Court orders halt on MRI salary cuts
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday July 12, 2022 06:00
The integrated health services company was on Friday directed by the Industrial Court judge Isaac Bahuma to stop implementing the resolution of the restructuring exercise pertaining to the seven workers’ employment as it was unlawful.
The judge also ordered that the company to return all the money unlawfully deducted from the employees and be repaid within seven days of the order.
“The applicants are restored to the salaries they earned before the restructuring exercise,” Bahuma said.
MRI’s interdiction comes after they carried out a restructuring exercise from April 19 cutting employees' salaries in the process.
Seven employees aggrieved by the decision filed an urgent application with their attorney Uyapo Ndadi at the Industrial Court on June 22.
The employees wanted the court to declare the exercise unlawful on account of failure by the company to meaningfully consult with them and that as workers they were unduly influenced to consent to the variation of their employment contracts and consequently that the agreement be set aside.
“That MRI be interdicted from implementing any resolution arising from the unlawful retrenchment including but not limited to new salaries offered to the applicants,” reads the judgment.
Now the judge when delivering his judgment said the workers have a clear right to a consultation which was violated by MRI and that in that instance there was no other similar or satisfactory remedy.
He explained that subjecting employees to the injustice of continuing to work on an unfairly reduced salary was a matter that no subsequent remedy could reasonably satisfy.
“If the medical company is not interdicted from applying the unlawful restructuring exercise the harm to the workers will be irreparable. The court is satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interdict and it is so granted,” he said.
The judge further pointed out that there was no way the employees could get a substantial redress in due course as raised by the employer as a drastic and continuous reduction of one’s salary causes immeasurable harm and that the harm went beyond the remedy of repayment suggested by the company.
However, Bahuma acknowledged that the reduction of salaries as a measure to avoid retrenchment was commendable but said it must be a product of consultative exercise not the unilateral of an employer.
“The court having perused all documents filed by the parties has not found anything that demonstrates that there was consultation. Consultation must be meaningful. The parties must come to the negotiation table aware of what the conusultation is about and they ought to have been given reasonable time to prepare themselves for the consultation,” he pointed out.
Bahuma went further saying in the matter nothing happened except that the employees received letters of the restructuring exercise on April 19 and that by April 21, the decision to reduce salaries was commenced.
He highlighted that the exercise was implemented without consultation therefore it was unfair and unlawful and the reduction of salary was a violation of the workers’ rights since it was a product of unlawful exercise.
Meanwhile, in May early this year, the company announced salary cuts on the grounds that it would save the struggling company and save the employees’ jobs, a move that was criticized by the employees.
According to court documents, the company wrote a letter on April 12 to the Commissioner of Labour informing the office of its intention to restructure, to which the labour office responded on April 19 with a detailed outline of the procedure that the company ought to follow in the exercise of restructuring.
“In particular the Commissioner cautioned that parties are encouraged to strike a balance by engaging in dialogue on issues with openness and reasonableness to reach consensus. That the spirit of give and take should prevail at all times and engagement should be done in good faith,” read the papers.
It is said what happened after the response by the Commissioner gave rise to the litigation as there was no consultation carried out despite the Commissioner making it clear that there had to be consultation and mutual agreement.
The employees were represented by Ndadi while Shathani Somolekae represented MRI Limited.