BOPEU halts transfer of Statistics Botswana employees

● Statistics Botswana shuts Gantsi office ● Employees transferred while talks ongoing

The Industrial Court in Francistown has interdicted and restrained Statistics Botswana from implementing its decision to transfer its employees at its Gantsi office pending finalisation of consultations with the affected employees. The matter was heard by Justice Christian Diwanga, with Kago Mokotedi representing Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) while Statistics Botswana was represented by Mboki Chilisa.

On December 21, 2023, BOPEU on its own behalf and on behalf of its members stationed at the Statistics Botswana Gantsi Satellite Office filed an urgent notice of motion with the court seeking an interim interdict restraining Statistics Botswana from proceeding with the closure of its Gantsi Satellite Office, as well as implement any decision made pursuant to the anticipated closure pending the finalisation of the consultation process between the parties in terms of their concluding statement of the November 10, 2023. After hearing arguments from the parties, the court confirmed the rule nisi restraining Statistics Botswana from implementing its decision to transfer its Gantsi office staff.

According to court documents, the parties have concluded a Collection Labour Agreement (CLA) which amongst others addresses negotiable and consultation matters. The CLA establishes the Joint Negotiations and Consultative Forum (JNCF) as the forum to address such matters.

By letter dated October 23, 2023 Statistics Botswana invited BOPEU to a meeting of the JNCF to discuss the closure of the Gantsi Office. The JNCF meeting was held on the November 10, 2023 and the following conclusive statement was recorded and signed by the parties; Union to write stating the items they need clarity on by Monday November 13, 2023; Management to incorporate comments to beef up the proposal latest by the November 11, 2023, and share with the union and; the two parties will then proceed to engage the affected staff members at the Gantsi Satellite Office not later than November 30, 2023.

BOPEU wrote its submissions on the issue on November 14, 2023 in which it suggested alternatives to closing the Gantsi Office, with Statistics Botswana responding to BOPEU’s letter on the November 30, 2023.

On the December 19, 2023 BOPEU wrote to Statistics Botswana objecting to the transfer of its members to Maun Satellite office effective from the January 1, 2024 before the conclusion of the consultation process. BOPEU then launched this application on the December 21, 2023.

“In terms of Section 40 of the Trade Disputes Act a collective labour agreement is binding on the parties. Clause 6.1.4 of the CLA provides that mutually agreed issues may be subjected to joint consultation. In this case the parties subjected the issue of the closure of the Gantsi Satellite Office to a meeting of the JNCF as a consultative matter. The parties indeed engaged in a consultative process which the Applicant complains that the Respondent did not carry to the end. Based on the aforegoing analysis, I have no doubt that the Applicant has established a clear right flowing from the CLA and the parties’ conclusive statement of the 10th November 2023 to be consulted and for the consultation to be extended to the affected employees,” Diwanga stated.

On claims by Statistics Botswana that consultation with the affected employees is, as per the employees’ conditions of service, done by its Human Resources Department and that that need not involve the Applicant, Diwanga said, “This argument cannot be sustained as the Respondent has agreed at the JNCF consultation that both parties will engage the affected employees. The wording of the JNCF concluding statement is clear and unambiguous, it means that the parties will together engage the affected employees on the subject matter of the JNCF meeting being the closure of Gantsi Office”.

Meanwhile, Diwanga said it must be noted that the rule nisi interdicting the closure of the Gantsi Satellite Office was not confirmed as the evidence showed that the office had already been closed and the premises handed to the landlord prior to the date of this Court’s order. “The Court cannot interdict that which has already taken place for such an order would not be practically effective,” he stated.

The parties indeed engaged in a consultative process which the Applicant complains that the Respondent did not carry to the end