War of words between DRD and union

I-Net Bridge | Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:47
[miningmx.com] -- Trade union Solidarity accused gold producer DRDGOLD of a "skewed application of the Labour Relations Act".

A war of words has erupted between the gold producer and the trade union after Solidarity this week applied for an urgent interdict against DRDGOLD at the labour court to ensure that the company follows due process regarding planned retrenchments at its 74%-owned Blyvooruitzicht (Blyvoor) gold mine near Carletonville.

Solidarity reiterated that DRDGOLD's Section 189 process for the original planned retrenchment of nearly 1,300 employees was "procedurally unfair" and demanded that the process be restarted.

The trade union's reaction comes in the wake of DRDGOLD's allegations on Tuesday that the trade union was acting "in bad faith" regarding the matter.

Solidarity wants the labour court to ensure that the Section 189 process, which has meanwhile been finalised by two other trade unions at the company, be declared null and void.

It emphasised that as a stakeholder it was not involved in the consultation process as is legally required.

The trade union, which represents 115 members at Blyvoor, said several Solidarity members were affected by the retrenchment process and have been retrenched.

DRDGOLD said on Tuesday that in spite of the fact that Solidarity is not recognised as a bargaining unit at Blyvoor because it represents only a handful of employees, the union was invited to make representations at the Section 189A consultation process.

"It failed to do this and it has now come to our attention that - after the fact - the union is seeking an urgent interdict against DRDGOLD," said DRDGOLD CEO Niel Pretorius in a statement.

But Solidarity said far from having to be a special consideration for the company, the trade union's involvement is required by law.

"The company's allegations actually illustrate their skewed application of the Labour Relations Act," said Solidarity spokesperson Jaco Kleynhans.

"The legislation clearly states that even if a trade union represents only a single member who is affected by possible retrenchments, the employer is obliged to consult with the trade union in question regarding the planned retrenchment," he said.

Kleynhans said following repeated calls on the company to be included in the process, Solidarity was eventually only invited after five rounds of negotiation to make a written presentation on the matter.

"Solidarity was not in favour of this and made it clear that the process would have to be started afresh. However, this did not happen," Kleynhans said.

The trade union conceded, however, that the company's assumption that being involved is a special consideration probably stems from the fact that the company had concluded an agency agreement on a specific job level with one of the two other trade unions.

"It is currently not certain if the agreement contains any exclusion regarding retrenchment, but the fact remains that the Section 189 notice had been issued before the agency agreement was reached with the company. This ultimately means that none of the points contained in this agreement can have any bearing on the retrenchment process," said Kleynhans

. DRDGOLD has until this coming Friday to submit its opposing statement. Solidarity said it was hoping for a ruling in this urgent case by next week already.