Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe is showing strong leadership in his relentless bid to prevent the derailing of the troubled mining sector.
In a whirlwind 19 days, from June 14 to July 3, the who’s who of South African mining came through with a comprehensive and promising framework agreement for sustainable mining, with Motlanthe at the helm.

The CEOs of mining majors and mining juniors, the general secretaries of majority mining unions and minority mining unions and wall-to-wall Cabinet Ministry at the Presidential Guest House have come through in less than three weeks with a virtual roadmap for what they acknowledge is the dynamo of the South African economy – the mining sector.

Sure, it does not guarantee stability in the short term and it is heading for testing as the toughest of gold wage talks begin this week.

But it shows how instability will be dealt with and how another Marikana tragedy can be forestalled.

It also commits to dealing with socioeconomic issues afflicting mining, provide career paths for all workers and transform the industry from its nefarious past into its world-benchmarked future.

The who’s who of the South African mining sector have gone ahead and signed the framework agreement for sustainable mining, without waiting any longer for the stalling Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU), and in so doing provided a potentially formid- able bulwark against any errant behaviour during the upcoming wage talks, which begin next week.

Himself a former mineworker and union leader, Motlanthe led the table of government, labour and business leaders towards the ratification of the draft document without AMCU, which he urged to return as soon as possible to do the same.

He did so against the overwhelming consensus that the framework agreement captures the correct approach to addressing the mining industry’s niggling problems.

“It also provides a roadmap,” he said of the framework’s identification of issues that had to be tackled forthwith, and those that would be tackled in the medium and long term, with its inputs being made by AMCU, the National Union of Mineworkers, Solidarity, Uasa, the Chamber of Mines, the South African Mining Development Association and government.

The declaration at the foot of the signed document demands swift action, no abrogation of responsibilities and quarterly or immediate meetings to deal with problems.

“The AMCU leadership, which also committed to the framework, requested to be afforded the opportunity go back to its members with this framework and they will also be signing in due course,” the Deputy President said.

Chamber of Mines VP Mike Teke commented to Mining Weekly that AMCU and the National Council of Trade Unions, or NACTU, of which AMCU is part, did not want to sign before telling their members that they would be doing so.

“We ended up saying, okay fine, you can go and consult with your members, but that the rest of us would proceed in the meantime. For us, it’s progress, and we’ll wait for AMCU to come back to us. They’ve walked this path with us, and I’m confident that they are going to sign,” said Teke, who added that AMCU had not at any stage expressed dissatisfaction with the framework document, nor stated that it would not sign.

However, Solidarity general secretary Gideon du Plessis and Uasa’s Franz Stehring were less sanguine on AMCU failing to sign, as were employment law specialists and partners at law firm Webber Wentzel Eugene Phajane and Kate Collier.

Du Plessis found it regrettable because the agreement allowed for immediate attention to be given to key union issues in what he described as “a very well-structured and formal way”, including thresholds and majoritarian principles, and AMCU would now not be present at the start of that process, to the detriment of AMCU members.

Du Plessis also pointed out that, in the first instance, AMCU’s stated reason was that it required more time to digest the document and consult with its members, but later went on to attempt to set reinstatement of dismissed workers and retraction of accusations that they were a vigilante trade union and just two of many preconditions.

Importantly, he said, the agreement’s immediate mandate was one of zero tolerance to violence and intimidation, and the taking of disciplinary action against any unlawful employee conduct.

It also meant that short-term socioeconomic problems like debt and long-term ones like migrant labour would be addressed.
The success of the agreement, in Du Plessis’ view, hinged on union buy-in and commitment to the mechanisms that were implemented to ensure stable labour relations.

Any party to the agreement that did not adhere to the responsibilities assigned to it would have to be called to account.

“The agreement does not guarantee that the unstable labour relations in the mining industry will end immediately, but offers a clear guideline and framework for achieving stability,” he added.

Stehring accused AMCU of having insufficient leadership and capacity. “AMCU is too scared to commit to anything,” Stehring said, adding that the agreement gave the mining sector the wherewithal to be highly successful even while it waited for AMCU to sign, as the agreement committed government, the chamber and all unions to work collectively in mining’s best interests.

Eight mining areas have been identified for intervention, with some categorised as requiring urgent, immediate intervention.

The Rustenburg platinum belt is one of the eight areas and partnerships between government and business have already been identified in prioritised areas.

Both Phajane and Collier said it was disappointing that AMCU refused to sign what was a peace accord that had nothing to do with worker rights in the sense of conditions of employment and wages, but which sought to create an environment conducive to resolving disputes peacefully and create much-needed harmony among mining unions.
Conflicting reports stemming from the July 3 meeting also raised their own concerns that AMCU members, having been consulted, might elect not to give a mandate to the AMCU leadership to sign the accord.

“This would, in our view, have long-term detrimental effects on stability by creating the impression that AMCU members might seek to resolve their concerns outside the ambit of the law and without due regard to transparent negotiation.”
To the extent that reports were correct that AMCU had preconditions, it appeared that the underlying intention of the peace accord had been breached.
The Federation of Unions of South Africa (Fedusa), which attended in its role as federa- tion to its affiliate and which signed as witness to the agreement, repeated its call for respect to institutions designed to resolve disputes.

It also praised the institution of social dialogue to address the socioeconomic challenges of South Africa, while calling for greater inclusivity and democracy in collective labour relations.
“Along with Uasa, we look forward to more constructive collective bargaining engagements going forward,” said Fedusa general secretary Dennis George.

Both Solidarity and Fedusa again raised concerns that the majoritarian principle in Section 18 of the Labour Relations Act went against the Constitution. “We believe that the exclusion of important stakeholders to collective bargaining pro- cesses is both counterproductive and unsus- tainable. Often it is the most skilled, core part of the workforce that are represented by minority unions and by excluding these groupings, we are missing the point,” George argued.

The framework agreement states that the concerns around Section 18’s unintended consequences warrant evaluation.