Aug-Sept 2014 K.indd

15

www.cosatu.org.za • AUG/SEPT 2014

The Labour Relations Indaba By Patrick Phelane

I t is becoming popular fashion that after every workers’ strike, whether successful or not , South Africa is awoken to a rant and rave in the pro-capitalist bourgeoisie media about too much power been given to trade unions; about labour legislation that is too in fl exible thus preventing employers from hiring and fi ring workers willy- nilly; about the demand for too high a wage rate that cannot be justi fi ed by productivity levels, and about the perceived labour market institutions rigidities which prevent upward and downward variations and adjustments in wage and employment conditions. This mechanistic appraisal about what the role of labour market institutions and legislation should be in instilling industrial peace and stability has become a common gospel of economic commentary– if not dogma - of right wing oriented labour market commentators. This anti union - anti strike perception bend on union bashing, and on an unapologetic contempt for industrial action has crept into the thought processes of many Government policymakers, particularly those from the national Department of Labour. This perception was revealed to social partners at NEDLAC during the unfolding of the Labour Market Policy Review processes i.e. Labour Law Amendments. It was in 2012 October - just after the NUMSA strike, which was followed by the SAMWU strike; then the AMCU strike which culminated in the Marikana tragedy - when the issue of violence during strike action drew the attention of many and became prominent. At the time social partners at NEDLAC were deliberating on the Labour Law amendments, viz. LRA,

to industrial action, lock outs and the use of scab labour. It was then decided that each social prepare its own problem statement for the Indaba. Inter alia, Labour believes the problem of labour relations in South Africa is not the conduct of labour during industrial action, rather South Africa’s industrial relations system is stuck with malfunctioning labour market institutions, starting with NEDLAC itself. Dispute resolution institutions (CCMA, Mediators and Arbitrators) do not engage parties locked in dispute before the situation erupts into a violent confrontation. The Labour Court fails to mediate the process until crisis point. Authorities do not want to interfere in the Collective Bargaining arrangements or at least improve their structural make up and their functioning. The Collective Bargaining system itself is highly fragmented, strati fi ed and volitional. It is therefore inappropriate to propose a conference whose aim is to address psychological behaviour instead of addressing the entire structural make up of the institutions and their functionality. Nonetheless, a tentative date for the Indaba was set for August 2014. Prior to the convention, social partners were required to submit their problem statements which hopefully shall be blended into a tripartite problem statement. Since the Labour constituency met at Nedlac and held a caucus on 27th June 2014. It was decided in that caucus that a 2 a side task team should deliberate on the problem statement of labour. Comrades from COSATU, NACTU AND FEDUSA i.e. the three federations representing the labour constituency at NEDLAC are busy preparing Labour’s problem statement.

BCEA, EEA and ES. It was at that time when the Department of Labour saw it opportune to propose to social partners at NEDLAC, the convening of a Labour Relations Indaba (Conference). No information was furnished on what the indaba was to be all about. But social partners, particularly the labour constituency suspected that this proposition’s aim was to deal with and explore views on two issues in the main. (i) violent industrial action and (ii) strike interdict or compulsory interest arbitration. Government’s proposition was not well received by the labour constituency citing reasons that no social partner has the authority of unilaterally deciding to convene a tripartite conference without consulting other social partners, without social partners making their input as well as agreeing on the agenda of the conference. The Labour constituency was suspicious and till today remains sceptical of such a sudden move and proposition by Government. It sounded from the presenters of the propositions that the Labour Relations Indaba’s objective was to explore means and ways of addressing - if not to mitigate - violence during industrial action. Despite labour’s objection, a NEDLAC task team process was initiated comprising a 1 –a- side committee process which will look into the agenda, participants and the logistical requirements of the envisaged indaba. The task team held several meetings to fi nd common ground, and an agreement was reached that each social partner holds unique views about the causes of violence in strike action; the rights relating