Unions demand gov’t to stop BLLAHWU dealings
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday July 23, 2025 09:58
The unions under the banner 5+1, National Amalgamated Local, Central, Parastatal and Government Workers Union (NALCPGWU), Botswana Public Employees' Union (BOPEU) Botswana Teachers Union (BTU), Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU), Botswana Nurses Union (BONU), Botswana Doctors Union (BDU) have accused the government and BLLAHWU of using their proposal despite the latter union having pulled out of talks.
BLLAHWU, which at the start of bargaining talks were part of the trade unions and collectively bargaining under the name Six Plus One Cooperating Trade Unions (6+1), had reportedly pulled out of the talks, citing they had agreed to accept the proposal made by the employer party.
Now the 5+1 unions want the Industrial Court to order and direct Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) director, Gaone Macholo or any of her subordinates or any agent or officer of government to cease execution or implementation of the agreement it entered into with the BLLAHWU pending the conclusion of the agreement with them (unions) or any deadlock that may be reached, as the case may be.
“Directing the respondents to make a public televised announcement regarding the suspension of the execution of the collective bargaining agreement entered into with BLLAHWU within 8 hours of the granting of this order,” reads court papers filed on Monday.
According to the unions, on June 26, 2025, the BLLAHWU formally withdrew from the unions' collective negotiating team, declaring its intention to conclude separate negotiations with the employer.
Meanwhile, Robert Rabasimane, who is the deputy chief executive officer of NALCPGWU and also the chief negotiator of the 5+1 unions' negotiating team, in his deposed founding affidavit, explained that BLLAHWU had further declared that they will use the minutes and concluding statements of the initial 6 plus one cooperating trade unions.
He said that on the same day, they requested an adjournment to enable them to consult with their membership on the employer party's latest proposal and refresh their mandate, and simultaneously, the government indicated that it would also enter into a caucus session internally.
“While the adjournment was ongoing, I found out that the government and BLLAHWU had convened a separate meeting on June 30, 2025, to continue bilateral negotiations. I further learned that these negotiations were conducted based on a proposal that had originally been advanced by us,” he said.
In response, Rabasimane pointed out that on the same day, he promptly prepared and dispatched a formal letter to the government, expressly warning them not to enter into any agreement with BLLAHWU on the basis of their proposal, and not to publicize such an agreement, as this would severely compromise their bargaining position.
He said that despite the government receiving the letter, she failed or refused to provide any response to the communication and that on July 6, 2025, the unions met to receive feedback from consultations with their respective members, to consolidate a response, and strategize on the approach for the next negotiation sessions commencing on July 7, 2025.
“It was during this meeting that I discovered that the government and BLLAHWU had in fact concluded an agreement. The date of implementation of the agreement was on April 1, 2025,” he said.
Rabasimane further stated that when the parties reconvened on July 7, 2025, to continue the main negotiations, the unions again raised concerns regarding the alleged separate agreement concluded between the government and BLLAHWU.
He said that as unions, they accused the government of negotiating in bad faith by utilizing their proposal to finalize an agreement with BLLAHWU, thereby breaching their duty to bargain in good faith and their duty of confidentiality.
“In response,the government did not deny the existence of the separate negotiations and agreement with BLLAHWU. Instead, the government asserted that it was within its rights to engage in separate negotiations with BLLAHWU and to conclude an agreement, as the latter had officially withdrawn from the unions' negotiating team and was acting independently,” he said.
According to Rabasimane, subsequently, the respondents publicly announced the conclusion of their agreement, which was followed up with Directive No. 1 of 2025 from Macholo directing the implementation of the agreement with BLLAHWU.
The unions submitted that it was based on the above facts and events that they had been seriously prejudiced by the repeated and deliberate breaches of the duty to bargain in good faith by the government.
Consequently, the unions seek relief on the grounds that the government’s conduct indicates a lack of genuine intention to reach an agreement, which amounts to bargaining in bad faith.
“The government improperly used our proposal, which was shared in good faith during confidential collective bargaining sessions, as the basis for concluding a separate agreement with BLLAHWU. It is critical to note that this proposal was still under internal discussion among unions and had not yet been formally adopted, finalized, or agreed upon with the government,” said the unions.
Further, the unions pointed out that by using this proposal without their consent or final mandate, the government effectively appropriated confidential negotiation content to advance its parallel dealings with BLLAHWU.
The unions argued that by disclosing and utilizing their confidential proposal to secure an agreement with BLLAHWU, the government gravely undermined the integrity of the collective bargaining process.
“This action not only compromised the applicants' bargaining position but also disrupted the trust essential to good faith negotiations. The applicants' right to control and finalize their proposal with their membership was circumvented, rendering further negotiations practically futile,” Rabasimane said.
Rabasimane said the government has persistently and deliberately engaged in conduct which has had the effect of delaying negotiations unnecessarily, thereby demonstrating a lack of genuine intent to reach an agreement in good faith.
Accordingly, the unions submitted in conclusion that the court ought to make a definitive finding that the government has acted in bad faith, grant the declaratory relief sought, and provide the necessary interdictory orders to protect the integrity of the bargaining process and safeguard the unions' members from further prejudice and irreparable harm.