Employees from Albert Luthuli Municipality are uncertain about receiving all their salaries on time this month.
This comes after the municipality failed to settle its entire bill at the end of February and end of March salaries were paid on the 25th midday instead of the eve of payday, leaving a number of employees with unpaid debit orders and others having to resort to loans and loan sharks.
According to the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) and the Independent Municipal Allied and Trade Union (IMATU) representatives, the municipality could not pay its employees overtime in February, because it could not collect enough money from all its debtors.
In March the Treasury Department did not release funds on time and the municipality had to obtain a loan to settle its bill.
One of the affected employees said he had to resort to borrowing from loan sharks, as his monthly overtime was not paid and this affected his monthly budget.
“We were also promised that we would not be taxed for the February monies, but that did not happen,” said an unhappy employee.
One of the affected employees sent the Highvelder his February and March payslips to show the tax charged and shortfall as a result of unpaid overtime.
It is also alleged that the real reason the municipality could not settle its February salary bill in full is because they had to give its councillors back-pay.
The Highvelder interviewed some of the councillors, who confirmed receipt of their back-pay, but could not confirm if it came at the sacrifice of the employees’ overtime.
Municipal management called a morning meeting on 25 March to explain the situation to the employees and informed its employees that they would be taking a bank loan to pay the salaries should they not receive the grant money from the Department of Treasury, as they are grant-dependent.
According to National Treasury spokesman Jabulani Sikhakhane in an e-mail to the Highvelder, Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality was allocated R171,5m for the equitable share grant, which is an unconditional grant used by municipalities to pay for operational expenses, including salaries.
However, that amount was R2 097 000 short, because the municipality had failed to transfer back the amount to the National Revenue Fund as unspent conditional grant funds for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 financial years.
The grant amount was paid in three trenches during the 2013/14 financial year. Dates for the transfers were 5 July 2013, 29 November 2013 and 25 March 2014.
On 25 March, the last transfer of R42 865 000 was transferred.
It remains unclear whether the municipality used this money to settle its salary bill or repay the alleged bank loan.
However, Mr Sikhakhane emphasised that the awaited grant money could not be the reason for unpaid salaries (overtime) and that the municipality knew last year, if not before, that its equitable share grant payment would be short by R2 097 000.
According to him, the municipality should have planned and executed its cash and expenditure plans accordingly.
The Highvelder submitted a list of questions regarding the matter to the municipal spokesman, Mr David Nhlabathi, who at the time of going to print had not responded to the questions.
However, in a telephonic interview, his response was to warn their municipal employees that the media cannot be used as an instrument to communicate issues, especially of this nature, between themselves and management, as there are proper internal channels that should be followed
He added that it was important for all employees to protect the integrity of the municipality by avoiding anything that might bring the name of the municipality into disrepute.
“The municipal management remains committed to engaging with employees on all issues affecting them,” Mr Nhlabathi concluded.
