7.84 0.0 -0.01 NSTU vs. PHR 6.8 2.0 4.6 2.3 5.3 2.2 9.95 0.0 6.98 0.0 -3.80 0.0Auto vs Emp. 9.0 1.3 8.0 1.0 8.2 1.5 8.41 0.0 5.79 0.0 5.79 0.0Auto vs Effici 9.3 1.0 8.1 1.2 8.4 1.5 10.31 0.0 7.13 0.0 7.13 0.0C.S 9.7 0.8 9.3 1.0 9.5 0.9 4.06 0.0 2.54 0.0 1.93 NSEmp.Role CS 9.0 1.2 7.3 1.5 8.0 1.5. 11.24 0.0 7.88 0.0 -4.29 0.0

115

However, the young bank employees, i.e. Group-I perceived overall a

better employment relations over both Group-2 and the Group-3

employees as reflected by their comparatively better 't' values on most

elements of employment relations except the element of unionism

and delegation.

This means that bank employees of Group-2 and Group-3 considered

trade union effective and essential in balancing their relations with the

management and these groups were also enjoying better degree of financial

authority at the branch level than Group-1. This could be also possibly due to

the fact that the majority of Group-1 employees were from the new

generation private sector bank which is a non-union organisation and hence

unionism is a misnomer in that bank. The employees of new private sector

banks possess lesser amount of powers at the branch level for loan

sanctioning probably because these banks use most advanced communication

technology between branches and controlling offices and therefore do not

consider delegating these powers to the branch employees.

Group-1 and Group-3 bank employees had non-significant (NS)

mean differences on the elements of salary adequacy, comparative

favourability of salary, participation in decision-making process, fair

employee treatment and job safety as reveled by't' values. This reflects that

these two Groups of employees share similar perception on these elements of

their employment relations. Group-3 employees experienced better relations

with the management than Group-2 employees on all the elements of

employment relations except job safety, unionism and customer service as a

competition tool. It indicates that Group-3 employees' had better

employment relations perception than Group-2 and it further implies that

both Groups of employees shared similar perception on these three elements

of job safety, unionism and customer service as a competition tool.

However, employees of Group-2 perceived better scores on both

elements of the dimension of automation indicating that the senior most

116

bankers who were still uncomfortable and apprehensive on the subject of

automation in banks.

From the above analysis it is clear that younger bank employees i.e.

Group-1 perceived better employment relations over Group-2 and Group-3

employees. Similarly the employees of Group-3 perceived better employment

relations than employees of Group-2. So it is clearly established that there is

an association between age of the employee and employment relations in the

commercial banking industry.

Employee Work Experience & Employment Relations

Service tenure or work experience of an employee in the

organisation is one of the important demographic variables effecting the

relations between the employee and the employer because perception of

employee is influenced by his work experience in the organisation.

The bank employees, for this purpose, have been divided into three

groups viz., Group-I (employees with 10 years of bank service), Group-II,

(employees with banking experience of 11-20 years) and Group-Ill,

(employees with bank service of above 20 years). The ratio of three groups of

employee on the basis of bank work experience was 28:38:34 as per the study.

The vital statistics given in Table 3.22 reveal that the three Groups of

employees had different perception on the overall employment relations

environment. As the 'f' value among the three was statistically significant ('p'

<.01).The data further reveal that Group-I employees perceived

comparatively better employment relations than Group-II. Similarly Group-

Ill perceived comparatively better employment relations over Group-II .

Employees of Group-I and Group-Ill' shared similar perception on the overall

employment relations as they had statistically non-significant difference ('t'

1.93).

For further investigation for studying the association between

employment relations and the work experience of bank employees, Table 3.23

depicts the overall level concentrations of the employees of the three groups

of employees with varied work experience.

117

Table 3.22An Overview of Experience-wise Employment Relations in Banks

Unit

1Employee Work Experience I

Group-I (Exp.up to 10 Years)

Group-II (Exp. 11-20 Years)

Group-Ill (Exp. Above 20 Yrs)

Sample Size 123 168 150

Mean Score 187.1 160.0 180.2

StandardDeviation 40.9 27.0 26.6

Group-IVs.

Group-II

Group-IVs.

Group-Ill

Group-II Vs.

Group III

‘t’ value 7.77 1.93 -8.33

Level of Sig.(‘p’) <.01 Non-Significant <.01

ANOVA(‘f) 44.31

Significance(‘p) <.01

A cursory glance at results of the Table 3.23 reveals that the majority of

bank employees in all the three groups were concentrated on moderate level

of employment relations. However, the employees of Group-Ill had a

maximum of 72.27% on moderate level followed by about 57% each from

Group-I and Group-II. The Group-I employees had the highest 26.37%

concentration on low level followed by Group-II with 25% and Group-Ill with

14%.

The analysis of the data given in Table 3.23 indicate that the bank

employees of Group-Ill experienced comparatively better employment

relations than the two other groups of employees.

118

Table 3.23Work Experience & Overall Level Concentration on ER in Banks

LevelConcentration On ER

Employee Work Experience

Group-I (Exp. upto 10 Yrs.)

Group-II(Exp. 11-20 yrs)

Group-Ill(Exp.Above 20

Yrs.)Total

f % f % f % f %

High 20 15.9 30 17.6 20 13.6 70 15.8

Moderate 71 57.7 96 57.4 109 72.3 275 62.5

Low 32 26.4 42 25.0 21 14.1 96 21.7

Total 123 100.00 168 100.00 150 100.00 441 100.0

This analysis about association between employee work experience

and employment relations would be incomplete and inconclusive without an

element-wise comparison of the three groups of employees on employment

relations. Hence Table 3.24 presents element-wise comparison of the

employment relations of bank employees with varied banking experience.

The inter-group element-wise comparison among the three groups of

employees given in Table 3.24 reveals that all the three groups shared a

similar perception on the element of safety of job and had no conflict with

their managements on this element of employment relations.

Group-I and Group-II had similar perception on the elements of salary

adequacy, job security, job safety and decentralization and work autonomy as

the differences on these elements between these two groups were statistically

non-significant. On the whole Group-I had better scores on most elements of

employment relations than the Group-II except the elements of unionism and

delegation.

119

Table 3.24

Employee Work Experience & Element-wise Comparison of Employment

Relations in Banks

Elements ofEmploymentRelations

G-I (UptolO Years)(n=123)

G-II(ll-20Yrs)

(n=168)

G-II(/ 21 Y(n=1

^bove “f and ‘p’ valuesears)150)

G-IVs.

G-IIGIVs.

GUIGIIVs.

GUI

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean

S.D. ‘t’(

P’ ‘t’ ‘P’ ‘t ’ ‘P’

Sal.Adequacy 5.9 2.3 5.6 2.3 6.6 2.0 1.18 NS -3.40 0.0 -5.07 0.0Sal.Compari 6.2 2.5 4.5 2.7 6.1 2.0 7.36 0.0 0.58 NS -8.15 0.0Promo Ave. 7.4 2.4 5.6 2.4 6.9 2.2 7.51 0.0 2.31 0.0 -5.80 0.0Promo Pol. 7.6 2.2 5.7 2.2 6.6 2.2 8.47 0.0 4.38 0.0 -4.21 0.0Gre. Listening 7.3 2.5 5.9 2.2 7.1 1.8 6.05 0.0 0.81 NS -6.73 0.0Gre.Redressal 6.7 2.8 4.9 2.4 5.8 2.1 7.17 0.0 3.75 0.0 -4.34 0.0Participation 6.9 2.7 4.2 2.6 6.8 2.9 10.4 0.0 0.68 NS -9.89 0.0Involvement 5.4 3.1 3.7 2.2 5.0 2.6 6.43 0.0 1.29 NS -5.88 0.0Trainings Adq 8.0 2.5 6.8 2.1 7.3 2.0 5.16 0.0 3.09 0.0 -2.46 0.0Trgs. Effect 8.3 2.1 7.6 1.9 7.8 2.0 3.53 0.0 2.10 0.0 -3.14 0.1Emp.Treat 7.6 2.4 6.8 1.8 7.7 1.2 3.21 0.0 -0 .9 NS -6.11 0.0Fair Postings 6.8 3.7 4.8 2.3 5.5 2.0 7.07 0.0 4.40 0.0 -3.84 0.0Emp. Welfare 8.1 1.9 6.2 2.1 7.2 1.5 9.70 0.0 5.33 0.0 -5.73 0.0WelfareComp 7.2 2.5 5.0 2.0 6.0 1.5 9.42 0.0 5.91 0.0 -5.32 0.0Job Security 4.3 2.2 4.6 1.9 6.1 1.6 1.69 NS 9.20 0.0 -8.80 0.0Job Safety 7.5 1.9 7.5 1.4 7.5 1.7 0.10 NS 0.06 NS 0.03 NSDecentra. 7.9 2.4 8.1 1.9 9.0 1.5 -1.14 NS -5.42 0.0 -5.39 0.0Delegation 7.1 2.6 8.0 1.4 8.2 1.4 -4.51 0.0 -5.07 0.0 -0.95 NSP.E. System 7.6 2.5 6.5 1.9 7.4 1.7 4.94 0.0 1.28 NS -4.4 0.0Perfor.Apprec 6.7 3.4 4.1 2.2 5.0 2.4 9.00 0.0 5.66 0.0 -4.25 0.0Unionism 4.1 2.1 5.7 2.2 5.7 2.2 -7.58 0.0 -7.66 0.0 -0.26 NSTU vs.Pro HR 6.3 2.3 5.0 2.4 5.3 2.1 5.79 0.0 4.21 0.0 -1.83 NSAuto vs Emp. 8.9 1.4 8.1 1.0 8.2 1.5 6.36 0.0 4.60 0.0 -1.0 NSAuto vs Effici 9.2 101 8.2 1.2 8.3 1.5 8.99 0.0 6.98 0.0 0.57 NSC.S. 9.6 0.9 9.4 0.9 9.4 0.9 2.12 0.0 1.37 NS 0.76 NSEmp.Role CS 8.8 1.5 7.5 1.5 7.9 1.4 8.58 0.0 5.75 0.0 -3.10 0.0

It indicates that Group-I employees' had better employment relations than

Group-II bank employees. However, Group-II employees enjoyed better work

120

autonomy and considered trade unions effective in checking the arbitrary

powers of the management than did the Group-I.

The employees of Group-I also experienced comparatively better

employment relations over Group-Ill as they had better scores on 16 out of a

total of 26 elements of employment relations. However, Group-Ill had

comparatively better scores on the elements of salary adequacy,

decentralization & delegation of authority, and trade unionism over Group-I.

Besides, this two Groups, i.e. G-I and G-II shared similar perception on the

elements of comparative favourability of salary, grievance listening,

participation & involvement, employee treatment, job safety, performance

evaluation system and customer service as a tool of competition'.

These results clearly establish that the employment relations

environment in the new private sector banks, (which as already pointed, has

absorbed most of the new and young workforce that has been recruited by

banks in India in the recent years) is far superior to that in public and old

private sector banks. These findings also endorse the view that the new

generation employees are more ambitious and well qualified both

academically and technically and have higher expectations from their job.

Therefore, these new generation employees in the banking sector experience

inadequate salary commensurate to their education and job responsibilities.

Besides, these findings also confirm that the senior or older bank employees

still believe in the relevance of trade unions in industrial relation system

whileas the new generation employees do not consider unions effective in

their employment relations.

There were non-significant differences between Group-II and Group-Ill

on the elements of delegation, job safety, unionism, unionism & proactive HR

policies, automation vs. employees' concerns, automation vs. operational

efficiency and 'customer service as a competition tool' indicating similarity of

perception in the two groups on these elements of employment relations. But

overall Group-Ill had better scores on all other elements of employment

121

relations over Group-II endorsing and corroborating the previous findings

that senior bank employees believe in the importance of trade unions in ER.

The above findings also reveal that unions' role in Indian context has

been curtailed for reasons other than the application of proactive human

resources policies by the managements.

Thus it has been established that there is an association between

employees' work experience and their employment relations.

Employee Education & Employment RelationsEducation is again one of the important demographic factors that

sharpen one's perceptions in any situation. In the recent times professional

education has received big boost as it is believed that people with specific

professional education and skills are likely to be more effective at their work.

Therefore, it was deemed feasible to find out correlation between ER and

educational backgrounds of the bank employees.

The bank employees were categorized into three groups of education

Group-I employees with post-graduate professional qualifications such as

MBA, MCA, M Sc (Agri), or its equivalent, Group-II employees with post­

graduate (general) such as M.A, .M.Sc. etc. and Group-Ill- graduates and

below.

About half of the bank employees were graduates (49%), about 34%

general post-graduates and 17% post-graduates with professional

qualifications such as MBA, MCA and M.Sc (Agri) or its equivalents as

revealed through the personal bio-data of the participants of the study.

Further, about 96% employees in the new private sector bank were found to

have professional post-graduate qualifications of MBA.

There were perceptible and statistically significant differences among

the three groups of employees on the overall employment relations

perception as reflected through 'f values of 131.25 given in Table 3.25.The

test results reveal that there was significant difference in the overall

employment relations between the bank employees with PG professional

qualifications, i.e. (Group-I) and employees with PG (general) qualifications,

122

i.e. (Group-II) as their't' value was 16.55 and between employees with PG

professional qualifications, i.e.(Group-I) and graduate bank employees

(Group-Ill) as their't' value is 19.00 But there was statistically non-significant

difference in the employment relations between employees with PG (General)

and graduate employees as 't' value is 1.88.The difference between ( Group-I)

bank employees and (Group-Ill) was more severe than Group-I and Group-

II ('t' values 19.00 and 16.55 respectively

Table 3.25An Overview of Education-wise Employment Relations in Banks

UnitEmp oyee Educational Level

Group-I(PG -Professional)

Group-II(PG - General)

Group-Ill(Graduates)

Sample Size 75 150 216

Mean Score 214.9 169.6 164.7

StandardDeviation 20.7 27.7 30.6

Group-IVs

Group-II

Group-IVs

Group-Ill

Group-IIVs

Group-Ill

‘t’ value 16.55 19.00 1.88

Level of Sig.(p) <.01 <.01 Non-significantANOVA (‘P value) 131.25

Level of Sig. <.01The vital statistics on the employment relations of three groups of

bank employees reveal that the employees with PG (professional)

qualifications had overall better mean score of 214.9 than both other groups of

employees, i.e. Group-II with PG (general) and Group-Ill, i.e. employees with

graduate or below educational qualifications. Similarly, the overall mean

score of employees with general post-graduation education (Group-II) was

123

better than graduate employees (Group-Ill). This indicates that education

levels have influence over employment relations. However, when the mean

scores and standard deviations were compared with the level concentrations

of bank employees with different educational qualifications, it does

corroborate any positive correlation between employees' educational

qualifications and their employment relations.

A deeper analysis of the level concentrations given in Table 3.26 reveal

that 84.91% of bank employees with PG professional qualifications were

concentrated between high to moderate levels as against 76.93% with PG

(General) and only 73.67% with graduation education.

The level concentrations do substantiate that employee education and

employment relations are correlated.

For further substantiation, it is feasible to analyse the element-wise

comparative employment relations of bank employees with different

educational qualifications and make a comparative inter-group analysis of the

three groups of employees given in Table 3.27

Table3.26Employee Education &Overall Level Concentration on Employment Relations in

Banks

LevelConcentration on ER

Bank Employee’s Educational Qualifications

Group-I(PG-

Professional.)

Group-II (PG_ General)

Group-Ill(Graduates) Total

f % f % f % f %

High 6 7.5 22 14.9 44 20.4 72 16.4

Moderate 58 77.4 93 62.0 115 53.3 265 60.2

Low 11 15.1 35 23.1 57 26.3 103 23.4

Total 75 100.00 221 100.00 319 100.00 441 100.00

The analysis of inter-group comparison of education of bank

employees and their employment relations reveal that employees with

124

professional post-graduate education had better mean scores on all elements

of employment relations except the elements of job security and unionism

over both the general post-graduate employees and the graduate/under­

graduate bank employees.

Table 3.27Employee Education & Element-wise Comparison of Employment Relations in

Banks

Elements ofEmploymentRelations

Group-I(PG-P*)

Group-II(PG -~G*) Group-Ill

(G*) “1’ and ‘p valuesn=75 n=150 n=216 G1

Vs.GII

G1Vs.

GUIGII I Vs.

GUIMean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. ‘t ’ ‘P’ ‘t ’ ‘P’ ‘t’ ‘P’

Sal. Adequac 6.7 2.1 5.8 2.3 5.8 2.3 3.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 -0.4 NSSal. Compari 7.7 1.6 5.1 2.2 5.1 2.3 11.4 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.2 NSPromoti Ave. 8.7 1.6 6.5 2.1 5.8 2.5 10.8 0.0 13.7 0.0 3.2 0.0Promo Pol. 8.8 1.4 6.5 1.9 5.8 2.3 11.9 0.0 15.8 0.0 4.0 0.0Gre. List 8.9 1.3 6.3 2.2 6.4 2.1 13.4 0.0 15.1 NS 0.1 NSGre.Redres 8.6 1.3 5.1 2.2 5.1 2.3 17.6 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.2 NSParticipation 8.4 2.0 5.7 2.8 5.1 3.0 10.1 0.0 12.3 0.0 2.0 0.0Involvement 7.6 2.1 4.1 2.5 4.0 2.4 13.2 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.5 NSTraining Adq 9.3 1.2 7.2 1.8 6.7 2.3 12.5 0.0 15.2 0.0 3.1 0.0Trgs. Effect 9.2 1.3 8.2 1.6 7.2 2.3 6.1 0.0 10.9 0.0 5.6 0.0Emp.Treat 8.8 1.4 6.8 1.9 7.1 1.6 10.5 0.0 10.3 0.0 1.6 NSFair Postings 8.9 2.1 4.8 2.2 5.0 2.3 16.1 0.0 16.2 0.0 -0.9 NSEmp. Welfare 9.0 1.3 7.0 1.6 6.4 2.0 12.1 0.0 15.4 0.0 3.7 0.0WelfareCom 8.4 2.4 5.6 1.6 5.3 1.8 10.6 0.0 12.2 0.0 2.3 0.0Job Security 3.8 2.3 5.0 1.95 5.5 1.8 -4.8 0.0 -7. 1 0.0 -2.8 0.0Job Safety 7.9 1.7 7.3 1.6 7.0 1.7 3.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 -1.1 NSDecentralizat 8.9 1.6 8.2 2.0 8.2 2.0 3.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.2 NSDelegation 7.0 3.0. 7.9 1.3 8.0 1.5 -2.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 -0.8 NSP.E. System 9.2 1.2 6.7 1.9 6.7 2.0 13.5 0.0 14.8 0.0 -0 .2 NSPerfor.Appre 9.2 1.5 4.3 2.3 4.3 1.3 23.4 0.0 25.1 0.0 -2.2 0.0Unionism 3.2 1.7 5.4 2.2 5.8 2.1 -9.8 0.0 -12.6 0.0 1.6 NSTU vs.PHR 7.5 1.4 5.1 2.2 4.9 2.3 11.2 0.0 13.7 0.0 3.3 0.0Auto vsEmp. 9.5 1.2 8.3 1.0 8.0 1.4 8.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 5.3 0.0Auto vs Effic 9.8 0.5 8.6 1.1 8.0 1.3 13.4 0.0 19.9 0.0 1.2 NSC.S. 9.8 0.5 9.4 0.9 9.3 0.9 5.7 0.0 7.94 0.0 1.9 NSEmp.Role in CS 9.6 0.8 7.9 1.3 7.5 1.5 14.3 0.0 18.0 0.0 -3.1 0.0

*PG-G- P. G. Professional, P.G.G= P,G.(General) ,G= Graduate

This could be because of the fact that 96% of the new private sector

bank employees were found with professional qualifications and the new

private sector bank is a non- union organisation and employees consider

125

trade union as a misnomer. Secondly because of hiring and firing HR policy

in new generation private sector organisations, employees were apprehensive

about the security of their job.

Similarly, bank employees with PG (general) education (i.e. Group-II)

had comparatively better scores on most of the elements of ER over graduate

employees (i.e. Group-Ill) such as promotion avenues, promotion policy,

adequacy of trainings, effectiveness of trainings, welfare facilities, and

comparative favourability of welfare facilities, unionism vs. proactive HR

policy, automation vs. employee concerns, and customer service as a

competition tool.

A comparison between general post-graduate and graduate bank

employees reveal that they had similar perceptions on the elements of salary

adequacy, salary comparison, grievances listening, grievances redressal,

employee involvement, employee treatment, fair postings, job safety,

decentralization/delegation of authority, performance evaluation system,

unionism and automation vs. operational efficiency. This could possibly be

because the senior employees who are now on higher hierarchy of posts

mostly branch heads or other officers, are mostly graduates.

The results do signal some association between employee education

and employment relations but are inconclusive on the positive correlation

between bank employees' education and their employment relations.

Employee Unionisation & Employment Relations

Employees unions have been considered strong institutions of

industrial relations system. But over the recent years particularly during last

two decades unions have been losing their influence in industrial relations

system so much so that most of the new generation private sector orgnisations

do not have employee trade unions The HDFC Bank, a new generation

private sector bank included in the study as a sample organisation, is also a

non-union organisation.

The reasons for the eroded role of trade unions have been fully

discussed in Chapter-I on Introduction & Literature Review of this

126

dissertation. Therefore, it was thought appropriate to find out the association

between the union -affiliation and employment relations of bank employees.

Besides the employees of non-union bank under study, about 14.86% of

employees in the other three unionized banks under study reported union

non-affiliation.

Table 3.28An Overview of Unionisation-wise Employment Relations in Banks

U - ,Unit Unionised Employees Non-unionised Employees

Sample Size 318 1 2 3

Mean Score 168.4 190.2StandardDeviation 29.8 36.8

UNon-unioi

nionisedVs

lised Employees‘t’ value -7.19

‘p’ value <.01X2 76.788

‘p’value <.01

The vital statistics given in Table 3.28 indicates that non-unionised

employees perceived better employment relations than the unionised

employees ('p'.0.5 and't'-7.19, X2 76.788)

The majority of unionised employees (58.4%) were concentrated on

moderate levels of employment relations contrarily majority of non-unionised

employees (45 %) were on high level as against only 15.7% of unionised

employees. (Table3.29)

127

But these figures are again inconclusive about the correlation between

trade unionization and employment relations. Hence a comparison of

individual elements of employment relations of the unionised and non­

unionised employees is desirable.

Table 3.29Employee Unionisation & Overall Level Concentration on Employment

Relations in Banks

LevelConcentration on ER

Unionised & Non-unionised EmployeesUnionised Non-unionised Total

f % f % f %High 50 15.7 55 45.0 106 24.0Moderate 186 58.4 31 25.3 217 49.1Low 82 25.9 37 29.7 118 26.9Total 318 100.00 123 100.00 441 100.0

The element-wise mean values of the unionised and non-unionised

bank employees presented in Table 3.30 alongwith their 't' and 'p' values

provide a deeper insight into the employment relations of the bank

employees on the basis of their affiliation or non-affiliation with an

employees' union or association.

A first glance at the't' and 'p' values between the two groups reveal

that barring the elements of ' job safety' and ' delegation/work autonomy' ,

the two groups had statistically significant differences on all the elements of

their employment relations.

The employees not having any union affiliation or non-unionised bank

employees experienced better employment relations on all the elements of the

ER except the elements of unionism and job security over unionised or union

affiliated bank employees.('t' 8.07 and 5.69 respectively)

128

The results certify that non-unionised or the non-affiliated bank

employees had better employment relations than unionised or union-

affiliated bank employees.

Table 3.30Employee Unionisation & Element-wise Comparison o f Employment Relations

Elements of Employment Relations

UnionisedEmployees

(n=311)

Non-unionised

Employees(n=123)

‘t’ and ‘p’ values

Mean S.D. Mean

S.D. ‘t’ ‘P’Salary Adequacy 5.9 2.3 6.3 2.1 -2.19 0.0Salary Comparison 5.4 2.2 5.9 2.6 -2.60 0.0Promotion Avenues 6.3 2.3 7.2 2.7 -3.95 0.0Promotion Policy 6.1 2.2 7.6 2.4 -7.00 0.0Grievance Listening 6.3 2.2 7.8 2.2 -7.78 0.0Grievance Redressal 5.2 2.2 6.8 2.9 -6.77 0.0Participation 5.6 2.9 6.5 3.3 -3.49 0.0Involvement 4.2 2.4 5.8 3.1 -6.37 0.0Trainings Adequacy 6.9 2.2 8.4 2.0 -8.11 0.0Trainings Effectiveness 7.6 2.1 8.5 2.0 -5.50 0.0Fair Employee Treatment 7.0 1.8 7.8 3.0 -4.51 0.0Fair Postings/ Transfers 4.9 2.2 6.3 2.4 -9.84 0.0Employee Welfare Facilities 6.8 1.8 7.6 3.1 -4.05 0.0Employee Welfare Comparison 5.6 1.6 6.8 2.3 -4.81 0.0Job Security 5.4 1.7 3.9 1.8 8.07 0.0Job Safety 7.5 1.6 7.5 1.5 0.43 NSDecentralization 8.2 2.1 8.7 1.5 -3.19 0.0Delegation/ Work Autonomy 7.9 1.4 7.6 2.0 1.21 NSPerformance Evaluation. System 6.8 2.0 8.0 3.3 -7.08 0.0Performance Appreciation 4.4 2.3 7.0 2.5 -9.82 0.0Trade Unionism 5.6 2.1 4.4 2.2 5.69 0.0

TU vs. Proactive HR 5.1 2.3 6.4 2.3 -6.82 0.0Automation vs. Employee Concerns 8.1 1.2 8.8 1.3 -6.42 0.0Automation vs. Op. Efficiency 8.4 1.3 8.8 1.4 -3.50 0.0Customer Service 9.3 0.9 9.7 0.7 -5.71 0.0Employees. Role in Cus Ser 7.7 1.6 8.8 1.2 -9.50 0.0

129

The micro analysis and interpretations of the statistical result data given

in Table Nos. 3.16 to 3.30 on the five personal characteristics of bank

employees namely, employee gender, employee age, employee work

experience, employee education and employee union-affiliation clearly

indicate that these variables of the employees and their employment relations

have a definite correlations. This validates the hypothesis No. 3 of the study

which stated that there exists a correlation between employees' personal

characteristics and employment relations in commercial banks.

130