Ramatex labour dispute continues in court

THE protracted legal battle involving Ramatex Textile Factory workers suspended after an alleged strike in April, continued in the District Labour Court yesterday.

A dispute over the composition of the list of complainants dominated proceedings. When the matter was last heard in October, 97 people were listed as accusing the factory of unfair labour practices, unfair dismissal and victimisation.The number has now risen to 101.Legal counsel for the Malaysian-run outfit, Albert Strydom, yesterday argued that the list was not a true reflection of the current state of affairs.He said at least 37 of those named had since been re-employed by the factory.Strydom requested that the list be revised and that the complainants be categorised according to their grievances.He said the same course of action could not be recommended for all of them as their complaints were not identical in all respects.According to his information, Strydom said, about 30 of the listed complainants were subjected to disciplinary hearings before dismissal, while 27 others claimed to have been summarily dismissed.He also cited discrepancies between the names listed on the various court documents saying that in certain instances they did not correlate.Strydom told Magistrate Uatjo Uanivi that according to his calculations the number of complainants was now around 57.In response, Labour Consultant Trevor Solomon, who is representing the aggrieved group, told the court that he did not see the need categorise the list of complainants.He maintained that he had complied with all procedures related to filing a class action suit – a matter which earlier stalled the case – and that the defence had not opposed the listing at that time.Solomon viewed the request by the defence as another attempt to delay the start of trial.He pleaded with the court to allow the matter to proceed, noting the financial and social implications for the complainants of dragging out the case further.It will be more than a year since their dismissal when the group re-appears in court again.Once the re-employed were struck from the list, Solomon maintained, the complainants’ cases would be identical in that they were all seeking reinstatement and compensation for the time they have not worked.Magistrate Uanivi said he was not opposed to the matter being handled in a single case, but agreed with Strydom that the complainants be categorised according their shared grievances.He said this information would be necessary for the court and the legal counsel when witnesses were called to testify.The complainants now have until mid-April to furnish a revised listing of the names of complainants, categorised according to their shared grievances.The trial date has been set for May 17.When the matter was last heard in October, 97 people were listed as accusing the factory of unfair labour practices, unfair dismissal and victimisation.The number has now risen to 101.Legal counsel for the Malaysian-run outfit, Albert Strydom, yesterday argued that the list was not a true reflection of the current state of affairs.He said at least 37 of those named had since been re-employed by the factory.Strydom requested that the list be revised and that the complainants be categorised according to their grievances.He said the same course of action could not be recommended for all of them as their complaints were not identical in all respects.According to his information, Strydom said, about 30 of the listed complainants were subjected to disciplinary hearings before dismissal, while 27 others claimed to have been summarily dismissed.He also cited discrepancies between the names listed on the various court documents saying that in certain instances they did not correlate.Strydom told Magistrate Uatjo Uanivi that according to his calculations the number of complainants was now around 57.In response, Labour Consultant Trevor Solomon, who is representing the aggrieved group, told the court that he did not see the need categorise the list of complainants.He maintained that he had complied with all procedures related to filing a class action suit – a matter which earlier stalled the case – and that the defence had not opposed the listing at that time.Solomon viewed the request by the defence as another attempt to delay the start of trial.He pleaded with the court to allow the matter to proceed, noting the financial and social implications for the complainants of dragging out the case further.It will be more than a year since their dismissal when the group re-appears in court again.Once the re-employed were struck from the list, Solomon maintained, the complainants’ cases would be identical in that they were all seeking reinstatement and compensation for the time they have not worked.Magistrate Uanivi said he was not opposed to the matter being handled in a single case, but agreed with Strydom that the complainants be categorised according their shared grievances.He said this information would be necessary for the court and the legal counsel when witnesses were called to testify.The complainants now have until mid-April to furnish a revised listing of the names of complainants, categorised according to their shared grievances.The trial date has been set for May 17.