S.2.1 'NEW ENVIRONMENT' AND WORKER PARTICIPATION
5.2.5 THE MAIN AGREEMENT AND WORKER PARTICIPATION
between the three parties before anything can be done.
However, the feeling seems to be that as long as this inclusion does not create stumbling blocks to the speedy identification of problem areas and agreements reached to resolve them, workers do not anticipate major difficulties. What must also be noted is the fact that any structure which is eventually agreed upon, would be dealing with issues at the highest level of the company's decision making process. These decisions were previously the prerogati ve of management and employees had no say in terms of employment
policies, particularly at management level. Indications point to the fact that discussions, which had been going on between these three parties and the need to comply with the Act change and seriously re-define relations between management and employees in this company.
forming part of discussions at the industry level. One notable feature of such changes has been the agreement reached between employer representative and the nine trade unions at the national bargaining forum dealing with the question of broad banding.
Through this agreement an attempt is made to reduce the number of grades in the Iron, Steel and Metallurgical industry from thirteen to six. The implication of this reduction, clearly being to integrate functions and roles in an attempt to broaden the skills base of employees expected to carry out these functions. The fundamental importance of such an agreement lies in the fact that it begins to extend participation rights for employees on areas historically regarded as management prerogative. For instance, contained in this agreement is the question of multi-skilling, multi-tasking and flexibility. These issues are known to form part of issues, which in the past were at the discretion of employers. To illustrate this point, the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa (SEIFSA) Handbook (1997/1998: 38), an abridged version of the main agreement for the Metal Industries for the years 1997 to 1998 states:
"It is however recognized that any job requires a degree of flexibility to meet normal
operational requirements and change. This degree of flexibility under normal
circumstances, will therefore not constitute an element of this agreement as specified above."
This quotation clearly indicates that there are flexibility issues, which this agreement is unable to subject to joint decision making and therefore continue to be informed by management thinking. Nevertheless, the fact that these issues can now be discussed between workers and management with the view to arriving at an agreeable solution represents a shift away from the past.
It is also important to indicate that according to this agreement, individual employers in the industry together with their respective worker representatives and/or registered trade unions recognized at company level may accordingly mutually agree on whether or not to implement the new five grade job and wage structure or continue to observe the thirteen current grades and related arrangements. Inherent in this arrangement is an attempt to decentralize decision making power on this issue to individual companies. However this arrangement has its own advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, there is a drive towards encouraging trade unions and employers at plant level to engage each other with the view to arriving at agreeable solutions. This, it would be argued, would facilitate a process of shop floor empowerment in the sense that employees would be forced to take decisions for themselves. Since they are the people closer to the problems, their input is vital in ensuring that whatever is agreed upon reflects their interests as well. In theory, this should broaden and further deepen participatory democracy in the workplace.
On the negative side, the national framework might be welcome as a basis for increasing participation into areas historically regarded as management prerogative. In certain companies employees may find it extremely difficult to get the process off the ground as it will be shown at the company under investigation.
Plant level discussions aimed at dealing with some of the issues mentioned above are at the moment non-existent. However, there was an attempt to initiate discussions around the five-grade system and wage structure by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). For instance the minutes of the meeting held between
management and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) on 25
February 1997 reads:
"A meeting between management and trade union representatives was held on the five- grade system and new wage structure ... the union representative outlined the view of the trade union in this regard ... Further discussions will be held regarding this."
After the union had outlined its view in this regard, both parties agreed that management would formulate their response and further discussions would resume. To date no
concrete follow up discussion on this matter has ever taken place. The view expressed by the human resources manager in explaining the reason for non-activity in this regard is the fact that there are issues, which have not yet been finalized by teams dealing with them at national level. He went on to argue that:
"Until such issues, for instance, the proposed framework for the re-grading of jobs are finalized, any attempt to begin to engage in this process becomes highly complex.
However, as soon as there is finality on some of these issues, we are hoping to move into the process with some speed" (Interview, July 1998).
This situation does not in any way denote that the extent to, which parties are able to get this process off the ground is dependent solely on management. Workers have means through which they can exert pressure on management to either accede to this demand or alternatively speed up the process of implementing this new system. For instance, step 4 of the dispute resolving mechanism where consensus on the matter cannot be reached states:
"Should the parties not have followed the conciliation/advisory arbitration process set out in steps 2 and 3 above or should either party not be prepared to accept the advisory arbitration decision, they will be free to pursue the matter in terms of legal industrial action. Alternatively, the parties may agree in advance that the arbitration decision will be final and binding, in which case no legal industrial action may be implemented" (Main agreement, 1996/1997: 251).
What steps will be taken by the two parties in an attempt to ensure the implementation of this new system of work arrangement remains to be seen in view of the current stalemate in this regard. The issues dealing with technological changes, work re-organization, productivity, etc. which also have always been outside the sphere of influence by workers, now form part of issues the main agreement is seeking to subject to either consultation or joint decision making. These developments make it very difficult for employers to effect unilateral changes on these issues. For instance, Section 33 of the Main Agreement dealing with technological changes and work re-organization provides for the establishment of an ergonomic committee and procedures to be followed in the event of out-sourcing and in-sourcing, of part of a firm's activities including resultant retrenchments and redundancies.