Roessing spat heads to court Mine, workers at odds over pensions

MEMBERS of the Roessing Pension Fund (RPF) are to take civil action against Roessing Uranium to get a share of the fund’s surplus, estimated at around N$650 million.

A letter has been delivered to the mine’s Managing Director, Mike Leach, in which the Forum of Concerned Members of the RPF places the responsibility of surplus distribution squarely in the court of Roessing Uranium. The former employees have on several occasions claimed a share of the surplus, and were informed by the fund’s board of trustees that it was awaiting legislation on surplus distribution.This was the reason that the group had decided to take civil action, its chairman, Winston Groenewald, told The Namibian.The group is believed to have thousands of members across the country.Rossing has responded by saying that the company has no direct mandate to decide on the affairs and operations of the fund, and that the employer and employees have representation on the board of trustees, “through which its interests are expressed”.However those affected – both former and current members of the fund – disagree.”We are now of the opinion that since the principal officer of the fund’s board of trustees is a Roessing employee, and all facilities and amenities belong to Roessing, where even the minutes of meetings are distributed via Roessing system, that Roessing Uranium is responsible for the correctness of facts; and for the recording and instructions as documented,” Groenewald said.”They should therefore accept responsibility to account for improper management, poor morale, fractured trust, injustices and contradictory practices.”The letter handed to Leach said many of the former employees were pioneers in the establishment of the mine.Many of them no longer work for Roessing because of restructuring, retrenchment, disability, unfair employment practices and political and racial inequity, the letter claimed.It stated that many were still employed when a contribution holiday in 1992 was introduced, of which the legality was challenged by the MUN in 1993, but until now no response has been given.”No contributions were made by the employer and employees during the holiday, meaning that the contribution and employment of employees prior to 1992 as part of the employment contract, created and established the surplus,” it stated.”This prompted a reasonable benefit expectation from former pension fund members.”It came to light in 2006, according to Groenewald, that a request was made by the Chairman of the RPF to distribute the surplus, in which the mine instructed the trustees to collect N$210 million of the surplus to guarantee that the mine would be exempted from future contributions to the fund.It was suggested by the mine that: “… the allocation of surplus will only apply to those members and pensioners who are still in the RPF at the effective date that the transfers will take place”.”We have made several attempts to get our fair and equitable share of the pension fund surplus, but our attempts were met with intransigence and dirty media tricks.The former employees of the mine and members of our organisation from all over Namibia have decided to highlight our legitimate plight through civil action until such time that our concerns are properly attended to,” said Groenewald.A march is planned to the Roessing headquarters at Swakopmund on August 4.A statement was also sent to the relevant fund managers, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (Namfisa), all Namibian media, the Mineworkers’ Union of Namibia (MUN), the general Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the General Secretary of Trade Union Congress (TUC) in Britain.In response, Roessing has issued a statement yesterday saying: “The issue is outside the jurisdiction of the company.It must be understood that the fund is administered independently from the company by a legally constituted entity under the board of trustees in line with the Pension Fund Act.”It said the company was on record as supporting “a fair treatment approach to all interested and affected parties in relation to the surplus fund; this of course should be done in line with the provisions of the relevant legislation”.”Therefore, since the trustees took a decision not to distribute the surplus pending the review of the relevant legislation, the company respects that and it remains committed to a peaceful and lawful resolution of the issue,” the statement said.The former employees have on several occasions claimed a share of the surplus, and were informed by the fund’s board of trustees that it was awaiting legislation on surplus distribution.This was the reason that the group had decided to take civil action, its chairman, Winston Groenewald, told The Namibian.The group is believed to have thousands of members across the country.Rossing has responded by saying that the company has no direct mandate to decide on the affairs and operations of the fund, and that the employer and employees have representation on the board of trustees, “through which its interests are expressed”. However those affected – both former and current members of the fund – disagree.”We are now of the opinion that since the principal officer of the fund’s board of trustees is a Roessing employee, and all facilities and amenities belong to Roessing, where even the minutes of meetings are distributed via Roessing system, that Roessing Uranium is responsible for the correctness of facts; and for the recording and instructions as documented,” Groenewald said.”They should therefore accept responsibility to account for improper management, poor morale, fractured trust, injustices and contradictory practices.”The letter handed to Leach said many of the former employees were pioneers in the establishment of the mine.Many of them no longer work for Roessing because of restructuring, retrenchment, disability, unfair employment practices and political and racial inequity, the letter claimed.It stated that many were still employed when a contribution holiday in 1992 was introduced, of which the legality was challenged by the MUN in 1993, but until now no response has been given.”No contributions were made by the employer and employees during the holiday, meaning that the contribution and employment of employees prior to 1992 as part of the employment contract, created and established the surplus,” it stated.”This prompted a reasonable benefit expectation from former pension fund members.”It came to light in 2006, according to Groenewald, that a request was made by the Chairman of the RPF to distribute the surplus, in which the mine instructed the trustees to collect N$210 million of the surplus to guarantee that the mine would be exempted from future contributions to the fund.It was suggested by the mine that: “… the allocation of surplus will only apply to those members and pensioners who are still in the RPF at the effective date that the transfers will take place”.”We have made several attempts to get our fair and equitable share of the pension fund surplus, but our attempts were met with intransigence and dirty media tricks.The former employees of the mine and members of our organisation from all over Namibia have decided to highlight our legitimate plight through civil action until such time that our concerns are properly attended to,” said Groenewald.A march is planned to the Roessing headquarters at Swakopmund on August 4.A statement was also sent to the relevant fund managers, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (Namfisa), all Namibian media, the Mineworkers’ Union of Namibia (MUN), the general Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the General Secretary of Trade Union Congress (TUC) in Britain.In response, Roessing has issued a statement yesterday saying: “The issue is outside the jurisdiction of the company.It must be understood that the fund is administered independently from the company by a legally constituted entity under the board of trustees in line with the Pension Fund Act.”It said the company was on record as supporting “a fair treatment approach to all interested and affected parties in relation to the surplus fund; this of course should be done in line with the provisions of the relevant legislation”.”Therefore, since the trustees took a decision not to distribute the surplus pending the review of the relevant legislation, the company respects that and it remains committed to a peaceful and lawful resolution of the issue,” the statement said.