PAY SLIP COMPONENT – WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE TENTH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
10th Bipartite Settlement we started hearing a new word. Pay Slip Components, suddenly IBA and UFBU both started talking about it. Want to know why my dear friends, here we go.
In any bipartite , first thing that both parties would agree upon is the merger of DA and effective date of implementation, Next will be the percentage hike. Third and the most difficult one is distributing the same into various categories such as
- Pay Slip Components: Most important, this is what we get every month salary what we call it, consists of Basic,DA,HRA,CCA, PQA,FPA etc.,
- Non Pay Slip Components: We can broadly divide them into two. a) Those settled under bipartite such as Medical Aid, Hospitalisation Expences, Halting allowance, LFC, Compensation on transfer. b) Other Allowances such as Petrol Limit, House Rent, Entertainment expences, Subscription allowances etc., which are negotiated by individual banks with their respective unions and associations.
- Superannuation benefits: Pension, Gratuity, PF contribution, Encashment of Leave at the time of superannuation etc.,
Except Pension under superannuation benefits all others well defined and are same for all the employees and varies according to their service and cadre . But iIn case off superannuation benefits we have three categories of employees
- Pension Optees.
- PF oftees. ( Very few people are left in this category )
- New Pension scheme employees. ( They are yet to witness a Bipartite )
The cost of for PF optees was 10% of their basic pay for all the bipartites. However The cost of the pension opetees was pegged at 26.5% of the basic for 7th Bipartite, 30.5% of the basic for 8th bipartite and 36% for 9th bipartite.
Here is the tricky point, for PF optees Banks contributed 10%. For pension optees IBA has forced the employees to share the “ incremental cost “ i.e over and above 10% basic pay by the employees. ( All the employees including who had opted for PF ) The “ incremental Cost was shared by all the employees in the following manner
During the 7th Bipartite, IBA requested the Unions to bear additional cost on pension on account of increase in basic pay, in 50:50 proportions over and above 10% of pay. The additional cost on pension, on account of increase in basic pay was estimated at 26.5% of the pay. Excluding 10% of the share of the employees, remaining 16.5% cost was shared in the ratio of 8.25 / 8.25 each, by Unions and Management.
during 8th Bipartite, incremental cost on pension on account of change in basic pay was estimated at 30.5% of pay. Excluding 10% share of employees, remaining cost was shared in the ratio of 11.25% and 9.25% by the Management and Unions respectively.
In the 9th Bipartite, incremental cost on account of salary revision is estimated at 36% of pay and in excess of 10% contribution by the employees, will be shared in 50/50 ratio at 13% each, by the Unions and the Management.
For the shortfall in the pension fund of pension optees all other employees have contributed by accepting to bear the incremental cost. Other wise, PF optees should get more salary than pension optees as superannuation benefits were less. ( 26 % of basic pay for 9th bipartite which is really huge ).
Now for tenth bipartite settlement another group was added NPS ( New Pension Group ), the group which is very active, dynamic, courageous. They are not like us, who were silent, paid twice for the pension what ever they have demanded.
Now there is no other way, IBA / Banks have to contribute total retirement benefits by themselves, as they cannot differentiate three different group’s of employees, which leads to total confusion and chaos, as there are already court cases against 9th bipartite, so they are talking of pay slip components.
For simplicity and easy understanding I am posting the following example
BASIC DA Total Salary SUPERANNUATION TOTAL
PENSION OPTEES 14500 15921 30421 3770 35641
PF OPTEES 14500 15921 30421 1450 31871
NPS 14500 15921 30421 3042 33463