BOPEU challenges CAAB labour agreement termination plan
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Monday June 30, 2025 06:00
After years battling over the payment of 2017/18 notches award, the two parties fought at the Gaborone Industrial Court on Wednesday, as the union instituted action to stop CAAB in its tracks. The legal action arises from the union’s assertion that the intended termination is a violation of the existing agreement and labour laws and also prejudicial to its members, who are employees of CAAB. It is said that CAAB recently issued a notice to BOPEU, signalling its intention to abandon the CLA on the claim that the union failed to withdraw a case for the payment of the 2017/18 notches to the latter’s employees. In an urgent application filed before Gaborone Industrial Court, the union seeks the court to temporarily interdict the respondent (CAAB) or anyone acting under its instructions from giving effect to the decision dated June 17, 2025 titled ‘Notice of Termination of the Collective Labour Agreement’.
Secondly, the union wants the court to direct CAAB as the employer party to continue its obligations under the CLA and extend to the union all the organisational rights therein, including collective bargaining contained in the CLA, and in particular continue participating in the Joint Negotiations and Consultative Committee (JNCC) as established by the CLA for purposes of concluding the 2025/26 salary negotiations, review the conditions of service and any matter that can be completely transacted through the JNCC. Furthermore, the union wants the court to order that the parties’ rights and obligations as contained in the CLA, shall apply in full pending the finalisation of an Application for the review to be filed by the union within 21 days of the granting of the interim order. In his founding affidavit, the union’s president Martin Gabobake stated that the decision to place the union on notice to terminate the CLA by CAAB is a calculated stratagem to frustrate the continuation of the 2025/26 salary negotiations, review of conditions of service and other welfare issues affecting the union’s members, which negotiations occur within the JNCC framework established by the CLA. “By giving notice to terminate the CLA, the Respondent is literally suffocating the Applicant and its members. Without a CLA, there will be no JNCC, and without a JNCC, there will be no formal structure for negotiations and consultations on matters affecting our members who are employed by the Respondent herein. Effectively, the termination of the CLA is a threat to the very mandate of the 1st Applicant and the welfare of our members,” said Gabobake. Gabobake also stated that the union has always maintained a cordial relationship and dealt with in good faith with the CAAB and firm commitment to constructive dialogue. He denied that there is an intention to by the union to undermine the CLA and the relationship they have with the CAAB. “Since October 2023 when the respondent suspended its intention to terminate the CLA, I am not aware of any trigger that could have influenced the respondent to take such an arbitrary, punitive, unilateral and unlawful decision to terminate the CLA. I characterise the decision as unlawful because the 1st Applicant has never breached any concluding statement,” he submitted.
Gabobake argued further that the Respondent’s decision presents a more dangerous situation beyond the CLA. “Our attorneys advise that in terms of the TUEO Act, an employer party is entitled to approach the Industrial Court for an order withdrawing the recognition of a trade union on the basis that a union has breached a collective agreement,” he added. Gabobake is of the view that the decision to issue the notice presents an existential crisis for the Applicant and its members who are in the employ of Respondent. He argues that CAAB has issued the notice of termination without resorting to a judicial or administrative process where a neutral person will seat in judgment on whether they have breached the concluding agreement or not. “I verily state that the 1st Applicant has not done anything that warrants the termination of the CLA and further state that the Applicant has a right to compel the Respondent to honour and observe the dictates of the collective labour agreement,” he added. Gabobake highlighted that the union is granted certain organisational rights such as the workplace access by the union, deductions of trade union member subscriptions, day off for union activities, notice board and union publications, union shop stewards under Article 5 of the CLA. He said once the CLA is terminated, all these rights and privileges enjoyed by the Applicant by virtue of the CLA will vanish in thin air. He also argues that once the deduction of trade union member subscription ceases as a result of the termination of the CLA, the Applicant will be placed in financial ruin as the union survives on the subscriptions of its members, which is collected by the employer party and remitted to the union on monthly basis. “I verily aver that this matter is not only urgent but also exceptional. It is exceptional by reason that the Respondent is brazenly taking a decision that threatens the very existence of a lawfully recognised trade union. The Applicants takes this decision as anti-trade union conduct that poses a serious existential threat to the union,' he said.
Gabobake said more worryingly, the decision is intended to intimidate the union and its members to agree with the views of the employer. He pointed out that the decision of the Respondent is nothing short of collective and indiscriminate punishment of the Applicants for the stance of its members in relation to the 2017/18 notches. 'For these exceptional reasons, the Applicants will pray for an order of costs on a punitive scale. Anti-union conduct by an employer must be abhorred, especially by an employer who is funded by the public purse,' Gabokake said in his prayers. The parties will return to court on July 5, after the court on Wednesday granted CAAB the time to file affidavits in the matter, BOPEU is represented by attorneys Kago Mokotedi and Otto Odirile Itumeleng while CAAB has roped in Mboki Chilisa.