LABOUR Relations in Namibia has turned hostile due to a number of factors that will emanate in this opinion piece and it is my view that the current labour relations can be compared to a time bomb that is busy ticking to detonation if the competent authorities do not make the relations a priority to ensure peace and stability in the country.

The return of the Labour Amendment Bill to the National Assembly has been welcomed by those affected, in particular the working class, but due to the double standards of the Ministry of Labour some proposals by the National Council are feared to will be rejected as has been reported in the media in recent weeks.

The situations on the farms, in textile, at service stations, of domestic and factory workers are not and have not been addressed properly by the competent authorities which are the National Assembly in general and the Ministry of Labour in particular.

The labour relations in these sectors are volatile because of the conditions of employment that are not in compliance with the basic conditions prescribed by the Act. The employees in these sectors are required to work long hours, they are paid meagre wages, they are hired and fired on a daily basis, most are not registered with the Social Security Commission and they do not have proper contracts of employment to which they can seek recourse should the situation warrant.

I have to mention that trade unions are vigilant and proactive to address the concerns of the above mentioned workers despite their limited resources and have come into conflict with the judiciary, executive and legislature and also on the other hand with the employers in deadly confrontations for the labour rights of the working class in the sectors mentioned above.

The amendment of the Labour Act in itself will not solve the hostile labour relations between employees and their employers unless the competent authorities take a stand against all forms of unfair labour practices, discrimination, victimisation and intimidation that are scourges across the country, including the hire-and-fire pandemic that has affected many employers in this country. This hire-and-fire concept is practised due to the prevailing availability of a high contingent of unemployed Namibians and with a perpetual aim by employers to deny workers a decent wage and other benefits.

At the outset I wish to record that save for aspects as qualified as set out herein, I am not satisfied with the President's choice when he appointed the incumbent Minister of Labour although it is his prerogative and also because of his own philosophy and in line with the Constitution of the country, that women should be appointed and empowered to decision-making positions.

This paper should not be construed as portraying a view that the writer hereof is against women in positions such as the Minister of Labour but rather as looking at the quality of the person in terms of his/her knowledge on labour matters and persisting with the foregoing argument which on a balance of probabilities is tantamount to prove that the incumbent Minister and her Deputy of Labour were neither exposed nor have knowledge on labour relations in Namibia and that the President's choice with regard to the incumbents is placed in issue by all MP's from the labour movement, the trade unions and their federations and the working class who are suffering under the prevailing labour conditions.

I furthermore wish to record and bring to your attention the fact that the Minister of Labour in the National Assembly on Tuesday September 21, 2004 rejected proposals from the National Council that the employees be entitled to at least 24 working days' annual leave on full pay replacing the current entitlement of 24 consecutive days. She said such law would not be sustainable considering the country's economic performance.

She also rejected a proposal that the minimum severance pay be two weeks' remuneration for every year of uninterrupted service. She based her argument on the fact that unions could still negotiate a better deal over and above this for their members. I wonder about a person who does not belong to a trade union or who has no knowledge of the law when he is notified that he is to be retrenched?

Such arguments, rejections and views with regard to better conditions of employment proposed by the National Council are not in line with the preamble of the Labour Act and are placed in issue in this paper, and to say the least, it is a travesty of the preamble of the current Act.

I verily believe that the Minister has capitalised the opportunity to gain mileage out of her position as Minister of Labour and most probably as a representative of the Government as an employer, and in that her rejection, argument and view are bordering on a conflict of interest and have therefore dishonoured the Preamble of the Labour Act which consideration by the Minister before rejecting the proposals would have ensured that employees who are also voters of the same "Swapo united, Swapo victorious, Swapo hard work. Now!" Government are given the benefit of the National Council's proposals.

It is very sad that small but important things proposed for the benefit of poor workers have to be rejected by a Minister who is assured of her pension and severance pay, a fixed monthly salary in excess of N$15 000.00 and benefits that a graduate from the University of Namibia can only dream about after 10 years' of employment after studies.

It is noted that the Preamble of the Act provides that the National Assembly should lay down certain obligatory minimum basic conditions of service for all employees and I appeal to the Assembly to consider the proposals of the National Council. The members of the National Assembly should look into the proposals of the National Council in terms of Article 63 (1) of the Namibian Constitution. The strength of my arguments against these rejections will bear considerable weight in the debates for the proposed amendments in relation to the prevailing labour relations in the country in deciding whether or not to enact the proposals of the National Council. It is also noted that the Ministry of Labour is reluctant to deal with the overwhelming evidence implicating it in their failure for the past eleven years to properly administer the Act.

It is hypocritical when the Minister proposes that unions should negotiate better deals over and above the current one week severance pay for their members. The same Minister denounced the unions earlier for breaking the efforts of the Swapo Party Government to create better economic conditions and a harmonious labour environment with regard to the recent widespread illegal strikes and work stoppages reported this year.

Those strikes and work stoppages were a result of the prevailing labour relations due to the failure of a properly administered labour legislation and employers employing delaying, intimidation and frustrating tactics to exploit the labour of employees and to pay meagre benefits when they retrench or fire them. I have seen workers being paid N$1 200.00 as a retrenchment package after service of 10 years with the employer.

This is because they earned as little as N$519.00 a month. The current severance allowance calculation of one week for each completed year of service is entitling such a worker to N$120.00 for each year.

If the Minister is saying that unions should negotiate a better deal for their members, is her Ministry going to negotiate a better deal for those Namibian employees who are not unionised? I doubt that in view of the current lack of capacity in her Ministry. The Ministry of Labour is failing and has failed to address these evils in labour relations and is placing the blame squarely on unions when workers decide to strike, whether in line or against the provisions of the Act and collective agreements.

The Ministry of Labour is understaffed and as a result unable to address the existing unfair labour practices by employers. Trade unions have represented and fought for the rights of the workers since time memorial and should not be blamed for the current labour relations in the country. The dilemma of the prevailing labour relations lies in the Act and with the administrators of the Act. Trade unions are established, joined by workers because of the failure of the Ministry of Labour as submitted above and the treatment to which the working class is are subjected to at the hands of profit-driven bourgeoisie.

It is a smack in the face of the labour movement and the entire working class when the Minister of Labour rejects amendments as proposed by the National Council in terms of Article 75 (4) (a) of the Namibian Constitution, which went directly to the people by the conduct of public hearings and got their mandate in terms of Article 74 (2). It is disappointing when the Minister appointed by the President and who is a member of the National Assembly fails the working class of whom the majority are Swapo party members, suffering under the current labour relations in the country. Why are you there comrades?

The unions are doing what the Ministry of Labour is failing to do and such rejections, accusations and arguments of the Minister of Labour are placing the Minister as an MP and Head of the Ministry entrusted with the welfare of workers in question. I recall an advert in the media regarding seminars and workshops on the new amendments, where the Ministry was warning the public not to rely on the information that they are getting from the seminars regarding the new Labour Act. The people are taking the initiative to interpret and educate themselves with regard to the new amendments because of the failure of the Ministry to keep us up to date and educated in terms of our labour rights.

The amendments to the Act are a result of its failure to address the matters adversely affecting workers and if such amendments are rejected by the same Ministry which failed to administer the Act properly for the past 11 years, the improvement of labour relations in Namibia remains to be seen - if not, are bound to deteriorate and detonate the time bomb of massive industrial action, lawlessness and rejection of the new Act.

The predicament of the Bangladeshi workers could have been averted if the Ministry of Labour had advised Government appropriately at the inception of the idea to give Ramatex a place in the Namibian economy. The Namibian Government and its labour movement have been humiliated by the treatment of both Namibian workers and expatriates by the Ramatex factory whereas the Minister of Labour has failed to address the unfair labour practices common at Ramatex.

It is my view that the incumbent President and future presidents appoint ministers who are produced by the labour movement in order to have informed persons responsible for one of the most important ministries. This does not mean that it will compromise the employers but rather it will bring synergy in the negotiations of labour champions both from the workers and employers.

A properly administered labour aw, by an informed Minister would ensure respect for the working class by employers and in that way create an environment conducive to foreign direct investment in the context of sound labour relations. Let me mention that employers who are investing in Namibia are doing so because of three things: Cheap labour and an improperly administered labour law as well as the vast natural resources available in the country. Let the Government and investors not advocate to the people that foreign direct investment is vital to job creation but rather that there are enough resources both human and natural to create employment in Namibia.

The theft of national assets at the SSC, RA, DBC, AMCOM and many more can be stopped if there is a political will and the money stolen can be used to create employment opportunities for many Namibians. The Government and in particular the Ministry of Labour is failing to prosecute those responsible for the theft of millions of dollars that ended up in private investment accounts by people who where entrusted with the national wealth from funds contributed by those poor workers either as taxation and social security contributions and who are now denied the benefits proposed by the National Council.

I hereby submit in conclusion, that the improvement of labour relations in this country should not be left to the employers and their employees but it requires a political solution and visionary leadership from the Minister of Labour. The working class is deprived of many benefits by their employers and surely, as long as there are no decent conditions of employment, industrial strife and action will be the order of the day.

Harmonious labour relations in Namibia without addressing the above issues will remain an illusion that is pursued but never to be attained unless the competent authorities identify them in their context and solve them. The working class is still waiting in anguish for the introduction of the National Pension and Medical Aid Fund and unless these benefits are in place the gap of wealth between the working class and the bourgeoisie is going to widen.

Johannes T. Kangandjera, Trade Unionist (Mineworkers Union of Namibia)