Employer denies budget depletion for salary enhancement
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Tuesday October 14, 2025 11:30
The Court of Appeal will today hear arguments in a case brought by labour unions under the 5+1 cooperating unions banner, who are challenging an Industrial Court ruling that allowed the employer to implement its agreement with the Botswana Land Boards, Local Authorities and Health Workers Union (BLLAHWU). The Industrial Court had, on September 16, lifted a temporary interdict that had barred the implementation of the salary agreement separately concluded between BLLAHWU and the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) earlier this year.
The employer and BLLAHWU had finalised a salary enhancement agreement for the latter’s members shortly after the union (BLLAHWU) had exited the co-operation in June this year. In her answering affidavit, in which she is opposing the appeal, Macholo said the implementation that the 5+1 co-operating unions seek to interdict has already taken place and BLLAHWU’s members and non-unionised employees are entitled to, and have already accrued a right to, enhanced allowances. “As regards the alleged budget depletion of the budget for any remuneration adjustments, I deny that there is any real risk of such depletion, and the concern raised is highly speculative and is unsupported by any adduced concrete facts. It further overlooks that during the negotiations, the Employer Party fully disclosed the budget available and that the provision was in place for all employees, irrespective of whether they were unionised or not and which union an employee belonged to,” she said. Macholo said they had budgeted P250million for these salary enhancements, but have since increased that by a further P156 million. She stated that they are over 30,000 employees affected, which includes members of BLLAHWU and non-unionised employees who fall within bands A–D, who are entitled to benefits and are expecting to receive enhanced allowances.
She said the offer made to BLLAHWU members is open to everyone, including members of the 5+1 co-operating unions who wish to accept it. She said the applicants could continue negotiations for improved terms, which the 5+1 unions have rejected. She explained that whether or not the Applicants are ultimately successful, the Employer Party has made provision to meet whatever adjustments are agreed upon, and there is no real or genuine fear for the diminution of funds. Macholo argued that what the unions are doing is akin to holding BLLAHWU members and non-unionised employees at ransom, which is unacceptable and manifestly self-serving. In their grounds of appeal, the Five Plus co-operating unions argue that the nature of issue cannot be heard in the normal in that: the salary negotiations as they stand have a specific period within which to have been concluded and that the prejudice that continues to be occasioned to members of the unions is so great that it possibly may compromise the civil service as whole. “It is common cause that the dispute between the two parties emanates from a collective bargaining process which is concerned with the recommendation as well as the welfare and conditions of service of the members of the applicants, who I have already demonstrated form a larger part of the civil service workforce. The negotiations currently taking place are naturally time sensitive and are also sensitive to the extent that the concern amongst others is the negotiations of benefits of a large portion of the civil service,” reads the papers. Furthermore, they argue that the appeal and the proceedings in the Court a quo are rendered moot by the passage of time and ongoing implementation. “The reliefs sought at the court a quo are directly tied to the declaratory order sought; the employer is negotiating in bad faith. The consequential and remedial reliefs are an order rectifying the minutes of the meeting held on June 26, 2025 and the suspension of the implementation of the Respondents’ collective labour agreement pending the conclusion of the negotiations with the applicants. If the Rule nisi is not maintained, then the declarator, even if ultimately granted, would be a hollow victory and the remedial relief would be inaccessible,” further reads the papers.
They also argue that by signing on with BLLAHWU, in clear violation of the Rules of Engagement agreed to by all parties to this suit, and implementing the same, the employer has effectively prefixed some components of remuneration in advance, and the employer removes the opportunity to adjust or trade those components in exchange for concessions elsewhere. The unions claim that the decision has fragmented the workforce into those who accept the increment and those who wish to continue bargaining, arguing that the case concerns the integrity of the collective bargaining framework for the entire Botswana civil service.