Mine Workers Union fights for recognition
Mpho Mokwape | Monday March 7, 2022 06:00
The union has taken the long-serving Makoro to court seeking recognition in order to better negotiate for the employees who are currently facing a retrenchment and restructuring exercise.
In the latest court proceedings, the union alleges that despite having at least one third of the company’s employees as its members, the company is refusing to recognise it.
The matter is still to be argued before court but on January 30, 2022 the union sought on an urgent basis a temporary court order against the company.
In the order, the union wanted the company to show cause why it should not be interdicted from proceeding with retrenchment and why it should not be held in contempt of court.
“The respondent should show cause why it should not be held to be in constructive contempt of the court decision likely to be made in the substantive application and why it should not be interdicted and restrained from proceeding with its intended retrenchment and restructuring exercise pending the outcome of the dispute,” read union papers.
According to the union’s case through its general secretary’s affidavit it had applied to be recognised by the brick and tile company as a union for purposes of representing the employees in various matters including retrenchments or restructuring exercises.
The union explained that after it had previously secured the number of employees required for it to be recognised, the respondent then delayed the recognition until the company dismissed some of the employees who had agreed to join the union so that the threshold for the recognition fell through.
“After we filed proceedings in the main application for court to direct the company to recognise us and whilst the matter is pending trial, the company has given some employees who have elected to join the union letters of termination of their employment. We have five employees that have already been served with letters and 16 employees who have elected to join the union have been briefed about the pending step of re-designing them to a sister company,” said the union.
The general secretary’s further pointed out that the intention of the company was to reduce the number of employees who have elected to join the union and that the conduct amounts to constructive contempt and that if the main application would not be capable of implementation in the event the union succeeds.
However Makoro, which is part of the Clay Product and Refractory Manufacturing Industry, opposed the confirmation of the temporary order.
It raised points amongst them that the union does not have any right to institute the application as it has not been granted recognition and as such could not make representations on behalf of the company’s employees and that the deponent to the founding affidavit of the union had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case.
The company’s case was that around 2008 due to financial constraints caused by the economic downturn, the company applied for its products to be considered for export to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia and Namibia and that many things came into play including automating the plant in 2017.
The company stated that it engaged with its employees at every stage leading to the eventual automation of the plant, as it was aware that some employees would be adversely affected by the automation.
“Since the automation of the manufacturing plant, it has become unavoidable that some positions were rendered redundant hence the company having to terminate employment due to lack of skill. The automation of the plant has increased the need for university qualified employees especially engineers as such the company has started a graduate training programme for graduates in robotics, mechatronics, mechanical and electrical engineering to gain practical experience,” stated the company.
Makoro further in its court papers denied ever victimising employees who had the intention to join the union stating that the retrenched employees’ positions had been rendered redundant since the automation of the manufacturing plant.
It also noted that the employees who have been re-designated to its sister company was done in order to mitigate their losses as well as the company and that there was no intention to pre-empt the decision of the court nor had it acted in bad faith in taking the decision to restructure.
Meanwhile, the Industrial Court discharged the temporary order it issued on February 3, 2022.
The reasons for the discharge was that the union had not demonstrated irreparable harm if the interdict was not granted and it ultimately succeeds in the main case and that the balance of convenience weighs against the granting of an interdict.
“The court holds that the circumstances of this matter are against the granting of the interim interdict,” reads the ruling.
The main case will be argued before court on March 29 and 30, 2022.