Retrenchment of nearly 200 haunts BTC
Innocent Selatlhwa | Wednesday August 6, 2025 09:17
The former employees have since approached the Industrial Court after the parties failed to mediate at the Department of Labour offices.
The matter was before the Francistown Industrial Court recently, whereupon the court had ordered that the said employees submit affidavits detailing how much they had suffered after being laid off. However, the case had to be postponed to December as some of the affidavits were said to be non-compliant as they were short of the rank of the Commissioner of Oaths.
This irked the employees, who told this publication that they felt BTC representatives rejected the said affidavits to further frustrate them.
“You can see this is a ploy for them to further delay the matter, as they know they will eventually have to pay us. We have also tried to make efforts to resolve the matter with them outside the courts, but they are just not interested,” one of the former employees bemoaned.
The employees, through their attorney Shathani Somolekae, seek an order declaring that the 2022 retrenchment exercise was procedurally and substantively unlawful/unfair. They want compensation of 12 months' salary awarded to each of the applicants.
According to court documents, sometime in May 2022, each of the applicants received from BTC written notification of an impending restructuring exercise that might result in a loss of jobs. The notice was dated May 27, 2022. In terms of the notice, BTC would be providing constant updates on the exercise as it consulted with employees.
Inside the case
Sometime later, a memo dated September 2, 2022, authored by the General Manager–Support Services and Human Resources, was circulated to all staff titled 'Update – resource optimisation'. According to the notice, staff were informed that there had been delays in the exercise, which had been set for completion around August 2022 on account of in-depth consultations with management, and that as a result, the project completion date would be September 2022.
“In the first week of October 2022, each of the applicants received a letter dated September 19, 2022, informing them that they had been mapped as redundant and that they would be allowed to apply for alternative roles,” the employees stated.
Thereafter, the employees shared that BTC announced available posts for which most of them applied. For most of the applicants, they state BTC did not acknowledge any of the applications, nor did the company conduct any interviews to ascertain the suitability of applicants for the positions applied for. For some of the applicants, BTC mapped them into the structure but later unilaterally revoked their appointments.
They went on to state that in December 2022, they received notice of termination of their contracts dated December 1, 2022, pursuant to the restructuring exercise. The letter informed the employees that their employment with the company would terminate on December 9, 2022, and outlined the terminal benefits in addition to their exit packages. BTC then placed each of the applicants on garden leave by letter dated December 5, 2022. “In the first three months of the following year, i.e., 2023, the respondent company proceeded to engage new persons,” they stated.
They lament that BTC did not conduct any form of consultation with the axed employees: There was no consultation in respect of the reason to downsize; BTC proceeded to render applicants redundant without an explanation in respect of how the decision to do so came about; A decision to dismiss the applicants was made without exploring other possibilities; The applicants were abruptly informed in December that their contracts had been terminated which notification was then followed by immediate placement on garden leave; The formula determined was never a subject of discussion.
The applicants were only informed of the separation package and the formula for computation at the time of termination and manner in which it would be disbursed; There was no discussion with applicants concerning assistance that could be offered by the respondent to ameliorate the hardship arising from unemployment; The likelihood of re-engagement was never discussed nor was an undertaking to re-engage applicants in the event comparable positions arose in the structure following retrenchment made.
“All decisions were taken and unilaterally implemented by the respondent, even in respect of applicants that had union representation; the respondent bypassed the union and engaged directly with the employees. To the extent that the respondent did not at all consult with the applicants on any aspect of the restructuring/retrenchment exercise, the exercise was entirely flawed and therefore unlawful,” they further stated.
Meanwhile, BTC is adamant that the agency had done all it had to do legally by consulting with the employees throughout the process. “BTC has engaged in meaningful consultation with the union as required by the law, which provides that an employer is required to enter into consultation with employees likely to be affected by the proposed retrenchments. The consultations with BOTEU and/or affected employees have had meaningful input into the process, including the structure and exit package,” BTC argued in court documents.