MASERU – The anticipated G4S Security Company employees’ strike has been deferred pending feedback from the employer concerning their grievances over a 13 percent salary increment and provident fund benefits.
Last week G4S Security Company received the letter of notice of intention to strike from 50 staff members who are the members of the Lesotho Workers Association (LEWA).
Speaking to Public Eye, LEWA’s general secretary, Moeketsi Seoaholimo, said following a couple of meetings with the G4S company, the employees came to a conclusion to withhold their intention of strike pending resolution of their grievances.
The employer promised to provide feedback after March 4 as tabled by LEWA during negotiations.
Seoaholimo said, “We met with the G4S management and their human resource director, who is in South Africa on sick leave although they joined the meeting virtually. They were very co-operative and requested to give us feedback by March 4.”
He continued to explain that following their meeting with the employees where they gave them feedback from the employer, it is then that they agreed to withhold the strike pending the feedback from their employer.
Asked what will happen if the employer comes back with a negative feedback, Seoaholimo said the employers will continue with their strike.
He further clarified that currently the strike is proposed by the cash solutions sector.
“A lot of damage could happen if they could go on strike; companies that receive services from this security company will suffer and ATMs will likely run dry because there won’t be people to carry cash to various ATMs. So not only will companies suffer but also us ordinary people,” Seoaholimo said.
He also explained that LEWA has over 50 majority of associates from G4S company from both its Cash Solutions and Guarding sectors. He said in Cash Solutions LEWA has 50 out of 70 staff members, and 900 out of 1600 staff members.
He, however, said regardless of them having majority of associates from both sectors of the company, the association represents them separately.
“We are yet to conclude the recognition of agreement that we should represent both parties jointly because the HR director of the company is one person and we get to meet often with the same grievances of their employers but on different occasion,” Seoaholimo noted.