Pupil vs master in BOPEU, BOFEPUSU case
Oarabile Mosikare | Wednesday April 19, 2017 14:35
It is a case of a pupil versus his master. In this case the pupil attorney, Martin Dingake will tussle with advocate Duma Boko, the master.
The two attorneys come from far together. They first met at the University of Botswana in 2002 when Dingake was doing his second year in Bachelor of Law (LLB). Boko was his Constitutional law lecturer.
Dingake started working for his lecturer’s law firm from 2002 while a student, doing a lot of research for his master. That is where he learnt how to draft legal papers. Boko engaged him fulltime in 2006, before he even received his final results, after completing his LLB.
In essence, Dingake learned advocacy and eloquence in a Court of law from his mentor, Boko. It is likely that the pupil is going to put what he learnt from the master into practice when they meet today at the Court of Appeal (CoA) and use it against him.
It could be the other way round; the master teaching the pupil lessons he (Dingake) missed out in this relationship of 15 years.
In this case, BOPEU prays that the appeal under case No. CACGB-057-17 be heard on an expedited basis and all time lines relating to the filing of the heads of arguments and incidental matters be heard by the Court.
That the execution and implementation of the orders and judgement granted by Justice Tshepo Motswagole on April 4, 2017 be stayed pending the final determination of this appeal by the CoA.
In BOPEU president Masego Mogwera’s founding affidavit, the appellant submits that it has reasonable prospects of success because as a collective and based on the mandate of its members, it has agreed to accept as a minimum the three percent offered by Government.
This does not take away the right upon the conclusion of the bargaining process to have any higher figure paid less what has been received.
“The appellant understood the three percent as an opening offer, which would be raised subject to negotiations and agreement. In accepting the three percent, the appellant never waived its right to negotiate as and when the process and legal disputes relating to the Bargaining Council have been resolved. It will therefore be disingenuous to suggest that the decision taken by the appellant compromised workers’ rights,” Mogwera argues.
She says it is the case for BOPEU that the judgement of Motswagole did not take into account the practical reality that over a period of one year the Bargaining Council did not sit. The decision to accept the three percent as an initial offer and based on the mandate of their membership was not geared or intended to place pressure on the respondents or any of its members to quit their membership.
The fact of their resignation from the membership as confirmed from their affidavit is evidence of the desires of the members pending the finalisation of the negotiation process.
She says BOPEU members have been enjoying the three percent rise since April 2016, and after a year of receiving upgraded salaries they have thus become accustomed to life under the three percent. As a consequent of the increase, they have obtained financial loans to improve their lives and have thus committed their monthly earnings to servicing these loans. “This has further impacted their medical aid contributions, taxes paid and other matters which were based on the enhanced salary.
“Some of our members qualified for medical aid schemes and certain financial assistance based on the readjustment. The effect of the judgement is to have them either removed from such medical schemes and the effects are disastrous, especially for those who suffer from chronic ailments.”
She says pending the appeal, BOPEU members face a peculiar life with a salary decrease, which has a disadvantageous effect.
Lastly, Mogwera submits that BOPEU and its members have legitimate expectation to have its members continue to receive the three percent rise.