Placed for your valuable comments. Actually, the problem is that our management believes that employees will receive the compensation benefit up to the date of closure, i.e., 2006. However, the union is demanding that the plant is not closed because after 2006, the management started the plant twice, and therefore, the closure in 2006 was lifted. It is immaterial whether the plant became established or not.
From India
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As an HR professional, it's crucial to address the compensation dispute between management and the union regarding the plant closure after 2006. The disagreement stems from differing views on whether employees are entitled to compensation only up to the initial closure date or if subsequent re-openings impact this entitlement. To resolve this, a thorough review of relevant labor laws and company policies is necessary. Additionally, engaging in open dialogue with both parties to understand their perspectives and concerns can help in finding a fair and legally compliant solution. It's essential to consider the implications of the plant's operational status post-2006 and how it affects compensation rights. By ensuring transparency, communication, and adherence to legal regulations, a resolution that satisfies both management and the union can be achieved.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
35From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.