5.1 THE INTENSIFICATION OF WORKER UNIONIZATION COUNTRYWIDE
5.1.7 THE PERMANENT REGISTRATION OF FIXED TERM CONTRACT WORKERS
circumstances was appropriate, and therefore their decision to dismiss was upheld. The application of the National Union of Metal workers of South Africa (NUMSA) on behalf of employees was consequently dismissed with costs.
The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) was not satisfied with the ruling given out by the Industrial Court and therefore opted to take the matter further to the Labour Appeal Court. Of the three presiding officers reviewing the case at the Labour Appeal Court level, two found the Industrial Court's ruling to have been correct and therefore upheld the ruling. The other one found that the court did not take aU necessary factors into consideration and therefore its decision was inappropriate under the circumstances. As a result of this split decision, the company's decision to dismiss was confirmed. This dispute took almost two years before its final resolution.
5.1.7 THE PERMANENT REGISTRATION OF FIXED TERM
For instance the minutes of the meeting between the factory manager and the supervisors dated the 2151 April 1992, on the question of representation from the shop floor reads:
"Management is proposing that workers should be given the opportunity to elect their representatives. The motive behind this, being to improve communication and create better understanding. The representatives will sit in a meeting with management to discuss business-related problems as well as other issues, which are of interest to both workers and management"(ManagementlSupervisor minutes, 1992).
When the decision of the Labour Appeal Court was conveyed to the workers, all of them showed signs of satisfaction and joy. Returning employees were satisfied in the sense that they did not have to be called traitors each time they meet dismissed employees, as one worker put it:
"We were proven right by the court even to those who kept calling us sell outs. Now everybody knows that our position was the correct one and our return to work was justified" (Interview, October 1997).
On the other hand employees who were employed after the strike were overjoyed in the sense that the security of their employment was strengthened as reflected in the assertion that:
"I could begin to plan my life accordingly with the knowledge that there was at least some security in as far as my employment was concerned. Since that decision, there was no need for me to keep on worrying about the possibility of loosing my job".
After permanent registration, workers began organizing themselves into a trade union.
The view expressed by workers on the role of councillors seem to be that whilst they appreciated their role in terms of dealing with management at a time when it was difficult for them to join the trade union, they clearly had some reservations on their capacity to
deliver on their mandate. These reservations though, were not attributed to councillors as individuals but on their role as part of a structural arrangement present at the time. The view expressed by one employee in this regard is that:
"One cannot make a fair comparison and be able to come up with an objective analysis between the role played by the councillors and shop stewards because the councillors had no backup other than ourselves whereas the shop stewards are also supported by trade union officials. As a result, they have access to legal advice and moral support coming from outside the company. The councillors' ability to put pressure on management to accede to some of our demands was extremely limited and it became necessary therefore to organize ourselves into a trade union" (Interview, November 1997).
When activists began recruiting members, they did this confidentially: " ... so that by the time management realized what was happening, it would be too late for any attempt to reverse the situation." As a result, of the need to maintain secrecy in this recruitment campaign, the process initially was very slow since the intention was to ensure that everything that was done was precise in terms of bringing the majority of employees into the trade union.
In late August 1994, the company received a letter from the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) requesting a meeting between management and the union to explore the possibility of engaging in a working relationship by the two parties. This request was based on the membership the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) claimed to have with the employees of the company. It was not until the 05th October that the first meeting between management and the newly elected shop stewards committee was held. As early as the 26th January 1995, indications that tension existed within the trade union/worker delegation were beginning to come to the surface. Indications were that the source of this tension stems from the question of
increment. Two of the shop stewards, including the senior shop steward, put onto the agenda of a meeting with management the issue of wage increase. When this was opposed by other shop stewards supported by the union organizer on the basis that the issue was a national issue and therefore does not form part of issues to be raised for negotiation at plant level, the other two shop stewards took offence to that.
The tension exploded into the open on the special meeting requested by the senior shop steward on behalf of the shop steward's committee held on 20 March 1995, in which meeting, shop stewards requested the presence of the company's Managing Director to discuss wage increases. In the very same meeting, the union organizer was expelled by shop stewards. This expUlsion is thus reflected in the minutes:
"Before the senior shop steward could present the subject for discussion, he handed over a letter to the chairperson asking that the presence of the union organizer be dealt with before the commencement of the meeting. The chairperson suggested that the union be afforded some privacy to deal with the matter. This was agreed to. After the caucus, the union resolved that the organizer was not going to be part of the meeting" (Minutes of Management/Union meeting, 1995).
The disciplinary action was taken at the level of the union against the two shop stewards implicated in the expulsion of the union organizer. Consequently, the two shop stewards were expelled from the union. This expUlsion represented a point of division amongst employees. Some employees resigned from the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). The majority of employees who resigned from the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) subsequently joined the South African Workers Trade Union (SA WTU). The South African Workers Trade Union was introduced into the company immediately following the expUlsion of the two shopstewards. In its first
letter that the trade union wrote to the company it demanded the right to represent its members who were employed by the company. After some discussions between the South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) and management, the two parties eventually agreed that the company would recognize the trade union in so far as its representation of its members only.
The division between employees organized under the banner of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and those organized under the banner of the South African Workers Trade Union (SA WTU) was characterized by tension, allegations and counter allegations of war talk. Tension also existed between the two trade unions and management with each trade union accusing management of colluding with the other trade union.
This situation is reflected on some of the letters sent to both trade unions in this regard.
For instance, one letter sent to the South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU) by management dated 26 March 1997 reads:
"It is unfortunate that the gist of your argument is clouded by unsubstantiated allegations of connivance between NUMSA and ourselves, hence difficult to establish in exact terms your concerns ... I would like to address myself first on the question of resignations from either union. It is true that our understanding after the first debacle on this matter was that a resigning employee would notify the union concerned of his/her intention to resign. The said union would in turn inform the company accordingly. It is at this point that the company can process such resignation ... Since then, there have been resignations from both unions. Our commitment to the agreed procedure could easily be demonstrated by your assertion that we refused to process resignations handed over to us by employees.
On the part of NUMSA, this could also easily be illustrated by the fact that they had to declare a dispute and take us to the Industrial Council for refusing to process resignations not sanctioned by your union. Both unions however, never co-operated with employees who wanted to resign. This is probably why we are being accused of connivance by both trade unions ... " (Management letter to SAWTU, 1997).
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.