18 November 2004: No 86/04

GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE (SANDF) MEMBERS FY 2004/2005

The DOD received SANDU’s salary demands on 26 July 2004, which it followed up by seeking clarity on SANDU’s complex wage demands in order to prepare a reasoned response.

SANDU failed to clarify their demands satis-factorily. However, we felt that we owed it to our soldiers to start negotiations.

In the MBC the DOD submitted to SANDU a draft resolution that incorporated the Interim Mobility Exit Mechanism (IMEM), which is the only issue the DOD brought to the table. IMEM is aimed at improving pension benefits for our uniformed members. It is a monetary benefit that forms part of the wage negotiations.

Since then we have been following the process that include all issues from both parties which culminated in the conclusion of a 6% wage adjustment for uniformed members that was signed on 16 September 2004. The sudden change of mind by SANDU, viz that only their issues must be negotiated came as a shock to the DOD negotiating team.

The DOD expressed its disapproval of this approach and condemned it as bargaining in bad faith and indicated it was an unacceptable negotiating tactic. We reasonably expected SANDU to know that negotiations are inherently a two-way process that involves compromise.

Negotiations without give and take are not negotiations. That is precisely why it is called “collective bargaining” as it involves two parties who represent two different constituencies and who negotiate on behalf of their constituencies. It is for that reason that we are not prepared to take only.

Should we dare to accept SANDU’s unreasonable approach and withdraw our only issue from the table we will be failing dismally to represent the DOD. It is most unfortunate that SANDU’s supposed knowledge of negotiations amounts to their being the only party entitled to raise issues for negotiations.

In conclusion we would like to inform all our members/ employees that we have been the only party that has chain flexibility and compromise since we started to negotiate with SANDU.

This was conducive to the right atmosphere for negotiations. We have met 99% of SANDU’s demands which has been to their satisfaction, but they are not prepared to grant us anything in return. We say no to that approach.

We regard it as an arrogant and high-handed approach that has no place in negotiations. Their hard nosed negotiation approach to negotiations has strained the MBC, so that we are unable to conclude an urgent resolution that would have meant extra money and associated benefits for our uniformed members/ employees.

This unfortunate, intolerable state of affairs caused by SANDU has delayed the implementation of very important allowances, such as overtime allowances, rural allowances for health professionals, acting allowances, scarce skill allowances, and the closure of the wage gap between SANDF and SAPS. It is the soldiers best interests that the DOD is widely consulting to find a way forward in order to circumvent SANDU’s delay.

As a caring employer we owe it to you that you get these benefits without any further delays. These tactics should not go unchallenged. The DOD is doing everything to ensure that you get what you deserve soon.

The union has adopted this tactic to create the impression that it has your best interests at heart, which is far from the truth.

The reality is that it wants you so that it can pay its expenses and huge salaries. We think if the union was not behaving in this way you would long since be enjoying these delayed benefits.