Volume 35 Number 09 - University of the Witwatersrand

Feature#The SRC Economic Research Committeelooks at:be represented by their chosen unionRosholt's paper promises350 workers went on srike atPremier Paper Mills on 25April. They were protesting atselective wage increases, andmanagement's refusal tonegotiate with the union.This strike comes in the wakeof a number of attemPts bYmanagement to undermine theuntonAt a time when profits in thecompany remain high in spite ofthe recession. workers waqesremain inadequate.Premier Paper Mills is part ofthe Barlow Rand Group. Thechairperson is M ike Rosholt,Chancellor of the University ofthe Witwatersrand. In hissubmission to the President'sCouncil Economic AlTairs Committee.Roshold said'We must atall costs ar oid uncertaintv inducedby commitments notbeing put into effect'. Yet, allindication shou that in Practiceat Premier Mills, this commitmentis being contra-dicted inorder to undermine workerrepresentatron.Prior to the strike. there wassome history ol negotiations onthe part ofthe union to closc thewage gap between skilled andunskilled workers on the basis ofmanagement's stated commitmentto this principle. Hou,evermanagement was not preparedto increase wages more than theinflation rate. and made noatlcmpl to close the wage gap.The management lustified thislimited rncrease on the basis ofthe recesslon.fhe union pointed to the t-actthat profits remained high, thccompany had a readv market lorthcir goods, and managementhad told workers that theirproductivitl' had increased.Earnings per share likewiseincreased from 83c to 93c. lnspite of these figures managementcontinued to insist thatthey had no monev for a largerI nc rea se.At the beginning ol'tne yearthe union approached managementabout a promised bonusfor night-shift workers, on thegrounds of a previous agreement.Management refused tonegotiate the amount until thefollowing year, and {urthermorerefused to formally committhemselves to this.In April, management heldbriefings rvith workers, in whichthey announced that they hadgil'en increases to certain categoriesof workers. This affected48 of the 350 workers. l-heyclaimed that the union hadagreed to these increases. Theunion called a meeting with thervorkers. and denied any knorvledgeof this action. Workerswere infuriated and said itindicated that managementclea rly has 'other money in asecret sack'.Divide and rule'fhe workers felt that the wageincreases were an attempt todividc the workers and underminethe union. They called formanagentcnto stop their brielings,and demanded thatincreascs be given to all workers.Management acknowledgedthat there had been a misunderstanding.but rel'used to committhemselves to general increases.On Monday 25 April, theworkers from all I'our shiftsdecided to go on a wildcat strike.On Thursday, managementdeclared that i{' workers did notreturn t0 rvork by the followingmorning they would be dismissed.A possible wageof the workers, who refused toreturn to work until a generalincrease had been promised. Atthe same time. the unlonthreate,ned to take managementto industrial court if the strikerswere dismissed.The following day, no workersreturned. Management anouncedthat their recognition agreementwith the union was cancelled.They also promised for thefirst time to negotiate a wageincrease in Jul,v with workerrepresentatives. Workers, however,maintained that the unionsand the workers were the samething, and the rvorkers couldn'tgo back to work with,'-. theunion. Likewise, they stressedthat the shop stewards rvere theirrepresentatives. They also demandedthat the increases be noless than 20c an hour per worker,this to be written dou:n andsigned before workers wouldreturn to work. and that noworkers would be dismissed orvictimised as a result of thestrike.'Management refused to budge.They announced that shopstewards. but not union officials,would be allowed to stay. Tl'evsaid they had no objection to thepoints, but refused to putanything in rvriting. They sai Ithey would begin hiring nevrvo rke rs.PoliceWhen workers arril'ed in themorning, ll police vans and dogswere present. These subsequentlyleft. A number of workersnoticed that their clock cardswere missing. implying that theyrvould be fired. A number ofrvorkers, the majority oi whichare contract workers with verylittlc bargaining power, began toI'eel uneasy about continuing thestrike in the uake of th;"stewards felt it would be betterfor workers to maihtain therrunity by returning en masse.rather than in dribbles. TheYthus asked for an assurance bymanagement that no workerswould be victimiz.ed because fothe strike. Management promisedthis. and the workersreturned to work.The shop slewards then submittedan agenda to managementabout the wage negotiations.and requested that unionofficials be present at the negotiations.as, even if managementhad withdrawn recognition, theunion had 8070 suPport at thefactory.Management then released apress statement announcing thatthey would not deal with eitherunion off icials or shop stewards,and that a ballot would be heldto elect nerv officials to a workerscommlttee.Paper promisesAgainst this background, thecontradiction betv':en BarlowRand's stated policy, and actualconditions in the workplacemust be seen. Rosholt must beasked whcther his companiesstated policy is jupt rvindowdressing.and if not. why it is notenforced in his subsidiarycompanies.Rosholt has defined his responsibilitiesto employees as'adhering to the highest standardsof employment practicesand constantly adapting toimprovements in those standardsas they occur . . . We nrustask ourselves whether we arepromoting a page ol' changewhich rvill bc sufficicnt t()accommodate the legitimate aspirationsof our emplol'ees. ttis his companies stated policy'To derelop and maintain open