......our answer to all your banking needs


Follow AllBankingSolutions


    Follow allbanking on Twitter

Controversies of Interpretation of Clauses of Agreement Dated 23rd February 2015  -  Some Questions That Needs To be Answered Immediately by UFBU Leaders



Rajesh Goyal 

Ads by Google


I sincerely thank our readers for seriously analyzing my article titled “
UFBU Seems To Have Made A Complete Sell Out to IBA Specially For Officers ?   The fate of Bankers Retired / Retiring Between 1st November 2012 and 31st October 2017 Seems To Have Been Completely Sealed ?.    Some of our readers have agreed with me but large number of others have written that my assumptions are wrong.  I am happy my article has stirred the minds of the bankers who are usually a mute spectator.

The above article seems to have completely thrown the union leaders into disarray, and they appear to be in damage control by blaming for spreading misinformation.   However, none of them is ready to issue a circular clarifying the controversial clauses in the agreement  and giving their own version of the interpretation.


We keep on getting certain feedbacks about our activities.  One of the interesting feedback is from one of our followers who has sent this email to us quoting  one Mr Tushar Kanti Hazra  [General Secretary of the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank [RRB],Officers Confederation[a wing of AIBOC] :  “Who is Rajesh Goyel? He has nothing to do except to mislead the officers and employees of the Bank. One single individual can not be more prudent than a collective leadership like UFBU. HE HAS NO STAKE EITHER IN THE INDUSTRY OR IN THE MEMBERSHIP BUT UFBU HAS. LET THE FINAL SETTLEMENT COME. PLEASE WAIT WITH PATIENCE AND DONT BE CARRIED AWAY BY THE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN OF THE PEOPLE LIKE MR. GOYEL”.


I am not shocked by such comments as union leaders and politicians are in the habit of blaming the crusaders for the mistakes and scams done by such union leaders / politicians.   However, I would have preferred him to request his top leadership to issue clarification about 2% rise in Basic Pay issue and close the discussions instead of rhetorically telling his followers that Rajesh Goyal is misleading the officers.   We are not perturbed by such bashing and we will continue to analyse and create awareness among bankers for various issues which are their major concerns.   It is for our readers to decide whether they like our analysis or not.  The day they will feel that we are biased, we will see fall in our followers.


Frankly speaking, I have achieved the purpose I intended while writing the above article.  I had noticed the dangers of interpretation of the above agreement, and therefore, decided to make a chart so that Aam Banker can understand the implications of a bad interpretation as it is usually done by IBA.   The main purpose of the article was to stir the minds of the bankers and make them aware of the pitfalls ahead if no serious attempts are made to fill the wide gaps that have cropped in the agreement on the behest of IBA, and give a chance to UFBU leaders to put out their own version on the interpretation of the clauses agreed upon.


Remember that at nowhere I have mentioned that all the remaining load will be certainly loaded on HRA, it is a pure  assumption, which can be refuted by UFBU by giving their own broad calculations / interpretations of the clause.   I made this assumption as in the present Pay Slip components we do not have any other component which can be applicable across all the sections, eg. FPA and PQA are only available to senior bankers, allowances like hill allowance are applicable only in certain regions, CCA is applicable only in cities etc etc.    Thus, in the absence of any commitment by either IBA or UFBU, we are left to assume that the maximum increase may be shifted to HRA as it suits Banks.  IBA is likely to interpret that we have committed only for increase in Pay Slip components and may deny to introduce a new component in the Pay Slip. 


Ads by Google


In view of the dangerous wordings of the agreement and serious credibility crisis for UFBU and IBA,  there are some important question that needs to be answered IMMEDIATELY  by each and every leader of  UFBU, who signed the agreement dated 23rd February, 2015:-


  (1) Were UFBU leaders given the copies of the likely offer in advance by IBA? (As is the practice in negotiations by matured teams, so that other team also come prepared with counter arguments).  If yes, on which date did UFBU received the same?  Was it forwarded to all the 9 leaders.   Did each union discussed the same within their core group to study the pros and cons of such an offer given in advance;

 (2)   If UFBU leaders were not given the same in advance, how much time they were given to study the clauses of the agreement and its implications in the meeting itself?  Did they had the tools and background help to study all such offers?    Did nine leaders go into huddle to discuss these clauses?   Negotiations are an art for which you need to have a team which works on the positive and negative impact of various offers.  If you do not have any such team sitting outside the negotiation room, you are bound to fall in trap.   I have not heard of any such teams.  UFBU leaders can clarify on that aspect.

 (3)    Did nine leaders of UFBU made any detailed analysis of what is being signed by them or they merely signed on the dotted lines?

 (4)      If the detailed analysis was made by 9 leaders during the course of meeting itself, what were the apprehensions of each of them about MERE  2% increase in Basic Pay?   Were their any clarifications by IBA on such apprehensions?  Or were there  no apprehensions and all 9 UFBU leaders readily agreed to the trap laid by IBA to get the deal clinched without giving sufficient time to deliberate and discuss the pros and cons of such a deal?

 (5)      Did IBA really agreed to introduce a new component in the Pay Slip on the lines of Grade Pay central government on which DA will also be payable?   If so, why UFBU circular is silent on this subject.  Let this aspect be shared through a joint circular of UFBU.


There would not have been any need to raise above questions if UFBU had followed a more transparent / democratic method in informing the details of the discussions that are held behind the closed doors. However, there is a gag order on all leaders participating in the negotiations to keep completely mum outside the negotiation room.   Even in Parliament each party takes its stand and makes it public and finally the Bill is passed what majority desires, but after taking into consideration / answering the apprehensions of the minor parties.

 Therefore, I would like to reiterate the need by Aam Banker to follow up with UFBU leaders to get answer to above questions and ensure that IBA does not interpret the agreement on the worst lines. It needs to be interpreted in a way so that Aam Banker gets its due share.

 I am sure the serving bankers will continue to participate in the discussions and offer ways as to how the Pay Scales needs to be constructed within the boundaries  already drawn by IBA and UFBU in the agreement dated 23rd February, 2015.  Best of Luck to all bankers for interpreting the agreement which benefits them to the maximum.

 PS : Now I would like to share the funniest news which was in circulation “IBA has also agreed for a two Saturday holiday with retrospective effect from November 2012. The arrears for the Saturdays worked will also paid with retrospective effect from November 2012”.  I was stunned as to how bankers are ready to believe such illogical news.   We tried to trace its origin.  I found that this seems to have been originated from a newspaper, the correspondent of which seems to have not given the desired thought about its practicalability.  The link is , where in GS of AIBOC has been quoted as   -  Harvinder Singh, general secretary of All India Bank Officers Confederation, told dna, “The wage settlement was not really a compromise. The management and the employees have compromised on some of their demands to that a good wage settlement is in place. Saturday remaining closed is also a cost to the bank. We will also get arrears for Saturdays worked 2012 with retrospective effect.”

The news in a respected newspaper baffled me more.    I am happy that now AIBOC on its website has denied the above news and informed its members that it is  misquoted and there is no such proposal.   I welcome AIBOC’s initiative in this regard.   I am sure all bankers will be happy if  Mr Singh and other union leaders can also issue clarification on the interpretations of the clauses agreed upon by UFBU


You can give your feedback / comments about this Article.   Please give only relevant comments as irrelevant comments are waste of time for yourself and our other readers.



blog comments powered by Disqus