BOFEPUSU Seeks Clarity On Scope Of PSBC

Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Monday February 13, 2017 16:04

 

The federation wants the court to set aside the decision of government, which it argues was a breach as it is not a product of the bargaining council process and is also seeking a clarification of the court of the scope of the Public Service Bargaining Council (PSBC), which is mandated to negotiate salaries and conditions of service.

On Friday, attorney Mboki Chilisa who is representing BOFEPUSU said the unilateral decision was taken in bad faith, and is in breach of the obligation to bargain placed on the employer by the Public Service Act (PSA).

He said the scope of the PSBC- being a joint industrial council - extends to all public servants and is not only restricted to trade union members.

“Government breached its duty to bargain in good faith when it granted unilateral increment of salaries on March 30, 2016,” argued Chilisa.

He said that it is their interpretation of the constitution that their scope of the PSBC covers the entire public service and is not limited to the applicants’ unit.

He argued that the council is meant to perform the duties of a joint industrial council to negotiate terms and conditions of the entire public service of which its outcomes affect even the non-unionised.

He also argued that there is no provision in the Act that prevent the PSBC to deal with issues relating to managerial terms and conditions.

“The unilateral decision as such is not only unlawful in respect of the members of the applicant but unlawful in respect of all public servants. We pray that the court set aside the decision of March 30,” he said.

Arguing in state’s corner attorney Tefo Bogosi said that the PSBC is the creature of statute deriving is validity from Section 50 of the Public Service Act.

He said that as such everything in the PSBC should be construed under the PSA.

He said that the Act gives employees the choice to belong to any union for purposes of collective bargaining; however, no member of the management should belong to any negotiating body, unless the body represents members of the management only.  “It is our submission that the constitution of the PSBC has to be created within the perimeters of the PSA including its powers.

There was no union which represented members of the management and as such they can’t be bound by the constitution of the PSBC,” he said.

He said that it is common cause that terms and conditions of the management should be negotiated separately from those of the people they supervise. He said that if the same union representing members of management would seat at the table with those of members they supervise, it would defeat the whole idea of separating the negotiations of the terms of employment of members of management and other employees.

However, justice Motswagole pointed out to him that the Act has provided for one council to negotiate salaries of the entire civil service including those of the management.

He said that while he is not too familiar with the Act of the PSA and PSBC, he gathers that the Act did not prevent members of management from unionising.

He also said that if they choose to unionise and their union is recognise by the employer, their terms and conditions of employment would be negotiated at the PSBC as the only body mandated by parliament for such.

“Assist me understand, if it were how you would go about these? Are you saying they should be two bargaining bodies?”

 In trying to explain his point, Bogosi said that the structure of the PSBC under one council should be one whose compliance allows separation of negotiations of management and other employees. Motswagole said that he would need time to prepare his judgment. He said that judgement will be delivered on May 12, 2017.