 |
IRL712S - Industrial Relations - 2nd Opp - Nov 2022 |
|
|
1 Pages 1-10 |
▲back to top |
|
|
1.1 Page 1 |
▲back to top |
n Am I BI A u n IVE Rs ITY
OF SCIEnCE Ano TECHnOLOGY
FACULTY OF COMMERCE, HUMAN SCIENCESAND EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNANCE
QUALIFICATION: BACHELOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
QUALIFICATION CODE: 07BHRM
LEVEL: 7
COURSE CODE: IRL712S
SESSION: JANUARY 2023
COURSE NAME: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
PAPER: THEORY
DURATION: 3 HOURS
MARKS: 100
EXAMINER{S)
SECOND OPPORTUNITY EXAMINATION QUESTION PAPER
Mr Elias Kandjinga
MODERATOR:
Dr F. Musukubili
1. Answer ALL the questions.
INSTRUCTIONS
2. You are expected to apply your subject knowledge to the questions.
3. Write clearly and neatly.
4. Number your answers clearly.
1. Pen
2. Ruler
PERMISSIBLE MATERIALS
THIS QUESTION PAPERCONSISTSOF 8 PAGES(Including this front page)
1
|
|
1.2 Page 2 |
▲back to top |
|
|
1.3 Page 3 |
▲back to top |
Section A (Answer all the questions)
(somarks)
Read the following case study and answer all the following questions.
The high court case: Bosses fight job cut ban
TWO organisations representing Namibian employers have launched a High Court case
against the president, the government and trade unions to have the suspension of parts of
the Labour Act during Namibia's Covid-19 state of emergency declared unconstitutional. In
an urgent application filed at the Windhoek High Court on Friday, the Namibian Employers'
Federation (NEF), the Namibian Employers Association and the companies FP du Toit
Transport, JetX Couriers, John Meinert Printing, Huab Safari Ranches and Skycore Aviation are
asking the court to declare parts of two proclamations issued by president Hage Geingob on
28 April and 4 May, and also parts of the Covid-19 state of emergency regulations, as
unconstitutional.
In the two proclamations issued by the president, the suspension of the operation of some
provisions of a number of laws - including the Labour Act of 2007 - was announced. The
proclamations stipulate that during the Namibia's Covid-19 lockdown period, which started
on 28 March and at this stage is due to end on 2 June, employers may not dismiss any of their
employees because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their businesses, they may
not force employees to take unpaid leave or annual leave due to the pandemic, and they may
not reduce the pay of any employee for reasons related to Covid-19. Employers are also
required to reinstate employees who have been dismissed due to the effect of the pandemic
on their business, and to negotiate with recognised trade unions, workplace representatives
or affected employees themselves if they want to reduce or defer the payment of
remuneration during the lockdown period because they are unable to pay employees' salaries
in full. In addition to this, the regulations under the proclamations state that if employers
have notified their employees of intended dismissals because of Covid-19, the dismissals
would only occur 28 days after the end of the lockdown period. Employers who breach the
regulations by dismissing employees because of Covid-19, reducing their pay or forcing them
to take leave, are committing an offence for which they can be fined N$10 000 or given a jail
term of up to two years.
2
|
|
1.4 Page 4 |
▲back to top |
|
|
1.5 Page 5 |
▲back to top |
The regulations further state that they apply retrospectively, with effect from 28 March,
although they were published only on 28 April and 4 May. The president, government,
attorney general, ministers of labour and health, the labour commissioner and the National
Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW), Trade Union Congress of Namibia (Tucna), Namibia
National Labour Organisation (Nania), Namibia Transport and Allied Workers Union (Natau)
and Mineworkers Union of Namibia (MUN) are cited as respondents in the case filed by the
two employers' organisations and the five companies questioning the constitutionality of the
regulations. The secretary general of the NEF, Daniel Strauss, states in an affidavit filed at the
court many employers in Namibia are facing imminent demise if they are not allowed to use
provisions in the Labour Act to try to cut their labour costs. However, those provisions in the
law have been suspended by the regulations issued by the president. Geingob "went much
further than permitted by the Constitution" when he issued the proclamations containing the
regulations on the Labour Act, Strauss claims. According to Strauss, the suspension of parts
of the Labour Act is not necessary for the protection of Namibia's national security, public
safety and the maintenance of law and order, as required by the Constitution, and the
suspension is not reasonably justifiable.
In his affidavit, Strauss says the purpose of suspending a specific provision of the Labour Act
must be to address the situation that gave rise to the Covid-19 state of emergency, which is
the spread of Covid-19 itself. "The Constitution gives no emergency powers to the president
to make regulations to address the negative effects which are occurring in the Namibian
economy because he made [the state of emergency and lockdown regulations]," Strauss
states. "There is a huge difference between addressing the situation which gave rise to the
lockdown and addressing the consequences of the lockdown. The powers of the president
allow him to address the former, not the latter." He also asks: "How does a suspension of a
section of the Labour Act which prohibits retrenchments prevent the spread of the
coronavirus?" The respondents in the matter have been given time until 22 May to give notice
if they intend to oppose the application and to file their answering affidavits. The case has
been postponed to 26 May for a hearing.
The union views of the high court case: Miners blast employers for challenging [Government]
3
|
|
1.6 Page 6 |
▲back to top |
|
|
1.7 Page 7 |
▲back to top |
THE Mineworkers Union of Namibia (MUN) on [...] criticised the Namibian Employers'
Federation (NEF) for dragging the government to court to halt certain Covid-19 labour
directives. The government has ordered that employers may not dismiss workers between 28
March and 2 June, which marks the end of stage 2 of Namibia's lockdown exit strategy. In
reaction, the NEF and various other employers have filed an urgent application at the High
Court against the president, the government and trade unions to have the suspension of parts
of the Labour Act during the Covid-19 state of emergency declared unconstitutional. The MUN
says the move by the federation does not consider the welfare of workers. "We find the
statements by the NEFill-considered, and not in the spirit of tripartite cooperation. If workers
are required to be understanding of the difficulty faced by employers in these unprecedented
times, we then also expect employers to be sensitive and sympathetic to the plight of workers,
who face the prospect of unemployment, starvation and destitution," Abiud Kapere, western
regional chairman of the MUN, said in a statement.
Kapere said the federation's call for the setting aside of the directives makes its intentions to
complement the government's efforts in challenging times questionable. "We call upon all
stakeholders, regardless of industry, to prioritise the principles of collective bargaining and
encourage constructive dialogue in the interest of amicable consensus in these tough times,
instead of making threats that undermine the government's initiatives which are merely
aimed at easing the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic," Kapere said. He [further] said
mineworkers will not take the matter lightly. "If we have to apply solidarity of the mining
industry to support the government, we will do so in whatever form is necessary,". Not only
may employers not dismiss employees in the specified period, they may also not force
employees to take unpaid leave or annual leave due to the pandemic, and they may not
reduce payment of employees for reasons related to the pandemic.
The high court case verdict: Covid-19 dismissals ban unconstitutional
THEstate of emergency regulations that forbid Namibian employers from dismissing workers,
reducing their pay or putting them on leave due to the Covid-19 pandemic are
unconstitutional and invalid, a three-judge bench of the High Court declared today. The
regulations declared as unconstitutional were attacked by the Namibian Employers'
Federation (NEF), the Namibian Employers Association and the companies FP du Tait
4
|
|
1.8 Page 8 |
▲back to top |
|
|
1.9 Page 9 |
▲back to top |
Transport, JetX Couriers, John Meinert Printing, Huab Safari Ranches and Skycore Aviation in
an urgent application filed at the court in mid-May. The applicants in the case were claiming
that their businesses are in danger of going bankrupt if they are not allowed to use suspended
provisions in the Labour Act to try to cut their labour costs.
The Labour Act provisions were suspended in proclamations issued by president Hage
Geingob on 28 April and 4 May. The proclamations also stipulated that during Namibia's
Covid-19 lockdown period, which started on 28 March, employers may not dismiss any of
their employees, reduce their pay or force them to take leave because of the impact that the
Covid-19 pandemic has on the employers' business. Declaring the regulations
unconstitutional, the court - consisting of judges Shafimana Ueitele, Thomas Masuku and
Hannelie Prinsloo - ordered that the government should also pay the applicants' legal costs
in the case.
Questions
Source: The Nomibion, 2020
1.1. From the case study, identify three external influences on the labour relationship and
discuss them in detail with a clear link to the case study provided.
(6)
1.2. Having read the case study, discussthe role of the state as a legislature of employment
relationship, and how did the government/president in this case get the employment
relationship wrong with the amendment of certain provisions of the labour Act?
(20)
1.3. Why did the Mine Workers Union (MUN) criticise the Namibian Employers' Federation
(NEF)for dragging the government to court to halt certain Covid-19 labour directives?
(10)
1.4. The Namibian Employers' Federation (NEF),the Namibian Employers Association and
the companies FP du Tait Transport, JetX Couriers, John Meinert Printing, Huab Safari
Ranches and Skycore Aviation won the court case against the government (although
plans are said to be underway to appeal the case). What does this say about the role
of the Judiciary in the employment relationship in Namibia?
(10)
5
|
|
1.10 Page 10 |
▲back to top |
|
|
2 Pages 11-20 |
▲back to top |
|
|
2.1 Page 11 |
▲back to top |
1.5. Identify any four effects of the human resource management function on industrial
relations.
(4)
6
|
|
2.2 Page 12 |
▲back to top |
|
|
2.3 Page 13 |
▲back to top |
Section B {Answer all the questions)
{SO marks)
Read the following case study and answer all the following questions.
Eleven CRAN employees charged for COVID-19 'AWOL'
The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) has instituted disciplinary
proceedings against 11 employees who stayed away from work over fears of contracting
COVID-19. The basis of the charges was due to their union's breach of its agreement with
CRANin that "they issued directives to the employees to absent themselves from work on 11
May 2020 without consulting and or obtaining permission in this regard from the chief
executive officer." The employees said they stayed away from work after one of their
colleagues tested positive for the novel coronavirus as CRAN had allegedly not put in place
measures to protect them against the virus. They alleged that seven employees have
contracted the virus, of which six are confirmed contacts of the first confirmed case at the
company. This was dismissed by CRAN's chief executive officer, Jochen Traut who said only
three of the confirmed cases were contacts of the company's first case. "The other three of
the seven confirmed cases did not contract COVID-19 in the workplace," he said.
Further, Traut dismissed assertions that the company does not take the pandemic with the
seriousness it warrants. "With every confirmed case, CRAN proactively and consistently put
in place various measures to safeguard employees at work as we are a responsible Namibian
corporate and, in our quest, to curb the further spread of this disease," he said. This includes
installing hand washing stations and making masks available, Vitamin B injections and flu
shots to staff. CRAN has also arranged the services of a psychologist to provide counselling
sessions (at company cost) to employees who may have experienced anxiety due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. CRAN, in addition, provided communications tools and mobile data to
ensure that colleagues could efficiently work from home during the lockdown period, he said.
"No employee was persecuted, and the process was managed in compliance with the
provisions of CRAN's Disciplinary Policy and the Labour Act. The primary purpose is to afford
employees an opportunity to prove that their absence from work was authorised," Traut said.
A representative of the Namibia Public Workers Union at CRAN, Stanley Kavetu confirmed
that the disciplinary process is underway but denied any wrongdoing on the part
7
|
|
2.4 Page 14 |
▲back to top |
|
|
2.5 Page 15 |
▲back to top |
of employees. "The employees have however acquired the legal services of their colleagues
in the legal department," Kavetu said on Monday.
Questions
Source: NBC and NAMPA, 2020
2.1. Having read the case study, discuss five (5) most appropriate characteristics of a
bargaining relationship that were overlooked by either party in CRANcase.
(10)
2.2. The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) has instituted
disciplinary proceedings against 11 employees who stayed away from work over fears
of contracting COVID-19 because the union issued them directives to absent
themselves from work on 11 May 2020 without consulting and or obtaining
permission from the chief executive officer. In your view, and as per section 42 of the
Labour Act (Act, 11 of 2007} was it a correct decision by CRANemployees to stay away
from work? Discuss in detail.
{15)
2.3. Is there a dispute of right or dispute of interest on the side of employees in CRAN's
case? If so, why, or why not?
{10)
2.4. In a short summary, how did Industrial Relations (IRL712S} as a course shape your
understanding of employment relationship in the world of work? Do you foresee
applying what you have learned thus far, how? Here, you are required to express your
understanding in your own words and not listing topics or themes appearing in your
prescribed course materials. Also, please note that this question is twofold, the latter
requiring you to relate theory to practice.
(15)
End of Paper!
Good luck!
8
|
|
2.6 Page 16 |
▲back to top |
