Court of Appeal clarifies
Staff Writer | Friday February 13, 2015 17:14
Please would you correct the following errors in your story which will have misled your readers:
The Court of Appeal did not ‘rap the Government’ and nor did ‘BOFEPUSU triumph’ - Government succeeded on the issue of urgency, while BOFEPUSU succeeded in that its application should not have been struck out in the Court below.
The panel of Judges (3 not 4) did not “unanimously agree that by their conduct, President Khama and DPSM Carter Morupisi did not negotiate in good faith when Government implemented the 4 percent salary increment in 2014”, This was an issue referred back to the High Court for argument and determination.
The Judge President did not say that “The conduct of the respondents in implementing the unilateral 4 percent salary increment to members of the applicant trade unions constitutes breach of the duty to bargain in good faith”.
The Court did not “(find) that the content of the founding affidavit by President Khama and Morupisi affirmed breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith, as well as breach of the Public Service Bargaining Council (PSBC) procedures for meetings and negotiations as agreed to by the parties”.
The Court of Appeal did not “(agree) with the appellants the Judge erred in amongst others, failing to distinguish between refusal to bargain, and failure to bargain in good faith”.
The Court did not “also (state) that the Judge erred in failing to recognise that appellants’ rights could only be protected by way of interdict and in failing to grant the order sought”.
The Judge President did not say that “the conduct of the respondents in implementing the unilateral 4 percent increment to non-unionised employees of the Government (comprising both managerial and non-managerial employees) undermined and violated the legislative role of the PSBC and constituted breach of the duty to bargain in good faith”.
The Judge President did not “add that he was satisfied with appellants proof that government had unilaterally implemented, without due negotiation, its package of proposals tabled before PSBC, before the appellants had been able to table their counter-proposals”.
The above matters were submissions made in their affidavits by the appellants. The case was referred back to the Court below to enable the respondents to file a full answering affidavit, and for argument on a number of important issues, including some of those alluded to above, on which no findings were made.