No end in sight to FurnMart labour dispute

A MESSY labour dispute between a furniture retailer, Furniture Mart, and 37 former employees of the company who were dismissed after staging an alleged illegal strike, remains unresolved after it made the latest of several appearances in the Labour Court in Windhoek on Wednesday.

The dispute between Furniture Mart and the 37 former employees has now been going on for more than three years – and still there is no sign of it finally being settled. In its latest instalment, an application from the company to stay a District Labour Court judgement that had been delivered in the workers’ favour, and also to stay an application from the workers that the company and its general manager should be convicted and punished for contempt of court for not having complied with that District Labour Court order, was struck from the court roll in the Labour Court.Acting Judge John Manyarara, sitting as Acting President of the Labour Court, threw the case out of court after he had not been informed that the matter would not proceed to be heard on Wednesday.The company’s and the workers’ lawyers had agreed that it would be postponed to be heard on February 24, but notice of that agreement had reached the Acting Judge only yesterday morning, while he had already prepared for hearing the case.Furniture Mart fired 37 of its employees near the end of 2002, after the workers had taken part in what the company claimed was an illegal strike.The 37 were dismissed after disciplinary hearings, which the workers had refused to attend.The employees however sued the company in the Windhoek District Labour Court for unfair dismissal.That case ended with the District Labour Court Chairman ruling in the workers’ favour, and ordering the company to reinstate them in the positions from which they had been dismissed.The company’s problem, however, was that it had in the meantime employed new people in the fired employees’ places, and some of the former employees had in the meantime started working elsewhere.In addition, the company is claiming, its lawyers and the workers’ legal representatives had agreed that the District Labour Court Chairman would only be asked to rule whether the dismissals had been fair or not.He went further, however, and also ordered the workers’ reinstatement – a step in the case that according to the agreement should only have been thrashed out after the first ruling on the fairness of the dismissals, Furniture Mart is claiming.The company’s representatives are also claiming that they and the workers’ lawyers have likewise agreed that while an appeal from Furniture Mart against the District Labour Court ruling is pending, that court’s order would be stayed.But that is not what the workers, led by Alfred Kharuchab, are claiming.There was never such an agreement in effect suspending the District Labour Court’s order, and nor was anybody ever authorised to agree to such an agreement to stay the order, Kharuxab is claiming in an affidavit that has been filed with the District Labour Court.He is claiming that Furniture Mart and its general manager, Phillip Tromp, have consistently refused to comply with that court order.Because of that, the 37 workers have asked the District Labour Court to convict the company and Tromp of contravening the Labour Act, and to sentence Tromp to six months’ imprisonment.It is that application that the company was intending to have put on hold by the Labour Court in the case that was struck from the roll on Wednesday.While the dispute has been dragging on, one sure loser in the process appears to have been the relationship between the opposing parties.At this stage, the workers are accusing the company and Tromp of being in contempt of court, and are asking for serious action to be taken against them.Through its lawyer, Hennie Krueger, the company has reacted to this move, and in the process it has accused the workers and their legal representatives of attempting to carry out “a travesty of justice” by trying to get the District Labour Court to cite Furniture Mart and Tromp for contempt of court.By trying to extract a reinstatement from Furniture Mart while they knew that the judgement had been granted contrary to an express agreement between the parties, the conduct of the 37 workers and their lawyers borders on bad faith, Krueger is arguing in an affidavit before court.In its latest instalment, an application from the company to stay a District Labour Court judgement that had been delivered in the workers’ favour, and also to stay an application from the workers that the company and its general manager should be convicted and punished for contempt of court for not having complied with that District Labour Court order, was struck from the court roll in the Labour Court.Acting Judge John Manyarara, sitting as Acting President of the Labour Court, threw the case out of court after he had not been informed that the matter would not proceed to be heard on Wednesday.The company’s and the workers’ lawyers had agreed that it would be postponed to be heard on February 24, but notice of that agreement had reached the Acting Judge only yesterday morning, while he had already prepared for hearing the case.Furniture Mart fired 37 of its employees near the end of 2002, after the workers had taken part in what the company claimed was an illegal strike.The 37 were dismissed after disciplinary hearings, which the workers had refused to attend.The employees however sued the company in the Windhoek District Labour Court for unfair dismissal.That case ended with the District Labour Court Chairman ruling in the workers’ favour, and ordering the company to reinstate them in the positions from which they had been dismissed.The company’s problem, however, was that it had in the meantime employed new people in the fired employees’ places, and some of the former employees had in the meantime started working elsewhere.In addition, the company is claiming, its lawyers and the workers’ legal representatives had agreed that the District Labour Court Chairman would only be asked to rule whether the dismissals had been fair or not.He went further, however, and also ordered the workers’ reinstatement – a step in the case that according to the agreement should only have been thrashed out after the first ruling on the fairness of the dismissals, Furniture Mart is claiming.The company’s representatives are also claiming that they and the workers’ lawyers have likewise agreed that while an appeal from Furniture Mart against the District Labour Court ruling is pending, that court’s order would be stayed.But that is not what the workers, led by Alfred Kharuchab, are claiming.There was never such an agreement in effect suspending the District Labour Court’s order, and nor was anybody ever authorised to agree to such an agreement to stay the order, Kharuxab is claiming in an affidavit that has been filed with the District Labour Court.He is claiming that Furniture Mart and its general manager, Phillip Tromp, have consistently refused to comply with that court order.Because of that, the 37 workers have asked the District Labour Court to convict the company and Tromp of contravening the Labour Act, and to sentence Tromp to six months’ imprisonment.It is that application that the company was intending to have put on hold by the Labour Court in the case that was struck from the roll on Wednesday.While the dispute has been dragging on, one sure loser in the process appears to have been the relationship between the opposing parties.At this stage, the workers are accusing the company and Tromp of being in contempt of court, and are asking for serious action to be taken against them.Through its lawyer, Hennie Krueger, the company has reacted to this move, and in the process it has accused the workers and their legal representatives of attempting to carry out “a travesty of justice” by trying to get the District Labour Court to cite Furniture Mart and Tromp for contempt of court.By trying to extract a reinstatement from Furniture Mart while they knew that the judgement had been granted contrary to an express agreement between the parties, the conduct of the 37 workers and their lawyers borders on bad faith, Krueger is arguing in an affidavit before court.