Home | News | COURT STOPS CASH-IN-TRANSIT WORKERS’ STRIKE

COURT STOPS CASH-IN-TRANSIT WORKERS’ STRIKE

15/02/2019 08:52:00 BY KWANELE DLAMINI

Font size:

MBABANE – The daily transportation of millions of Emalangeni to and from banks and supermarkets, among other establishments, stands to be affected as cash-in-transit employees of Fidelity Security Services want to strike on Monday.

The employees are demanding a monthly bonus of E2 000 while their colleagues referred to as bankers want E1 000 per month as a bonus.
On February 6, 2019, the Swaziland Amalgamated Trade Unions (SATU), issued a notice to strike by the cash-in-transit employees.

“This serves to notify you that the CIT (cash-in-transit) workers have resolved to embark on a strike action commencing from February 18, 2019. The intended strike action is pursuant to the dispute that was certified unresolved by the commission (CMAC) on June 28, 2018,” reads part of the notice which was signed by SATU Secretary General Frank Mncina.

This prompted Fidelity Security Service Swaziland (Pty) Ltd to run to the Industrial Court to stop the intended strike. Judge Abande Dlamini issued an interim order stopping the strike. SATU or its representatives were not present in court when the matter was heard yesterday.
The matter was postponed to February 25, 2019 when SATU is expected to inform the court why the interim order should not be made final. Sabela Dlamini of Magagula and Hlophe Attorneys represents the company.

The manager of Fidelity Security Service, Connie Shabangu told the court that the employees could not pursue the dispute over the bonuses before the end of August 2019 which will be the expiration date of the operation of the existing and enforceable agreement between the parties.
In terms of the obtaining agreement, Shabangu said the bonuses were increased by E600 for CIT workers and E300 for the bankers. She alleged that the agreement was concluded in 2016 and it would expire in August 2019. She submitted that in the meantime, SATU could not pursue another dispute. Shabangu described the pursuance of the dispute in the present matter as a duplication of disputes.
strike
Shabangu stated that the intended strike action was illegal in terms of the Industrial Relations Act of 2000.
“The strike will affect the business of the applicant especially the transportation of its customers’ money which runs into millions of Emalangeni every day. As would be expected, the CIT crew carry firearms which they are obviously trained to handle and the task they undertake cannot therefore be given to anyone. This makes the transportation of the customers’ cash susceptible to robbery,” said Shabangu.
Giving a background of the matter, the manager narrated that SATU reported a dispute at CMAC in respect of collective bargaining proposals which were E2 000 bonus for the CIT crew and E1 000 for the bankers. The dispute remained unresolved even after conciliation.
Shabangu told the court that after the certificate of unresolved dispute, SATU issued a strike notice which was scheduled for November 7, 2016. The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested and SATU is yet to file responding papers.
However, after a meeting held on November 3, 2016 in which the parties sought a negotiated settlement, Shabangu submitted that the CIT workers would receive an additional amount of E600 monthly while the bankers got E300. The payments were backdated September 1, 2016.
Shabangu alleged that the parties agreed that any review of the benefits would be considered after three years and this period ends at the end of August 2019. Before this agreement, and as reflected in October 2016 pay slips, the bonus at the time was E550 for the CIT staff. After the normalisation of agreement in December 2016, according to Shabangu, their payslips showed an increase of E600 to E1 150 for the CIT crew and E300 for the bankers.
The manager said the employees were not entitled to enjoy the benefits of the agreement unless they fulfilled their end of the bargain, which is performance-based. She highlighted that the expiration of the existing agreement between the parties is in August 2019.
Shabangu submitted that it was an afterthought that after allegedly enjoying the benefits of the agreement, SATU sought to alter the terms of the agreement by trying to procure the signature of the company’s management in a draft agreement. The management declined to sign it.
The manager said the company refused to sign and maintained the agreement because a review of the existing agreement would be considered after the lapse of three years from 2016. The matter is pending in court.