PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION
The Honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr Paul Raymond Bérenger, G.C.S.K, M.P.
To ask the Honourable Minister of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment:-
Whether, in regard to the dispute between the Mauritius Sugar Producers Association and the Trade Unions of the sugar industry, he will state where matters stand as at to date, indicating if-
(a) Collective bargaining at enterprise, rather than industry level, is being promoted under the Employment Relations Act; and
(b) Government would agree, after consultations with the Unions, to the appointment of a former judge of the Supreme Court, as arbitrator, with an economist and an accountant as assessors?
REPLY
Mr Speaker, Sir,
As Honourable Members may be aware, negotiation for a collective agreement between the Mauritius Sugar Producers Association and the recognised trade unions of the sugar industry started last year. The trade unions have constituted themselves into a Joint Negotiating Panel for the purpose.
For the purpose of the negotiation, the trade unions submitted the following main proposals:
(a) a compensation for lack of agreement between 2002-2008;
(b) a salary increase of 42-45% + a yearly increment of Rs 100 over 4 years;
(c) increase of all bonuses by 50%;
(d) an increase of End of Year Bonus from 9 to 12%;
(e) payment of gratuity equivalent to Blue Print benefits on normal retirement (i.e. 2½ months’ wages per year of service) + a plot of land;
(f) extension of 40 hr week over 5 days during crop season;
(g) an increase in quantum of sick, local and vacation leaves;
(h) allocation of land for agriculture diversification to VRS beneficiaries.
The MSPA was not agreeable and made the following counter proposals:
(a) an increase in basic salary as follows:
- 1 July 2009: 5%;
- 1 July 2010: 2.5%;
- 1 July 2011: 2.5%.
(b) maintain the 40 hour week as it is
- 5 days during intercrop;
- 6 days during crop season.
(c) establishment of a new methodology of bonus schemes as follows:
- A “Prime de Presence Annuelle” varying between Rs 3000 and Rs 9000;
- A “Prime d’Anciennete” varying between Rs 11,000 and Rs 20,000 depending on years of service;
- A “Prime de Productivite” for workers affected at cutting and/or loading canes (The bonus varies between Rs 250 and Rs 2500 per fortnight depending on workers’ earning);
(d) end of year bonus of 10%;
(e) the leaves remain unchanged;
(f) retirement schemes to remain unchanged;
(g) the Funeral grants to be increased to Rs 5,000 and Rs 2,500 to a worker and a pensioner respectively.
The Joint Negotiating Panel was not agreeable and maintained its demands and, in addition, in a letter dated 24 September 2009, it called for information on 15 specific issues, namely:
(a) the yearly Financial Reports of all the listed companies from 2001 to 2009;
(b) the yearly amount of dividends paid to shareholders of the listed companies from 2001 to 2009;
(c) the yearly value of assets of the listed companies from 2001 to 2009;
(d) the yearly overall remuneration paid by the listed companies to all its employees (i.e. total labour force) from 2001 to 2009;
(e) the yearly overall remuneration paid by the listed companies to labourers and artisans from 2001 to 2009;
(f) the number of employees employed by the listed companies as permanent labourers, artisans, staff (etat major) for every year, from 2001 to 2009;
(g) the number of employees employed by the listed companies as contractual/seasonal labourers, artisans, staff (etat major for every year, from 2001 to 2009;
(h) the overall amount of funds benefitted by the listed companies from the national budget in connection with the EU Accompanying Measures Fund for the funding of VRS/BP/ERS and the application of the Multi Annual Adaptation Strategy Plan 2006-2015 (MAAS);
(i) the total amount of Bank Loan on preferential rate benefitted by the listed companies;
(j) the area of agricultural land under cane cultivation of the relevant listed companies from 2001 to 2009;
(k) the area of listed companies for which land related taxes have been exempted from 2001 to 2009, and the amount of money corresponding to these exemptions;
(l) a copy of all Bagasse-Electricity agreements between the relevant listed companies with existing Independent Power Producers Companies for the exchange of bagasse and electricity;
(m) a copy of all agreements signed by the IPP sugar related companies involved in coal-bagasse energy co-generation with the Central Electricity Board;
(n) a copy of the agreement signed by the relevant listed companies for sugar refinery with Suckzuker;
(o) a list of all major share holders of the listed companies and a list of other companies in which they hold shares in Mauritius and abroad.
The MSPA indicated, in a letter dated 9 October 2009, that it was prepared to provide information it deems relevant to the collective bargaining exercise at industry level but not information pertaining to individual undertakings. For example, information pertaining to the Independent Power Producers was not deemed relevant as the institutions concerned are not members of MSPA and, as such, not concerned with the on-going collective bargaining exercise.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Employment Relations Act provides at Section 41 (1) that in the process of collective bargaining, either party shall provide to the other all relevant information required for the purposes of collective bargaining. Moreover, Section 41 (4) provides that where any party refuses to provide information under this Section, the other party may apply to the Employment Relations Tribunal for an order and the Tribunal shall, where it is satisfied that the information is relevant, make an order within 30 days that the information be provided. The order has to be complied with within 14 days of its making.
Mr Speaker, Sir,
I have had meetings with both the representatives of MSPA and the Joint Negotiating Panel at the end of October this year and have urged them to return to the negotiating table. It needs be noted that my Ministry can only act as facilitator in this process and the decision on how to proceed rests with the parties concerned.
The MSPA submitted a second set of counter proposals on 23 October 2009 to the trade unions which essentially concern:
- A salary increase of 13% over a 4 year period starting 1st July 2009;
- The productivity bonuses and the Prime d’Ancienneté et Assiduité to remain unchanged, as required by the Unions;
- Their proposal regarding the Prime de Présence Annuelle was maintained however.
I had a meeting with the representatives of the Joint Negotiating Panel on 30 October 2009. The trade unions indicated that they would only return to the negotiation table if MSPA:
(a) Provides them with all information they had called for;
(b) Withdraws its proposal regarding Prime de Présence Annuelle which they consider to be an attempt by MSPA to make their acquired rights less favourable; and
(c) Does not encourage enterprise level collective bargaining as in the case of FUEL and the Sugar Industry Workers Association (SIWA).
Should MSPA fail to accede to their requests, the Joint Negotiating Panel indicated that the workers would proceed with a one-day strike at the end of November. I drew their attention to the fact that any such strike would be unlawful as the established procedures under the Employment Relations Act have not been followed and urged them to follow the required procedures.
In a letter dated 21 November 2009 addressed to MSPA and copied to the Prime Minister and to me, the Joint Negotiating Panel has reiterated the three requests communicated to me at the meeting of 30 October 2009 and has added a fourth condition, namely that the listed companies of the MSPA should strictly abide to Section 21 (2) of the Sugar Industry Efficiency Act 2001 and to the Employment Rights Act 2008, on seasonal/contractual labour.
On 20 November 2009, MSPA has made an application to the Employment Relations Tribunal under Section 86 (3) for an order
(a) requiring the Joint Negotiating Panel to make use of the procedures and remedies available under the law; and
(b) to declare the threatened strike to be unlawful.
An order from the Tribunal is binding on both the parties and has to be complied with.
It has been reported in the press that the one day strike is scheduled for this Friday 27 November.
Mr Speaker, Sir,
With regard to sub paragraph (a) of the PNQ, I have to inform the House that the Employment Relations Act provides the framework and procedures for collective bargaining at both enterprise and industry level. Where collective bargaining is undertaken at industry level, there has to be a procedure agreement at industry level, which is the case for MSPA and the recognised trade unions. The decision to proceed with collective bargaining at enterprise or industry level rests with the parties concerned.
As regards sub paragraph (b) of the PNQ, the Employment Relations Act provides at Section 63 that the parties to a labour dispute may jointly refer such dispute for voluntary arbitration to the Employment Relations Tribunal or to an arbitrator appointed by them. Where any dispute is referred to the Employment Relations Tribunal under this Section, the Tribunal has 90 days of the referral to make an award. Where circumstances so require, this time limit may be extended with the consent of the parties.
Arbitration under the law is a voluntary process at the discretion of the parties concerned. It would not be proper for the Government to appoint an arbitrator and this, after consultation with the trade unions only.
No comments:
Post a Comment