Technical arguments dominate Ramatex labour dispute trial

MUCH remained unchanged in the drawn-out legal battle between the Ramatex Textile Factory, and more than 90 of its former employees, in the District Labour Court in Windhoek yesterday.

Hearings were set to start with a category of about 25 employees whom the factory agreed were dismissed during an alleged strike last year April. But arguments between the two parties over the categorisation of employees and their right to claim damages persisted.Legal counsel for the complainants Trevor Solomon immediately took issue with Ramatex’s claim that about 32 people listed in the class action were not eligible for inclusion in the suit, as they were trainees at the time of their dismissal.According to Ramatex, its company policy does not regard trainees as employees.The employees are claiming unfair dismissal, unfair suspension and the right to a disciplinary hearing after they allegedly downed tools in protest against working conditions at the Malaysian-run concern.On Monday, the defence team led by Albert Strydom contended that the principal complainant, Joshua Fillipus, was among the list of trainees and thus was not in a position to take issue with Ramatex.Strydom yesterday reiterated that another group listed in the class action had already been re-instated.After failing to reach consensus on the issue, Chairman of the Labour Court Uatjo Uanivi called for closed door consultations.It is believed that Ramatex offered to re-instate the 25 people it agreed were in their employ and subsequently dismissed from the factory at the time of the complaint.But with Solomon intent on proving the status of trainees as employees of the factory, whom he said should also be considered for re-instatement, Uanivi ruled that the respective legal teams exchange documentation later in the day in support of the locus standi [the right or capacity to bring court action] of Fillipus.The case continues today.But arguments between the two parties over the categorisation of employees and their right to claim damages persisted.Legal counsel for the complainants Trevor Solomon immediately took issue with Ramatex’s claim that about 32 people listed in the class action were not eligible for inclusion in the suit, as they were trainees at the time of their dismissal.According to Ramatex, its company policy does not regard trainees as employees.The employees are claiming unfair dismissal, unfair suspension and the right to a disciplinary hearing after they allegedly downed tools in protest against working conditions at the Malaysian-run concern.On Monday, the defence team led by Albert Strydom contended that the principal complainant, Joshua Fillipus, was among the list of trainees and thus was not in a position to take issue with Ramatex.Strydom yesterday reiterated that another group listed in the class action had already been re-instated.After failing to reach consensus on the issue, Chairman of the Labour Court Uatjo Uanivi called for closed door consultations.It is believed that Ramatex offered to re-instate the 25 people it agreed were in their employ and subsequently dismissed from the factory at the time of the complaint.But with Solomon intent on proving the status of trainees as employees of the factory, whom he said should also be considered for re-instatement, Uanivi ruled that the respective legal teams exchange documentation later in the day in support of the locus standi [the right or capacity to bring court action] of Fillipus.The case continues today.