Union scores big against UB
Oarabile Mosikare | Tuesday August 26, 2014 14:43
The consent order, issued by the Industrial Court on the same day means UB management and UB Academic and Senior Support Staff Union (UBASSSU) will now have to negotiate the issue of transfer of lecturers at the CCE.
Justice Isaac Bahuma of the Industrial Court also ordered the withdrawal of the application by consent.
The UBASSSU and 12 CCE lecturers had dragged the UB deputy vice chancellor (Academic Affairs), Professor Otlogetswe Totolo and the UB to court as a matter of urgency last week to review and set aside the transfer of 12 CCE lecturers to other faculties within the institution.
The union in its court papers had argued that the decision to transfer the lecturers without consultation was invalid in that it was conducted in bad faith and in violation of the UB’s duty to bargain with the union.
“The first respondent’s decision to transfer the first applicant’s members was taken without affording them a hearing prior to same.
This is so because, as alluded to above, the agenda items in the emails inviting them to the CCE academic board meeting did not state with certainty that transfers would be one of the issues,” read the court papers.
The union stated that the agenda of an April 29, 2014 email advising staff about Totolo’s visit to them was vague as it could not have been envisaged nor anticipated by the affected applicants that Totolo’s visitation would be about their transfer.
“Nor was it envisaged that transfer of CCE staff would be an agenda item. First applicant’s members were therefore ambushed when they were told of their impending transfers.”
The union argued that at the May 2, 2014 meeting, individuals affected were not informed of the details of their specific transfers, that is where they were to be transferred and their new roles. Following the meeting, the affected members received letters from Totolo informing them where they had been transferred to.
“There were no individual hearings held prior to this decision, let alone mass hearings,” argued the union.
It further argued that issues of transfers were negotiable matters under the recognition agreement. Frthermore, it argued that the negative impact on the UBASSSU members caused by the respondents was a continuing wrong.
This was so because Totolo was still under breach of duty to bargain with UBASSSU. The union also disclosed that it was involved in negotiations with UB on job profiling and job evaluation.
“The CCE is included in this exercise, which is at an advanced stage. The effect of the unilateral decision to transfer the academic staff from the CCE en masse will also render this process nugatory.”
The union also argued that the mass transfers of the CCE lecturers amounted to unilateral variation of the lecturers’ terms and conditions of employment.
This is because when these lecturers applied for jobs they were responding to certain advertisements, which stated with certainty what their roles, duties and responsibilities would be and were therefore contracted to do those job descriptions.
UBASSSU hastened to state that the nature of the work at CCE was unique and distinct from other faculties in the university. It offers part-time evening classes, distance education programmes, professional development and training programmes, public education and other extension activities. Moreover Totolo’s instructions are vague and embarrassing in that not only was the CCE staff confused about the transfers, the UBASSSU was also unclear about the transfer as they did not disclose fully what was expected of the lecturers.
The union also stated that Totolo was also confused by his own decision. The confusion, argued the union, stemmed from the fact the transfer letters stated that the terms and conditions of employment would not change and yet they changed dramatically. At the same time the applicants were expected to continue working at the CCE as well as take up departmental roles where they had been transferred.
“Surely, if the first respondent himself is confused about the terms and conditions of employment of the CCE staff, what of the mere employees, if the greater does not know, what more of the lesser?”
As a result of the confusion, most employees were still at the CCE, and had not been contacted by heads of departments at the stations where they were supposedly transferred.
“They have not been given their new roles. As a result they are in danger of being charged with insubordination.”
The union said the lecturers had transferred all academics at the centre, leaving only the support.
The union wrote: “If all academics are removed from the centre then it ceases to exist, hence the concern that the respondents are hell-bent on dismantling the CCE, which is still relevant and required by the nation at large.”
Lawyer Tshiamo Rantao of Rantao Kewagamang Attorneys represented the applicants while advocate Frans Barrie SC instructed by Collins Newman and Company represented the respondents.