BMWU in court tussle with Moolmans

Lebogang Baingapi | Wednesday February 3, 2016 17:08

 

“The respondent refused to involve the applicants in consultations and negotiations after signing the recognition agreement. The mining management acted in bad faith,” said Mthunzi.

The union also wants the court to ensure the respondent consults with the applicants before  making decisions that affect their welfare.

Mthunzi said that the respondent has unilaterally stopped the applicants from going to work and has not bothered to engage the applicants about that issue.

“We want to indicate that the only forum available to all parties in the matter is the negotiation committee. The matter is urgent because the management continues to refuse to engage the union about the retrenchments although they have already carried out that process. We submit that this may not be the only retrenchment that is going to happen and want the court to give the way forward in the matter,” said Mthunzi. The management, Mthunzi added, did not provide the names of the employees affected by the retrenchment and reasons for their retrenchment.

 “The applicant’s position is that they were not consulted properly. They felt aggrieved and came to court to seek redress. No decision of the court can change what has taken place. At the time the matter had gone to the labour department for mediation the issue of retrenchment was not an issue. We want the court to restrain the respondent from taking any activity without consulting the applicants. On December 29 last year, the respondent effected a shutdown without involving the applicants,” said Mthunzi.

He said they feel that the labour department may not deal with the issue urgently hence they had approached the Industrial Court for redress.

However the respondent attorney Nothando Mogale said there was no use talking about the retrenchment because it had already been superceded by events.  “We oppose that the matter is urgent. The applicants should have taken the matter to court in November when the retrenchments took place. The court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter because it is not urgent. The applicants feel that the respondent acted in bad faith, which is not the case. “We believe in consultation and acting with employees in good faith. The retrenchment process has been overtaken by events. There is no way the court can deal with this matter without dealing with the issue of retrenchment. We do not want the court to prejudge what will happen in future as the applicants so seek,” said Mogale.

Mogale stated that the applicants were aggrieved by something during the retrenchment, which unfortunately has taken place and cannot be reversed. “This application has no use and it’s just an academic exercise. The best option that the applicants can do is to consider their action and come to approach the court in a normal way,” said Mogale. Justice Christian Diwanga will deliver ruling on the matter on February 8.