PHILIPS INDIA LABOR
PROBLEMS AT SALT LAKE




            PRESENTATION
             BY:- Group 5
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
• The company was incorporated on 31st January,
  1930, at Calcutta.

• A Private Company under the name Philips Electricals
  Company (India) Limited.

• In 1956 the name was changed to Philips India Private
  Ltd. on September 12th.
Cont..
• In 1957 it was converted into a Public company on 31st
  October.
• In 1967 as on 31st October, the name was changed from
  Philips India Private Ltd. to Philips India, Ltd.
• The Company manufactures and sells radio receivers,
  components, amplifiers, electrical lamps, lighting fittings
  and accessories, medical apparatus, etc.
Cont..
• The Company's products includes mercury and sodium
  lamps, light fittings and accessories radios and public
  address equipment; hospital and dental equipment etc.

• The wake of the booming consumer goods market in 1992,
  PIL decided to modernize its Salt Lake factory located in
  Kolkata. The plant's output was to increase from a mere
  40,000 to 2.78 lakh CTVs in three years
CASE DETAILS
• The case study is about the labor problems of the
  Philips India Limited’s PIL 1998 Salt Lake factory
  Kolkatta India.

• Two unions active at PIL Philips Employee Union
  (PEU) and Pieco Workers Union (PWU).
Cont..
• The differences with workers led to declining production
  and losses.

• PILs management decided to sell the factory

• The Union objected and made a counter bid highlighting
  the problems between PIL and its workers the case
  examines the reasons behind the conflict
SALT LAKE FACTORY FOCUS AND EXPANSION


• The company even expected to win the Philips
  Worldwide Award for quality.

• The Company wanted to become the source of Philips
  Exports in Asia Focus basically on its audio and video
  based products.
Cont..
• The company relocated its audio product line to Pune in
  spite of the move that resulted in the displacement of 600
  workers there were no signs of discord largely due to the
  unions involvement in the overall process.

• Slowdown in the CTV market demand made the workers to
  think about their job due to this workers raised voices
  against the management and asked for a hike in wage.
Cont..
• The difference resulted in 20 month long battle over the
  wages hikes issue, go slow tactics of workers declining
  production and huge loss for the company.
• In May 1998 PIL announced to stop production in June
  1998.
• A series of negotiations, the unions and the management
  came to a reasonable agreement on the issue of wage
  structure.
SELLING TROUBLES
• PIL decided to have a common manufacturing unit and
  integrated technology to reduce cost
• Videocon approached PIL as buyer but had reservations
  about over staffed and under utilized plant.
• PIL reduces workforce modernized plant spending Rs 7.1
  crore.
• Videocon confirms Kitchen Appliances India Limited as its
  nominee for buying the plant.
Cont..
• PILs plan of selling the CTV unit Claimed the price of
  Rs 90 million was quite low against valuation of 300
  million by Dalal Consultants independent values.
• Workers approached the Videocon to withdraw from
  the deal.
• They refused, workers filled petition in the Kolkata
  High Court challenging the sale agreement.
Cont..
• In March 1999 Calcutta Court strikes down Philips
  deal with Videocon.

• PIL and Videocon decided to extend their agreement
  by 6 months to accommodate the courts order and
  workers agitation.
JUDGMENT DAY
• The Supreme Court finally passed judgment on the
  controversial Philips case in favor of PIL.
• The judgment dismissed the review appeal filed by the
  workers.
• The Company transferred to Videocon Workers employment
  was taken over by Kitchen Appliances.
• The transfer of ownership did not interrupt the services of
  workmen Kitchen Appliances, started functioning from
  March 2001
Cont..
• The factory has been design by Videocon as a major center to
  meet the requirement of the eastern region market and export to
  East Asia countries.
• The judgment said that though the workers can demand for their
  rights, they had no say in any of the policy decision made by the
  company, if their interest were not adversely affected.
• The Supreme Court decision taken repeats the position which
  Philips has maintained all long that the transaction will benefit
  the Philips’ shareholders.
CONCLUSION

• Supreme Court decision seemed to be a typical
 case of all well that ends well.

• The transactions benefited to shareholders.

• How far the Slat Lake workers agreed with this
 remain unanswered
QUESTIONS
Changes taking place in PIL made workers feel insecure about their jobs. Do
   you agree with this statement? Give reasons to support your answer.


• Yes,

• The idea of relocating of the Pune plant had almost
  resulted in the displacement of 600 workers from 1
  unit which in turn could possibly target their jobs also.
  The unions realized that the management might not be
  able to complete tasks and that their jobs are in
  danger.
Cont..
•   The slow down in the CTV markets, the workers were asked to go slow,
    which came down to take the decision of raising their voices against the
    management for a hike in wages.
•   The employees also retaliated stating that they continued to work in spite of
    the irregular hike in wages.
•   The union had to face another problem of being shifted under another
    ownership of Videocon which made them think that this company will not
    be able to pay the wages and they cannot trust on this company too,
    because Videocon faced failures to make payments in time during the
    course of its transactions with Philips.
Cont..
• The decision to have common electronics facility to
  reduce the cost and eventually decision to sell the
  factory to Kitchen Appliance India Ltd were cause of
  their burning insecurity among the workers. And also
  due to which PEU demanded salary hike and the
  company decided to pay less hike in the salary than
  demanded by the worker.
Highlight the reasons behind PIL’s decision to sell the Salt Lake factory.
Critically comment on PIL’s arguments regarding not accepting the union’s
offer to buy the factory.


• The unions were not willing to involve, besides there
   were differences in workers and hence it led to decline
   and losses.

• The plant’s target was to reach from 40000 to 2.78
   lakh CTVs in three years. There was slowdown in CTV
   market since the company was not able to reach the
   target.
Cont..
• Expansion plans had fallen and the target was not
  achieved

PIL reject this offer claiming that it was legally
bound to sell Videocon

• To reduce the recurring loses and to get out of the
  series of problems posed by the PEU.
Cont..
• The company is justified to argue for not accepting the
  union’s offer as the workers were underutilized due to the
  slowdown in the sales and production of CTV.

• The company even had expected to win the Philips
  Worldwide Award for quality but it was not able to do so

• Due to decline in production the company did not become
  the source of Philips Exports in Asia
Comment on the reasons behind the Salt Lake workers resisting the
factory’s sale. Could the company have avoided this?


• The factory was good because it has diversified its
  business continuously.            The workers have no faith;
  they were scared for loosing their jobs as well as
  wages were low, therefore deciding to make the sale.

• Yes, company can avoid their by giving good training
  good wages, motivating them company would be in
  profit.
case study of Philips india

case study of Philips india

  • 1.
    PHILIPS INDIA LABOR PROBLEMSAT SALT LAKE PRESENTATION BY:- Group 5
  • 2.
    PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED •The company was incorporated on 31st January, 1930, at Calcutta. • A Private Company under the name Philips Electricals Company (India) Limited. • In 1956 the name was changed to Philips India Private Ltd. on September 12th.
  • 3.
    Cont.. • In 1957it was converted into a Public company on 31st October. • In 1967 as on 31st October, the name was changed from Philips India Private Ltd. to Philips India, Ltd. • The Company manufactures and sells radio receivers, components, amplifiers, electrical lamps, lighting fittings and accessories, medical apparatus, etc.
  • 4.
    Cont.. • The Company'sproducts includes mercury and sodium lamps, light fittings and accessories radios and public address equipment; hospital and dental equipment etc. • The wake of the booming consumer goods market in 1992, PIL decided to modernize its Salt Lake factory located in Kolkata. The plant's output was to increase from a mere 40,000 to 2.78 lakh CTVs in three years
  • 5.
    CASE DETAILS • Thecase study is about the labor problems of the Philips India Limited’s PIL 1998 Salt Lake factory Kolkatta India. • Two unions active at PIL Philips Employee Union (PEU) and Pieco Workers Union (PWU).
  • 6.
    Cont.. • The differenceswith workers led to declining production and losses. • PILs management decided to sell the factory • The Union objected and made a counter bid highlighting the problems between PIL and its workers the case examines the reasons behind the conflict
  • 7.
    SALT LAKE FACTORYFOCUS AND EXPANSION • The company even expected to win the Philips Worldwide Award for quality. • The Company wanted to become the source of Philips Exports in Asia Focus basically on its audio and video based products.
  • 8.
    Cont.. • The companyrelocated its audio product line to Pune in spite of the move that resulted in the displacement of 600 workers there were no signs of discord largely due to the unions involvement in the overall process. • Slowdown in the CTV market demand made the workers to think about their job due to this workers raised voices against the management and asked for a hike in wage.
  • 9.
    Cont.. • The differenceresulted in 20 month long battle over the wages hikes issue, go slow tactics of workers declining production and huge loss for the company. • In May 1998 PIL announced to stop production in June 1998. • A series of negotiations, the unions and the management came to a reasonable agreement on the issue of wage structure.
  • 10.
    SELLING TROUBLES • PILdecided to have a common manufacturing unit and integrated technology to reduce cost • Videocon approached PIL as buyer but had reservations about over staffed and under utilized plant. • PIL reduces workforce modernized plant spending Rs 7.1 crore. • Videocon confirms Kitchen Appliances India Limited as its nominee for buying the plant.
  • 11.
    Cont.. • PILs planof selling the CTV unit Claimed the price of Rs 90 million was quite low against valuation of 300 million by Dalal Consultants independent values. • Workers approached the Videocon to withdraw from the deal. • They refused, workers filled petition in the Kolkata High Court challenging the sale agreement.
  • 12.
    Cont.. • In March1999 Calcutta Court strikes down Philips deal with Videocon. • PIL and Videocon decided to extend their agreement by 6 months to accommodate the courts order and workers agitation.
  • 13.
    JUDGMENT DAY • TheSupreme Court finally passed judgment on the controversial Philips case in favor of PIL. • The judgment dismissed the review appeal filed by the workers. • The Company transferred to Videocon Workers employment was taken over by Kitchen Appliances. • The transfer of ownership did not interrupt the services of workmen Kitchen Appliances, started functioning from March 2001
  • 14.
    Cont.. • The factoryhas been design by Videocon as a major center to meet the requirement of the eastern region market and export to East Asia countries. • The judgment said that though the workers can demand for their rights, they had no say in any of the policy decision made by the company, if their interest were not adversely affected. • The Supreme Court decision taken repeats the position which Philips has maintained all long that the transaction will benefit the Philips’ shareholders.
  • 15.
    CONCLUSION • Supreme Courtdecision seemed to be a typical case of all well that ends well. • The transactions benefited to shareholders. • How far the Slat Lake workers agreed with this remain unanswered
  • 16.
  • 17.
    Changes taking placein PIL made workers feel insecure about their jobs. Do you agree with this statement? Give reasons to support your answer. • Yes, • The idea of relocating of the Pune plant had almost resulted in the displacement of 600 workers from 1 unit which in turn could possibly target their jobs also. The unions realized that the management might not be able to complete tasks and that their jobs are in danger.
  • 18.
    Cont.. • The slow down in the CTV markets, the workers were asked to go slow, which came down to take the decision of raising their voices against the management for a hike in wages. • The employees also retaliated stating that they continued to work in spite of the irregular hike in wages. • The union had to face another problem of being shifted under another ownership of Videocon which made them think that this company will not be able to pay the wages and they cannot trust on this company too, because Videocon faced failures to make payments in time during the course of its transactions with Philips.
  • 19.
    Cont.. • The decisionto have common electronics facility to reduce the cost and eventually decision to sell the factory to Kitchen Appliance India Ltd were cause of their burning insecurity among the workers. And also due to which PEU demanded salary hike and the company decided to pay less hike in the salary than demanded by the worker.
  • 20.
    Highlight the reasonsbehind PIL’s decision to sell the Salt Lake factory. Critically comment on PIL’s arguments regarding not accepting the union’s offer to buy the factory. • The unions were not willing to involve, besides there were differences in workers and hence it led to decline and losses. • The plant’s target was to reach from 40000 to 2.78 lakh CTVs in three years. There was slowdown in CTV market since the company was not able to reach the target.
  • 21.
    Cont.. • Expansion planshad fallen and the target was not achieved PIL reject this offer claiming that it was legally bound to sell Videocon • To reduce the recurring loses and to get out of the series of problems posed by the PEU.
  • 22.
    Cont.. • The companyis justified to argue for not accepting the union’s offer as the workers were underutilized due to the slowdown in the sales and production of CTV. • The company even had expected to win the Philips Worldwide Award for quality but it was not able to do so • Due to decline in production the company did not become the source of Philips Exports in Asia
  • 23.
    Comment on thereasons behind the Salt Lake workers resisting the factory’s sale. Could the company have avoided this? • The factory was good because it has diversified its business continuously. The workers have no faith; they were scared for loosing their jobs as well as wages were low, therefore deciding to make the sale. • Yes, company can avoid their by giving good training good wages, motivating them company would be in profit.