Irrational request of AIPEU Group-C against AIASC (Gr. B) about Membership Verification - 2020

 

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)