Hardap Region must have some of the highest violations of workers’ rights as protected by the Labour Act of 1992. One finds companies that owe their employees up to N$50 000 in outstanding remunerations, companies that do not give their employees paid leave and employers of public standing who treat their employees like slaves.
But the region suffers from a poor labour inspectorate, un-organized office of the clerk of the (Labour) Court and long and unnecessary delays in labour complaints’ hearings.
When labour complaints are referred to the labour inspectors and rule 6 conferences are held to make efforts to resolve the complaint, I am usually flabbergasted by the failure of the labour inspectors, as people trained in the labour law, to pronounce themselves on the matter and make a preliminary determination of the matter that should be taken into account when the matter goes before the court.
If the labour inspector makes a preliminary determination, in the event of the parties not reaching an amicable agreement, then the party against whom the preliminary determination (or judgement) is made can either comply with that determination or decide to proceed to the court hearing. The benefit of the labour inspector’s preliminary determination is that it may help the guilty party to realize his/her guilt timely and have the matter resolved promptly.
However, most of the time labour inspectors, in Hardap, fail to pinpoint to the parties to the complaint as to who is guilty or is not complying with the Labour Act. Even the labour inspectors’ reports to the District Labour Court do not reflect the assessment of these inspectors but only show reasons why the parties to the complaint disagreed. It therefore goes without saying that labour inspectors in Hardap, most of the time, fail to play an effective role in the enforcement of the Labour Act and the speedy resolutions of the matters.
The rules of the District labour court dictate that the office of the clerk of the district labour court would open between 08h00 and 17h00, but one can go to such an office at 10h00 to lodge a complaint but then be told to return at 14h00 as the clerk of court is busy with urgent matters such as criminal cases and when the same person returns at 14h00 then he/she would be told that the clerk cannot attend to the labour matter and should return the following day.
Asking for the assignment of the hearing date for the matter that has been postponed sine die can take one up to a month before a date is allocated. Is this really the way it is supposed to be? As far as I know, the rules of the District Labour Court say that the labour complaint must be determined no later than 60 days from the date it was lodged and no unnecessary postponements should be allowed, but unless one has got a lawyer, which is not a must in the District Labour Court, then his/her complaint can last up to one and a half years before it gets determined and such a matter is nothing more complicated than unpaid remunerations or unpaid leave days and severance packages.
Why should it take the court so long to determine a simple and straightforward case related to the basic conditions of employment that are clearly outlined in the Labour Act of 1992 and the enforcement procedures are equally clearly stipulated? Why is it that the Ministry of Justice can’t appoint a judicial officer who gives priority to the labour matters and should only attend other matters during the slack periods of labour hearings? Why is it that the court in Mariental cannot appoint a clerk of the District Labour Court that only attends to labour matters? In Windhoek, there seems to be up to three clerks of the District Labour Court or at least one and two assistants.
One other difficulty encountered in labour matters is that the serving of documents on the respondents are never done by the clerks of court in terms of rule 5 of the District Labour Court or complainants, without legal representatives, are never properly instructed as to how to do so which normally prompts the chairman of the district court to postpone the matters indefinitely or remove them from the rolls which strongly disadvantage the poor complainants even though the statutory provisions on the enforcement of the Labour Act are straightforward and pro-poor. The problem always seems to be those who are supposed to ensure that such provisions are complied with can hardly do so. If one makes an application to the District Labour Court regarding the pending matters, usually nothing is done to place such application on the rolls accordingly up until the main matter is heard.
The reason, “you see I am busy” or “I should first consult the magistrate”.
Appeal matters can hardly leave the office of the clerk of court in Mariental to the labour court in Windhoek. Reasons for such delays are non-existent or superfluous.
The Ministry of Justice must do something about this situation otherwise it makes no sense to talk about people’s rights, this and that, while the institutions that are put in place to deal with the enforcement of such rights can hardly do so.
D. Uuyuni waKamati, Mariental