Mines strike claims first jobs casualties - by Carol Paton and Karl Gernetzky – PLATINUM mining company Lonmin on Monday confirmed that it had dismissed 235 essential services workers who had failed to report to work, in violation of the recognition agreement with the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu). These are the first employees to lose their jobs in the long-running strike at platinum mines. Lonmin spokeswoman Sue Vey said the job conditions of the affected workers did not permit them to strike, but the 235 had not reported for work since January 23. They were interdicted last week to return to work by Monday, she said. The strike of ordinary employees — which includes most of Lonmin’s 23,000 workers — remains protected, and they may not be dismissed or replaced. Earlier, at a media briefing in Johannesburg, Lonmin CEO Ben Magara repeated that the company had a right to continue to communicate its wage offer directly to employees, but offered no fresh ideas on a way out of the impasse in the 17-week strike. The briefing came ahead of Tuesday’s court application by Amcu, which is seeking an order to prevent employers from communicating directly with employees to urge them to return to work. Lonmin, together with Impala Platinum and Anglo America Platinum, are opposing the application. At the briefing, Mr Magara and Lonmin executives were at pains to emphasise that the company had consistently been in contact with employees via SMS even before the strike began. Our action to communicate with our (striking) employees is in no way a contravention of the Labour Relations Act, and we (are) not contravening any convention agreement. Our employees become our employees first and members of the union second. They would not be members of the union if they were not first our employees, said Mr Magara. According to media reports last week, Lonmin had stopped its SMS communication with workers after fears about security and violence. On Monday, the company said the reports were untrue and that it had never stopped its campaign. They deserve to hear it from us and we want to ensure they are empowered to accept or reject our offer of their own free will , Mr Magara said. What people are telling us in their thousands is very different to what Amcu appears to be hearing from its members. But Amcu said the companies’ direct communication with employees was a violation of the union’s recognition agreements with producers, and violated principles of collective bargaining, including the 98th convention of the International Labour Organisation. The convention, to which South Africa is a signatory, addresses freedom of association and various rights to collective bargaining. Speaking on the sidelines of a New Age business briefing on Monday, Amcu president Joseph Mathunjwa would not discuss the merits of the union’s case, but said the court would make a ruling. Apart from the SMS issue, which Lonmin had wanted to clarify ahead of Tuesday’s court hearing, Mr Magara made several broad statements on the strike, but offered little insight into the company’s next steps. Reaching a wage settlement with Amcu would be first prize he said. Lonmin and all the producers were available to talk, but no formal meetings were scheduled and no new offers were on the table. Mr Magara hinted that the company might pursue legal action to have the strike declared dysfunctional if a settlement was not reached. In our own minds we think this strike has become dysfunctional. It is no longer serving its purpose. We are putting this to our lawyer and asking what implications does that have in law. This strike is protected, but it is only protected within the picketing rules of this strike . Lonmin executive vice-president for human resources Abey Kgotle said the company agreed that the strike was protected in terms of the Labour Relations Act. But the escalating violence and the failure to report for work of essential services workers, who are not allowed to strike under the recognition agreement, were raising concerns, he said. In view of all those, we are asking an important question about the functionality of the strike and whether it continues to deliver benefit for employees. The notion that a strike could be declared dysfunctional is an unlikely interpretation of the Labour Relations Act, and not one that an employer has successfully pursued before. The act does not make use of the word dysfunctional and does not provide grounds to have the protection of a strike lifted when picketing rules are broken. Had proposed amendments brought before Parliament in February been passed, such an action would have been allowed. Article published with the kind courtesy of bdlive.co.za
Posted on: Tue, 20 May 2014 05:50:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015