On May 2, through an internal circular No2 of 2024, the Commissioner General, Jeanette Makgolo informed staff that the tax agency is currently undergoing an organisational structure realignment project. In the letter, BURS proposed to staff that those who wish to voluntarily separate from the organisation can apply to their section heads, following their meeting with the management forum. To position BURS with the modern organisational structure, the country’s revenue service undertook a decision to plunge its employees who aren't in alignment with the new structure following their strategy review back in 2022.
This was after the International Monetary Fund undertook an assessment of BURS to benchmark its revenue administration against international standards and identified challenges in the organisational structure. However, some employees of BURS applied to the court for intervention. The reasons being that the employees who weren't unionised felt they had no representation in the process, by so doing they argued that they weren't included in the consultations of the retrenchment exercise. The 34 employees bemoaned that, unlike their unionised colleagues, they had challenges in being appraised on the restructuring exercise, how it impacted them, or the type of settlements they could settle for. They then grouped themselves and chose a representative but the employee was never inducted into the committee nor was he given any material and information to appraise him of the discussions and resolutions of the committee.
The employees further argue that during the process their representative was frustrated by management each time he asked for documentation or resolutions, whilst they waited for the documents, to their surprise the circular of voluntary separation, which affected them, was issued. According to the judgment, the employees attempted and failed to engage the Human Resources office to halt the process pending consultation. Hence, they argued, the BURS was in breach of the contractual terms of clause 6.4 of its own retrenchment and redundancy policy. “The applicants further contend that, unlike the unionised employees, the respondent (BURS) has failed to be transparent and fair in its dealings with them because the union employees have had full access to crucial documentation in the separation pack which they need to make decisions as to whether to pursue the voluntary separation or await involuntary separation,” the judgment reads in part. However, BURS denied the assertion during court proceedings.
Instead, BURS averred that all employees, even those that aren't unionised have been consulted and have been represented at all meetings. “The respondent further and in addition avers that there was only partial sharing of documents with the applicants’ representatives, it was because the withheld aspects weren't relevant for their purposes,” the judgment further reads. Presiding Judge Moleele stated that though BURS maintained that the consultation process of revising the organisational structure was fair and balanced, the respondents failed to clear out the allegations beyond no reasonable doubt. “Having considered all the evidence on record, I find that the applicants haven't been consulted in any meaningful way as required by law. The reference committee has failed to serve the purpose indeed.
There were gaps in the consultation process, through no fault of the applicants,” Moleele disclosed. In the end, the judge believed that the process needed to be stopped, at least for the time being. “The applicants have established the right to a final interdict and an order therefore made in the following terms: the respondent is interdicted from proceeding any further with the process of voluntary separation pending consultation. The respondent is ordered to abort, and/or suspend and/or extend the voluntary separation process for BURS 04 to BURS 01 grades.”
