Report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1850495947

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-233603

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India

Place of publication:: London

Publisher:: His Majesty's Stationery Off.

Year of publication:: 1931

Scope:: xviii, 580 S.; graph. Darst., Kt.

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter XVII. - Trade unions

Collection:: Economics Books

394 CHAPTER XVII. Implications of Recognition. In our view recognition should mean that the employer re- cognises the right of the union to negotiate with him in respect of matters affecting either the common or the individual interests of its members. The employer, while he should consider proposals advanced by a union which are applicable to his employees as a whole, need not recognise the claim of the union to speak for any who are not members of it, and must be prepared to consider the interests of the unorganised workers. It is not, of course, intended to suggest that the recognition of a union pre- cludes individual members of it from direct contact with their employ- ers. At the same time we are not pleading for a formality. Recogni- tion in the letter must be followed by recognition in the spirit, by a readi- ness to discuss sympathetically points put forward by the union, by accessibility to its officers and by willingness to let them have credit where credit is due. The Government manager or agent who, in remedying grievances to which a union has drawn attention, is at pains to make it evident that the union has had nothing to do with the result, orwho keeps theunion officials at arm’s length by insist- ing on written communications in every case, is stultifying the action of (Government in according recognition. The employer who discriminates in the matter of promotion against union men, or in any other way tries to weaken the influence of the union he has recognised, is in no way better than the employer who denies recognition outright, and is as little likely to advance the cause of peace. These consider- ations, apart from any others, make it impossible for us to endorse the proposal, advanced by several labour sympathisers, that recognition should be obligatory in certain cases. It was suggested, for example, that an employer should be compelled to recognise a registered union of hismen. Recognition may mean much, but it may mean nothing. No law can secure that genuine and full recognition which we desire to see. Recognition of Weak Unions. We have referred to the prevalent idea that recognition should depend on the strength of the union. There is a sense in which it may, for a really strong union is in a position to enforce recognition. The vigorous union with a genuine grievance can insist on being heard, and even recognition rules carefully framed by official secretariats may prove futile when a big railway strike is threatened. But we are anxious to see recognition based on reason and not on force, and the fact that a union consists of only a minority of employees is no adequate reason for withholding recognition. Similarly the existence of two or more rival unions is not in itself a sufficient ground for refusing to recognise any or allof them. The combination of all employees with common interests in a single union is eminently desirable in their own interests, but this is a matter for them and not for the employer. Outsiders and Recognition. The endeavour to dictate to unions on the subject of their officers or leaders is equally short-sighted and unwise. - We have referred

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation