Ramatex labour dispute trial starts

THE Ramatex labour dispute trial is scheduled to start in the District Labour Court today after being delayed for several months because of a number of technical arguments.

Arguments over the number and categorisation of complainants suspended after an alleged strike at Ramatex dominated proceedings when the matter came before the District Labour Court yesterday. More than a year after the protest, and following several court appearances since last September, the trial did not start yesterday as originally planned.Legal counsel for the Malaysian-run outfit, Albert Strydom, argued that lists categorising some 96 employees according to their shared grievances, contained several inaccuracies and discrepancies and thus the trial could not start until these had been ironed out.According to his calculations only 22 of them had a “serious issue”.He claimed that about seven of those listed were not employees of the company at the time of the strike, while about 20 more could not be regarded as employees of the company because they were trainees at the time.Strydom also maintained that the various listings still contained duplications.When the matter came before the court in March, 101 people were listed as complainants and the respondent requested that the complainants categorise themselves according to their shared grievances, saying that the same course of action could not be recommended for all of them.Yesterday Strydom contended that the lists submitted to the court included the names of employees who had since been re-instated and at least five who had not complied with court procedures for a class suit.But Labour Consultant Trevor Solomon, who is representing the aggrieved workers, maintained that it was unnecessary to stall the case on this basis, adding that discrepancies would surface during the course of the trial.Solomon insisted that he could prove that those in question were employees of the textile factory at the time of the strike.He said that the matter should be allowed to proceed in the interest of justice and awarding the complainants a timeous trial.He also questioned alleged factory policy that trainees could not be considered as employees until their training period had lapsed.Chairman of the Labour Court Uatjo Uanivi expressed concern at proceeding to trial without ironing out the alleged discrepancies first, saying it could prejudice the complainants and distract the proceedings from dealing with the contentious issues.He told both legal teams that with the information at his disposal he was at a loss to determine which category of complainants should be dealt with first.After a recess, Uanivi agreed to allow trial to start today with hearings of those who claim to have been dismissed unfairly.More than a year after the protest, and following several court appearances since last September, the trial did not start yesterday as originally planned.Legal counsel for the Malaysian-run outfit, Albert Strydom, argued that lists categorising some 96 employees according to their shared grievances, contained several inaccuracies and discrepancies and thus the trial could not start until these had been ironed out.According to his calculations only 22 of them had a “serious issue”.He claimed that about seven of those listed were not employees of the company at the time of the strike, while about 20 more could not be regarded as employees of the company because they were trainees at the time.Strydom also maintained that the various listings still contained duplications.When the matter came before the court in March, 101 people were listed as complainants and the respondent requested that the complainants categorise themselves according to their shared grievances, saying that the same course of action could not be recommended for all of them.Yesterday Strydom contended that the lists submitted to the court included the names of employees who had since been re-instated and at least five who had not complied with court procedures for a class suit.But Labour Consultant Trevor Solomon, who is representing the aggrieved workers, maintained that it was unnecessary to stall the case on this basis, adding that discrepancies would surface during the course of the trial.Solomon insisted that he could prove that those in question were employees of the textile factory at the time of the strike.He said that the matter should be allowed to proceed in the interest of justice and awarding the complainants a timeous trial.He also questioned alleged factory policy that trainees could not be considered as employees until their training period had lapsed.Chairman of the Labour Court Uatjo Uanivi expressed concern at proceeding to trial without ironing out the alleged discrepancies first, saying it could prejudice the complainants and distract the proceedings from dealing with the contentious issues.He told both legal teams that with the information at his disposal he was at a loss to determine which category of complainants should be dealt with first.After a recess, Uanivi agreed to allow trial to start today with hearings of those who claim to have been dismissed unfairly.