Face-swapping apps seem harmless. Upload a photo, see yourself as a different age or character, share it with friends. But when your employees use these apps, they're handing over something that can't...

Civil Service Board to review whistleblower allegations and regulations during September meeting.

Filleppuss George Ampweya  Namibia’s workers face a growing trend that Trade unions and employees alike must scrutinise carefully: the rise of the so-called ’Voluntary Separation Scheme”. At face value, these schemes appear fair and harmless as they offer employees a “choice” to leave employment on mutual grounds, often with a separation package that seems better than statutory retrenchment pay-outs. But beneath this façade lies a practice that, if misused, can directly undermine the very principles of fairness, transparency, and collective bargaining process that the Labour Act, 11 of 2007 enshrines for any employer considering job cuts for economic reasons. Section 34 of the Labour Act sets out a clear, mandatory process when an employer contemplates dismissing employees for reasons of redundancy, economic downturn, or operational restructuring. The employer must provide at least four weeks’ written notice to the recognised trade union or elected workplace representatives. More importantly, the employer must disclose all relevant information like the financial position, the reasons for the contemplated dismissals, the number of employees likely to be affected, and alternatives that could avoid or minimise retrenchments. Equally, there must be genuine, good-faith negotiations with workers’ representatives or their Trade Union to reach consensus on how to avert or reduce dismissals and mitigate their consequences. The question, therefore, is simple: does calling a scheme “voluntary” absolve the employer of its obligations under Section 34? The courts have consistently said no. In the Labour Court appeal of Pupkewitz Holdings (Pty) Ltd & Another v Mutanuka & Others, the court ruled that where the effect of an employer’s actions is the loss of employment for operational reasons, the protective provisions of Section 34 apply regardless of the name given to the process. This precedent echoes a broader principle under Namibian law and ILO conventions: substance triumphs over form. Further, is Metal and Allied Namibian Workers Union (MANWU) v NDN Diamonds (Pty) Ltd, where the Labour Court found that so-called “mutual separations” can be scrutinised if employees were misled or pressured to “voluntarily” sign away their employment rights without proper consultation. The principle is simple: volunteerism must be genuine. If an employee is told, “Take this package now or you will be retrenched on worse terms,” the choice is hardly free. Such tactics violate the spirit and the letter of Section 34. This is not just legal technicality; it is about protecting real livelihoods. Many employers might find the statutory retrenchment process cumbersome and costly hence they prefer to circumvent the duty to disclose financial realities and negotiate with the Trade union by offering separation packages directly to employees. The promise of a quick exit or a slightly sweeter deal can easily undermine solidarity, weaken collective bargaining power, and leave workers vulnerable. The growing practice of disguised retrenchments must be challenged to uphold decent work standards and defend the principle that collective bargaining is not optional. The bottom line is clear, Section 34 is not a bureaucratic obstacle; it is a safeguard against unilateral decisions that put families’ livelihoods at risk. In the Namibian workplace, respect for the law must remain stronger than profit-driven shortcuts. The trade union movement, workers, and society at large must continue to insist that no employer, foreign or local, is too big to comply. *Fillepuss George Ampweya is the secretary general of the Mine Workers Union of Namibia (MUN). He can be reached at ampweyageorge@gmail.com. The views expressed herein are  his own!