Mittal Steel has welcomed an interdict issued by the Labour Court in Johannesburg preventing members of trade union Solidarity from striking.
The dispute between Mittal Steel South Africa and Solidarity is over the union’s demand for more money for the working hours of 134 of its day-shift members.
Mittal told the unions that the demand is against the letter and spirit of a three-year wage agreement that bars the parties from raising issues that have financial implications, except for the annual adjustment provided for in the agreement.
”While we respect the right of trade union members to strike, we believe that this needs to take place within the confines of the legal process,” Mittal’s corporate affairs general manager, Tami Didiza, said.
”We remain hopeful that Solidarity will also see this issue in the same manner, so that we can all focus our energy on finding common ground and a long-term solution to this and other issues without compromising our three-year wage agreement, which binds both the company and our unions.”
Didiza said the judgement will not hurt the company’s relationship with the union and that Mittal Steel South Africa will continue to engage meaningfully with all its unions on matters of common interest.
”Our door is always open for discussion and will remain so,” he said.
Solidarity obtained a strike certificate from the Metal and Engineering Industry Bargaining Council in August after a dispute about compulsory overtime payment for day-shift workers at the Vereeniging plant.
The union says day-shift workers at the plant are paid less than workers at other plants, despite doing the same work and working the same hours.
It says the remuneration difference for an artisan working day shift at the Vanderbijlpark plant and a person in the same job at the Vereeniging plant comes to approximately R600 per month.
Solidarity deputy general secretary Dirk Hermann said although the finding has put a spoke in the wheels of the strike, it has done nothing to resolve the workers’ problems.
”We should like to invite Mittal Steel to resolve these problems through negotiation. It is a fact that the company’s workers are unhappy and it is in the best interest of the company, the workers and the trade union to resolve to problems as speedily as possible,” he said.
Solidarity was also frustrated by the incorrect issuing of the strike certificate on which the interdict was based.
”The trade union has acted correctly throughout,” he said.
”Solidarity is disappointed with the Labour Court finding, but this does not mean that the trade union is giving up the fight. It just means that the process will start again from scratch.”
Mittal Steel’s legal team argued in the proceedings that in terms of the Labour Relations Act, the arbiter did not have the authority to issue the certificate. — Sapa