Swakop Uranium workers, led by the Mineworkers Union of Namibia, staged a peaceful demonstration Friday demanding among other things the influx of unskilled Chinese workers at the mine.
The mine is 90% owned by Taurus Minerals and 10% by Epangelo Mining Co.
Taurus is 60% owned by China’s CGN-Uranium Resources Co (CGN-URC) and 40% by China-Africa Development Fund, set up by China Development Bank in 2007.
Eagle FM reproduces the petition below:
1. Unskilled Chinese Taking Work of Skilled Namibians (Chinese Nationals Influx)
The Union has learned with shock of Management decision to appoint and/or grant employment status to 18 Chinese Nationals (See annexure A) under the pretence of providing maintenance and operation support to the Mine.
We cannot overemphasis the Union’s stance against the overwhelming influx of Chinese
nationals at the expense of the locals. We have historically condemned this action and this
instance will be no different. We further wish to equally condemn the manner in which the
Trade Union (MUN) as the sole bargaining agent as Swakop Uranium was intentionally
and systematically not consulted prior to this decision. It is our opinion that your decision
not only disadvantages employment prospects for locals at Swakop Uranium but equally
to the detriment of your own commitment in driving the local economy.
It is consequently that we unequivocally and clearly petition this action and demand for the
immediate removal of the foreigners. Failure to which the Union reserves its rights to seek
immediate redress in this regard.
We would want to know as to: Why is the Company requiring bargaining unit members to train Chinese Nationals when they are here to train and transfer skills to SU employees?
Does the management purposefully set the Company up for failure to justify the importation of Chinese nationals or why is it that more than 5 employees have resigned, including superintendents, Planners and Engineers in the Engineering department but the Company has failed to replace this important positions, or could it be that the bottle neck is actually the Salaries offered which is why the competent Namibians are rejecting the low offers?
The Union has advised the Company on several occasions that SU, which is the biggest
Uranium mine on the African continent must have its own Plant engineering structure with its own HOD (a Resident Engineer) who is responsible for the control, management, and direction of engineering work in the plant, yet management has ignored the urgent request.
• Why is it that the specialists employed do not have experience or a background of Uranium Mining?
• Is a Uranium Mine and a Nuclear Plant compatible?
• How will the individuals who do not have crushers or mining equipment in their nuclear
plant train and transfer skills to Namibians?
• Why does the Company want to bring in Chinese Nationals who are not competent to mentor and already trained and experienced Namibian employee?
We have learned that CNOC is part of CGN group subsidiaries, and we are not happy with the way how they solely selected as we have local Namibians who have the same qualifications but were not accorded the same opportunities.
SU is deliberately makes key positions of employees that resign redundant and like they
did no bring in Chinese national to be come and take up those key position on the expenses for the Namibian workers.
Below is some example for such unfair labour practice:
1. When the Supt Reliability (PRO) resigned they never replaced that individual and today they brought in a Chinese to ensure high level of plant availability to improve plant reliability and productivity of the mine. Failure to fill this position that was responsible for ensuring high level of plant availability and to improve plant reliability is setting us up for failure so that they can justify bringing in the subject matter.
2. When the Engineer Power Plant (MMD) resigned they never replaced that individual. Failure to fill this position that was responsible to formulate maintenance procedures for the Electrical section, ensuring high level of plant availability and to improve plant reliability is setting us up for failure so that they can justify bringing in the subject matter.
3. When the Senior planner (PRO) resigned they never replaced that individual.
Failure to fill this position that was responsible to plan techniques guidelines to guide the
maintenance/operation/metallurgy teams for the Reliability Section (PRO) is setting us up for failure so that they can justify bringing in the subject matter.
4. When the Senior Technician (PRO) resigned they never replaced that individual.
Failure to fill this position that was responsible to for setting up effective and sustainable repair and maintenance inspection schemes, operation and maintenance procedures, training, sharing lessons learnt, remote diagnostics, management procedures, ensure high level of plant availability to improve plant reliability and productivity and system establishment for the Reliability Section (PRO) is setting us up for failure so that they can
justify bringing in the subject matter.
5. When the Reliability Technicians/ Engineers (MMD) resigned they never replaced
that individual. Failure to fill this position that was responsible to for setting up effective and sustainable repair and maintenance inspection schemes, operation and maintenance procedures, training, sharing lessons learnt, remote diagnostics, management procedures, ensure high level of plant availability to improve plant reliability and productivity and system establishment for the Reliability Section(MMD) is setting us up for failure so that they can justify bringing in the subject matter.
6. When the Electrical Technicians (MMD) moved to Planning they never replaced that individual. Failure to fill this position that was responsible to for setting up effective and sustainable repair and maintenance inspection schemes, operation and maintenance procedures, training, sharing lessons learnt, remote diagnostics, analytic fault finding, management procedures, ensure high level of plant availability to improve plant reliability and productivity and system establishment for the Shovel and drills Section(MMD) is setting us up for failure so that they can justify bringing in the subject matter.
7. Replacing all the managers that we had on the Patterson grading was another example for setting us up for failure in order to justify the introduction of this deputy HOD positions which are reserve and or predominantly occupied by the Chinese national.
Relief sought
i) We demand that an equal number of Namibians be exchanged with the number of Chinese nationals coming in the employment of SU (similar to an exchange program), but no Chinese national should take up employment at SU at the expense of a Namibian.
ii) We demand to always be consulted whenever an expatriate is being employed at SU.
iii) We demand that the Company and the Immigration selection board require a support
letter from the Union, before approving any work permits or extensions at SU. This is for the Union to assist the Nation and be the eyes on the ground, as the Union strongly believes that most jobs that the expats are given are jobs that Namibians can perform. Therefore, bringing in expats on non-rare skills positions is contrary to the national interest in terms of the reduction of unemployment and poverty, and not in line with the Harambee Prosperity Plan. For example, bringing a Chinese National to come work as an Artisan whilst we have thousands of qualified Namibian Artisans who are unemployed and or as a shift Operator.
iv) We demand that the Company advertise all vacant positions timeously to avoid the
current shortage of experts that we currently experiencing.
v) We demand for an Affirmative action consultative committee member to be part of
the recruitment process before the employment of expatriates/Chinese Nationals.
vi) We demand that Chinese Nationals follow the same process Locals do in terms of training, with the training section, and not require bargaining unit members who are uncertified trainers to train the Chinese Nationals.
2. Discriminating Bonuses
The Union condemns management for giving themselves incentives whilst excluding
over 1500 employees in the bargaining unit who are actually the ones performing the
actual risky work. 2020 was a challenging year although whilst most mining companies’
production had to come to a standstill at some point, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the
SU workers, particularly the Bargaining unit members had to leave their families and live
onsite at the camp to ensure that the production continues and thereby ensuring business
continuity. This led to the achievement of record-breaking milestones on two consecutive months. Only for the employees to get a shocking surprise, when informed that, the Company has decided to put the bonus scheme on hold, which was active during that time. This was after achieving the first record-breaking milestone, of which our members were supposed to get monetary rewards. The Company’s response was that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the bonus scheme is on hold, and the EXCO will revisit it only in 2021. Therefore, it is saddening, demotivating and unfair to learn that the management has given themselves incentives at the end of the year 2020 with the exclusion of more than 1500 bargaining unit members, this was after raising expectations, and after many
motivated employees went extra miles to maximize productivity.


Relief sought
i. We demand that the company gives all SU employees in the bargaining unit, incentives across the board equivalent of what management gave themselves by yearend 2020.
ii. We demand that a bonus scheme be officiated with the consultation of the union and must be across the board for all employees to be equally motivated and work as one team.
iii. We demand that as a matter of urgency, the Company immediately restores the energies, commitment and trust of SU employees by coming up with various other motivating mechanisms that are to be endorsed by the Union.
3. SU COVID-19 MANAGEMENT MEASURES / PROCEDURES
Since the outbreak of the COVID~19 pandemic within the country and subsequent declaration of the state of emergency by the State the company also implemented measures to the detriment of the workers in respect of the following factors. The Company established a COVID-19 management committee responsible for the
regulation of precautionary measures without the involvement of a recognized Trades Union (MUN), which is the sole bargaining agents at SU.
The Company’s imposed harsh precautionary measures negatively affecting the conditions of employment of employees at SU, through forced submissions of Daily Health Status updates/reports without any credible medical backing. The Union on numerous occasions addressed management to review this inconsistent, unauthentic and flawed system but management continued to force employees to submit or face disciplinary action. The impact of these measures has become so worse that employees are penalized on their annual leave days accrued, as a result of COVID-19 self-isolation, contact tracing and retesting which is contrary to the revised SOP particular on the
recovery period, ( 10 days from the days on set) which are regulations provided by MoHSS, irrespective of the said regulation set up by the Ministry (10 days from day on set) the company added additional 7 days as part of precautionary measures but however the company is deducting the days from the employee leave days.
Relief sought
i. We demand the immediate discontinuation of the DHR or seek urgent alternatives to stop the evils of depriving employees of their constitutional and human rights, under the impression from the company that it’s due to COVID-19.
4. Salary Discrepancies
The Union in the strongest words condemns the continuation of Salary discrepancies at SU, particularly at a time where each instance affected employees raise a concern regarding unfair remuneration, they are advised and asked to wait for the Company, and the Union to conclude the Salary Gap engagements, which is now in a deadlock of which a dispute has been declared, yet the practice still continues.
This current racial remuneration discrepancy has been caused by the current VP: HR & OOC (Patrick Chizabulyo) and remuneration manager/ Superintendent (Diana Husselmann).
Relief sought
i. We demand for the Company’s internal audit team accompanied by two BEC members, to conduct a fact find thorough investigation on offers that were given to bargaining unit members whilst parties were still engaging on the issue of Salary Gap since 03 December 2019, and for the investigation to conclude if indeed the practice of Salary Discrepancies continued based on consistencies in recruitment offers and promotions to employees in the Bargaining Unit.
ii. We demand for bargaining unit members in the same level grading or band (in the same position) to be moved to the highest offer given to employees in 2020 and in 2021, whilst the Company and the Union were still busy with the Salary Gaps issue.
iii. We demand that the company invites PWC to do an independent benchmarking per position and give its report to both the Company and the Union, as the current Benchmarking was not position based.
iv. We demand a request for an international benchmarking of remuneration with other Uranium mining companies of the same calibre.
v. We demand that Diana Husselmann must go!
5. Leave days
It has come to the Union’s attention that the Company is asking management to inform
our members with many annual leave days to forcefully go on annual leave within the
next 6 months and for management to ensure that those days are reduced to 32 days and
less. This comes after the Company and the Union has reached an agreement to uncap leave days from 32 days effective 06 October 2020 for any employee of the SU who resigns or leave the employment of the Company to be paid their days due to them. Thus, this is assumed to be a U-turn by the Company to again talk about 32days capping via management whilst there is a standing agreement. In addition, in the same
aforementioned agreement, the Company agreed to credit leave days back to the employees who were previously deducted annual leave days, during days that were public holidays. The Company is reminded that leave application as per Company procedure is not guaranteed, it is granted upon leave application approval. In addition, we do understand that we are in a 24-7 operation and not everyone is granted leave upon
application due to operational requirements. It is on those bases that the Company is allowed to deny an Employee annual leave to attend to his/her personal errands.
Therefore, it will be inhumane to force an employee to go on leave at a time when the
employee does not have any errands to run. We condemn the Company for once again
going behind the Union’s back and asking our members to sign papers on issues of conditions of employment as the Union is the sole bargaining agent for all employees in the bargaining unit.
Relief sought
i. As a matter of Urgency, the Company must withdraw such instructions from the
remuneration Superintendent which strives to reduce employees annual leave days.
ii. We demand that employees be given the freedom to plan their own leave at them
desired time without duress,
iii. We demand that the Company sends out an internal memo informing all SU employees not to overstep the jurisdiction of the union e.g., Conditions of employments directly with the Bargaining unit members as there is a platform for the Company and the Union to engage on these matters.
6. Internal Promotions
The Union is dismayed at how the Company discriminates when it comes to internal promotions of SU employees. Most SU employees, if not all, in the bargaining unit are
strictly required to go through an interview process before getting a new position even if
there is only one candidate to be interviewed. Bargaining unit members are required to
wait for the position to be advertised, internal or external, and only then can they apply, whilst Chinese nationals are promoted left, right, and centre, without going through the same recruitment process that bargaining Unit members go through. For example, why is it that a Chinese national can come in as an Artisan of which SU employees will be required to train him/her, but then that person will get a promotion months later to a Deputy HOD position, without going through the same interview process that the Namibians in the bargaining unit go through or without competition. Why doesn’t the Company want to boost the morale of SU employees, and create a competitive atmosphere where employees will do the extra mile to get a promotion?
Relief sought
i. We demand the Company stops the discriminatory treatment and apply the
Company’s recruitment procedure consistently regardless of origin.
ii. We demand that bargaining unit members recommended by their EUD for a promotion should progress and this must be communicated in a side wide memo for all employees to see.
7. Training and Development
The Union members are crippled by the discontinuation of the progression framework
which allowed employees in the bargaining unit to have rates of progression within their band therefore giving them a chance to train, develop and progress in their roles. This Unilateral change of condition of employment which is the discontinuation of the progression framework has led to a demotivated workforce as employees accepted offers based on this conditions and with the expectation of growing as per their progression framework, however, since the discontinuation of the progression framework in 2018, employees find themselves at the same positions they were in 3 years ago. For example
at smaller Mines such as Skorpion Zinc mine, you will find a mining operator who had worked in the mine for 4 years and that mining operator will be skilled in various equipment and machineries, such that in the event of a retrenchment, as is the case, the Namibian mining operator will be able to get a job at other mines because he/she is
Multiskilled on various equipment and machineries. That is all made possible by a
progression framework. On the other hand, at the bigger mine such as SU, you will find a mining operator who has been employed at SU for more than 5 years, but this mining operator only has one machine and is not trained on several machines and equipment like at other smaller mines. SU should train their workforce according to the progression framework as it brings monetary benefits to the employees and also raises the pool of experts on machineries in the Company.
Relief sought
i. We demand the Company to reintroduce the Progression framework, evaluate employees based on the progression framework, and grade them accordingly. Then, revise and review Progression framework for each position.
8. Understudies and actual transfer of skills
The Union has learned that majority of individuals assigned as Understudies don’t have an under-study program that traces their progress and evaluates the skills transferred. The Union has also been reliably informed that some employees assigned as understudies were never consulted or asked permission before being assigned and that they have never performed any review or training in connection with an “under study program”. The
Union has also learned that the selection of the understudies is not fair and transparent, and employees are appointed as understudies in field that is very different from their roles. Some of the understudies do not know the qualification of the person their understudying, only their position. Therefore, the Union condemns in the strongest terms this unethical type of paper exercise and caution the Company that a continuation of such
practice will be against the Company’s own values and mission.
Relief sought
i. We demand that the Affirmative action consultative committee interview all
understudies and write a report to the Union on the findings.
9. NON-COMPLIANCES (Legal Appointments)
The Union condemns delays from the Company to address urgent queries raised in a letter attached as Annexure B regarding Non-Compliances of which up to date, we have not received the requests in the above-mentioned letter although having given the company a deadline of 16 December 2020. We have witness tactical delays in the name of “doing thorough investigation’’, although, as a world class Company, the Union is of the opinion that the information requested is already at the disposal of the Company.
Relief sought
i. We demand our letter dated 09 December 2020 regarding Non-Compliances be revisited and our requests be granted as a matter of urgency on or before end of March 2020
10. Internal Policies and Procedures
The Union has on several occasions condemn the SU management for changing, reviewing and introducing procedures left, right, and centre, that are altering and/or affecting the conditions of employment of employees in the bargaining unit without first consulting the Union.
Relief sought
i. We demand that the Union be consulted on all policies and procedures that are affecting or alter conditions of employment of bargaining unit members.