Issued by: Department of Transport
Tuesday, July 02, 1996
I have been involved in lengthy discussions with the Transport & General Workers' Union's leadership, including the President, the General Secretary and the Assistant General Secretary.
At the end of those discussions with regard to outstanding matters I proposed that both partners should use the Nedlac structures to mediate.
As late as Friday evening, the Director-General of Transport, Ketso Gordhan, representatives of the Unions and the Chief Executive of Nedlac, Jayendra Naidoo, with the assistance of Nedlac, sought to resolve matters.
Arising out of those discussions, I wrote the attached letter to the President of the T&GWU outlining the progress we've made and areas of difference, as well as suggesting a way forward with regard to the issue of state ownership.
I was informed that the Union would be distributing my letter to its branches so that we could avert the strike and find solutions through dialogue and discussion.
However, I was later told that the branches which had responded wanted the strike to go ahead. This was an unfortunate decision by the Union. I believe that it is important that discussions should continue and that we should fully utilise Nedlac to find solutions without having to go on strike.
In this situation, I think it is important that the public should have access to the attached letter.
Friday 28th June 1996
The President
Transport & General Workers Union
Dear Comrade
Following our discussions of the past few days, I would like to take this opportunity to record the progress we have made in reaching agreements on a range of issues which allows us jointly to move ahead on building a more effective Public Transport System for our country. I would also like to record the issues on which we have not yet reached agreement - and to suggest processes which may help us resolve these outstanding issues.
I think it is fair to say that we share a common objective of building a Public Transport System which provides affordable and quality services to our people. We are committed in our policy to a Regulated system of Public Transport in which Government takes responsibility to ensure service provision. We support a situation where Transport Authorities at the lowest feasible level of Government arrive at a clear set of basic needs through developing Passenger Transport Plans. On the basis of these needs it targets the poor and very poor for the provision of subsidies which make transport affordable. Bus services are then contracted on a competitive basis. The contract will specify fares and standards of quality for the operators.
In this way Government has a full say on where services are provided, the fares that are charged and the quality of the service. The subsidy paid through the contract price can be used as a mechanism to make the fare affordable. The fact that we will no longer use the ticket subsidy system means that even non-workers who do not need to travel on a five-day ticket benefit from the subsidy.
The two issues which your union has raised as concerns relate, firstly, to the need to ensure stability in the contract system (and more specifically job security), and secondly, to the issue of the need for public ownership.
On the first issue of stability and job security I think we reached some understanding on a way forward. The interim contract phase which can last up to three years will offer some stability by ensuring a built-in increase on an annual basis. To extend this we have offered the Right of First Refusal at the end of the interim contract. We also agreed that we jointly recognise the need to maximise job security and that in the course of negotiations involving commuters and operators we will seek the best mechanism to ensure maximum job security. Stability is our common objective and we can - as we examine further the details of the contract - look at other mechanisms to enhance stability.
On the second issue of ownership I would like to say the following. The current situation is that 55% of Bus Companies are already under Public Ownership. We feel that the promotion of an effective public transport system will be achieved through the framework of regulated competition in which both public and private companies can participate.
We are not opposed to public ownership of bus companies as long as they do not have unfair access to public finance and are able to operate in an efficient way. Our concern relates to the need for public companies to have their finance ring-fenced and ensure transparency of costs so that they are made to operate efficiently and not use up public resources that are needed for other priorities. Last year a major contract we put out was won by an efficiently operated Public Bus Company, which indicates that the system we are proposing does not exclude publicly owned companies as much as it does not exclude private companies, but works in the interest of a better public transport system.
I think we can continue to discuss the issue of ownership. I would like to offer to set up a meeting at the highest level with Government, where the union leadership can meet with the nine MEC's for Transport and myself during July to pursue the matter.
I feel that, with our common commitment to addressing basic public transport needs not in dispute, the agreements we have reached in relation to ensuring stability ad maximising job security, and the not-so-fundamental difference we still have on ownership, we need to use the meeting I have suggested to take us forward.
In the light of the constructive spirit in which our discussions took place over the past days and the progress we have already started to make, I would like to appeal to your leadership to review the decision on the Action for 2 July.
I will be available over the weekend if we need to discuss this further.
Mac Maharaj
Contact: Adrian Crewe Tel: 021-45 1045/1095 Fax: 021-45 3426