Woolworths workers get justice at last
Woolworths, one of SA’s premium retail brands, may pride itself in providing highquality products and services to consumers, but the stink caused by its retrenchment of workers will be hard to wash off.
The Constitutional Court found last week that the company dismissed dozens of employees unfairly in 2012 and ordered that all 44 workers who were fired for not agreeing to have their contracts converted from permanent to flexitime be reinstated.
Woolworths disregarded provisions in the Labour Relations Act that exist to protect workers from being fired arbitrarily. Its handling of the case was nothing short of shameful. The company should not only have conducted the process more democratically, but was obliged to seek alternatives to retrenchment, as the apex court found.
Woolworths’s intention was to convert much of its workforce to flexitime “in line with current market trends”. However, dealing with employees who declined the three options it put on the table appeared too much trouble, so it decided to get rid of them.
The workers were told they had to choose between taking early retirement, a voluntary severance package or agreeing to become flexitimers. When they refused and wanted to negotiate to find better options Woolworths started the process of retrenching 92 people.
The company was in such a rush to close the door on the aggrieved employees that it even misinterpreted a proposal made by the union representing 44 of them. The SA Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union (Saccawu) suggested that as an alternative to the retrenchments workers should be able to convert to flexitime but maintain the same salaries and benefits. Another compromise position, in which workers said they would accept an 11% decrease in their remuneration, was not considered by the company.
It was for these reasons, among others, that the court decided the dismissals were substantively unfair.
The contract conversion process, which started in 2002, resulted in a workforce comprising 16,400 flexitime employees and 590 full-time staff members by 2012.
For the workers, the conversion meant a drastic reduction in their hourly rate, the unilateral imposition of a seven-day rolling week and a downgrade of their terms of employment, including benefits.
While most workers signed on for the flexihours arrangement voluntarily, if reluctantly, the process was carried out without the involvement of the recognised trade union, Saccawu. The Labour Relations Act requires that such changes to employees’ working conditions be carried out in consultation with organised labour.
The 44 Saccawu-affiliated workers will be compensated for the six years they have been without jobs and will be reinstated to their full-time posts. Negotiations for a better arrangement will continue.
The judgment will also set a precedent for other retailers that have been altering workers’ contracts quietly as they reshape their businesses in line with technological advancement and consumers’ changing preferences.
The Constitutional Court judges made it clear in their unanimous ruling that Woolworths’s argument that it could no longer accommodate the dismissed workers on its staff due to changes to the business is not good enough. Saying that it was “not reasonably practicable” to reinstate the employees was little different to saying it was a “mere inconvenience”.
“An employer is obliged to show that retrenchments are operationally justifiable on rational grounds and to consider alternatives,” said judge Sisi Khampepe.
● Mahlakoana is political and labour writer.