METAL FATIGUE
The strike in the metals and engineering sector is pitting employer body against employer body. It could change the face of labour negotiations
The turf wars between labour unions have had far-reaching and even bloody consequences for the SA labour market. Now, the strike in the metals and engineering sector has exposed tensions between employer bodies. It threatens to collapse collective bargaining, which could plunge the sector into chaos.
The sector is organised by the country’s largest union, the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa), one of the most coherent and well-run trade unions.
Last year, on the back of lockdown restrictions, Numsa and employers in the metals and engineering sector agreed to forgo wage negotiations and increases for 2020, to spare the limping industry and save jobs.
This year, negotiations commenced in about April — and it’s been a rough journey ever since. At issue is a perennial problem for the sector: an inability to extend any potential wage settlement to all sector employees.
Numsa downed tools last week, drawing about 432,000 of its members out of their places of work.
The strike has so far cost members about R100m in wages and has claimed one life. It’s also had a far-reaching effect on companies.
On Friday, however, Numsa confirmed it was considering a wage proposal by the largest employer body in the bargaining council, the Steel & Engineering
Industries Federation of Southern Africa (Seifsa). It’s understood that Seifsa is offering a 6% wage increase; Numsa is demanding 8%.
At the time of going to press, Numsa was still canvassing its members on whether to agree to the offer.
But whatever it decides, the union is facing a stark challenge: its members fall under companies that are represented by different employer bodies. Seifsa, while the largest, accounts for only 45.3% of sector employees.
Under bargaining council rules, an employer body should meet the 50% + 1 threshold for its agreement to extend to all workers in the council. A failure to do so means that even if Numsa agrees to the deal, it won’t be extended to members who fall under alternative employer bodies, including the Consolidated Employers Organisation, National Employers Association of SA (Neasa), and SA Engineers & Founders Association.
Seifsa operations director Lucio Trentini has been candid about the employer body wanting to expand its reach in the sector to ensure labour stability.
He tells the FM that in about 2010, the three other employer bodies began resisting agreements, particularly when they dealt with conditions of employment and wages. This has complicated negotiations.
The three bodies, mostly led by Neasa, would accuse Seifsa of being overly generous to workers, which is at the heart of the impasse, Trentini says. In the view of these employers, wages should be dictated by the market, he says.
The upshot of it all, says Numsa general secretary Irvin Jim, is that the industry is being “held ransom and plunged into chaos” by “reckless employer bodies”.
A highly placed source sympathetic to the employer bodies tells the FM that Seifsa is trying to use Numsa to muscle out the other employer bodies.
Numsa, for its part, has encouraged members to urge their employers to join Seifsa, to bolster its numbers in the bargaining council.
“It’s employer vs employer … and they are using Numsa in an attempt to create a steel mafia,” the source says.
Numsa treasurer Mphumzi Maqungo tells the FM the extension of the agreements in the council has been a sticking point since 2011, and has rendered the council nearly ineffectual.
Jim agrees, but adds that the employer bodies are now attempting to collapse the council, which would lead to chaos.
Neasa’s Gerhard Papenfus tells the FM his organisation’s offer of 4.28% was rejected by Jim and Numsa. He met the union boss on Monday night and admitted he was prepared to move on that offer.
But Papenfus says it’s not possible to extend the agreement, and he will not push his members to agree to an offer by another employee body.
He says even if unions agreed to Neasa’s offer of 4.28%, it would not be binding on his members — though the “recommendation” from Neasa would carry weight.
The ructions mean the sector could very well be on its way to one-on-one negotiations between labour and employers. That could dilute worker power, but it could also make negotiations messy for employers.
Labour is not sitting on its hands. Jim says Numsa members are considering Seifsa’s offer, and he will deal with the issue of extension if or when an agreement is signed.
Though he is mum on Numsa’s strategy, one option for labour could be court action — similar to the situation in 2014, when Neasa tried to prevent the extension of a wage deal between Numsa and Seifsa.
What is clear is that a signed wage agreement between Numsa and Seifsa would settle just one part of the battle. Parties should brace for war over any possible extension.