BOPEU, BOFEPUSU battle in court
Lebogang Mosikare | Wednesday April 12, 2017 15:49
At the end of the battle of these former friends now turned foes, public servants who have not received a salary increase for sometime, are the ones who would bear the brunt of this war.
The sour relationship between the two panned out at the High Court yesterday before Justice Bengbame Sechele.
BOPEU approached the Court on an urgent basis praying with the Court to forthwith stop the Public Service Bargaining Council (PSBC) from continuing with its deliberations saying that will greatly prejudice it in future should it decide to join the PSBC.
BOPEU also wants the Court to declare that negotiations at the PSBC should be stopped because the ninth respondent in the matter, Botswana Teachers Union (BTU) has no right to sit at the council because it has not submitted audited membership of its members to the PSBC.
Attorney for the applicant Martin Dingake is of the view that allowing BOFEPUSU to sit at the PSBC will not be in the public interest.
Dingake said the matter is urgent and stems from a judgement that was delivered by the Industrial Court in July 2016, which was followed by another judgement of the Court of Appeal (CoA).
He said the CoA judgement said trade Unions allowed to sit at the PSBC should to be allowed on an individual basis and not under a conglomerate like BOFEPUSU.
He said prior to getting a seat at the PSBC, all members admitted to sit at the PSBC should produce audited membership of their members, a requirement Dingake said was violated.
“On the 31 December 2016, the admitted parties of BOFEPUSU failed to submit audited membership of its members. They were reminded and still fail to explain why they have failed to produce those audited membership. Failure to submit audited or verified membership renders members under the BOFEPUSU banner illegible to sit during the PSBC hearings…These audited membership should be submitted just like in law were only lawyers who have regularised their books are allowed to appear before the courts,” said Dingake.
The audited membership, Dingake added, is useful because it is also gives unions who are admitted to sit before the PSBC the right to vote.
He therefore said it will be not in the interest of the public and BOPEU for a party that is not properly before the PSBC to vote during the PSBC proceedings.
He added that allowing a party who is not properly before the PSBC to take decisions on behalf of the whole public service defeats the requirements of the law and is a nullity.
“Contrary to the assertions made by the defence counsel, this court has the powers to stop the resumption of talks at the PSBC. It has the powers to stop the negotiations temporarily. It would be wrong for the PSBC to convene a meeting with a union whose membership has not been regularised,” said Dingake.
All members of BOFEPUSU should comply with the law first, Dingake said, before they are given a sit at the PSBC.
Earlier, BOFEPUSU attorney Mboki Chilisa told the court that BOPEU’s matter was not urgent before court.
Chilisa said it boggles the mind why BOPEU is taking the matter to Court on a certificate of urgency while it has long known that some members of BOFEPUSU have not been submitting audited members to the PSBC secretariat even during the time BOPEU was an affiliate of BOFEPUSU five years back.
“This urgency that the applicant so seeks is self-created. This matter could have been brought to Court sometimes in the past after it was first discovered that some members of BOFEPUSU were sitting at the PSBC illegally…
The reliefs sought seek to bar the PSBC from playing its role as an organ that is constituted by law to deliberate on the welfare and salary of workers are preposterous.
In the worst case scenario, members of BOPEU still stand to benefit should the PSBC deliberations be allowed to go on,” said Chilisa.
He added that BOPEU has no business bringing the matter to Court because in the first place they are not members of the PSBC.
The applicant, Chilisa said, stand to suffer no irreparable harm because they have not clearly articulated in the papers what harm they will suffer.
The case continues.