Court backs unions’ demand for fair, transparent salary talks
Mpho Mokwape | Monday July 28, 2025 10:34
The court ordered that a controversial meeting held on June 27, 2025, be declared invalid, agreeing with the union's claim that it was unscheduled and procedurally flawed.
The interim ruling comes after the unions, 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) brought an urgent case before the Industrial Court last week accusing the government of abandoning salary negotiations in bad faith.
The six unions, referred to as Five Plus One Cooperating Trade Unions, representing a substantial number of public servants, are demanding the resumption of talks and an immediate halt to a separate agreement signed with Botswana Land Boards & Local Authorities Health Workers Union (BLLAHWU), noting that it undermines their collective position.
In its ruling issued on July 18, 2025, the Industrial Court Judge, Goodwill Makofi acknowledged the urgency of the matter and issued an interim order instructing all parties to appear in court on August 14, 2025, to argue their cases further.
He ruled that the alleged June 27, 2025, meeting be declared invalid as requested by the trade unions.
“The meeting of June 27 is declared invalid as I agree with the unions that it was an improper meeting and that it had not been scheduled with some of the representatives of the trade unions not in attendance,” he said.
Makofi also ruled that the June 26, 2025, meeting, which has been the subject of intense dispute, be separated into two versions: one recording discussions before a BLLAHWU left the negotiations, and the other covering events afterward.
He also directed that eight specific corrections be made to the original minutes to reflect an accurate and truthful record of the talks.
“These include the removal of disputed statements, clarification of terminology, and the inclusion of omitted materials such as a simulation proposal that had been presented by the government during negotiations,” Makofi said.
Makofi said the government justified why it should not be found to have negotiated in bad faith after the unions alleged that the government walked away from the negotiating table, withheld crucial information, and entered into a separate agreement with BLLAHWU, undermining the collective process and potentially violating principles of fair bargaining.
The judge further instructed the employer to show cause at the return date why it cannot resume negotiations with the unions within five days of the order, using the corrected minutes as the basis for continued discussions.
On the deal between the government and BLLAHWU, the court suspended implementation of the separate agreement at least with effect from the August 2025 salary payments pending final resolution of the broader dispute.
The court also refused a request by unions to block public announcements regarding the suspension of the separate deal, citing each party's right to communicate with its members or the public.
The Judge concluded that costs would be debated at a later stage, with the matter now set to return to court on August 14, 2025.
Meanwhile, the court granted the government until July 23, 2025, to file its replying papers, after it noted that it had only been served with the urgent application recently and required time to prepare a proper response.
At the heart of the dispute is the conduct of the government negotiating team during stalled salary negotiations for the 2025/26 financial year. The unions argue that the government has unilaterally withdrawn from the negotiation process, withheld critical information necessary for meaningful engagement, and engaged in divisive tactics by entering into a separate agreement with the third respondent, undermining the collective bargaining process.
The unions in their court papers contended that the move, along with the selective disclosure of their offer to BLLAHWU before discussion at the main table, was aimed at sowing distrust among union members and creating internal divisions.
They likened the government’s approach to a “divide-and-rule” strategy, asserting it sought to weaken their bargaining power and erode trust in union leadership.
Adding to the controversy, the unions raised procedural and legal concerns about a meeting purportedly held on June 27, 2025, where the government allegedly attempted to adopt minutes from a prior session on June 26, 2025.
“The court was told that this meeting was neither scheduled nor properly constituted, with only a single government representative present, instead of the required seven-member delegation. Several union members who initially signed those minutes have since withdrawn their assent, while the government conceded there were “errors” in the document but still sought to maintain its validity,” reads court papers.