5.1 THE INTENSIFICATION OF WORKER UNIONIZATION COUNTRYWIDE
5.1.8 DEEPENING OF ANIMOSITY AND NUMSA'S STANDPOINT ON MEETINGS
It is clear from the above letter that there were allegations and counter allegations by both trade unions to the fact that management was taking sides in the problems understood by parties purely as worker problems that had nothing to do with management. On the other hand, management was refuting these allegations as merely imaginations from both trade unions. Despite management's denial of the allegations of collusion, however, it would appear that the perception held by the two trade unions created an environment not conducive to better working relationships, not only between the two trade unions but also between the two trade unions and management.
5.1.8 DEEPENING OF ANIMOSITY AND NUMSA'S STANDPOINT
which was attended by the trade union's regional organizer. The minutes of that meeting held between management and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) states that:
''The union suggested that the two trade unions should meet with management separately because there is always tension between the members of the two trade unions, making co- operation extremely difficult. The trade union would go back to their members to seek a new mandate whether or not to sit in meetings in the presence of the other trade union"
(ManagementlUnion meeting, April 1996).
On their part the South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) stated that they did not foresee any difficulty in sitting around the table with the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and management to discuss issues of mutual interest. As their senior shop steward put it:
"We did not have any problem in having the same meeting with both management and that other union. Our view has always been that if there are issues that affect workers irrespective of the union they belong to, such issues could be addressed jointly. And in case there were issues where we did not agree, each party could always request a bilateral meeting with management to discuss them. However if the other party was of the view that the meetings should be held separately, there was nothing we could have done"
(Interview, November, 1997).
Management later took the decision very much against their will to have on a monthly basis two meetings with the two trade unions separately. The explanation given by management in this regard was that in the interest of keeping channels of communication with the employees of the company open, the decision to hold two separate meetings despite the inconvenience it caused on the part of management had to be made.
Management pointed out that this arrangement was time consuming in the sense that the
two meetings had to be conducted instead of one. It was also pointed out that it was very difficult to reach consensus on issues under discussion because the one trade would oppose anything proposed by the other trade union and vice versa. Because neither of the two trade unions represented the majority of employees employed by the company, any attempt to reach some form of an agreement on any issue proved extremely difficult.
As a result of these developments, the possibility of bridging any tension and antagonism between the two trade unions became extremely remote. It was clearly on the basis of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa's (NUMSA) insistence that it was not prepared even to consider the possibility of joint meetings with the other trade union that it was decided in the eventuality that separate meetings were inevitable.
The coming into operation of the second trade union did not help to reduce the tension that arose as a result of the expUlsion of the two shop stewards by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). Instead the situation became more volatile. As it has been indicated above, one area where the manifestation of this is clearly apparent is in the holding of the monthly meetings between shop stewards from the two trade unions and management. It certainly became a norm that if shop stewards from the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) propose something on their separate meeting with management, shop stewards from the South African Workers Trade Union (SA WTU), irrespective of what benefits the proposal might deliver to the workers in general, simply rejected it, and vice versa.
It also became a normal way of conducting trade union matters that when reporting back to the workers after a meeting with management, shop stewards from one trade
union would criticize shop stewards from the other trade union and vice versa. One classical example in this regard was a grievance handed in to management by the South
African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) shop stewards against a National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) senior shop steward. The allegation being that in her report back, she incited workers against them with remarks that the South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) shop stewards were selling out to management. The purpose of the grievance, according to South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) shop stewards, was to have these allegations investigated, and if found to be true, necessary action taken against the person concerned.
For instance in the minutes of the monthly meeting between the South African Workers Trade Union (SA WTU) and management, the senior shop steward expressed: "the
union's serious concern, in the manner in which management was handling the grievance they handed in against the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa's (NUMSA) senior shop steward." In fact in this meeting management was accused of being in cahoots with the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) because up to the point when this meeting was held no action was ever taken against the person concerned despite the fact that the matter was reported some time ago. In their response to this allegation of collusion with the National Union of Metal workers of South Africa management pointed out that in their investigations, they could not find enough evidence to be able to institute a disciplinary inquiry.
In January 1997, when the company saw the need to retrench some of its employees, management invited both trade unions in an attempt to discuss the issue jointly because
of its 'sensitivity'. The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) continued with its stance that it would not sit around the table with management in the presence of the South African Workers Trade Union. Eventually management conceded to the consultation process on retrenchment taking place separately. However, when the National Union of Metalworkers Union of South Africa (NUMSA) declared a dispute against the retrenchment of their members, NUMSA alleged that management together with the other trade union jointly decided that only NUMSA members should be
retrenched. This argument was based on the fact that no SA WTU member was affected by the retrenchment.
However, in the minutes of one of the consultative meetings dealing with the question of retrenchment, the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) suggested a position which was later accepted by the all three parties in the consultation process that should the retrenchment process become inevitable, the last-in-first-out, across the board principle, should be adopted as a criterion for selecting possible retrenchees. In fact this position is also endorsed in the Iron and Steel Bargaining council collective agreement.
It is clear from the records given out by management in terms of the employment dates that the criterion as agreed between management and the two trade unions was properly adhered to. It could be assumed that this issue, which constituted one of the core issues around the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) dispute against management, was based solely on the animosity characteristic of the relationship between the two trade unions.
The few incidences outlined above clearly indicate that the relationship between these two trade unions was not conducive to any close working relationship. In fact indications are that the relationship which existed between each trade union and management was relatively better than the relationship which existed between the two trade unions. This situation was clearly not in the interest of the workers, who in their struggle against management should at best, always act in unison or at worst portray themselves as a unified force. What remains striking however, is the fact that relations among employees belonging to the two trade unions, at the individual level was relatively good and without the kind of tension demonstrated at the trade union level.
However, the same could not be said about the shop stewards, particularly the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) senior shop steward and the South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) shop stewards.
On the basis of this understanding therefore it is very difficult to conclude whether the tension and animosity manifesting itself in various ways and on different issues at the trade union level is a reflection of this tension between shop stewards or has something to do with union policy and/or strategic issues.