CWIU AND DISINVESTMENT

Chemicalworkers - thestruggle overdisinvestmentLast year Chemical Workers Industrial Union (CWIU)declared a dispute over disinvestment with 41 foreignmultinational companies. The dispute marked a new stagein the position of unions on disinvestment. ROBYN RAFELreports on the dispute and the disinvestment debate inCOSATU.

On 30 August last year ChemicalWorkers Industrial Union (CWIU), af·filiated toCOSATU, announced thatit had applied for a conciliation boardin a dispute with 41 foreign-controlledmulti-national companies (MNC's).The union was demanding negotia­tions to establish procedw-es to be fol­lowed if the companies disinvest fromSouth Africa

The announcement caused astir.Firstly, 11,000 workers were coveredby the dispute and if it was not seuledthere was the prospect of a very biglegal strike. Secondly, and perhaps

more importantly, it raised many ques­tions about the overall issue ofsanctions and disinvestment.

The overriding aim of the variouscampaigns for sanctions and disinvest­ment is to weaken South Africaeconomically in the hope that this willforce the government to abandonapartheid. COSATU and NACIUboth support these campaigns becausethey support the anti-apartheidstruggle. Nevertheless, unions exist toprotect and fight for workers. Manypeople have found it difficult to under­stand their position, if sanctions and

35 SALB Vo/14 No 1

DISINVESfMENfdisinvestment mean lIlatjobs will be lost and theirmembership eroded. Whatwas CWIU trying to saywith this dispute'?

To understand why theunion embarked on its cam­paign we have tounderstand its andeaSATU's positions on these mat­ters. We also have to look at what hasactually happened whcn MNCs havedisinvested.

Disinvestment andCOSATU's foundingcongress

At its inaugural congress in Dur­ban in December 1985, COSATUadopted a resolution saying it believedall forms of international pressure - in­cluding sanctions and disinvestment,or the threat ofdisinvestment· are anessential and effective form of press­ure on the government· and should besupported. Furthermore, if the govern­ment remained intransigent, thepressure should be increased.

A third part to the resolutionadded that COSATU was committed~10 ensuring that the social wealth of,South Africa remains the property ofthe people of SA for the benefit ofaiL" What exactly was meant by this,and the means by which it was to beachieved, were to become thorny is­sucs. Soon too, doubts would also bevoiced as to whether sanctions and dis­investment really were being effectiveagainst the government.

Indeed, when COSATU convened

April 19B9

for its second congress inJohannesburg in July1987 and assessed dcvel·opments, it radicallyrefined its thinking onboth issues. In thc inter­vening period thecampaign for interna­tional economic action

against Pretoria had grown enormous­ly. Several new sanctions wereimposed, the best known of whichwere probably those applied in termsof the Comprehensive Anti-ApartheidAct which came into effect in theUnited States in 1986. Yet eventhough the S.A. govemmentclearlydid not like sanctions, it was equallyclear that it was still very mueh inpower. Funhermore, despite the pas­sage of the American legislation,neither the UnilCd States administra­tion nor the Thatcher govcmment inBritain - two of South Africa's majortrading partners· were in favour ofsanctions. The West Gcnnan govern­ment felt the same way, while Japanwas well on its way to becoming thiscountry's leading supplicr.

Disinvestment at COSATU'ssecond congress

At the second congress COSATUwas at pains to point out that the or­ganised working class in South Africahad not had control of sanctions cam­paigns and that the government and its~impcrialist backers ft would try toshift the burden of sanctions onto wor­kers. And the federation was carefulto limit its support for sanctions to

36

comprehensive mandaLOry sanctionsas they were "the only sanctionswhich were likely 10 bring effectivepressure which will assist in bringingabout a non-violent, truly democraticand non-racial SA. ~

Selective sanctions packages- which is what applies at present ­would not be effective. roSA111said. Instead, ~they cause serious re­gional unemploymenl~. Fu.nhennore.self-interest rather than the interests ofthe South African wOrking class hadoflen been the motive behind the im­position of various sanctionsmeasures. In other words, at the sec­ond congress COSA111 adopted an~a11 or nothing~ approach to sanctions.Given that it is an organization of wor­kers. it is hard to see what else itcould have-done.

As its contribution to the directionof sanctions campaigns, COSATV de­clared. it supponcd calls for:

• An end 10 loans and credit to thegovernment, Soulh African busi­ness, mWlicipalities and bantus­tans:

• Diplomatic isolation of Soulh Af-rica;

• An end to South African tourists,businessmen and State ofncialstravelling overseas;

• South Africans 10 be stoppedfrom emigrating abroad:

• The effective and comprehensiveimplementation of the UN armsembargo;

• A stop to the SA State and busi­ness recruiting skilled workers'overseas;

CW/U AND DISINVESTMENT• Sporting groups and individuals

to be stopped from visiting andplaying in lhis country. while SAsporting groups should not playabroad.

In the preamble 10 the resolutionon disinvestment aOOptcd at the con­gress, roSA111 stated that it believedeffective economic pressure was es­sential for bringing about a system ofjustice and equality in a peaceful man­ner, and wilh the least pain andsuffering by the poor. Disinvestmentas currently practiced. however, wasnothing more than ~corporate camouf­lage~ which often allowed thosecompanies to increase their supportfor the government. roSA111 then re­solved lIlat companies shook! givenotice of any intention to pullout ofSouth Africa so that bona fide negotia­tions could take place on the issue.The resolution restates COSA111'scommittment to ensuring that the s0­

cial wealth of South Africa remainedthe property of the people.

CWIU debates disinvestment

cwtu was the union which pro­posed both resolutions at theCOSA11J congress. At the CWIU na­tional congress the month before.debate on sanctions and disinvestmenthad been one of the key items on theagenda, and the resolutions COSA111adopted were virtually identical to theones the CWIU congress had ratified.CWIU is panicularly concerned aboutthese issues, says general secretaryRod Crompton, because the chemical

37 SALB Vol 14 No 1

DISINVESTMENTscclor has a highcc concentration ofMNCs than other induslries. ~Lols ofunions within COSA111 arc very dis­tam from disinvesunent,~ CromptonLOld Labour Bulletin. "This is true forthose organising the railways and mu­nicipalities and, LO some extenL, evenfor those operating in other industrialsectors. Our situation is very differ­ent.~

CWIU notes that 150 MNCs havedisinvested from South Africa, manyclaiming that they did so in responseto the disinvestrnem lobby, therebygaining a lot of polilical mileage intheir home countries. In the vast ma­jority of these cases, the companieswere sold to South African companiesor the local management of thecompany, often at extremely lowprices. In most cases also. thedepaning company has entered intoagreement with the new managementproviding for things like franchises,licensing rights. and ihe supply oftechnology.

CWIU ~Iieves lhat ihe mainten­ance of such links and the incomethey generale for the dcpancd MNCsis not disinvestment in the true senseof the word, but what it calls "corpor­ate camouflage~. It believes that thebarglun prices paid when local man­agements have been the buyers showsthat ~disinvesting" companies expectother benefits from the deal.

In contrast 10 the benefits thathave flowed to South African busi­ness, workers have received the rawend of the deal, says the union. Unlikethe new managements they have notbeen allowed to negotiate the terms of

April 1989

the deal. In vinually all cases unionshave received no prior notification ofcompanies' inlention to disinvest.Many of the new managements haveadopled a harsher attitude LO theirunions. In some cases new and worseconditions of work have been im­posed, and there have also beeninstances where the new owners haveretrenched workers immediately afterthe sale.

CWIU is not alone in arguing thalmany disinvestrnents have been "cor­porate camouflage~. Even businessleaders have a similar view. Take, forexample, comments made by Escomchairman Dr J B Marcc in Dccem~r

laSl year atlhe AGM of the SA Mutu­tal Life Assurance Society.

Marcc said: "The decision in re­cent times by American companies todisinvest from South Africa has againclearly illustrated the importance ofthe large corporation. Disinvestmentinvolves the withdrawal of foreignmanagement and enterprise fromSouth Africa. If there had not been thecapacity to acquire these foreign­owned, often large, organisalions,then their activities would haveceased. their assets would have beendissipated and vitaltcchnology wouldhave been lost. bUllhis has in fact nothappened.

"These corporations have been ac­quired·in their entirety by SouthAfrican companies who have both thefinancial and the managerial capacilYto do so. They have continued to func­tion as local businesses and in theprocess the business activity, the jobsand technology have been preserved

38

CW/U AND DISINVESTMENT

CWIU workers - not opposing disinvestment, but demanding negotiationson the issue

Photo: Eric MiHer/Afrapix

to the benefit of the South Africaneconomy.In this way the potentiallyserious negative effects ofdisinvest­ment have largely been negated."

Disinvestment hasempowered management

Crompton comments: "The fact isthat disinvestment has to be examinedin tenns of whether it has been an ef­fective form of pressure on thegovernment. From Marte's observa­tions, this is clearly not always thecase. I think it was never envisaged bydisinvestment lobbyists that the pro­cess of disinvestment should empowermanagement over workers. If any­thing, it was meant to be the otherway around. We arc saying that disin­vestment must take place in line with

our terms and on our terms. If thingsare not done this way it is not disin­vestment but corporate camouflage.~

Part of the problem about sanc­tions and disinvestment, according toCrompton. is not only that interna­tional anti-apartheid campaignershave very few other options for ap­plying pressure, but also that manyforeigners have only a limited under­standing of what apartheid is. "In theUnited States, for instance. manypeople see it in terms of the civilrights movement. They have neverhad to deal with an economic systemthat has race built into it," says Cromp­ton. "They don't have to deal with thekind of monster we do."

"For complex reasons South Afri­ca has become the key focus ofeverything that is bad in the world and

39 SALB Vol 14 No 1

DISINVESTMENT

a very wide range ofgroups arc in­volved in lobbying for sanctions anddisinvesunent - from very conserva­tive church groups La very radicalgroups," he adds. "I think that thepeople doing the mobilizing do have agenuine concern for the oppressedpeople of this country. But they arealso using the issue La mobilize onother issues which they are fighting intheir countries."

CWIU launches campaign

To turn now loCWIU's campaignto force MNC's to negotiate the termsofdisinvesunent Shortly after theunion's 1987 congress where itadopted its approach La disinvesunent,a multi-national shop stewards' coun­ci! was established to develop astrategy for the campaign. The firststep was taken in July when cwruwrote to 41 MNCs where it was recog­nised requesting a joint meeting tonegOliate its demands. Of the 41, themajority - 18 - are British controlled.Then there are seven Dutch com­panies, six American, three Gcnnan,three French, one Australian, oneSwiss, and one owned by an offshoreconsortium (two MNCs - one US con­trolled and the other French controlled- were later excluded from the dis­pute).

CWIU's first demand was that thecompanies should agree La negotiatein a joint forum. The other demandswere thaL:

• Companies must give one years'notice of the intention lo disin-

Apri/1989 40

vest. During this period they mustenter into bona fide negotiationson a closure package, no agree­ments or contracts with the unionshould be terminated, and less fa­vourable conditions of employ­ment must not be introduced;

• All workers should be paid .separ­ation pay of one months' wagesper year of service;

• Workers' wages must be guaran­teed for one year from the date ofclosure or disinvesunent;

• Loans granted to employees forthings like housing should be writ­ten off;

• Employers should contribute alump sum, which should be equalto what they would have paid asthe employer's contribution La apension or provident fund, on be­half of all CWIU mcmbers up loretirement age. The destiny ofsuch funds should be negotiatedwith the union;

• The reasons for lhe disinvesl1llentmust be fully disclosed as well asdetails about the sale of assets,and details of any remaining fin­ancial or business connectionswith South Africa. Copies ofanycontracts of the sale of assets, anddetails about the winding up pro­cess, should also be supplied;

• The proceeds from lhe disinvest­ment or sale, together with theproceeds of any remaining non­equity ties, should be paid into atrust nominated by the union;

• In cases of partial disinvestment,infonnalion on the identity of thenew owocrs must be revealed as

well as the pre·sale value ofshares, the selling prices, agree-.ments of sale, and details of re·maining business connections.Furthennorc, a condition of thesale must be that the new ownersguarantee that no changes will bemade to the prevailing conditionsofemployment, pensions or provi·dent funds, and matters like man·ning levels. New owners mustalso undertake to recognise theunion and honour all agreementsand contracts with it;

• In situations where ownershipchanges, it must be a condition ofsale that the buyer guarantees pre·vailing conditions of employ·ment. Pension or provident fundprovisions, manning levels, andso on, must not be less favourablethan prevailing conditions.

Just about all the companies reofused to entertain CWIU's demandsclaiming they had no intention of dis­investing. They also rejected the idea

CW/U AND DISINVESTMENTof negotiating in ajoint forum. One ofthese companies was the US.awncdSterling Drugs in Durban. Its dishon·esty in its dealings with CWIU,illustrates only too graphically whythe union has cmbar)ced on its cam·paign (sec box).

In November 1987 the unionwrote to the 41 companies again urg·ing them to reconsider their previousresponses, and requesting that theymeet in ajoint forum to negotiate onits demands. A dispute would be de·c1ared if they refused to do so. All thecompanies refused to accede.

CWIU's conciliation board appli.cation was submitted just two daysbefore last September's tough amend·ments to the Labour Relations Actbecame Jaw, in order to avoid legaltechnicalities in the new measures.Soon afterwards three companies .Pilkington Flat Glass, Pilkington Shat·lCrprufe Safety Glass and SACyanamide· launched legal proceed·ings against CWIU. They claimed thaIthe union had committed an unfair la·

Sterling Drug Saga Sterling Drug Saga Sterling

Sterling Drug in Durban was a subsidiary of the American MNC Sterling Inc. InJune 1987 CWIU received infonnation that Sterling was intending to disinvest.When it approached the company, however, management denied this. And inJuly, when Sterling and 40 other MNCs received CWIU's letter of demand, it reit·erated that position. Nine months later, however, the company asked CWIU to at·tend a meeting to discuss its "continued operation in South Africa."

Atthc meeting the union was told that Sterling Inc had already disinvestedand that arrangements were being made to sell the company. According 10 theunion, this was in stark contast to a press Statement issued in the United States bySterling Inc which noted it was withdrawing from South Africa and that no Ster·ling unit anywhere in the world would be allowed to supply the country afterAugust 1988.

41 SALB Vo' 14 No 1

DISINVESTMENTbour practice by filing the board appli­cation before following agreedplant-based negotiating and disputeprocedures.

The two Pilkington companieslaunched an urgent interdict in the In­dustrial Court asking it to restrain theunion from embarking on industrialaction. They also asked the court to in­struct the union to remove their namesfrom the board application. The courtturned down their requests. At twosubsequent meetings of conciliationboards appointed al the request of thecompanies, they agreed to suspend un­fair labour practice litigation until theend of January 1989, pending the out­come of their talks.

On 30 September last year theMinister decided against apJX>intingthe board CWIU had requested, open­ing the way for a legal strike. TheMinister cited two reasons for his deci­sion. One was that he believed thedispute did not concern an unfair la­bour practice - which was neveralleged in the first place. The other

was thal he did not consider it to beexpcdienl to appoint one. The unionnoted that. ~The Minister seems to

have decided that negotiation was notin the interests of resolving the dis­pute.~

Most companies agree tonegotiate

If the Manpower Minister wasagainst negotiation, a number of com·panies did an about tum after theboard application had been filed. Themajority indicated that were willing totalk, but only at plant level- not in ajoinl forum. CWIU reacted by invitingthe companies to attend meetings to

discuss the issue. Only to companiesagreed to attend - aba-Geigy, Col­gate-Palmolive, EXpandite, Fedgas,Gillette, Hoechst. Liquid Air, Nicho­las Kiwi, and the two Pilkingtoncompanies.

Even though CWIU memberswere entitled to strike legally once theMinister refused the board applica-

Saga Sterling Drug Saga Sterling Drug Saga StSterling refused to negotiate on any ofCWIU's demands. The union declared

a dispute and applied for a conciliation board. When the Manpower Ministerfailed to appoint a board Sterling workers began a legal strike. Soon afterwards aconciliation board was appointed.

At meetings of the board management claimed that Sterling was not disinvest­ing. Sterling was taken over by Eastman Kodak which has a policy of not dealingwith South Africa and Kodak had ordered that Sterling sell off its subsidiaryhere. The buyer Adcock Ingram, a Barlow Rand subsidiary, paid R52.5 million.

The Sterling workers downed tools for five weeks and then suspended thestrike. Meetings of the board were also suspended. According to the union, thedispute over the cwru demands still exists, however, and the board can be re-vived at any time. ~

Apri/1989 42

on.

Shell- refuses to leave, but won'tnegotiate either

Graphic: ILR

tion, they decided againSt industrialaction. ~Our approach is that. there isno point in going out on a big strikeuntil you have exhausted all the possi­bilities, and employm wt:re nowagreeable to plant negotiations: ex­plains Crompton.

In January this year a union meet­ing was held to assess the situation.Factory delegates felt that althoughthe demand for joint forum negotia-

CWlU AND DISINVESTMENTtions had not been mel.. lhc fact thatthe majority ofcompanies hadchanged position and were preparedto talk was a major victory. The uniondecided to drop its demand for a jointforum and commenced company­based negotiations. When the unionnotified employers of this decision thetwo Pilkington companies agreed towithdraw their disputes wit' it, and todrop coon action scheduled for 1 Fe­bruary. In lU/TI, CWIU agreed to dropits dispute againsl them and cnw intonegotiations over its demands.

But Shell and BP refuse

As things now stand, BP, MobilOil and Mobil Refinery, 5Cven Shellcompanies, Associated Glass, May­baker and Chrome Chemicals are theonly companies that have refused tonegotiate. All say they have no inten·tioo of disinvesting. ...

Negotiatioos on CWIU's demandsare now underway with the companiesthat have agreed 10 talk, but with somany companies involved it's 0b­viously going to be a lengthybusiness. In the process there will nodoubt be difficulties and CWIU willhave to exercise great care to avoidthe problems other unions have facedon this issue. When it comes to nego­tiating the demand for a trust it will beparticularly anxious to apply the les­sons learnt from NUMSA's disastrousexperience at Samcor. 1be union willalso have to rev)cw its strategy to­wards the 12 companies which haverduscd to negotiate.

Says Crompton: ~This is nOI just a

43 SALB Vol 14 No 1

DISINVESfMENT

wage dispute. We are dealing withlong-tenn processes in the economyand there is still a lot of talk in theUnited States and the European Econ­omic Community about passinglegislation on disinvestment. Wewanled to deal with the dispute across­the-board because if something doeshappen which prompts a mass exodus,workers would easily be able to acttogether if management does not com­ply with their demands. Thecomp­anies have rejected joint negotiationswilh us, but most are now at least will­ing to talk individually. If anyone ofthe respondent companies prove in­Itallsigem, we could bring out theother companies in support We live

~ in a very volatile situation, and cir­cumstances can change very quickly."

In essence then, the CWIU disputeis not about whether MNCs shouldgo, but how they should behave ifthey do. Nevertheless, there is nodoubt that the campaign will have animpact on the debate about disinvest­ment.IfCWIU soccecds in clinchingagreements with managements it will,at the very least, have pressurizedMNCs into acting with a greater de.grce of honesty. "'Ct

Interview with Colgateshop steward

Dusty Ngwane is a full-time shop ste­ward at US-owned Colgate-Palmolivein Boksburg. He has been actively in­volved with CWIU since it first beganrecruiting at the plant in 1979. At thatstage he was a member of the union's

Apri/1989

steering committee and played a keyrole in the 1981 struggle for recogni­tion at Colgate.

At that time, the emerging unionswere still weak and employers werestrongly resisting demands for theright to bargain wages at plant leveloutside of the industrial council sys­tem. Colgate was a prominentsignatory to the Sullivan Code, butthat did not mean it welcomed unions.

With the Colgate struggle cwrubecame the first of the unions 10 uscthe post-Wiehahn strike procedures. Itdeclared an official dispute on thepoint, and placed additional pressureon the company when it called for aconsumer boycott ofColgate products.The screws were turned even tighterafter a conciliation board failed to re­solve the dispute and the workforcevoted overwhelming in favour of alegal smke. Colgate capitulated on thelast working day before the strike wasdue 10 stan.

Ngwane has been the full-time ste­ward since May 1987 and is a memberof CWIU's multi-national shop ste­ward council. Labour Bullelin spoketo him about the union's campaign.

Labour Bulletin: What do youthink about sanctions and disinl'est­ment?

Ngwane:My view is the same as theunion's. We support any kind of press­ure for change in South Africa. So ifsanctions will help to hasten change,we would be in favour. But sanctionsare not being applied totally, and par­tial sanctions are not effective. As for

44

disinvesunent, our stand does notmean that we don't want companies togo. They can go whenever they like,but if they do, they must do it on ourterms.

Labour BuI~ln: Do tlu other Col·gale workers share 10Ilr vitws~

Ngwane:Yes, they 00. In 1987 an in­dependent sW'Vey by the AmericanChamber of Commerce in South Afri­ca was conducted at the plant in whichworkers were asked three questions.First, did they think US companiesshould stay in SA and contribute tochange. Second, whether they thoughtUS finns should cklse down theirplants entirely. And third, ifcom·panM=.s left should they sell to SouthAfrican managements. An overwhelm­ing majority of the wokers - 99%­said the companies should go.

When this survey was done, shopSlewards met with worken beforehand10 explain the questions and alsohanded out the sW'Vey papers whichwokers then filled in and placed in aballot box. Management was upset bythis result, and later sent two peoplefrom the pet'SOIlnel department to re­do the survey. 1be result, however,was the same.

labour Bulletin: Whell did disin·.·estmelllfml become all isrue forColgate workers~

Ngwane:ln 1987 the union noticedthat companies were disinvesting onunacceptable terms. They did not in­form the unions of their intentions,

CWIU AND DISINVESTMENTcondilions of work changed after thedisinvesunent, and the new manage­ments did not have the same relation­ships with the unions in their factories.

The disinvestment lhat really upsetworkers at this plant was theRobertson Spices disinvestment in1987 (see box on next page).

Labour Bulletin: As 0 shop stewardwhat rok have you plDyed in CWIU'sdisill~slnullt campaigll?

Ngwane:1 was present at CWRJ's na­tional congress in June 1987 when weadopted our resolutions on sanctionsand disinvestment, and later became amember of the CWIU multi-nationalshop stewards council. Our 1etter ofdemands went out 10 the employers inJuly 1987, and W<7e followed up inNovember.

There was a bit of lull in the cam­paign for a while after that, but theshop steward council met in Durban inJuly 1988 and decided thai it shouldgo forward. We also decided a delega­tion from the union should visit theUS to explain our campaign. 1be rec­ommendations from this meeting wentto the NEe. Later, a pany of three, in­cluding our president, went 10 the US.

labour Bulletin: Wh, was itde·dud IIOt to IoU industrilll actiollafter the Minister ofMallpowerfaikd to appoinl the cOllti/Wiollboard and you werefree to go 011 altgal strike?

Ngwane: Since this issue is a nationalissue we had to sit down and discuss

45 SALB Vol 14 No 1

DISINVESTMENTROBERTSON SPICES, with plants inAlrode in Johannesburg and Protpecton in Dur·ban, WIS a subsidiary of the intemational foodgiant Com Produeu Com.,.ny (CPC) whichhas its headquaners in the US. CWlU was rw­ognised at the Alrode plant and FAWU atProspectQn.

According a union source, the firsllimeCWIU and FAWU heard abolll CPC's disin·vestmenl was in April 1987 when they readnews· paper rq>OlU th<d. a C(lIIlortium of SoothAfrican inveslOrs had acquired ownership.CWlU members al Alrode reacted 10 the newsby lilliging a one-day slrike demandins to knowwhal would llappen abollt their pensions.

The IWO unions subsequently tabled a liS! ofdemandl with the company. Amongsl otherthings, they wanted details of who the newowners were, the sum they paid, and whetherthe disinveltment had occured ali a resull dpressure from CPC's US shareholders. Theyalso deman-ded that there should be noehanges10 workers' conditions of employrntlll, that thecompany should honour agreement, and thaiworkers should be paid !iCVerance p.ay. Further­more, they demanded Ihat Roberuons shouldne80tiate on Ihae iuues wilh both unions in ajoint fonun.

The company initially refuled 10 meet in a

whether it was feasible to strike at thattime and whether a strike would ach­ieve our objective. In our analysis wenoted Ihatthe Labour Relations Actsays you cannot strike over the sameissue twice wilhin one year. We alsonoted that Ihe companies said we hadnot exhausted negotiation. We thenlooked at the issue of sanctions anddisinvestment and decided that theywould rc~ain as issues for a long time.

Basically, when we slaTlCd thecampaign, we wanted some form ofnegotiation with the companies andwe used the threat of a conciliationboard and a national strike 10 get thecompanies to the negotiating table.

Labour Bulletin: Colgate has said it

joint forum, bullater recanted. The meetingwas held on May 3 1997. In response tOlhe de­mand1 for information, Ihe company made Iheunlikely claim thai il itself did not know wholhe buyers were, or the price they paid, IS Ihenle had been handled by ils American parent.It did, however, uy Ihe sale had~ promotedby shareholderpre$lure. The company guanln'teed that all agreements would be honwred andthaI condilions d service would remain Ihesame. But il refused to accede 10 the demandfor sevel"llnce ~y.

It later tnrupired Ihlt 56% or Roberuonhad been acquired by Hunt Leuchars and Ilep­bum (I1LC), a Rembrandl controlled CUlI~ny.

and the remaining shares by the Mine Officials'Pension Fund, the Mine Employees' PensionFund, Rand Men::hant fUnk and Entek Invelt­mentJ. In October 1989· just over a year later­it WIS announced Ihat HLe had boIIght the out·1tanding 44% in a R59,4m deal.

"In other words, Ihis was another eumpleor C<IrpOl"lIte camouOage which in Ihe endplaced yel more ecmomic power in the handsor Ihe big South African multi·nationall. Wesusped that il was alwaY" Ihe intention !halIIUllihould assume ruu O\VTICl'$hip, and Ihalthe initial con1ortium was put logether wilhthat understanding," says the union source. -et

has no intenlion ofdisin pesling. Doyou belrepe the compony?

Ngwane:We'veaskcd this questionmany times and J have spoken 10 Rod­erick Turner, senior execulive vice­president at Colgate in the US, whocomes to SA every year. But it's hardto k.now whelher it will always be so.

Labour Bulletin: How has Colgatereacted in the dispute?

Ngwane:The union invilcd all theemployers 10 a meeting to discuss thedispute in October 1988. Colgate wasone of about six companies thal at­lended. We will be continuing ournegotiations with the company.

April 1989 46