IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF LESOTHO

CASE
NO LC 5/2000

HELD
AT MASERU

IN
THE MATTER OF:

NATIONAL
UNION OF RETAIL AND ALLIED WORKERS APPLICANT

AND

FRASERS
LESOTHO LTD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

This
case arises out of the retrenchment of the employees of the
respondent who were members of the applicant union. The sole cause

of complaint on the part of the union is that there were insufficient
consultations with the union itself and that there was no

consultation with the workers. The union contends that on the 15^th
July 1999, their General Secretary received a letter from the
Managing Director of the respondent inviting him for a meeting on
the
19^th
July 1999. They aver that at that meeting the union was informed
that the company had decided to retrench some employees and that
the
people earmarked for retrenchment had not been informed as the
company was afraid that if they knew they would steal the
merchandise.

The
union says it asked for time to consider the issue and requested the
company to supply it with the list of those employees earmarked
for
retrenchment. The meeting ended at around 4.30 pm. They aver that
when they got to the office they found the office full
of retrenched
workers from the respondent’s shops. The list of the retrenched
workers was forwarded to the union on the 20^th
July 1999.

The
respondent’s version is that it is incorrect that consultation took
place only on the 19^th
July 2000. They aver that consultation with the union and the
workers started in April 1999. As regards prior notification they

confirmed the applicant’s version and said experience has taught
them that if employees know in advance that they are earmarked
for
retrenchment they destroy company assets.

It
is correct as respondent states that the applicant union was not
hearing of the retrenchment for the first time at the meeting
of the
19^th
July `1999. As far back as 20^th
April 1999 the respondent wrote to the applicant union asking for
their views on the retrenchments which were inevitable as a result
of
union demands for above average wage increases. They went out of
their way to give the union the exact number of people who
would be
affected if wages were increased by certain margins. It is not clear
from the record if the union reacted to this letter,
but what is
clear is that they were given the opportunity to comment. The
meeting of the 19^th
July was only a follow up, which according to respondent had to
finalize the issue of retrenchment. It is apparent that the union

sought to delay the process further by asking for more time but this
was not acceded to by the respondent.

On
the 29^th
April the respondent wrote a Memo which was addressed to all staff.
It briefed them about the wage negotiations and concluded
by asking
them “....whether (they) go along with the idea of paying higher
basic wage and reduce staff, because it is the only
option left in
order to meet the demands of the union.” That is what consultation
is about, to inform the employees about the
impending retrenchment
and allow them to express their views. It seems to us that this
requirement was fully met by the respondent.
The fact that the
union’s request for more time was not accepted does not mean that
the consultation did not take place.

As
regards the fear of the respondent that if it informed the individual
workers of their impending retrenchment, they might start
to destroy
company property and steal; we gave Mr. Putsoane the opportunity to
say what the respondent should have done in the
circumstances. His
response was that that was not the only thing the respondent could
have done. Now we should not run the risk
of assuming the role of an
umpire. We must place ourselves in the shoes of the respondent,
especially when they say experience
in the past has taught them this.
In SA Chemical Workers’ Union & Others .v. Toiltpak
Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd and Others
(1988) 9 ILJ 295 at 304 F the
court was of the view that the two days notice of retrenchment given
to the employees who were to
be retrenched, though obviously
insufficient was adequately compensated by the two weeks pay in lieu
of notice which the workers
had received. We note that in hoc casu
the workers received six weeks’ pay in lieu of notice as opposed to
the legal minimum
of one month. This coupled with the explanation
furnished by the respondent ought to compensate whatever prejudice
the workers
might be of the view that they suffered as a result of
respondent’s failure to inform them in advance that they are
selected
for retrenchment. We accordingly find that there is no
merit in this application and it is therefore dismissed. Costs shall
be
costs in the cause.

THUS
DONE AT MASERU THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2001.

L.A
LETHOBANE

PRESIDENT

C.T.
POOPA

MEMBER I
AGREE

P.K.
LEROTHOLI

MEMBER I
AGREE

FOR
APPLICANT : MR PUTSOANE

FOR
RESPONDENT: MS SEPHOMOLO