Judgment reserved in BOPEU, BOFEPUSU case
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Wednesday March 9, 2016 17:51
Following the two parties’ submissions on Monday, Maruping indicated that he needed seven days at most to prepare and deliver his ruling.
In the matter, BOPEU is challenging BOFEPUSU’s position in the Public Service Bargaining Council (PSBC). BOPEU had won the first round in February as Maruping ruled that BOFEPUSU had to show cause why a final order could not be issued, kicking the federation out of the PSBC.
BOFEPUSU however beefed up its team with Advocate Freund from South Africa who argued that the final order to kick BOFEPUSU out of the bargaining council should not be granted because BOPEU does not suffer any injuries, as none of its rights have been infringed by BOFEPUSU’s participation in the PSBC.
Freund said it was lawful and factual that the “acting jointly arrangement” under which BOFEPUSU has previously partnered with unions in the PSBC, is provided for in the PSBC constitution. He stated that following BOPEU’s resignation from the acting jointly arrangement, BOFEPUSU applied procedurally and was admitted into the PSBC following a verification process.
He said its admittance was lawful.
He said were the court to make the order permanent, the decision would destroy the bargaining council as a forum and erode the power of trade unions who do not meet the required threshold to bargain.
In BOPEU’s corner, lawyer Joseph Akoonyatse said that BOFEPUSU as a symbol cannot be party to the bargaining council because it does not meet the requirements.
He stated that BOFEPUSU is not a registered entity, does not have a letter of recognition from the employer and does not have a constitution. He argued that it could not provide a list of its membership, identity cards and birth certificates of its members except of the members of its affiliates.
He said BOPEU had direct and substantial interest in the proceedings of the bargaining council, as the bargaining council was a joint industrial council to negotiate terms and conditions of service for all public employees. He also argued that other unions who do not meet the threshold could only be roped into the bargaining council if two or more unions qualified.