Ms-24 Question bank (12)
Ms-24 Question bank
Ms-24 dec 2009
Written by sales@mbaonlinepapers.com sales@mbaonlinepapers.comMS-24 dec-2009
MS-24 : EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
1. Explain the new perspectives of 1990s and 20 implications of post-modernism for employment relations citing suitable examples.
2. What are the skills and traits required for negotiating team and briefly discuss about process of long term settlement ?
3. Briefly discuss the factors responsible for the failure of participative schemes in India. Discuss the strategies for making participative forums effective.
4. Describe the issue of leadership in trade unions. Outline the new role of trade unions.
5. Write short notes on any three of the following :
a) Principles of industrial adjudication
b) Indiscipline : nature and causes
c) Impact of ILO on industrial relations
d) Gandhian approach to industrial relations
(e) Chamberlain's model of bargaining
6. There is one case study given in this section. Attend the same.
Mr. Nandkishore is a workman employed in the despatch department of a cement factory.
The factory is located in one of the towns of a politically sensitive state. It employs about 1,500 employees besides the managerial staff. The annual turnover of the company is around Rs. 150 crores and its capacity utilization is 75 per cent. The factory has three unions besides a Security Staff Association and a Management Association. For eight years, only one union has been recognized, on the basis of its "claim" that it has the largest following of workmen. Continued recognition of a single union led to strained
relations between the two unrecognized unions and the Management, and also among the unions themselves.
Mr. Nandkishore is an office bearer of one of the unrecognized unions. The industrial
relations situation in the factory has been fluctuating from periods of harmony to periods
of disturbances. On December 10, 1988, Mr. Nandkishore fell down from the ladder, while working during the second shift. This accident resulted in serious injury to his right arm. He was admitted in a Government hospital for treatment. An accident report was sent to the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, to determine the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid to Mr. Nandkishore for the loss of any earning capacity. Meanwhile, the union in which he is an office bearer requested the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance to the injured workman for covering medical expenses. It also stated that the above amount may be deducted from the compensation which Mr. Nandkishore may get, according to the Commissioner's decision. The Management paid Rs. 3,000 as advance, after obtaining a written undertaking from the union that this amount will be deducted from the compensation payable. The union also agreed to this condition. It also arranged for the release of Rs.2,000 from the Labour Welfare Fund. The Medical Officer treating the workman submitted a report in February, 1989. The Medical Report did not mention any kind of disablement (Full/Partial, Temporary/Permanent) to the workman. The Commissioner, after processing the case and studying the report, ruled that the workman, Mr. Nandkishore shall be paid only half-monthly wages for these two months against his request for compensation as there was no
permanent or partial disablement. On receipt of this report from the Commissioner , the Management asked the workman to repay Rs. 3,000 given as an advance and requested the union to do the needful in this regard. The union, however, contended that since the accident occurred during and in the course of employment, the Management must treat it as ex-gratia payment and that it should not demand its repayment as the money was used for treatment. The Management, however, pointed out that at the time of taking advance, both the union and workman had agreed that this amount will be recovered from the compensation payable and since no compensation is payable, the workman should pay back the advance. The Management, further pointed out that it cannot waive the recovery of the above advance as it is bound by the rules. The union however insisted that Management should not proceed on the recovery of advance from the workman. The Management also heard rumours that the said union may stage a “show down” over this issue.
Questions :
a) What is the problem in the case ?
b) Analyse the causes which led to the problem.
c) How should one deal with such a situation ?
d) Discuss the Act under which this case can be dealt.
Ms-24 dec 2010
Written by sales@mbaonlinepapers.com sales@mbaonlinepapers.comMS-24 dec-2010 solved paper
MS-24 : EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
Ms-24 dec 2011
Written by sales@mbaonlinepapers.com sales@mbaonlinepapers.comMS-23 Dec, 2011
MS-23 : HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
1. Explain the concept and process of HRP. Describe the manning standards and utilisation of Human Resource Planning.
2. Discuss different kinds of roles. Describe the factors contributing to role changes in an orgn with suitable examples.
3. Explain the aims and objectives of career planning. Discuss the career planning process and also highlight the benefits of having career planning in an organisation.
4. Discuss the concept of HRIS. Describe an IT supported HRIS and its advantages with suitable examples.
5. Write short notes on any three of the following :
(a) Human Resource Inventory
(b) Job Specification
(c) Potential Apprisel
(d) Sources of man power supply
(e) The cost approach in HRA.
6. Read the following case and answer the questions given at the end.
K.M.T. Ltd. is a government undertaking situated near Cochin. It manufactures textile
machinery and other machine tools, and has about 4,000 employees. The company till 1984 had a good business record. It started showing declining results because of competition from four new private sector industries. This setback was further aggravated because of competition from H.M.T. and P.M.T. in the area of manufacture of machine tools. Adding to this was K.M.T. Ltd.'s failure to diversify into other areas though it had enough capacity, particularly with regard to variety in machine tools and textile machinery. It was also noticed that the costs of textile machinery and other machine tools produced by K.M.T. Ltd. were higher than those produced by other companies. The company was managed by the Managing Director, Mr. Menon, under the guidance of the Board of Directors. The General Manager, Mr. Joseph, was incharge of production. The company's management thought of adding two new departments, namely Industrial Engineering and Cost Accounting. A few old hands were selected from within the organisation and were sent for training to NPC, Madras, and ICWA. Following this, the section heads of these two departments - Industrial Engineer Srikumaran, and Cost Accountant, Nambiar -began their departmental activities. They were promoted as Senior Industrial Engineer and Senior Cost Accountant and subsequently to the Chief's post. It was, however, noticed that these two departments could neither effectively check nor control manufacturing costs with the available talent.
The MD in order to check the cost factor thought of recruiting well-qualified and experienced individuals for the senior-level posts of industrial engineer and cost accountant. An advertisement for the two posts was given and to attract qualified personnel, the salary offered was in the higher grade of 'G4' (Spl). The Officers Association (OA) approached the MD and requested him not to recruit outsiders for these posts, but instead, arrange for suitable training for existing experienced officers of these departments and promote them afterwards. They also objected to the recruitment of outsiders in a higher grade of 'G4' (Spl) instead of the usual 'G4' grade. Under pressure from the OA, the personnel department sent the interview letters indicating
the correction in recruitment grade to 'G4'. A large number of outside candidates wrote back saying that they would be interested, provided they were considered in 'G4' (Spl) grade as already advertised. Under the advice of the MD, telegrams were sent asking candidates to appear for the interview and which also stated that the 'G4' (Spl) grade would be considered.
Seven candidates, including two departmental officers, appeared for the Industrial Engineer's post and eight candidates, including three departmental candidates, appeared for the Cost Accountant's post. In each case, well-qualified and experienced outsiders (Mr Gopalan as Senior Industrial Engineer and Mr. Nayar as Senior Cost Accountant) were selected in ` G4' (Spl) grade as per the original plan of the MD. The General Manager, the Chief Industrial Engineer and the Chief Cost Accountant were not included in the board for selection of candidates and thus, felt neglected.
Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Nayar joined the organisation and were asked to report to their respective chiefs. The chiefs allotted some minor assignments to them, retaining major ones with either themselves or with some of their close associates (who had been recently promoted mainly on the basis of seniority). The present profile of work assignments were covering only a limited area of industrial engineering and costing. Many other areas were not tried out and taken up; the latest techniques were also not being used. When an opportunity for promotion of both Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Nayar
arose (as Chief of Industrial. Engineering was retiring and the Chief Cost Accountant had resigned), the departmental promotion committee, consisting of the MD, GM, Chief
Personnel Manager and the Chief Industrial Engineer, selected and promoted two ` G4' grade officers to 'G5' grade on the basis of their duration of service in the organisation. The cases of Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Nayar (of 'G4' (Spl) grade) were rejected as they had only a year's experience with the organisation. Both these new officers were dejected at not being considered for promotion. They had joined the Officers Association, but after this incident the two were also neglected by the OA. Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Nayar decided to quit the organisation as early as possible since they were not prepared to work under their juniors.
The business of the company declined further. Then, there came a sudden change. The
MD, Mr. Menon, was replaced by Mr. Ramakrishanan. After reviewing the comapany's
position, the new MD called Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Nayar as well as their new chiefs. He gave them new assignments and asked them (Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Nayar) to report back
urgently through their chiefs. After 10 days, Mr. Gopalan met the MD and handed over his resignation instead of the assignment report. The MD enquired about the reason for the resignation. Mr. Gopalan explained as to how he had been sidelined for promotion to
the Chief Industrial Engineer's post, and how he had been treated in the department with respect to assignments. Moreover, he stated that he was not willing to work under his junior. He also said that he had been offered a divisional head's post in a big (multi-unit) private industry and would like to join them at the earliest. He further added that he was interested in utilising his potential and talent to the fullest. The MD asked him to think over his resignation, and particularly since he was joining a private sector industry after serving in the public sector. He promised to make use of his talent at K.M.T. Ltd. Itself and to look into his case and promote him as Joint Chief Industrial Engineer. After a lapse of another week, Mr. Nayar also approached the new MD with his resignation letter.
Questions :
(a) Is the recruitment policy of the organisation faulty ? Why ?
(b) Why are Gopalan and Nayar demotivated ?
(c) Do you think that Gopalan and Nayar should have been selected enabling their
effective utilisation ?
(d) If you were asked to advise Menon and Ramakrishnan about dealing with the problems of Gopalan and Nayar, what advice would you give ?
Ms-24 Question bank