The relationship between the com- pany director, Motlogeloa and the local black policemen also raises the question about how some state offi- cials view working people in our community. The policemen tried to stop the shop stewards from laying an attempted murder charge against the company director on the basis that
"Mr Motlogeloa belongs to the
highest class in the community and a case cannot be opened against him."
While this does not explain much about the relationship between Mot- logeloa and these policemen, it
suggests that some middle class
figures are free to do as they please with people of a working class back- ground. "&
STOP PRESS
I t seems that FEDCRAW is not the only problem that Jackie Motlogeloa is facing. Finance Week (November
10 -16) says that he is in serious danger of going bankrupt
He operates the Orlando West shopping centre in which many of the shops have closed down. His own Mzamo-Moleko bottle store and A-Train disco are apparently in
danger of closing down as well. Nor is his supermarket doing very well.
FEDCRAW members cannot be feeling too much sympathy for him, especially as they face possible starva- tion as a result of management
practices at his shops. -ft
CWIU takes the struggle out to sea -
industrial
court rules this out of
order
by MARTIN JANSEN.
CWIU Petroleum co-ordinator
1 he French-controlled company, Sopelog, has a contract with the
South African government to operate about three oilrigs searching for oil beneath the sea off the coast of South Africa.
The union first started organising at Sopclog in 1986, when many of the workers approached the Cape Town offices seeking assistance.
By mid-1987 the union had re- cruited about 95 workers out of the 200 eligible for union membership.
The union then made several ap- proaches to management for
recognition. The management, led by a Frenchman, Mr Michelle Dudonet, was totally unprepared and therefore crude in their dealings with the
CWIU. The harsh working conditions for all workers on board oilrigs can-
not be exaggerated. It is reputed to be one of the most dangerous working environments, second only to deep- sea diving.
Delaying tactics
Management used several de- laying tactics: not being aware of certain correspondence, unilaterally postponing meetings, etc. This conti- nued until the union decided to
allocate more resources to the "pro- ject" of gaining recognition with the
company. The company soon realised that the union meant serious business and seemed to be co-operating.
In October 1987 the company agreed in principle to recognise the
union, subject to negotiating a simple recognition agreement. The only
problematic area at this stage was the scope of the bargaining unit.
Difficulties of o r g a n i s i n g The union continued to organise the workers, albeit under unusual and difficult circumstances. The main dif- ficulties of organising the oilrig
workers are:
• the shift system of 2 weeks on board and 2 weeks on shore, with four teams rotating;
• the workers live all over the country;
• the oilrigs' operations are not re- stricted to one area and often move as far as Mossel Bay to the Namibian coast within a six
» month period.
Union organisers and workers mostly communicate at small weekly
meetings, often at the airport, or via pamphlets, which poses strategic problems if in the wrong hands.
By December 1987 the final draft recognition agreement was ready for signing, or at least this was the view
of the company's attorney and the union official. However, at the next meeting management posed a prob-
lem. They explained that many of the union members were creating prob- lems for them by not signing a newly revised contract which the company
had prepared. The company therefore felt it was necessary to add another item to the list of definitions in the recognition agreement:
• "Temporary Employee" - an em- ployee on probation or an em- ployee expressly employed on a temporary contract or an em- ployee who has not joined the permanent staff by not signing and returning Sopclog's standard permanent employment contract.
The union could not agree to this, as it meant that even though a worker had 6 years service with the com-
pany, by not signing this new
contract, he would become a "tempor- ary" worker. The union argued that the contract was between manage- ment and the individual employee, and was not a matter to be incorpor- ated into a recognition agreement.
This disagreement became a major stumbling block.
Forced to sign contracts
Union members who were suspi- cious about the introduction of these
new contracts also reported that they were literally being forced to sign the contracts. Often they would arrive at
the airport to bode in for their 2 week shift and be told
they would not be allowed to work unless they signed the new contracts.
Upon closer
scrutiny of these contracts with union attorneys, it was noticed
that the new con- tract did contain slight changes to previous con- ditions of
employment.
The company's
actions therefore constituted an il- legal lock-out and the matter was referred to the Industrial Court
At subsequent meetings the com- pany agreed to negotiate for wage
increases and improvements in condi- tions of employment. Several
meetings were held on the issue of the recognition agreement and prep- arations for wage negotiations,
without success. The company pro- posed to compromise on the issue by
allowing the insertion of the clause,
"the union reserves its rights in re- spect of the definition of Temporary Employees" next to the controversial definition.
Eventually in April 1988, the
union agreed to compromise because,
Workers at sea - no rights
firstly, members were pushing for a formal relationship with the company so that improvements could be nego- tiated, and secondly, the union had
taken the issue to the Industrial Court
The repre- sentatives of the company saw no problems with this and undertook to take it to the di- rectors for
approval. The union protested against this de-
laying tactic, as it was basically management's proposal which had been accepted.
The real intentions of the company were revealed in a telex which it sent later.
The telex said simply that negotia- tions on the issue were closed, and
that the proceedings in the Industrial Court would take their course.
The court ruled against the union.
The presiding officers said that, be- cause the workers were working more than 12 miles out to sea, they were working outside South Africa.
This means that die Labour Relations Act does not apply to them. As a re- sult, the Minister of Manpower has no right to appoint a Conciliation Board in this case, nor has the Indus- trial Court any right to interfere in die
actions of the employer.
Industrial court:
no jurisdiction
The court could not rule that the employer had illegally locked-out his employees. The court took this posi- tion in spite of the union's evidence that the workers were employed in Cape Town and paid in rands.
The judgement was a major set- back for the labour movement in South Africa. It affects especially those workers who are employed by
companies in South Africa and are re- quired to work outside its border
from time to time.
This means that if a worker is treated unfairly or even dismissed outside the official borders of South Africa - he/she cannot legally apply for relief by virtue of South African labour law. In official terms this
would include the TBVC bantustans.
A labour law expert commented on the unfairness of the judgement, since companies are allowed to operate up to 200 miles out to sea and yet take
Soletanche -» Sopelog ••» Soekor
Sopelog is a subsi- diary of a French based drilling com- pany known as Fora- sol Foramer. This company employs over 1,200 workers all over the world and ap- proximately 1,500 in France. It is owned by three companies each having approximately one-third share owner- ship. Thethree com- panies are Soletanche (French), Ackerman Von Haarem (Bel-
gian), and ICH Caland (Dutch).
In South Africa it operates under the
name of Sopelog (South African Petro-
leum Logistics). It is contracted by the State controlled pro- ject SOEKOR.
SOEKOR was set up by the South African government in 1965 to
search for petroleum and other energy sour- ces. SOEKOR's
efforts to search for oil were spurred on by rapid oil-price in-
crease in 1974 with the "oil crisis" and
continued reference in United Nations for- ums to oil-embargoes against South Africa.
Its efforts on land
were unsuccessful and it later concentrated on searching under the
sea off the South Afri- can coast. Forasol Foramer was con- tracted to do this in the form of Sopelog, which is a company registered in South Af- rica. Sopelog deals mainly with the opera- ting of about three oilrigs in the oil- search.
Sopelog employs approximately 300 personnel of whom 200 are eligible mem- bers of the Chemical Workers Industrial
Union, an affiliate of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). •&
advantage of and operate within South Africa's company laws and other laws. It is easy to conclude that the Industrial Court was biased
against workers in this judgement
The future for union recognition
It seems that the company is hold- ing to the position in their telex. The CWIU is now struggling to ascertain their official position on recognition in line with International Standards and Codes of Conduct
They are reluctant and non-com- mittal and continually refer shop stewards, who raise issues and de-
mand recognition, to the court decision. Despite petitions from
union members and a well supported one-hour stoppage on 27 May this year, the company still refuses to rec- ognise the union.
The union is presently taking the court decision on review and will be calling on international support to pressurise Forasol Foramer to get its subsidiary, Sopelog, to recognise the CWIU and improve the conditions of
its South African workers. On aver- age, overseas oilrig workers earn four
times the wages of the CWIU mem- bers, and enjoy better benefits such as
life insurance, pensions, medical aid, etc. The company in question is not only assisting the South African gov- ernment in its sanctions-busting
attempts but is benefitting out of apartheid exploitation. ft
Fighting for their lives and
jobs
By HUMPHREY NDABA, SACWU Legal Department
I t is almost a year that S.A. Chemi- cal Workers Union (SACWU) mem- bers have been out of work on a legal strike (see SALB133). The Sasol
Limited chairman, in his annual re- view statement said, "In our Sasol- burg plant we have not experienced such a significant industrial action since our inception in 1950."
According to workers, Sasol has been exploiting them since 1950.
When first they heard about
S ACWU's achievements for chemical workers, they decided to join. The
workers were determined not to look back, but to fight on through SACWU
structures until victory was realised.
Since October 1987, fourteen members of the union were killed in bloody onslaughts by vigilantes.