ANA
Premium Journalist
1 minute read
3 Oct 2017
9:57 pm

Trade union Solidarity signs ‘favourable offer’ with SA’s coal producers

ANA

The union also negotiated for maternity leave of four months for female employees.

From left to right is Solidarity's vice-president Hannatjie Thomhom; Steven Scott, president; Dirk Hermaan, vice-executive; Alana Bailey, executive of AfriForum; and Ernst Roets, leader of AfriForum Youth. Photo by Gallo Images/Foto24/Lisa Hnatowicz

Trade union Solidarity on Tuesday, said that it was waiting for feedback from its members after communicating a “favourable wage offer” made by coal producers under the Chamber of Mines of South Africa following extensive and intense bargaining in the coal industry.

This comes as Solidarity, one of the trade unions recognised for collective bargaining, held protracted wage negotiations in the coal industry while other unions declared a dispute with the producers.

Solidarity’s mining industry deputy general secretary, Connie Prinsloo, said the three-year wage offer ranges between 5.5 percent and 7.5 percent depending on the employee’s job level within category four to eight, and also applies to miners, artisans and officials.

The offer involves a 7.5 percent wage increase at the Anglo American, Exxaro Resources and Glencore PLC; a seven percent increase at the Kangra Coal, and a five percent increase at both Delmas Coal and Msobo Coal mines in Mpumalanga.

“Over and above the wage increase the offer also makes provision for an increase in housing and travelling allowances in accordance with the applicable percentage increase,” Prinsloo said.

Prinsloo also said that Solidarity was successful in negotiating maternity leave of four months for female employees.

“The reaching of an agreement would mean that our members could look forward to improved salary packages and perks,” Prinsloo said.

“This wage offer is the result of continuous, sustained and meaningful negotiations. We succeeded in looking after the best interests of our members and are pleased that a possible dispute could be averted. A dispute would not have been to the benefit of the industry.”