Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

WAD Plans to Go Ahead with Lawsuit against NUNW

Home Archived WAD Plans to Go Ahead with Lawsuit against NUNW

By Kuvee Kangueehi Windhoek The rather strange battle between the Secretary-General of the National Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW), Evilastus Kaaronda, and the Executive Director of the Women’s Action for Development, Veronica de Klerk, resumed yesterday after Kaaronda accused WAD of practising a discriminatory policy against unmarried pregnant employees. Kaaronda was reacting to a WAD memorandum, which stated that “the organization will not pay bonuses to those staff members who have babies out of wedlock”. In the memorandum issued on September 29, 2005, De Klerk explained that WAD had decided to implement the policy because full-time WAD Trainers and Coordinators were expected to train young people to curb teenage pregnancies, which has become a social evil. She noted that such trainers were acting against their own training programmes while training young people, and are embarrassing the organization, and their actions will therefore not be tolerated. De Klerk argued further in the memorandum that the continuous pregnancies out of wedlock were burdening the organization with additional maternity leave expenses, which are not budgeted for. “For every employee who takes maternity leave, a person has to be appointed in her place for three months, which causes additional expenses for the organization.” However, Kaaronda said, the NUNW is utterly disturbed by WAD’s argument, especially since it is coming from an organization that purports to represent women. “This we believe is sheer hypocrisy and a bad policy.” The NUNW demanded that this bad policy be annulled with immediate effect and that, where relevant, employees who were discriminated against be compensated. “We would also remind the board of directors of its responsibility towards all employees of WAD regardless of such employees’ social status or positions in WAD.” Kaaronda said it is unlawful to discriminate against anybody on the grounds of one’s social status. Referring to the lawsuit which WAD has taken against the NUNW, the latter stated that they and all progressive movements are not – and can never be – strangers to lawsuits and all other such related intimidations. “We survived such intimidation during the darkest days of colonialism as all bad employers during their heyday of apartheid would behave in a manner and say nothing different from what is purported to be done by WAD’s board.” Kaaronda also lashed out at the WAD board, saying it is unbelievable that a board of a non-governmental organization would disregard legitimate concerns of employees and would rather want to support legal action against the workers’ organization. Contacted for comment, De Klerk said that, although the policy was in place, it was never enforced and thus did not affect any worker negatively. She noted that the memorandum was only sent out for educational reasons to discourage their trainers from falling pregnant before marriage. “We did not want our trainers to have children that are half orphans – without a father – and it was a way of discouraging them.” The Executive Director also stated that, in terms of the Labour Act, bonuses are a privilege, a fact that should be appreciated and respected. She added that the memorandum was sent out after a planning and training week for the trainers. WAD has consulted their lawyers, and they plan to go ahead with the lawsuit for defamation of character for referring to her as “cruel and inhuman”, she added. De Klerk further noted that it would appear that Kaaronda was waging a personal vendetta against her for reasons he should explain. “Our case is therefore aimed at Kaaronda and the NUNW, and he has to prove that his defamatory pronouncements against me bear substance”. She added that the suggestion that WAD’s successes are doubtful, is another example of Kaaronda’s ignorance about the work being done by WAD.