The month-long strike by the workers of Samsung Electronics in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, has seemingly come to an end, with reports suggesting that a fair internal inquiry against the suspended 23 workers (members of the registered, CITU-backed Samsung India Workers Union) has been agreed upon. The union had earlier demanded revocation of the suspension, while the management had earlier demanded an undertaking that the suspended workers will not participate in such actions in future.
Before the ongoing strike, around 1,500 workers struck work for 38 days after September 9, 2024, demanding recognition of their union formed in July 2024 (affiliated to CITU), better working conditions and pay revision. Meanwhile, the State labour department curiously delayed the registration of the union.
After the intervention of the Madras High Court directing the Registrar to register the trade union within the mandated 45 days, the union was registered on January 27, 2025 by the government. What is a simple bureaucratic process often becomes a huge bone of contention involving litigation. The State government’s role is open to question. The trade union has alleged that the State labour department and the police are biased.
Unfortunate policy
Last October, the company signed an MoU with 200 out of 1,800 workers, raising a controversy. This may be construed as an unfair labour practice according to IDA [(see Fifth Schedule 1(c), 3]. Instead of engaging with the trade union which represents the majority of workers, the company allegedly chose to engage with a workers’ committee. Such an unfortunate policy has been followed by various auto, electronics and FMCG MNCs and other companies in the past. They refused to recognise the majority union. The HR actions of these companies often fly in the face of their global HR policy.
The company concerned here is bound by the “ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work” and “The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” among others. “The Company respect the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining in accordance with ILO C87 and C98 in order to maintain and develop our cooperative labour-management relations based on mutual trust and integrity. If local regulations conflict with international standards, we promote the higher.” (Global Code of Conduct, 2022.6, accessed February 28, 2025).
Misplaced HR policies to resist union formation and deny union recognition result in loss in production and bitter industrial relations. The Tamil Nadu government seems to have forgotten the MRF industrial conflict which took place in 2009. In that case, the union appealed to the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA), a global supervisory body of the ILO.
The CFA came heavily against the government and recommended that the majority union status be determined by secret ballot, and be recognised by the company. The Madras High Court took cognisance of ILO’s recommendation and directed the Tamil Nadu government to conduct membership verification (instead of secret ballot for various reasons) to determine the representative character of the contesting unions and grant recognition accordingly.
Recognition of unions
The Central Trade Unions Act, 1926 merely provides for registration but not for recognition of trade unions. But several State governments like Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal and Kerala have enacted laws and regulations to statutorily require the employers to recognise the majority union according to the laws. The Tamil Nadu government could have enacted similar legislation and prevented several union recognition disputes like Hyundai, Foxconn and others. The Industrial Relations Code 2020 provides for recognition of majority trade union(s) but the Code has not been notified. So there is a legislative void in Tamil Nadu.
Samsung must recognise SIWU and hold bargaining in good faith for two reasons. One, this action conforms with their global HR policies. Two, there is research evidence to show that freedom of association and collective bargaining promote equity and induce productive efficiency. For example, it reduces wage inequalities among workers and between management and workers’ incomes. They reduce transaction costs, provide a channel for grievance redressal and avoid pent-up frustrations. Alleged workers’ indiscipline can be tackled through established disciplinary procedures under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and no worthy union shall encourage indiscipline.
The writer is Professor of Practice, MDI, Gurgaon