Security guards on go-slow over salaries

DEFENSOR security guards stationed at the Kimberley Mental Health Hospital in Kimberley embarked on a go-slow this week because of salary payment challenges.

The security guards were notified on May 30 that they would be paid a portion of their salaries on May 31 and the balance by June 9, as the company was in the same “unfortunate situation” as last month.

Workers at the mental hospital were informed that they had embarked on an unprotected wildcat strike and were instructed to return to their posts as they were causing “severe prejudice to the company without justification, reason or legality”.

The security guards claimed that they were intimidated and threatened with dismissal if they refused to return to their posts.

“The manager shifted his jacket and showed us his firearm that he was carrying on his hip,” they said.

“We are not controlling access at the entry points and are not securing the safety of staff at the hospital or checking for persons carrying dangerous weapons into the premises. Patients are also free to walk out of the hospital. We want danger allowances as we work with mental patients who can become aggressive.

“We are thinking of our families, so while we are passionate about our jobs, we will not care about what happens inside the hospital until the payment of our salaries are sorted out.”

They added that they were transported in overloaded taxis.

“Up to 18 passengers are squashed into double cabs with no ventilation. If one person has flu, we all become infected.”

The guards also said that provident fund deductions were not paid over to the relevant third parties.

Members of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) said a meeting had been arranged between the company, union representatives and management of the hospital.

“If it is not resolved we will apply for a strike certificate. We are still on a go-slow.”

Health and Other Services Personnel Trade Union of South Africa (Hospersa) provincial chairperson Dennis Segano added that their members who were employed at Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe Hospital were worried as their salaries would also be paid in two instalments.

“They are struggling to survive. However, they are at their posts and are not involved in any strike action.

“Employees are notified a day before pay day that their salary payments will be split.”

The operations manager at Defensor Electronic Security, Gavin Benbrook, believed that it was a “blatant attempt to win sympathy with the media”.

He added that there were 13 security officers employed at the mental hospital who had refused to work, although it had not hindered any staff or members of the public from entering the facility,

“The situation was monitored by the police. No arrests were made as no illegal or disruptive actions took place. Workers have since returned to their posts.”

He stated that no salaries were outstanding.

"Salaries were due on May 31. All other payments due to staff have been done timeously. In the event that salaries are not paid in full or any other relevant changes are made, this will be communicated to all staff and remedies to this presented to them."

Benbrook stated that no workers were intimidated or threatened with a firearm.

"All company employees who were authorised to carry firearms did so in line with the relevant laws governing security officers in the use and carrying of firearms and the necessary competencies required.

“The manager did, however, issue all staff with a written ultimatum to return to work as prescribed in the Labour Relations Act sections dealing with illegal strike action."

He indicated that access at the mental facility did not form part of their duties. "This is the responsibility of the Department of Health as this function has been in-sourced by the department."

Benbrook added that all security officers at the mental hospital received a minimum of R604 per month more than their counterparts in respect of danger allowances.

"Depending on the number of holidays and/or weekends worked they may receive a higher rate per day.”

He pointed out that it was impossible to overload 18 staff members into a taxi since there were only 13 employees.

“It must also be placed on record that the company does not supply transport to any of its staff to and from work.”

Benbrook explained that the payment of provident fund deductions to third parties was awaiting a court decision.

“Payments have been allocated by our company by the fund in question.”