Home | News | GOVT OFFERS 0% RAISE TO PARASTATALS

GOVT OFFERS 0% RAISE TO PARASTATALS

01/04/2018 06:55:00 BY NOSIPHO SHONGWE

Font size:

MBABANE – This is an insult! These words sum up the feeling among employees of Category A parastatals who woke up to the news that their salaries and wages for 2018 have been capped at zero per cent increase by the Public Enterprise Unit (PEU).

This development, which has angered the concerned workers, was conveyed through PEU circular No.1 of 2018 that has been written to all chief executive officers of Category A public enterprises in the country.
In essence, this means the workers employed by the over 20 Category A public companies in the country will not even be awarded the usual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) that they are awarded in the absence of salary increments. The latest development will add fire to an already volatile situation in the public enterprises industry, which has seen a number of entities engage in strike actions because of failure to agree either on COLA or salary increases.
The Swaziland Revenue Authority, Sincephetelo Motor Vehicle Accident Fund and the Swaziland Electricity Company are some of the public entities that have faced such industrial action. Civil servants have also suffered the same fate, with government offering a zero per cent COLA.

The PEU document, dated March 28, defines ‘Major’ as being the rate of increase that parastatals can implement for wages, salaries, conditions of service, fees, rates, prices, tariffs and other charges that are used to define major as contained in Section 10 of the Public Enterprises (Control and Monitoring) Act of 1989.

President of the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) Quinton Dlamini made it clear that as a federation representing workers, they were not prepared to take the new circular lying down.
He said the circular made a mockery of government’s concession in 2016 to amend the PEU Act following a nine-day marathon negotiations sitting that year, in an attempt to avert a two-day strike by unions in the country.
“This is one of the reasons we will be taking to the streets,” he said. Dlamini revealed that unions have been complaining bitterly about the use of Section 10 of the Public Enterprises (Control and Monitoring) Act of 1989 in the negotiations of salaries between government and parastatals.
“Believe it or not, we have been taking government to task on this issue; how can they decide on issues they know nothing about,” he wondered.

TUCOSWA against Section 10

The TUCOSWA president said in 2016, the unions umbrella body contested Section 10 of the Act and it was discussed and clearly recorded in the Mediation Report compiled by the Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC), that government had agreed to amend the section when it had given rise to their protest action that had been scheduled for 25 and 26 February in 2016.
The labour front (TUCOSWA), felt that this section of the PEU Act brought in a third party into the negotiations machinery between trade unions and government parastatals and their management.

“This third party, being the government, who trade unions had no control over as they were not part of the collective bargaining process in these institutions,” reads the report in part.
It was mentioned that trade unions had no issue with the government in its capacity as a major shareholder in most of these parastatals, to periodically give mandate to the boards and management of these parastatals during annual wages negotiations.
It was stated, however, that unions were opposed to the process being subjected to a piece of legislation (an Act of Parliament). It was said that this had the effect of stripping the parastatals’ management of the requisite negotiation powers.

In 2016, unions demanded that government amend the PEU Act as this arrangement was found to be in contravention of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions on collective bargaining, being Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining (1949), as well as Convention 154 on Collective bargaining (1981). As such, labour unions proposed for an urgent amendment of the PEU Act with a view of removing Section 10 (1) (e).
Dlamini said government agreed to amend the sections, especially as they clearly contravened ILO conventions. “It is really simple; all we want is the amendment of the Act so that the workers in these parastatals are not denied their rights,” the unionist said.

He said this section was a violation of the ILO conventions that government ratified even before other countries did. “I do not understand what government’s problem is. Our country is within the governing body of ILO yet they are committing such crimes against workers.”
A labour expert, who was approached by the Times SUNDAY to simplify the document compiled by CMAC in 2016, said the outcome of the negotiations had been negative. “Both parties failed to reach an agreement in as far as amending section 10 of the PEU Act was concerned,” he explained.

According to the conclusion, the effects of the public enterprises (Control and Monitoring Act of 1989) in the negotiations machinery with government and parastatals remained unresolved. “Both parties agreed to source an opinion from ILO on the interpretation of the PEU Act vis-a-vis the relevant ILO conventions on collective bargaining and this did not happen.

Another reason that caused the matter to remain unresolved was that government’s concession to amend the PEU Act, notwithstanding the absence of the ILO opinion albeit with or without the certificate of urgency, could not secure a buy-in from unions (referred to as labour) who insisted that the amendment must come under a certificate of urgency. “It is in light of this conclusion that one can state that government did not agree to amend the Act,” he said.

Winnie’s tough stance

On the other hand, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare Winnie Magagula told this publication that “removal of Section 10 (1) (e) of the PEU Act will not happen”.
She explained that when the ministry sought advice from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), they were assured that the stipulations of Section 10 were practised the world over. “We were informed that this was the universal section that safeguards assets of government and the private sector,” she said.

The minister further revealed that the section had since been placed as a benchmark that needed to be addressed by ILO and that her ministry was assured of an easy win as they also had the backing of ILO on the existence of the section. “We will argue this and at the social dialogue, we will discuss that this section will not go anywhere. Experts from ILO have written to us and they are backing us,” she said.

The new circular states that the new definition of ‘major’ was in line with previous practices where the PEU advises all Category A public enterprises of SCOPE’s annual definition of the rate of increase.
The document states that during a meeting held on March 20, 2018; SCOPE decided that all such proposed increases, except salaries and wages that exceed 5.24 per cent, must be approved in writing by the responsible minister after having received scope’s approval. “SCOPE directed that the ‘major’ for salaries and wages should be 0 per cent,” the instructions read.

The document was issued by PEU Director Busangani Mkhaliphi.
It is further stated that all CEOs should bring this development to the attention of their Boards and to kindly observe this requirement until further notice.
Section 10 of the Public Enterprises (Control and Monitoring) Act of 1989 has been a cause for concern among unions representing workers within Category A parastatals. This section of the Public Enterprise Unit Act deals specifically with the approval of policy decisions.

It reads:
“S10. (1) No category (A) public enterprise shall do any of the following without the approval in writing of the minister responsible acting in consultation with the Standing Committee:
(a) Make any major adjustment to the level or structure, of tariffs prices, rates or other fees or charges;
(b) Undertake any major investment;
(c) Undertake any major expansion of its operations;
(d) close, sell, liquidate or divest any major part of its business;
(e) Make any major adjustment to the level or structure of staff salaries and wages or other terms and conditions of service of its staff.
(2) For purposes of subsection (1) the Standing Committee shall, in consultation with the Public Enterprises Unit, determine what is major in relation to each category (A) public enterprise.
(3) The Minister responsible may, in consultation with the Public Enterprises Unit, waive his approval for any given period of time in respect of any policy decision concerning any matter referred to in subsection (1) which affects any particular category (A) public enter-prise.
(4) The Minister shall, upon the waiver of his approval under subsection (3), give appropriate directives in writing to the category (A) public enterprise concerned.
(5) Where a policy that is being pursued by a category A public enterprise is not adequate or conducive to the achievement of its objectives as specified in the statement of objectives, corporate plans, performance targets or other policy directives approved under this Act in relation to that category (A) public enterprise, the Minister responsible may, in consultation with the Public Enterprises Unit, and with the approval of the Standing Committee, determine the appropriate policy to be adopted by such category (A) public enterprise and the category (A) public enterprise shall give effect to such policy.