ATZ workers served with retrenchment letters
THE Government’s plan to facilitate the re-opening of Auto Tyres Zimbabwe (ATZ), formerly Dunlop, in the first quarter of this year has hit a snag after workers were issued with retrenchment letters last week.
The letters, dated December 29, 2017, do not mention their terminal benefits.
In the 2018 National budget, the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning Patrick Chinamasa said the country’s sole manufacturer of commercial truck tyres had ceased operations but was scheduled to resume production during the first quarter of this year.
A worker at the Bulawayo-based firm who spoke on condition of anonymity said the company owed them salaries from 2016.
In 2016, the company retrenched 225 workers some of whom claimed yesterday that they are yet to get their benefits.
A majority of the remaining 75 workers have refused to sign the retrenchment forms before being paid their salaries dating back to September 2016, prompting management to schedule a meeting with them on January 23.
Workers who declined to be named said they suspected ATZ wanted to get rid of permanent staff so that it engages contract workers with limited rights and benefits, when the Government facilitates its re-opening.
A copy of the retrenchment letter, seen by Chronicle and signed by head of finance Ms Joanah Gwisai, reads:
“The company has been facing viability challenges for the last two years. Recapitalisation efforts and other initiatives to keep the company operating were made by management to improve the situation without success.
“These included, but not limited to: short time at work measures, working night shift in order to reduce the electricity bill from October 2015, reducing the prices of tyres in order to compete against cheap Chinese imports, utilised the Government intervention through S1 64 of 2016 which barred the importation of second-hand tyres. However, the lax border system still posed a challenge and second-hand tyres continued to be a problem on the market. Funding from NSSA, which was highly hopeful, was finally turned down at the 11th hour.
“The company stopped producing in November 2016. The major raw material supplier of rubber compound, NUVO of South Africa and the fabrics supplier from China stopped supplying due to the company’s failure to pay them and other creditors. The company records losses and accrues huge debt and faces litigation on multiple fronts.
“Consequently, management has made a decision to retrench staff in order to curtail continuing costs. Therefore, may you take this as your notice, from 1 January 2018 to 31 January 2018 of the company’s intention to retrench you from employment? You shall be formally advised of subsequent formalities.”
A worker who asked not to be named said they had become skeptical about their representatives who seemed to have sold out.
“About 225 workers were forced to resign in 2016 and the remaining 75 were issued with retrenchment letters last week. From September 2016, those of us who resisted retrenchment were given only $2 for transport and $1 for lunch instead of our wages. Our representatives are strangely quiet. We are getting disturbing news from the grapevine,” said the worker.
“We hear this is the company’s way to get rid of permanent staff so that they would hire contract workers who would not claim exit packages,” said another employee.
Another said they felt cheated since they had worked very hard for ATZ but now they were given retrenchment letters without salaries being paid.
Ms Gwisai declined to comment, saying she only signed the letters and had no information to divulge.
One of the directors at ATZ, Mr Ben Samudzimu, said he could not respond as he was out of town.
A member of the works council, Mr Bheki Moyo said he did not know anything about the issue and could not give out any information.
A member of the workers’ committee also refused to comment saying anyone who is interested in the matter should attend a meeting that will be held on January 23 at the company. — @MondelaC
The Chinese company further accused Zec of introducing a new service provider at the 11th hour.
This, the company, contends will cause more challenges and cost taxpayers more money as it will be required to provide further services at a cost to help with any integration.
“There will also be technical and serious accountability issues should another service provider be inserted into the current registration process, causing serious delays and potential credibility issues later.”
Further, Laxton Group attacked the electoral body for awarding IPSIDY Inc the tender when it was clear the Chinese firm was technically superior.
“This was demonstrated by appellant’s score of 27.4 to third respondent’s 22.4, a difference of 17 percent. Appellant’s superiority was further evidenced by the assessors’ comments where critical issues were raised with the third respondent’s solution.”
The Laxton Group also accused Ze of awarding the disputed tender to its competitor based on a misapprehension of the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) standard.
MEAT is generally applied where price is not the deciding factor and other considerations are at play, like technical aspects of the solution, time lines, among others, as opposed to the lowest-priced compliant tender.
“In any event the appellant’s price was in fact lower than that of the third respondent. First respondent’s further error was its apparent lack of regard to technical superiority in the final evaluation.”
The Chinese company also argued that Zec blundered by considering the issue of “vendor lock” that is not a valid criterion on which to base the decision it made because it was nowhere in the tender.
By considering the issue of vendor lock at the expense of due diligence on the supplier as a going concern and its financial stability, Laxton Group said Zec violated the relevant law and awarding the tender to IPSIDY Inc, whose solvency was in doubt as shown by its 2016 financials.
IPSIDY Inc is yet to file its response to the appeal.