Publications
Partners
Johannesburg - Metropolitan Holdings [JSE:MET] and Momentum will on Friday ask the Competition Tribunal to clarify the order it handed down last month prohibiting job losses as a result of their merger.
According to the insurers, the terms "retrenchments" and "senior management", which appear in the order, are ambiguous.
The National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) which represents about 6% of Momentum's employees, is opposing the application.
When it approved the merger, the tribunal made the condition that the merged entity, MMI Holdings, had to ensure that no retrenchments in South Africa would result from the tie-up for two years after the implementation date.
This condition, however, did not apply to senior management.
The two firms had to advise their employees of this condition.
This decision followed a hearing before the tribunal, in which the insurers proposed to limit the number of merger-related job losses to 1 000 in the first three years after implementing the merger.
The merging parties also offered to provide support, such as core skills training to affected unskilled and semi-skilled employees, outplacement support and counselling, and to use their best endeavours to redeploy affected employees within the merged entity.
The Competition Commission accepted the merging parties' undertakings, which improved on the merging parties' original undertakings, and recommended to the tribunal that the merger be approved subject to the implementation of these support measures.
Nehawu however, argued that the merging parties had failed to properly justify the need for any job losses and had not substantiated how they arrived at the 1 000 retrenchments figure.
Nehawu asked the tribunal to prohibit the merger or to approve it without any job losses.
According to the insurers, the terms "retrenchments" and "senior management", which appear in the order, are ambiguous.
The National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) which represents about 6% of Momentum's employees, is opposing the application.
When it approved the merger, the tribunal made the condition that the merged entity, MMI Holdings, had to ensure that no retrenchments in South Africa would result from the tie-up for two years after the implementation date.
This condition, however, did not apply to senior management.
The two firms had to advise their employees of this condition.
This decision followed a hearing before the tribunal, in which the insurers proposed to limit the number of merger-related job losses to 1 000 in the first three years after implementing the merger.
The merging parties also offered to provide support, such as core skills training to affected unskilled and semi-skilled employees, outplacement support and counselling, and to use their best endeavours to redeploy affected employees within the merged entity.
The Competition Commission accepted the merging parties' undertakings, which improved on the merging parties' original undertakings, and recommended to the tribunal that the merger be approved subject to the implementation of these support measures.
Nehawu however, argued that the merging parties had failed to properly justify the need for any job losses and had not substantiated how they arrived at the 1 000 retrenchments figure.
Nehawu asked the tribunal to prohibit the merger or to approve it without any job losses.
