The shift in response to demands from workers

According to Justice Chandru, a former judge and a unionist before he became a judge, in an interview with The News Minute, labour relations in Tamil Nadu have significantly shifted over the past decades. He recalled how in 1968, under C.N. Annadurai, the DMK government remained neutral in labour disputes, instructing police not to interfere. However, after Annadurai’s death, the DMK became more involved by aligning with its own labour wing under M. Karunanidhi’s leadership. He added that later governments, including those of MGR and Jayalalithaa, adopted more repressive measures such as banning strikes and using police force against workers. Justice Chandru opined that an understanding between the government and multinational companies has led to lax enforcement of labour laws, citing an instance where a Korean company was promised no unions would be allowed in its factory. He criticised the current Tamil Nadu government’s handling of the Samsung strike, arguing that their approach mirrored the BJP’s, despite ideological opposition. Furthermore, he emphasised that collective bargaining, once a strong workers’ right, has been reduced to “collective begging,” with labour disputes often delayed in courts, leaving workers without timely justice.

From ‘registration but not recognition’ to ‘neither registration nor recognition’

Trade Unions are supposed to be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the workers had alleged that there has been a deliberate delay in registering the union. Usually, the cases used to such that a registered trade union is not recognised by the management for bargaining process, but the Samsung case presents another hurdle for the unions.

One of the core demands of the workers in the Samsung factory strike was the formal recognition of the Samsung India Labour Welfare Union (SILWU), a request the company refused to fulfil. Union recognition is a critical issue that managements often use to suppress worker demands, as companies can deny un-recognised unions the authority to represent workers, weakening their ability to bargain collectively.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prohibits Unfair Labour Practices. Section 25T of the Act states that no employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or not, shall not commit unfair labour practices. Section 25U of the Act imposes a punishment for violation of Section 25T—up to 6 months imprisonment or with fine which may extend to Rs.1, 000 or both.   The Fifth Schedule of the Act lists of Unfair Labour practices and within this, refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the recognised trade unions is also present. Therefore, if companies recognise a union, they will have to bargain with it and failure to do so is punishable.

The complexities surrounding union recognition in India are deeply rooted in the country’s legal framework. While Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations or unions, there is no specific provision mandating formal recognition of trade unions by employers. Recognition is a key step that allows unions to engage in collective bargaining, enabling them to negotiate for workers’ interests effectively and maintain stable industrial relations.

However, a clear distinction exists between registration and recognition. The Trade Unions Act of 1926 outlines a process for the registration of trade unions, granting them legal status and certain protections. Despite this, registration does not automatically lead to recognition by employers. Recognition, unless mandated by specific state laws, is generally left to the discretion of employers, creating a fragmented system that allows management to influence and delay the process, further eroding the bargaining power of the unions.

Some states, like Maharashtra, have attempted to address this issue with laws such as the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which governs union recognition and aims to protect workers from unfair labour practices. Other states, including West Bengal, Kerala, and Odisha, have established procedures for union recognition, which can involve secret ballots or membership verification. In some of these legislations, the applicant trade unions need to have not less than 30% of the membership of the establishment and apply for a recognition by the Industrial Court.

Various methods, such as the check-off system (where union fees are deducted from workers’ wages via authorisation from the worker) and secret ballots (as supported by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporation of India, 1995 AIR SCW 1288), are used to determine union representation. However, the absence of a uniform national law leaves recognition vulnerable to manipulation, allowing employers significant leverage in the process. The Code of Discipline, adopted in 1958, serves as a voluntary set of guidelines for maintaining industrial discipline. The Code includes criteria for union recognition, but it is not legally binding

This lack of clarity and consistency in the legal framework creates challenges for unions, leaving them unable to fully represent their members’ interests, thus weakening their influence and reducing workers’ ability to organise effectively.

Conclusion

In the Samsung workers’ case, the government allegedly delayed the registration of the Union in the first place under the Trade Union Act, 1926 thus attracting the ire of the protesting workers.

To conclude, the right to strike in India is not a fundamental right, nor is there a clear legal guarantee for the recognition of trade unions. Both remain largely at the discretion of employers, leaving room for management to suppress workers’ collective bargaining power. This lack of recognition can hinder workers from effectively voicing their concerns or negotiating better terms.

There is a pressing need for laws that establish clear guidelines for mandatory recognition of trade unions. Currently, while the Trade Union Act, 1926 provides for the registration of unions, it does not ensure their recognition by employers. Without a legal obligation to recognise unions, employers often have significant leeway to deny representation, as seen in cases like that of Samsung. A national framework in the form of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 has been proposed in which there were powers to the Union government to frame rules for Union Recognition but the Act has not been implemented yet.  The solution could also like bringing legislations similar to state-level acts like the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which could provide a more uniform approach across India, reducing the ability of employers to exploit the lack of recognition.

However, these issues must be understood in the context of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), which, though not enforceable in court, provide a guiding framework for governance. Articles 39 and 43 of the DPSPs emphasize fair distribution of resources and securing living wages for workers, underscoring the need for mechanisms that support workers’ rights, including the right to strike.

The Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962 AIR 17), held that the right to form a union comes under the ambit of the right to form an association under Article 19 (1) (c). There have also been instances of judicial interpretation, such as in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 1166), where the right to protest was protected but the court refused to declare Right to Strike as a fundamental right. This suggests that strikes, as a form of collective demonstration, may find indirect support in constitutional protections for free speech and assembly but not a direct one.

Ultimately, without robust legal guarantees for union recognition, workers will continue to face barriers in advocating for their rights. Aligning labour laws with the principles laid out in the DPSPs would provide greater protection for workers and strengthen their ability to organize, ensuring that they can not only form unions but also have those unions recognised and respected by employers.

(The author is part of the organisation’s legal research team)

Related:

Victory for Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu: A hard-fought struggle pays off, brings key wins

TN: Samsung Workers Continue Strike, Demand Union Recognition

The post Samsung workers end strike but the core issue of recognition of unions’ remains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Tamil Nadu government, initially unwilling to respond to the growing unrest, eventually intensified efforts to mediate between the workers and the management. This culminated in a tentative settlement, ending the 37-day strike. Samsung committed to engaging with the workers’ demands and promised no punitive action against those who participated in the strike. For the workers, this was a significant step forward, even though full recognition of their union is yet to be achieved.

“We are really happy,” said a 34-year-old Samsung worker while speaking to Frontline, “though we would have been happier if the government had given us the registration number. But we are assured that we will win the case in court.”

The genesis of the strike: Union recognition and better conditions

The root cause of the strike was the workers’ demand for Samsung to recognise their union, Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU). This demand was central to their hopes of securing better wages and working hours. Multinational companies like Samsung often shy away from recognising independent unions, preferring to deal with internal unions that remain under the management’s control. According to labour rights activist Akriti Bhatia, many such companies in India sidestep labour laws, which allow workers the right to association and collective bargaining.

Samsung, like other multinational firms, has been reluctant to recognise unions backed by external political bodies like CPI(M)-affiliated Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU), fearing that such associations could disrupt operations. A source within Samsung earlier stated that while the company supports unions, it does not engage with those backed by third-party organisations.

Notably, the protesting workers’ demands extended beyond union recognition. They sought higher wages, better working conditions, medical insurance, and improvements in workplace facilities. The factory, located in the industrial hub of Sriperumbudur near Chennai, employs nearly 2,000 workers and is one of two Samsung plants in India. The facility plays a critical role in Samsung’s operations, contributing around a third of the company’s $12 billion annual revenue in India through the production of home appliances as per a report of The Quint.

 The role of the state and political implications

The strike posed a significant challenge to Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government, which initially took a passive stance on the issue. As the strike entered its second month, concerns grew about the political and economic fallout. The strike’s timing was particularly sensitive, coinciding with Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s international tour aimed at attracting foreign investment to the state. The pro-business image of Tamil Nadu was at risk, especially since Samsung is a major foreign investor.

Despite its political alliance with CITU, the DMK government struggled to find the right approach. For much of the strike, key ministers failed to engage directly with the workers, and efforts to resolve the issue were handled through bureaucratic channels rather than direct political intervention. The state’s reliance on these channels, without a clear political strategy, only contributed to the deadlock.

It was only after sustained pressure that the government ramped up its efforts to broker a resolution. Chief Minister Stalin instructed senior ministers to intervene, and negotiations involving multiple ministries—including Labour Welfare, Industries, and Public Works—were held. These efforts eventually led to a breakthrough, though not without setbacks along the way.

Amidst the hard-fought struggle of Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu, one of the most disturbing aspects of the protest was the detention of several workers who participated in the strike. As the workers stood firm in their demands for better wages, union recognition, and improved working conditions, their rights to peacefully protest and voice their grievances were met with state repression. The detention of these workers not only highlights the broader challenges faced by labour movements in India but also underscores the precarious state of workers’ rights in the face of corporate and state interests.

The crackdown: Arrests and disbanding of protest camps

As the strike reached its second month, the tensions between the workers and the management escalated, with the Tamil Nadu government coming under increased pressure to resolve the issue. Instead of supporting the workers’ cause or facilitating meaningful dialogue, the state resorted to heavy-handed measures, including the arrest of workers and the dismantling of their protest camps.

On October 9, after the Tamil Nadu government prematurely announced that the strike had been resolved, a group of Samsung workers who were part of the protest refused to accept the terms of the settlement. These workers argued that the agreement had been signed by employees who were not part of the striking group, thus undermining the legitimacy of the resolution. In response, state authorities moved in to break up the protests, leading to the detention of several workers.

Police arrested more than a dozen workers, including prominent union leaders, as they attempted to stifle the ongoing protest. Law enforcement officials also forcibly removed the tents set up by workers outside the factory in Sriperumbudur. This aggressive approach to silencing the workers’ voices drew widespread condemnation from labour unions, political allies, and human rights organisations, all of whom decried the violation of the workers’ constitutional rights.

The detention of the workers was not merely an administrative action—it was a blatant trampling of their fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations and unions. By arresting workers who were exercising their right to peaceful protest, the state infringed upon these constitutional guarantees, aligning itself with corporate interests rather than protecting the rights of its citizens.

This crackdown on Samsung workers mirrored a troubling pattern in India, where labour rights and peaceful dissent are increasingly being met with state repression. Over the past few years, protests by workers, farmers, and activists have often been quelled through the use of arrests, intimidation, and, in some cases, outright violence. The situation involving Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu is yet another example of how the state can prioritise economic interests and corporate pressure over the rights and welfare of its citizens.

Akriti Bhatia, a labour rights activist, commented on the situation and told Frontline that “This is yet another case where the state machinery is used to suppress the demands of workers. Instead of addressing the genuine concerns of labourers and ensuring compliance with labour laws, the government is using force to dismantle legitimate movements.”

Solidarity in many forms was shown:

AIKS Extends Revolutionary Greetings to the Samsung Workers for their Historic Victory!

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) extends its revolutionary greetings to the struggling workers of Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) led Samsung India Workers’ Union (SIWU) on (1/n) pic.twitter.com/g5IR7kY65r

— AIKS (@KisanSabha) October 16, 2024

We condemn the detention of protesting Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu. pic.twitter.com/uUIS0l7l4l

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) September 16, 2024

The #CPIM, CPI and CPI(ML) Liberation held a solidarity protest in #Chennai supporting the workers of #Samsung who have been on strike demanding recognition of their union, wage revision and regulated working hours.@tncpim state secretary Comrade K. Balakrishnan, CPI state… pic.twitter.com/NrOh4lfI0U

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 5, 2024

Leaders of AIDWA extended support to the Samsung India Workers Union at the protest site pic.twitter.com/MNO9mtw3y6

— Greeshma Kuthar (@jeegujja) October 5, 2024

One also cannot forget the role of multinational corporations and complicity of the state in choking the voices of the people protesting for dignity and rights. The detention of Samsung workers also highlighted the influence multinational corporations wield over local governments. In their quest to maintain operations without disruptions, companies like Samsung exert immense pressure on state authorities to curb dissent and maintain a “pro-business” environment. This pressure often manifests in the form of government action against workers who dare to challenge these corporations. For Samsung, which plays a key role in Tamil Nadu’s industrial sector, a prolonged strike posed not just a financial threat but also a reputational risk. The state’s pro-business image was on the line, and the DMK government’s initial reluctance to intervene aggressively can be seen as an attempt to maintain its investor-friendly facade. However, as the strike dragged on, the government resorted to coercive measures, leading to the detention of the workers.

The actions of the state during this strike raised critical questions about the role of governments in protecting workers’ rights. In theory, the government should be a mediator between labour and capital, ensuring that workers are treated fairly and that laws are upheld. However, in practice, the government’s actions in Tamil Nadu revealed a deeper complicity with corporate interests, as it attempted to suppress the legitimate demands of the workers instead of addressing their grievances. 

International Labour Standards and the Need for Accountability

The detention of workers during the Samsung strike is not just a domestic issue—it also reflects poorly on India’s adherence to international labour standards. India is a signatory to several International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, including those that protect the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The state’s actions during the Samsung strike violated these international commitments, casting doubt on its commitment to upholding basic labour rights.

In recent years, India has positioned itself as a key player in the global manufacturing supply chain, with companies like Samsung, Apple, and Foxconn establishing major operations in the country. While these companies contribute significantly to India’s economy, they also bear responsibility for ensuring that their workers are treated fairly and that labour laws are followed. The crackdown on Samsung workers during this strike is a stark reminder that corporate social responsibility must extend beyond profit margins and production goals. 

A Call for Justice

The release of detained workers and the cessation of legal action against them was one of the key conditions in the eventual settlement between the workers and Samsung. However, the fact that these detentions occurred in the first place serves as a chilling reminder of the risks workers face when standing up to powerful corporations. For many of the Samsung workers, the fear of reprisal remains, even as they prepare to return to work.

Labour rights activists and political allies have called for greater accountability in the aftermath of the strike. They are demanding that the Tamil Nadu government ensure that no further punitive action is taken against the workers and that steps are taken to address the broader issue of labour rights violations in the state. Additionally, they are calling on multinational corporations like Samsung to adopt more transparent and accountable practices when dealing with labour disputes.

For the workers of Samsung’s Sriperumbudur plant, their struggle has not ended with the resolution of the strike. While they have achieved several key concessions, including improved working conditions and a commitment from the company to engage with their demands, the fight for union recognition continues. More importantly, the fight for dignity and respect in the workplace, free from state repression and corporate exploitation, is far from over.

Frontline shared the words of one worker who was detained during the strike, who had said “We only asked for what is fair. We didn’t expect to be treated like criminals for standing up for our rights.”

Big lesson from Samsung Strike: Present trend of inter state competition to promote casual workforce, low wages,high workload,strenuous overtime targets and non-recognition of unions will be resisted. Everything can be negotiated but right to unionisation is nonnegotiable. pic.twitter.com/BDKaxdCv4G

— Thomas Isaac (@drthomasisaac) October 18, 2024

Resolution and the Road Ahead

By October 16, both sides reached a settlement. Samsung agreed to meet most of the workers’ key demands, except union recognition, which remains under judicial review. In return, the workers agreed to return to work on October 17 and cease all protest activities. Crucially, Samsung assured that no action would be taken against workers who had participated in the strike.

Historic Victory in Samsung Struggle@cituhq has congratulated the workers in a statement :

In the contemporary history of class struggles, the Samsung India Workers Struggle is the greatest direct class action against the Rule of Capital.
The greatest saga of 37-day-long… pic.twitter.com/kEajHleWjg

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 16, 2024

KITU salutes the Samsung India Workers Union (CITU) for their inspiring and courageous strike action which led to a historic victory pic.twitter.com/yAt6FNoQsu

— Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union (@kitu_hq) October 16, 2024

Samsung, in a statement, welcomed the decision to end the strike, saying, “We will not take action against workers who merely participated in the illegal strike. We are committed to working closely with our workers to make the Chennai factory a great place to work.”

The strike, one of the largest the South Korean technology giant has faced in recent years, also holds broader implications for India’s manufacturing landscape. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has been positioning India as a viable alternative to China for global manufacturing activities. The Samsung strike, along with other labour movements in the region, including a one-day strike by workers at an Apple supplier in Tamil Nadu, underscores the importance of addressing labour rights and working conditions as India seeks to attract more foreign investment.

Earlier this year, unionised workers in South Korea staged a massive strike over pay and benefits, which added further pressure on Samsung. Meanwhile, in India, workers at a Foxconn facility in Tamil Nadu, a major assembler of Apple iPhones, also went on strike, demanding union recognition and better working conditions. These incidents reflect the growing assertiveness of workers in the face of multinational corporations that seek to maximise productivity while minimising costs.

As the dust settles on the Samsung strike, the workers’ struggle stands as a testament to the power of collective action, even in the face of multinational corporations. While the road to full union recognition may still be long, the workers of Samsung’s Sriperumbudur plant have demonstrated their resolve and ability to bring about meaningful change.

In the end, the Samsung workers’ strike in Tamil Nadu marks a significant chapter in the ongoing struggle for labour rights in India’s rapidly expanding industrial landscape. While much work remains to be done, the victory at Samsung offers hope for workers in other sectors and sets a precedent for future labour movements across the country.

Related:

‘Abduction’ of labour activist Anirudh Rajan part of a ‘troubling trend’: CASR

Assam CM call to expel ‘Miya Muslims,’ leads to violence against Bengali speaking Muslim Labourers

Labour cess utilisation remains low, Kerala only state to fully use its labour cess funds

Journalist cannot cover the labour beat without questioning extreme inequality- P Sainath

Evolution of labour exploitation: from slavery to platform economies

The post Victory for Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu: A hard-fought struggle pays off, brings key wins appeared first on SabrangIndia.