“We Were Promised 11%”

ByHannes du Buisson

The Forgotten Clause That Sparked a Union Battle

In May 1992, SABSA and the SABC signed a salary agreement that seemed clear enough:

“The employer will pay to employees… a salary increase of 7% plus an average 4% awarded on merit with effect from 1 March 1992.”

But what followed was anything but straightforward.

🧩 The Discrepancy Emerges

As pay slips rolled in, SABSA members began to notice something troubling. Many had received less than the 11% they believed was guaranteed—even those rated “average” or “above average.” Some hadn’t been rated at all.

Internal SABC memos revealed the cracks. A March 1992 directive warned managers:

“If you have already overspent on your salary account, you have less funds than the amount indicated on the screen… which represents 11%.”

The funds weren’t there. The promise had outpaced the budget.

🧠 “It Was a Foul Trick”

Negotiator J.J. Schreuder didn’t mince words in his response:

“I believe that it is a foul trick on the SABC’s part to derive later planned salary incentives, promotions and regradings from the 11% average salary increase.”

The union’s trust was eroding. Discrepancy investigations were launched—but yielded little. The matter lingered unresolved.

📊 The Evidence Mounts

A computer printout dated 18 March 1993 showed:

  • At least 175 SABSA members rated “average” or better received less than 11%.
  • Another 35 weren’t rated at all—yet still received below-average increases.

SABSA’s case was growing stronger. The union argued that the SABC had breached the agreement and failed to uphold its own merit-based principles.

📝 The Settlement That Wasn’t

In April 1993, the SABC proposed a fix:

“The Corporation shall adjust the salaries… for the difference between an 11% increase and the actual increases received…”

But by June, the offer was withdrawn. The reason? “Cost implications.”

SABSA declared a formal dispute and pushed for arbitration. Their proposed resolution was clear:

  • Adjust salaries retroactively for all qualifying members.
  • Pay interest on outstanding amounts.
  • Recognize the breach and restore trust.

⚖️ The Fight for Fairness

The union’s final statement captured the heart of the matter:

“Members receiving less than 11%… would be those whose performance was considered below average. Yet many rated average or above received less. This is a breach of trust.”

🧭 Legacy and Lessons

This document is more than a grievance—it’s a case study in accountability. It shows how vague language, budget constraints, and opaque rating systems can undermine even well-intentioned agreements. And it underscores the importance of transparency, consultation, and follow-through in labour relations.

Similar Posts