SACCAWU: Call for Solidarity

Call for Solidarity

At the Press Conference hosted jointly by SACCAWU and COSATU to give an update on the dispute and explain the reasons for the call of a consumer boycott of Woolworths a background document was circulated on the nature and history of the dispute. Below is a summary the document.

Briefing on the background to the current Woolworths strike

More than five thousand Union members are in the third week of a protected strike arising out of an organisational rights dispute between SACCAWU and Woolworths.

Employment Profile of the Company

At the time when dispute with Woolworthsfirst arose in 1999 with the unilateral derecognition of the Union, the company already had extremely high levels of atypical forms of employment and this has worsened since. At the time Woolworths claimed a staff compliment of 12 407 with more than 70% casual employees. By 2007 the staff compliment grew with to 17 838 with the percentage of full time staff shrinking in real terms, while the flexible employee compliment grew to 12 546. If the management are removed from these company figures the percentages will even be higher. In this same period the company’s turnover grew by more than 110% from R8.8 billion to R18.6 billion over the same period. While operating profits for the same period grew by more than 300%.

History of Unionisation within Woolworths

The first recognition agreement between the Union and the Company was signed in June 1983, at the time the Union was known as CCAWUSA. The agreement covered permanent employees only. An amended agreement was signed in November 1990 still only covering permanent employees and excluding casual employees who already constituted a substantial number. In 1999 SACCAWU was derecognised through unilateral inclusion of casual employees in the scope of the agreement. The struggle for recognition was accordingly waged since then. In June 1999 the parties deadlocked at conciliation. The Union then referred the dispute for arbitration over application and/or interpretation of a collective agreement in line with the applicable provisions of the LRA. While this dispute was referred in June 1999 an arbitration date by the CCMA was finally arranged in 2004 as a result of pressure from the Union. At arbitration the Company argued that the CCMA had no jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter. The Union argued that the CCMA does have jurisdiction and the Commissioner ruled in favour of the Union. The Company then decided to review the CCMA ruling but did not ensure that the Labour Court finally decides on the matter as it was obviously not in their interests to do so.

The struggle for re-recognition

Due to the delays by the CCMA and Woolworths to finalise this matter and the negative impact it had on our membership, SACCAWU resolved to start from the beginning again which led to the current dispute.

In the current dispute SACCAWU seeks to exercise two basic rights; stop order facilities and access to Company premises outside working hours. These rights are accorded to a sufficiently representative Union in terms of the LRA. The LRA does not specify a specific percentage for sufficient representativity but outlines guidelines that should be considered in deciding on whether a Union is sufficiently representative or not. The LRA specifies the following elements for consideration in deciding whether a union is sufficiently representative:

* * The nature of the workplace;
* * The nature of one or more organisational rights that the registered trade union seeks to exercise;
* * The nature of the sector in which the workplace is situated;
* * The organisational history at the workplace or any other workplace of the employer.

All of these considerations has relevance to this case.

Further, the LRA calls upon unions that seek to exercise one or more organisational rights to specify facts upon which they rely to demonstrate that they are representative.

Issues in the current dispute concerns, the threshold for sufficient representativity and the facts upon which the Union relies to demonstrate that it is a representative union. The Union believes that 15% constitutes sufficient representativity for organisational rights in the retail sector given high levels of atypical forms of employment as well as benchmarks that have been established through engagement with other employers within the sector. The Union also believes that signed stop order forms suffice as proof of membership.

The employer on the other hand insists on 30% as sufficient representativity whilst they only want to consider forms that are not older than three months. This is outrageous given the history of the dispute as well as the sector within in which we organise. We must stress that Woolworths is the only employer which insists on this three months within the sector. Whilst the Union believes that it is above even the 30% that the employer is demanding the company’s rigid adherence to forms that are not older then three months implies that the union will not be recognised even if it can organise all Company employees given the history of engagement since 1999 as well as the high staff turnover within the Company a consequence of the high levels of casualisation at Woolworths.

It is these factors, taken together, as well as the Company’s adherence to the anti-union Walmart philosophy that compelled the Union to embark upon protected industrial action. Whilst the Company claims that it recognises freedom of association it also qualifies this by indicating that it prefers direct one-on-one interaction with workers. Worse still the company has been abusing both the CCMA and the Labour Court in frustrating the workers right to belong to a union of their choice.

At the same time it appear that there is collusion between the Company and Landlords to frustrate the workers right to picket in the current strike. The Union has also noted the CCMA’s reluctance in exercising its powers in disputes against Woolworths. It is for this reason that the Union will also be targeting both the CCMA and the Department of Labour in its programme of mass action.

The union believes that facts and figures contained in this document clearly indicate the type of employer that the Union is dealing with. The Union also believes that the Company’s actions undermine the spirit of the Labour Relations Act and Social Dialogue within the country since the LRA is a product of NEDLAC engagements. It for this reason that the union will also be marching to BUSA offices on the 3rd of October.

The Union calls upon all progressive formations and he public in general to support the boycott of Woolworths products and render any possible support to the current strike.

Mike Abrahams
media@saccawu.org.za