REFUSAL TO IMPLEMENT SALARY ADJUSTMENTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS AS PER WAGE AGREEMENT

REFUSAL TO IMPLEMENT SALARY ADJUSTMENTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS AS PER WAGE AGREEMENT

On 8 June 2020, the NUPSAW in support of joinder application, filed its affidavits at the Labour Court to the PSA’s Labour Court case for refusal by the government to implement salary adjustments in terms of Resolution 1 of 2018’.

NUPSAW is aware that other unions are seeking to invoke the dispute mechanisms of the Council relating to the interpretation and application of Resolution 1 of 2018. However, as already indicated, there is no dispute about the interpretation and application. PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2018 makes provision for a multi-term agreement on salary adjustments and improvements to the condition of service for public servants in the financial years 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21. Clause 3.3 of the Resolution deals with salary adjustments, percentages, and the projected CPI to the 2020/21-financial year. The employer had no problem of understanding the terms of the Resolution in the first two years. It is only in the last year that they are refusing to implement the agreement.

The state as employer, reneged from the three-year salary agreement signed by majority parties in the PSCBC in 2018, was unfortunately negated by the employer on its last leg for 2020/21. These adjustments were supposed to have taken effect in April 2020 but unfortunately, not implemented and efforts to address the matter were restricted by the lockdown.

When lockdown restrictions were eased from level 5 to level 4, the Labour Court still could not issue NUPSAW with a case number. Only when the country moved to level 3 in June 2020, was the Union able to file its affidavit under case J500/2020 and file the wage dispute as per the Labour Court rules.

It is completely unacceptable for that the employer is refusing to implement the agreement, especially in such hard times for workers owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. State-owned enterprises are continually bailed out by the state with public servants’ pensions but denies the very same workers a decent increase by not willing to honour an agreement that it agreed that is what it can afford.

With that decision, in the arbitration of the wage dispute for public servants sweetheart unions declared a dispute on the interpretation and application of the agreement and went through a lengthy conciliation process. The conciliation failed with four unions NEHAWU, SADTU, POPCRU and DENOSA referring the matter to arbitration. SAPU opted not to pursue the dispute in arbitration.

Council scheduled the matter for arbitration. In the pre-arbitration hearing in Council, the employer indicated that they will bring an application to postpone the arbitration hearing until the Labour Court matter has been determined. The sweetheart unions opposed the application. The arbitrator duly considered the submissions and refused the application for postponement.

The matter was set down for hearing in arbitration on the 7th and 8th July 2020. On the eve of the 6th July 2020, the employer lodged an urgent application in the Labour Court to have the process of arbitration stayed, until such time that the Labour court matter of PSA and others have been heard. The application also required the court to interdict the arbitration hearing from continuing in the PSCBC on the 7th and 8th July 2020 until the urgent application could be heard. The four unions again opposed the urgent application and the relief sought by the employer.

The Court on the 7th July 2020 granted an interim order staying the arbitration hearing and directed parties to argue the matter on the 10th July 2020. The matter was heard on the 10th July 2020 and the Judge reserved judgement. Council will await the judgment before deciding on setting the matter down. This is going to be a prolonged process and updates will be given as and when progress is made.

The employer is in breach of the contract of employment and NUPSAW will continue to pursue this through the Labour Court to ensure that justice prevails and members receive what is due to them as per the agreement. We are waiting for the Registrar of the Labour Court to give us the date for the hearing of our application.