Salary negotiations deadlock
Oarabile Mosikare | Friday March 7, 2014 17:00
The two parties yesterday issued a joint press statement on the 2013/2014 public service salary negotiations. According to the statement the Public Service Bargaining Council (PSBC) met on February 25 and March 5, 2014 to continue with the 2013/2014 public service salary negotiations following a 10-day cooling off period.
“Having failed to reach an agreement, the employer party declared a deadlock on the 2013/2014 public service salary negotiations. Consequently, any of the parties may refer the dispute to the Commissioner of Labour in accordance with the Trade Dispute Act,” reads the statement.
The trade union party mandate amongst others was not to accede to the employer’s proposal to abandon the 2013/14 salary negotiations. It was also mandated to continue requesting the council to combine the 2013/14 and 2014/15 salary negotiations.
“The revised terms and conditions of service for the public service be submitted to the council to form part of the 2013/14 salary negotiations instead of closing them completely without a win/win negotiation outcome.
“They agreed that the implication of combining the two salary negotiations means that parties would have to agree on the implementation date,” said the union party.
BOFEPUSU also was mandated to accept the 3% offer made by the employer on the understanding that it would be accompanied by the reviewed conditions of service as reflected in the previous statement dated January 15, 2014.
“The employer had created a legitimate expectation that the conditions of service would be tabled during the 2013/14 salary negotiations.” BOFEPUSU also indicated their willingness to give the employer party more time to seek fresh mandate, in view of the fact that they made three movements while the employer has not moved. “It would be unfair to close the negotiations on a win-lose outcome.
They further indicated their willingness to give the employer more time to review the conditions of service and table them before the council to facilitate closure of the 2013/14 salary negotiations.”
The union further explained that they could not be drawn into matters that relate to the 2014/15 salary negotiations when the 2013/14 salary negotiations have not been concluded and the employer is not willing to combine them.
Lastly, the union statement reads that, “they differed with the employer party on the declaration of a deadlock. Their position was that if the employer was not ready to table their proposal on the reviewed conditions of service, the council cannot be held at ransom hence the initial proposal tabled by the trade union should be discussed as part of the 2013/14 salary negotiations.”
On the other hand the employer stated that they were not in a position to table the document on the consultancy on conditions of service, as the process is not yet concluded. They maintained that their proposal would be tabled before the council at a later stage as indicated in the previous meetings. The employer party further clarification from the trade union party on what the combination of the 2013/14 and 2014/15 salary negotiations entails.
“They maintained their position that the conditions of service were not ready for discussion during the 2013/14 salary negotiations. They requested that the 2013/14 salary negotiations should be closed and move on to the 2014/15 salary negotiations, and further indicated that in addition to the 4% offered on salaries for 2014/15, they will also offer 4% increase on fixed allowances,” said the employer party.
The employer also maintained that they did not require a fresh mandate as the conditions of service are not yet ready to be tabled before the council and cannot also commit any timeframe on when the conditions of service would be concluded. “They indicated that as earlier stated in their response to the trade union submission, the outcome of the consultancy would inform the engagement process on the proposal by trade union party.
“They indicated that it was evident that parties have reached a deadlock on the 2103/14 salary negotiations. They then declared a deadlock.”