Ramatex case highlights ’employment disparities’

CONFUSION in the ranks of management at the Ramatex Textile Factory came to the fore in the District Labour Court on Wednesday in a dispute over the alleged unfair dismissals and suspensions of more than 90 employees in April last year.

With the factory’s legal counsel Albert Strydom questioning the legitimacy of some of the employees’ right to take issue with the garment factory, the court started with arguments on the status of the principal complainant, Joshua Fillipus. Fillipus maintained that he was never a trainee.He said when he was taken in by a manager in July 2002, he was employed to do machine maintenance work in the spinning factory.Fillipus told the court the fact that he had received an hourly rate of N$3, compared to the N$1,50 paid to trainees, supported this belief.He said that after three months he was promoted to store worker and received a pay increase, up from N$3 to N$3,50 an hour.According to Fillipus, all communication regarding his conditions of employment were made verbally.On inquiry by the complainants’ legal counsel Trevor Solomon, Fillipus said he never signed any written agreement outlining his conditions of employment.The company was not able to produce any contract between the two parties to prove in what capacity he worked.When cross-examined by Strydom, Fillipus said he was never presented with a contract either for a trainee or employee.Fillipus also said he had never seen a document in his company file that said that in October of that year his training period would be extended to an undetermined date because of alleged poor performance.According to company documents presented to the court by Ramatex, trainee status could last as long as three years.Ramatex’s Health and Safety Advisor Andries Smit admitted that when the factory started, not all of those taken on by the factory were made to enter trainee or employment contracts.However, he maintained, it was a given that all newcomers were first taken on in a trainee capacity.Training periods, he said, varied between departments and the skills which needed to be mastered.Smit also said that trainees only received an allowance and not a salary and that it was not a hard and fast rule that all trainees were paid N$1,50 an hour.The rate, he said, was at the discretion of the factory manager in charge of supervising the training programme and maintained there was no “standardisation” in determining wages or allowances.He attributed this to it being “quite a big challenge” to manage a workforce in excess of 7 000.The Malaysian-run outfit also called the former General Secretary of the Namibian Food and Allied Workers’ Union (Nafau) Cuana Angula to testify in its defence.Angula refuted Fillipus’ claim that he was an assistant shopsteward at the factory during the time of the complaint.He said the union’s recognition agreement with the factory did not make provision for such a position.Angula added that even though trainees were listed as members affiliated to his union, in terms of their agreement with Ramatex they did not fall under the bargaining unit.He also agreed with Smit that entry level allowances for trainees differed among the various factory divisions.In conclusion, Strydom argued that it was understandable that being a new concern and, given the large number of employees, Ramatex could have been “prone to mistakes” and hence the incorrect perceptions among employees on the differences between employees and trainees.For his part, Solomon said the presentation of an employee card and payslip with deductions to social security and union membership proved that Fillipus was indeed a bona fide employee of the company.Chairman of the Labour Court Uatjo Uanivi is expected to hand down his ruling on July 9.Fillipus maintained that he was never a trainee.He said when he was taken in by a manager in July 2002, he was employed to do machine maintenance work in the spinning factory.Fillipus told the court the fact that he had received an hourly rate of N$3, compared to the N$1,50 paid to trainees, supported this belief.He said that after three months he was promoted to store worker and received a pay increase, up from N$3 to N$3,50 an hour.According to Fillipus, all communication regarding his conditions of employment were made verbally.On inquiry by the complainants’ legal counsel Trevor Solomon, Fillipus said he never signed any written agreement outlining his conditions of employment.The company was not able to produce any contract between the two parties to prove in what capacity he worked.When cross-examined by Strydom, Fillipus said he was never presented with a contract either for a trainee or employee.Fillipus also said he had never seen a document in his company file that said that in October of that year his training period would be extended to an undetermined date because of alleged poor performance.According to company documents presented to the court by Ramatex, trainee status could last as long as three years.Ramatex’s Health and Safety Advisor Andries Smit admitted that when the factory started, not all of those taken on by the factory were made to enter trainee or employment contracts.However, he maintained, it was a given that all newcomers were first taken on in a trainee capacity.Training periods, he said, varied between departments and the skills which needed to be mastered.Smit also said that trainees only received an allowance and not a salary and that it was not a hard and fast rule that all trainees were paid N$1,50 an hour.The rate, he said, was at the discretion of the factory manager in charge of supervising the training programme and maintained there was no “standardisation” in determining wages or allowances.He attributed this to it being “quite a big challenge” to manage a workforce in excess of 7 000.The Malaysian-run outfit also called the former General Secretary of the Namibian Food and Allied Workers’ Union (Nafau) Cuana Angula to testify in its defence.Angula refuted Fillipus’ claim that he was an assistant shopsteward at the factory during the time of the complaint.He said the union’s recognition agreement with the factory did not make provision for such a position.Angula added that even though trainees were listed as members affiliated to his union, in terms of their agreement with Ramatex they did not fall under the bargaining unit.He also agreed with Smit that entry level allowances for trainees differed among the various factory divisions.In conclusion, Strydom argued that it was understandable that being a new concern and, given the large number of employees, Ramatex could have been “prone to mistakes” and hence the incorrect perceptions among employees on the differences between employees and trainees.For his part, Solomon said the presentation of an employee card and payslip with deductions to social security and union membership proved that Fillipus was indeed a bona fide employee of the company.Chairman of the Labour Court Uatjo Uanivi is expected to hand down his ruling on July 9.