Windhoek
Judge Petrus Unengu yesterday granted 12 fishing companies that dragged their employees to court over a so-called strike an interdict in their favour. The strikers are to refrain from inciting or intimidating fellow workers not to work.
Although it might not have been what the fishing companies looked for the judge issued a rule nisi interdicting the striking workers from interfering with other workers who may desire to return to work.
Declining to call the work stoppage of about 832 seafaring employees an unlawful strike, the judge however did grant the fishing companies some relief.
The companies that brought the urgent application against the workers are Hangana Seafood, Overberg Fishing, Rainbow Trawling, Ekikimbo Trawling, Embwiinda Fishing, Tunacor Fisheries, Corvima Fishing Company, Beluga Fishing Company, Novanam Ltd, the Namibian government-owned Seaflower Whitefish Corporation, Seacope Freezer Fishing and Benguela Sea Products.
At the heart of the matter is the hours the fishermen work. According to court documents they are sometimes required to work 18 hours uninterrupted and Thabang Phatella their legal representative, instructed by Tjitemisa & Associates, compared their working conditions to “slave labour”.
The workers refused to return to their boats on October 26 when the fishing season started and have since adopted a stay-away position.
The fishing companies wanted the court to interdict and restrain the Mining, Metal, Maritime and Construction Union, which is affiliated to the Namibia National Labour Organisation that is headed by Evalistus Kaaronda; as well as Immanuel Petrus and Kaaronda and the cited employees. Petrus and Kaaronda are cited as they are allegedly behind the employees’ refusal to return to work. While the Namibia Food and Allied Workers Union and the Namibian Seamen and Allied Workers Union as recognised unions are also cited as respondents, they did not oppose the application. Advocate Natasha Bassingtwaite who appeared on behalf of the fishing companies on instructions from Ellis Shilengudwa argued that although the striking workers are gathering at the Kuisebmond sports ground in Walvis Bay and at an open space in Lüderitz, they might interfere with employees wanting to return to work.
In fact, she said, some of the employees have received threatening SMS’s.
To protect these employees from further harassment it was decided to protect their identities, she said. Phatella on the other hand called the action a voluntary stay-away and not a strike. He said that the workers are not striking for a right or dispute as required in the Labour Act, but are staying away in protest over being compelled to partake in an unlawful action.
According to him the Labour Act only makes provision for employees to work a maximum three hours per day or 10 hours per week overtime.
Should the employees consent to work more than that they will equally be guilty of contravening the same Act that is supposed to protect them.
Bassingtwaite countered that what they are asking the court to do is to prevent the “striking employees” from future illegal acts.
Unengu granted the applicants the rule nisi and ordered the respondents to show cause why it should not be made an order of the court.
The rule nisi will serve as an interdict until February 10 next year.