5.1 THE INTENSIFICATION OF WORKER UNIONIZATION COUNTRYWIDE
5.1.4 REINSTATEMENT AND THE INTENSIFICATION OF CONFRONTATION
day to day basis must undergo intensive training in this regard."(Management Brief, 1988).
5.1.4
REINSTATEMENT AND THE INTENSIFICATION OF
influence in terms of national negotiations. All management is interested in is the agreement reached between the parties, which according to a statutory requirement is then implemented. Management maintains the position that there is no need for employees to engage in the strike over issues that are deliberated at national level over which the company does not have any influence. The workers' position continues to be that they have a moral duty to engage in an action aimed at advancing their own interests.
During these demonstrations there were acts of violence. These violent actions were directed more often than not to other workers, particularly those who were never dismissed in 1987 who, according to those who were in the forefront of these
demonstrations, were less willing to participate in actions 'that were in the interest of all'.
For instance this is what one worker had to say in this regard:
"We were sick and tired of people who did not want to struggle and pretended as though they did not want money. But as soon as an increase was given, they took it. These people sold out in 1987 and we were not prepared to let that happen again. If we were dismissed, as a result of our involvement in the strike, all of us had to go" (Interview, September 1997).
These violent acts resulted in the dismissal of two workers who were alleged to have beaten one employee who did not participate in the demonstrations. A disciplinary inquiry was held and they were found gUilty and subsequently dismissed. This dismissal however, did not temper the spirit of employees. Even after the wage dispute had been settled at 15%, workers continued with various other activities, including but not limited to go-slows, work-to-rule, work stoppages, demonstrations and overtime bans. Central to these struggles was the question of the Congress of South African Trade Union's
(COSATU) call for a 40-hour week. In pursuance of this strategy was the call for a ban
on all overtime in an attempt to put pressure on management to accede to this demand.
On the question of overtime ban, workers were clearly divided. Some supported the call and others held the view that should the need arise for overtime to be worked, they would seize the opportunity and work. When the issue was debated at the workers' meeting, on the strength of majority view, it was decided that the call must be supported.
The meeting even decided on the question of punishment to be given to those who defied the decision. In the words of one worker: "All those who worked overtime were expected to pay R20.00 as a form of punishment". Clearly, this did not go very well with those who were determined to continue with overtime, and consequently represented a major source of conflict amongst workers because according to some, •... the money paid by some just disappeared amongst the shop-stewards and no one really knew what happened to that money' .
Towards the end of 1988, workers embarked on a work stoppage that lasted about one and half day. During this period, some workers were working night shift and as a result were not part of the decision to embark on a work stoppage. The decision taken by the workers was to remain within the premises of the company and sent the shop-steward committee to raise their grievances with management with the view to finding a solution.
On their part, management refused to entertain any idea of engaging in discussions with the shop-steward committee if the workers did not want to go back to work. Both parties agreed that workers would have to go back to work to enable deliberations to take place between management and their representatives. When the shop-steward committee reported back to the workers during lunch time on the progress of their discussions with
management, workers were not satisfied and therefore resolved not to go back to work after lunch. When nightshift workers reported for duty in the evening, they were confronted and attacked by some workers who were on day shift. Resulting from this incident, two employees, among them the supervisor who had recently been appointed, were dismissed.
Apart from the rift that was beginning to develop among workers themselves, relations between management and workers soured very rapidly after 04 July 1988. In November
1989 management responded to a two-week go-slow, by giving every worker on the shop floor a final written warning. When management announced that it intends taking
disciplinary action against all those involved in a go slow, worker responded by saying that management would have to call all of them to a disciplinary inquiry at the same time.
In response to this situation, management gave them the warning without holding the inquiry, citing the reason that workers were obstructing the disciplinary procedure.
From the above analysis, it is apparent that the situation was no longer conducive to any normal working relation between workers and management and workers themselves.
Management on the one hand, blamed what was happening entirely on the union as expressed in the utterance that: "It was clearly a union influence in the sense that most of their demands were union driven". Workers argued that it was management's fault,
" ... since they thought they knew everything and did not want to listen to what we were saying and clearly our only viable option at the time was to continue fighting".