Reference: (1) Hon'ble Directorate OM No. T-15/2/2020-SR dated 24.07.2020
(2) AIPEU Group-C GS letter No. P/4-10/Membership Verification dated 31-07-2020
Firstly, we, the Group B officials(HSG II, HSG
I and HSG I(NFG)) are very thankful to the Department for recognising us as a
Distinct Category and allowing us to participate in membership verification for
the year 2020 in All India Association of Supervisor Cadre (Gr-B).
We
reached out to the AIPEU(Gr-C) letter in reference which is viral in social
media and against the interests of this association. This association would like to bring the
following issues to your kind reference and reject the plea of the AIPEU that not
to allow the AIASC (Gr-B) to participate in membership verification:
(a) AIPEU(Gr-C) requests the department to
reject the formation of AIASC(Gr-B) on the condition that AIASC is against the ‘commonality and homogeneousness’. Is this condition applicable to HSG II, HSG I
and NFG only and not for other associations?
(b) The department listed 31 associations and
AIPEU has objection for AIASC (Gr-B) only.
That means AIPEU agrees that the remaining 29 associations are not against
‘commonality and homogeneous’.
If
the above two conditions are correct for AIPEU, this association has the
following doubts against AIPEU:
(a) Why there are three associations for
postal employees viz AIPEU, NAPE and BPEA for the same set of employees having same
commonality and homogeneousness? And are
fighting against each other and participating in membership verification. This is because of the difference of opinion among the employees of
same group and forming other associations.
Other two associations formed out of AIPEU members only. Why AIPEU could not hold its members going
out from AIPEU and ask department not to allow this many associations? Here AIPEU has no objection to allow
department to form any number of associations,
but department should not allow AIASC group on the condition of
commonality and homogeneousness. And if
department allows this there will be many number of associations under each
category.
Is the associations formed to look after
the welfare of the employees or to fight with each other with difference of
opinions having with more number of associations under same category? AIPEU still not looking forward for the
welfare of employees but trying to hold the cadre/categorization by force by
writing this type of letters to department.
(b) When
at S.No 16 ‘All India Postal
Administrative Offices Employees Union Group C & D has single association
for Group C & D, why AIPEU separated postmen and MTS from Group-C postal employees
and from RMS and MMS employees. AIPEU is requested to explain the meaning of ‘commonality and homogeneousness’ here.
(c) Like at above point(b), why AIPEU has no
objection for formation of associations from
S.No 19 to 26 majorly for SBCO employees, Accounts employees, Civil wing
Non-Gazetted employees etc. AIPEU is requested
to explain the meaning of ‘commonality
and homogeneousness’ here also.
(d) Like above why AIPEU has no objection for
associations from S.No 27 to 31.
All
the employees of postal department are working with a common
interest/commonality and all groups/cadre/categories are homogeneous.
Associations are formed to project the issues of different categories varying
with working conditions and responsibilities placed on the category. We requested an association for a distinct category of supervisors work
and coming under other cadre i.e Group-B which is distinct from Gr-C.
If possible, we request
the department to make changes in the formation of associations on the same
point of AIPEU i.e ‘commonality and
homogeneous’
(a) Merge Postal
employees, RMS and MMS employees into single group of commonality and
homogeneousness.
(b) Merge the
Postmen and MTS associations RMS and MMS employees of Group-D (This association
feels sorry to call the officials still under Group-D cadre which is not
existing) with Group-C association as all these employees fall under Group-C
and having same commonality and homogeneousness.
(d) Add HSG II/I
officials of RMS, MMS, Administrative offices, IPOs, other non-gazetted Gr-B
officials with AIASC to bring
commonality and homogeneousness.
(c) Add LSG
officials with AIASC who are having the same duties and responsibilities like
HSG II/I officials. This will reduce the
burden on AIPEU on commonality and homogeneousness.
Summarising the above, this association
also strongly protest against plea of AIPEU to reject AIASC formation and
request to place our protest on record. We request the concerned authority to consider
all the options as mentioned above on the issue of ‘COMMONALITY AND
HOMOGENEOUSNESS.
(Narinder Pal)
General Secretary
All India Association of Supervisor Cadre (Gr. B)
.jpg)
