Diamond sorters, DTC in court over 17% increment

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE
Staff Writer | Thursday October 11, 2012 00:00

 

The issue dates back to October 2008 when DTCB when the agreement was penned. In addition to the cost of living adjustment, the agreement included an increment of 10 percent of employees' basic salaries as an allowance.

According to the union, the agreement was to be backdated to April 1 of the same year.  BDSVU chairman Kabelo Kelepile told a media briefing this week that the union would approach the Industrial Court if DTCB remained intransigent.

Kelepile said the two parties had reached a deadlock over the matter at their last meeting last July. 'The matter was then referred to the District Labour Office as a dispute,' he said.  'We are therefore waiting impatiently for feedback as we believe that this issue should have long been resolved but (DTCB) management is playing delaying tactics.

'We believe the Conditions of Service are clear on Review of Salaries. We thought not paying the 39 employees was maybe an omission or a technical error, which could have easily been addressed by management.'  Elaborating on the background, Kelepile said three weeks after agreeing terms with DTCB, the union surprised when management unilaterally introduced a Remuneration and Reward policy and backdated it to April 1 2008.

'The union later noticed that 39 employees from the bargaining unit were left out when the 2008/09 agreement was implemented,' he said. 'On July 15, 2009 the union notified management about the mistake/omission.'

The union would not recognise the policy because it was excluded from its formulation. 'We are also against its the date of its commencement as we feel management, in essence, is cheating and dividing the workforce,' he continued.

'In addition, the policy has three different signed dates despite the fact that it was signed by two management officials - the Head of Human Resources as the originator of the policy and the Managing Director as the approver.'

Kelepile said the union suspects that the third date was introduced to suit parochial interests of certain people, hence 'we cannot abide by such a policy'. He challenged the DTCB board to investigate for a hidden agenda that could lead to corrupt practices.

The unionist accused management of being conditional on implementation of the 17 percent cost of living adjustment while there were no conditions when the agreement was entered into.

'This does not only breach the October 2008 joint agreement but DTCB conditions of service and the principle of awarding a cost of living adjustment as well,' Kelepile said.

'It also defeats logic to agree on implementation of workers welfare issues and leaving out 39 people who are bonafide employees of this company.' Attempts to reach DTCB proved futile at the time of going to press.