IOl Business reports that seven years after Legal Aid South Africa employees first tabled grievances over salaries, workloads and working conditions, many of the same issues remain. Legal Aid SA staff embarked on a two-day protected strike on 17 and 18 June after negotiations failed to resolve several disputes, most notably about retirement ages. IOL understands employees returned to work after the two-day action.

A comparison of memoranda handed to Legal Aid SA during industrial action in 2019 and again in June this year shows striking similarities in the concerns raised by employees, with retirement age, salary benchmarking, excessive workloads and consultation remaining among the union’s core demands. Unlike the 2019 memorandum, however, this year’s document acknowledges that a number of longstanding labour issues were resolved under the current leadership. “The current management under the leadership of the CEO took over those issues and earnestly engaged with labour,” the memorandum states.

“As a result of the above engagements most labour issues or demand were resolved to mention a few, life insurance policy, funeral cover, improved working conditions, providing employees with tools of trade, performance incentive bonuses, payment of professional or registration fees, bursaries and so forth,” the South African Lawyers Workers Union (SALAWU) argued this year. However, employees argued this year that several fundamental disputes have remained unresolved.

“It is fundamental [sic] important to mention that despite the above huge and positive progress under the current leadership the following labour issues continued to remain unresolved to date, namely, retirement age, salaries of employees,” it said this year.

Seventh year

Retirement age featured prominently in the 2019 memorandum, in which employees alleged that some staff were being forced to retire at 60 despite contracts reflecting a retirement age of 65 and demanded that Legal Aid SA comply with labour laws governing retirement. “The employer has valid employment contracts with certain employees where the retirement age is 65. The employer is forcing the concerned employees to retire at the age of 60,” the 2019 document reads. Seven years later, the issue remains the union’s primary demand.

Among other things, employees are calling for the “immediate reversal of current retirement policy of 60 years to 65 years”, the suspension of the current retirement policy, the reinstatement of employees retired from January this year and the extension of recent Public Service retirement amendments to Legal Aid SA employees.

Reversal

Legal Aid SA has consistently rejected claims that the retirement age was changed unilaterally. It said the retirement age of 60 was approved by its Board in November 2018 and by the Ministers of Justice and Finance in February 2020 following consultation with employees.

“It is therefore incorrect that the retirement age policy was unilaterally changed from 65 to 60 years,” the organisation previously told IOL. The organisation also said budget reductions of R813 million over the medium term forced the Board to discontinue the interim retirement extension arrangements introduced in 2024.

Salary concerns 

Salary benchmarking is another issue that has remained largely unchanged. In 2019, employees argued salary reviews due in 2012 had never been implemented and said they had received little explanation beyond financial constraints. “The employer from 2012 until 2018 has elected to say absolutely nothing to employees about revision and implementation of salaries until being confronted by way of a grievance lodged in 2018. This is still not implemented,” SALAWU said.

The latest memorandum repeats those concerns almost verbatim, stating that while previous management agreed a benchmarking exercise was necessary and discussions were under way, “since the current Board assumed office on 1 May 2024 to date there is absolutely nothing positive to the benefit of employees they have done on this delicate matter”.

Legal Aid SA said staff compensation already accounts for about 80% of its budget and that mandatory budget cuts have prevented improvements to employee benefits and increases in staffing levels. “Staff optimisation projects are initiated to alleviate the excessive caseloads, and we continually explore non-remunerative benefits to promote employee wellbeing,” it said.

Workloads remain a concern

Heavy workloads also feature prominently in both memoranda. In 2019, employees complained of legal practitioners carrying hundreds of civil files, candidate attorneys handling multiple criminal trials daily and support staff being under-capacitated. “We have civil practitioners with a heavy workload of more than 300 civil files,” SALAWU said in 2019.

The latest memorandum argued that the problem has intensified because vacant posts have remained frozen following resignations, deaths, retirements and dismissals. “The consequences… is the unreasonable workload of those who have left the organisation now becoming the responsibility of the current employees,” the memorandum said. It added that the situation is “affecting the well-being of employees, compromising the quality, and ultimately negatively impact on the organisation’s constitutional mandate”. Legal Aid SA said budget reductions have precluded increases in headcount but that staff optimisation initiatives are under way to reduce excessive caseloads.

Consultation still disputed

Consultation is another issue that appears in both memoranda. This year, employees demand “proper and genuine consultation on all matters affecting employees”, saying engagement should not become “a tick box exercises [sic]”. “There was never a consultative process with employees,” said SALAWU of various issues. Legal Aid SA disputes suggestions that engagement has broken down.

“It is incorrect to suggest that Legal Aid South Africa failed to engage with SALAWU. Several scheduled meetings were postponed or cancelled by SALAWU, and the next engagement between the parties is scheduled…” the organisation said in response to earlier questions from IOL.

by Nicola Mawson