At the heart of the latest labour unrest at Beifang Mining Technology Services (BMTS) at the Husab project is a question far larger than shift rosters or bonus formulas. It is a question about corporate citizenship, respect for Namibian labour law, and whether profitability can ever justify practices that workers experience as punitive and unfair.
BMTS, a contractor operating at the Husab Mine, has in recent weeks found itself once again at odds with its workforce and the Mineworkers’ Union (MUN). While earlier tensions centred on a revised shift roster that led to the dismissal of approximately 11 workers, the latest flashpoint is a controversial bonus policy that allegedly penalises employees for taking sick leave.
Workers argue that deductions from performance bonuses for legitimate sick leave amount to punishment for falling ill. The union has characterised the practice as contrary to the principles of fair labour practice and, potentially, inconsistent with Namibian labour protections. Whether the company frames the policy as a productivity measure or a performance incentive is secondary. The core issue is perception and impact: if workers believe they are being punished for exercising lawful rights, labour relations will inevitably deteriorate.
Namibia’s labour framework is not an optional guideline. It is a binding social contract that governs the relationship between employer and employee. Sick leave is not a privilege to be quietly discouraged through financial penalties. It is a statutory right designed to protect worker health and safety. In a high-risk sector such as mining, discouraging workers from taking necessary sick leave can have consequences that extend beyond individual hardship. It can compromise safety underground and on site.
This latest controversy does not arise in a vacuum. The earlier dispute over a revised shift roster imposed, according to the union, without proper collective engagement, already strained relations. The dismissal of workers who refused to accept the new schedule was viewed by MUN as intimidation rather than legitimate disciplinary action. When trust is eroded in one area, every subsequent policy change is interpreted through that lens.
It is also impossible to ignore the broader context of subcontracted labour at the Husab project. Workers have repeatedly raised concerns that contractor employees receive inferior wages, have fewer benefits, and enjoy less job security than their counterparts directly employed by the mine’s principal operator. In this case, that operator is Swakop Uranium. The perception, fair or not, is that there is a two-tier workforce operating on the same site, performing comparable work under markedly different conditions.
Such disparities breed resentment. They also raise legitimate policy questions about the use of contractors in capital-intensive industries. Namibia welcomes foreign direct investment. It needs it. Large-scale mining projects contribute significantly to GDP, export earnings, and employment. But investment does not come with a waiver from compliance. The size of a payroll does not dilute the force of labour law.
BMTS is a major employer. That fact deserves recognition. It provides jobs in a region where employment opportunities are limited and contributes to the broader mining value chain. Yet responsible corporate citizenship requires more than job creation. It requires adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the law. It requires meaningful engagement with unions. It requires policies that do not appear to penalise workers for illness or lawful absence.
The company must ask itself a simple question: what message does a sick-leave-linked bonus deduction send? In industries where safety is paramount, the message should always be that workers are encouraged to prioritise their health and the safety of their colleagues. A system that effectively reduces pay for legitimate sick leave risks incentivising presenteeism—workers reporting for duty when unwell. In mining, that is not a trivial concern.
There is also a reputational dimension. Namibia’s regulatory and social environment is evolving. Public scrutiny of labour practices is growing. Investors and international partners increasingly evaluate environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria. Persistent labour unrest, allegations of intimidation, and controversial pay policies do not align with best practice standards in modern corporate governance.
None of this is to suggest that companies cannot pursue efficiency, productivity, and profitability. They must. Mining is capital-intensive and subject to volatile global commodity markets. But the pursuit of profit must be balanced against the rights and dignity of employees. “Profits before people” is not a sustainable model, particularly in a country where social cohesion and economic stability are tightly interwoven.
The way forward is neither confrontation nor brinkmanship. It is structured, transparent engagement. BMTS should return to the negotiating table with MUN in good faith. The bonus policy must be reviewed against the Labour Act and, if necessary, amended to ensure that it does not penalise lawful sick leave. Any future changes to shift systems or conditions of employment must follow proper consultation and collective bargaining procedures.
Government, too, has a role. The ministry responsible for labour cannot remain a passive observer if allegations of unlawful practices persist. Enforcement of labour standards must be even-handed and consistent, regardless of the size or origin of the employer.
Namibia’s mining sector has long been a pillar of the economy. Its continued success depends not only on uranium prices and production volumes but also on stable industrial relations. A climate of mistrust serves no one, not the workers, not the company, and not the country.
Beifang Mining Technology Services stands at a crossroads. It can choose a path of rigid defensiveness, dismissing criticism as union agitation. Or it can choose to reaffirm its commitment to Namibia’s laws and to the wellbeing of the very workers who underpin its operations.
Responsible corporate citizenship is not measured by investment figures alone. It is measured by how a company treats its people when disputes arise. In this moment, BMTS must demonstrate that it understands this fundamental truth: in Namibia, the law applies equally to all, and economic contribution does not confer immunity.
