Afgri denies Solidarity’s Accusations

The Agricultural inputs and services company Afgri has come out strongly against accusations levelled against them by trade union solidarity.

- Advertisement -

The Agricultural inputs and services company Afgri has come out strongly against accusations levelled against them by trade union solidarity.
The union claims the restructuring in Afgri’s Producer Services Division (PSD) indicates a lack of confidence in South African agriculture.
Afgri’s response came in the wake of a statement by Solidarity that “the trade union rejects the motion of no confidence in farmers brought by the agricultural company Afgri with its decision to terminate the employment of 220 workers, more than 12% of its labour force, and close 23 PSD branches.“
Afgri is currently consulting with staff at the 23 branches, which the company claims are all either unprofitable or marginal in terms of returns on investment.
Afgri spokesperson Tish Stewart said Afgri’s PSD pillar, which has over R400 million invested in agricultural inputs and machinery, has invested more than R100 million in commercial infrastructure over the past 18 months.
Stewart added that this included the opening of two new agricultural branches; the opening of three specialised mechanisation centres; the upgrading of at least 40 branches; the purchase of land for the future development of two additional mechanisation centres; the relocation and upgrading of its agricultural wholesale business, Partmaster; and, in Gauteng, the opening of two Farmcity stores, that Stewart said promote agriculture’s image in the cities.
Meanwhile, spokesperson, Reint Dykema said, ”This is not simply a matter of 220 workers losing their jobs. The farming communities in question would bear the brunt of the closures.
“Over many years farmers have been loyal supporters of their local co-ops, but now they would have to travel long distances, just for farming basics.“
“Solidarity has given Afgri until 22 February to consult with the union,” added Dykema. “ Failing that the trade union would approach the Labour Court for an interdict in terms of Section 189 (13).” – Lloyd Phillips