Defence company Denel has again failed to comply with a Labour Court order, handed down on August 4, 2020, compelling the enterprise to honour all outstanding contractual obligations with Uasa members, the trade union said.
Uasa spokesperson Abigail Moyo said the trade union was “disappointed” that the State-owned enterprise failed to comply with the court order and that it could show that the entity managed to comply with only half of its obligations, despite the lapse of almost 16 months since the court order was issued.
At a Labour Court hearing on December 2, Uasa said it was disgruntled by Denel’s request to postpone the case to August 2022 to allow the company time to comply with the court order.
Uasa argued that such a postponement would mean Denel had been given two years to comply, which was to the detriment of employees.
After hearing Uasa’s legal arguments during the court hearing, Judge Reghana Tulk ruled that the matter be postponed to March 16, 2022.
These proceedings follow after Uasa further also brought a contempt of court application in which Denel was ordered to report on its progress with regard to complying and honouring the outstanding contractual obligations towards Uasa members employed by the entity by July 23, 2021.
At the time, the Labour Court postponed the case to December 2 to afford Denel a further opportunity to fully comply with the order.
Uasa divisional manager Gerhard Ueckermann expressed concern about Denel’s inability to comply with the court order, stating that, despite the continued judicial oversight of the Labour Court, Denel is failing to prioritize the implementation of the court order.
“Uasa members who are employed by the entity have been suffering for the past 16 months without getting paid full salaries. This has resulted in a huge negative impact on the livelihoods of their families including financial responsibilities. It was and is still a very emotional journey which has left [some] members on [the] brink of suicide.”
Tulk further ruled that the cost of the postponement of the court case is to be paid by Denel, and that the entity was also required to file an affidavit to the court setting out how it intends to comply with implementing the court order.