Another challenge for E3.5bn Mpakeni Dam
MBABANE – The construction of the E3.5 billion Mpakeni Dam faced another challenge as employees of Sakhalive Joint Venture downed tools last Friday.
Sakhalive Joint Venture, whose 33 Chinese employees were not so long ago arrested for overstaying and working without permits at the project, rushed to the Industrial Court on Monday to stop the strike, picket, go-slow or work-to-rule by the employees.
The applicant, who is contracted by Eswatini Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise (EWADE) and its principal business is at Mpakeni in Lavumisa, wanted the court to declare the strike unlawful and invalid.
Sympathisers
It was also seeking an order declaring that the employees who were on strike, and/or their sympathisers, were not entitled to pursue the work to rule and/or strike action and/or picketing action as it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2000 (as amended).
The Human Resources Manager of Sakhalive Joint Venture, Hu Yongzhen, said the employees did not follow any of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act pertaining to embarking on a lawful strike.
Yongzhen told the court that the employees, together with their sympathisers, had sought to become a law unto themselves by engaging in an unprotected industrial action.
The human resources manager informed the court that the employees had organised themselves as a group of leaders and there was no recognised union for them.
To deal with the issue amicably, according to Yongzhen, it was prudent to deal with the workers as being the employees who were all currently engaged in the unlawful picketing and/or work-to-rule action.
He said on April 5, 2024, a group of employees downed tools and thereafter, mobilised other employees to join them without any notice of any grievance and/or due process of the law being followed before the decision to down the tools was taken.
According to Yongzhen, this action took the employer by surprise as there was no notice that such was to be the order of the day at the instance of the employees if there were any issues currently pending.
Following the state of affairs submitted by Yongzhen, Sakhalive Joint Venture endeavoured to engage some of the employees who had been perceived as the ‘leaders’ to find out what their positions were concerning the unlawful work stoppage.
Consensus
He said there was no consensus on the issues and the workers were determined to proceed with the work stoppage.
Due to the work stoppage, Yongzhen said the employer was taken aback and dismayed by the conduct of the employees because nothing had been communicated earlier and/or the fundamental provisions of the Industrial Relations Act had not been followed about the strike.
The human resources manager stated that the management sought to address the concerns of the employees and if there were any disagreements on any issues, it was wise to engage each other.
“The conduct of the first respondents (employees) goes against the spirit of collective bargaining, which is prescribed in our Labour statutes. Given the above, and with the current stalemate, and the applicant’s business being held to ransom by the first respondents, the applicant does not have any other remedy in law other than to approach the above honourable court for an interdict against the first respondents,” said Yongzhen.
The employer was represented by Hasso Magagula of Dynasty Inc Attorneys.
Yongzhen further submitted that also due to the purported unruly nature of the workers, Sakhalive Joint Venture sought an order compelling the police to ensure the execution of the order that was to be granted by the court.
He pointed out that the employees did not report a dispute with the Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC), nor had they followed any of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.
“This alone makes the industrial action or work-to-rule unlawful and, therefore, the court has to come to the assistance of the applicant’s company to protect itself as well as its reputation and customers, members of the public as well as its employees who are not desirous to continue with work.”
Yongzhen told the court that the industrial action had disrupted the company’s operations, as it was without notice. He said this could be categorised as a work-to-rule.
Conduct
He argued that the conduct of the employees on strike was unlawful, ‘as industrial relations had long moved from the state of nature where employees could at any moment withhold their powers by engaging in unlawful strike action without following any provisions of any law’.
“In the 21st Century, employees are encouraged to follow the law, as in circumstances where they resort to acting as they did, such conduct is declared unlawful and, therefore, ought to be interdicted,” submitted the human resources manager.
When the matter came before Judge Banele Ngcamphalala on Monday, the parties agreed that the strike was unlawful and the strike was stopped. The matter was removed from the roll.