BOFEPUSU, Govt settle to convene wage negotiations
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Tuesday January 5, 2016 14:44
The settlement was reached after BOFEPUSU made an urgent court application seeking an interdict of unlawful conduct by the Director of Public Service Management (DPSM), after the government party pulled out of the bargaining meetings of the 2016/2017 wage negotiations.
The government had refused to enter wage negotiations, as it believed BOFEPUSU did not constitute to bargain following the withdrawal of the Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) from the federation.
The agreement, reached before Judge Paper Molomo of the Industrial Court in Gaborone yesterday, stipulated that the matter be withdrawn and each pay their legal costs. They also agreed that the settlement agreement would be made a court order.
The parties also agreed that the applicants (BOFEPUSU) shall on or before the January 8, 2016 submit their audited membership list to the third respondent, being the PSBC, while the government party, submit a list of employees covered by the respondent. On January 11, the general secretary of the PSBC shall determine whether or not the applicants still have the threshold necessary for them to continue being admitted in the bargaining council.
The agreement further states that the parties shall then convene on January 18, 2016 at PSBC to deliberate on the outcome of the verification process to be carried out by the PSBC, the rules of engagement in respect of the 2016/17 wage negotiations.
In their application, BOFEPUSU through their attorney, Mboki Chilisa argued that the applicants have a right to negotiate changes to their members’ remuneration as it is aligned to the national budget process.
He said that the applicant unions stand to endure prejudice as a result of the unlawful conduct of the first respondent.
“And the applicants seeks to protect a process right and the only means available to protect it is by means of an interdict,” he said.
He said that this matter should be addressed as a matter of urgency because it seeks to forestall harm, which would materialise if an interdict is not granted.
“The right to which is the subject-matter of the main action and which is sought to be protected by means of interim relief is clear or, if not, is prima facie established although open to some doubt,” he argued.
Chilisa further argued that it was not tragic that they did not clearly state in their founding affidavit that the unions in their capacity have the right to sue, saying that is clearly provided in the powers and privileges provided for in the Constitution of the country and enjoyed by registered trade unions.
He said that government is over indulging in semantics. He said that the law should be determined on facts but not on supplementary facts. His argument followed a point raised by the state attorney Thato Bogosi who said the matter should be withdrawn or be dismissed because it is not properly before the court. Bogosi submitted that the papers filed by the applicant failed to disclose the mandate.
He said that the application was littered with problems and do not state whether the applicants have the capacity to sue or not. “We shall not assume the applicants have the power to sue,” he said. Bogosi also said that the issue of urgency was self-created by the applicant as they knew that they were not constituted to bargain.