The Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa (Seifsa) says the claim by trade union Solidarity, that a lockout notice issued by the body to all six unions involved in wage negotiations in the metals and engineering sector was in response to the union’s request for negotiations to be extended for another 21 days, was “totally devoid of truth”.

This after Seifsa on Friday served Solidarity and the other trade unions involved in wage negotiations under the auspices of the Metal and Engineering Industry Bargaining Council (MEIBC) with a lockout notice applicable from July 1, which would bring production at its member companies to a halt.

It followed the announcement by one of the six unions, the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), on Thursday, that over 220 000 of its members would embark on indefinite industrial action in the metals and engineering sector from July 1, after wage talks reached a deadlock on Wednesday.

Seifsa CEO Kaizer Nyatsumba said in a statement on Friday that the 24-hour lockout notice was in response to the Numsa strike notice, following the expiry of the 30-day period of the dispute resolution procedures within the MEIBC on Wednesday.

He explained that Clause 3(c) of the MEIBC constitution provided that, if a dispute has not been settled within 30 days from the date on which it was referred to the council, any party is entitled “to pursue whatever means are available in the Labour Relations Act to process that dispute”.

Nyatsumba said that, upon receipt of Solidarity’s written request for an extension to the negotiations, he had written back to the union advising it to table its proposal before the management committee of the MEIBC.

“Seifsa’s response was that it was, in principle, favourably disposed to the continuation of negotiations with all the parties in an endeavour to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement.

“Accordingly, we proposed that the union approach the MEIBC’s general secretary as a matter of urgency with a request for the convening of an urgent management committee meeting, indicating that we would be guided by the positions adopted by the other interested parties,” he claimed.

Nyatsumba added that, contrary to Solidarity’s “propaganda”, the issuing of a lockout notice was fully mandated by the Seifsa council, which was made up of the chairpersons of all employer associations represented by the federation.

CONTESTED LOCK-OUT
Earlier on Friday, Solidarity general secretary Gideon du Plessis said in a statement that, as a result of the lockout, Solidarity’s 22 000 members in the industry were now prohibited to work and continue with production, despite not intending to go on strike.

“Solidarity has already notified Seifsa that the lockout notice will be contested, as it has never been Solidarity’s intention to strike. We want collective bargaining to succeed, because the people of South Africa simply cannot afford another devastating strike,” he commented.

Adding that Seifsa’s lockout announcement was “out of touch” with its members, Du Plessis called for a confidential ballot within the employer organisation to ensure that its decision was aligned with the mandate of its members.

“Since Seifsa’s lockout notice was served, Solidarity has been inundated by [calls from] Seifsa members who want to distance themselves from Seifsa and who want to collaborate with Solidarity on an individual basis to continue with production.

“We believe that Seifsa’s leadership does not have a proper mandate for its current actions and that a confidential ballot will expose this state of affairs,” he asserted.

Du Plessis further expressed his disapproval that, contrary to MEIBC dispute rules, MEIBC head Thulani Mthiyane “prematurely” issued a certificate to all parties declaring a final deadlock.

‘STRONG ARM TACTICS’
Meanwhile, trade union Uasa on Friday slammed Seifsa for its negotiating strategy, accusing the body of using “strong arm tactics” during this round of wage negotiations.

“[Labour and Siefsa] both negotiated in good faith at the start of this round of negotiations, which saw the employers moving away from offering a mere CPI wage adjustment to a three-year deal with a 7% adjustment for the higher-paid employees and an 8% adjustment for lower-paid employees. However, this came with a sting in the tail,” commented Uasa metal and specialist divisional manager Johan van Niekerk.

According to Uasa, employers made the 7% and 8% offers on condition that the remuneration of entry-level employees in the industry be lowered by 50%.

“This will cause an untenable situation in the workplace, meaning that current entry-level employees could be paid R50 an hour and, as soon as the agreement is signed, a newly appointed worker, doing exactly the same work, will receive only R25 an hour. What will this mean for the principle of being paid the same remuneration for work of even value?,” Van Niekerk asked.

He added that Seifsa had adopted a “take it or leave it” approach, which did not augur well for good faith negotiations.

Uasa, like Solidarity, was also in favour of extending the negotiation session by a further 21 days to “give negotiations a chance”.

“However, employers were not interested, serving the unions with a notice of [lockout] this morning,” said Van Niekerk.