Injustice on petrol station forecourt leaves me reeling

Pinky Khoabane: A year after BP's oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico - which left 11 people dead and did untold damage to the environment - you'd think that this company would have learnt a lesson about the importance of brand management, if nothing else.

According to BP's annual report, it had to set aside $20-billion to pay claims and compensation stemming from the disaster. A further $500-million has been allocated for research on its impact on the environment.

When its chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, in the same annual report, says that BP will do everything to ensure that it "is a company that can be trusted by shareholders and communities around the world", you'd think that the wider community to which he refers, includes employees, even those at its franchises.

But, no. If the overseas group has learnt something from the PR mess that followed the oil debacle, it certainly hasn't filtered it down to the South African office.

Just last week, I visited a BP garage one cold evening and noticed that one of the petrol attendants wasn't wearing a jacket.

An inquiry into why she wasn't wearing one led me down a chilling path of low wages, worker abuse and a violation of labour laws.

As it turned out, this petrol attendant wasn't wearing a jacket because she didn't have one. Her male colleagues later explained that she didn't have one because she couldn't afford to buy one, but they had devised a system whereby they lent her theirs when their shift ended.

Right there my head spun a little. How does a company dictate that you wear its uniform but doesn't provide it for free?

The jacket, priced at R250, was way above what she could afford with her measly salary of R600 per week. This salary is an industry norm, though.

During our discussion, it emerged that the employees had to buy the entire uniform. The pants, shirt and cap came to approximately R650 and each bought at least two sets.

In response to my question on the matter, BP's head of marketing and sales, Sipho Mbelle, had this to say: "BP's retail network is run on a franchise model. The franchise owners manage each dealership independently.

"BP's policy is to provide the forecourt and staff uniforms to its dealers at cost. While BP encourages the dealers to provide the uniforms to staff at no costs, the franchise model prescribes that the dealer is free to put policies in place to manage their staff as they see fit."

What?

Does this man or this organisation know that there are guidelines which stipulate that workers in the motor industry should be provided with at least two sets of uniforms a year at no cost?

Surely, an organisation with a global brand would not leave matters of its image in the hands of dealers? Forget about the health and safety of its employees; just think what a tattered uniform does to the image.

This lackadaisical approach to the uniform policy also contradicts the Motor Industry Bargaining Council's contention that the oil companies placed onerous conditions on their franchises. "They dictate everything - from where the agent buys his bread to where he gets his newspapers," an employee at the bargaining council told me.

It would seem that BP's commitment to quality extends to its products and marketing campaigns and not to the staff of its franchises. As I scratched deeper, I discovered that just about every aspect of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act were being broken here.

The workers didn't have any contracts. They didn't receive salary slips or proof of any of the statutory deductions required by law. As one of the employees told me: "The money is simply handed to you. It doesn't even go into an envelope and you are then handed a piece of paper on which you are asked to put a signature next to your name."

These workers cannot be described as temporary staff. I frequent this petrol station and they have been there for longer than the three-months period permissible by law for employees to be considered temporary.

The workforce at this garage has a large contingent of foreigners, who are particularly vulnerable to employer abuse, stemming largely from their illegal stay in the country.

While it is within the law to employ foreigners, it is a contravention to employ those without the necessary papers to stay in the country.

The response from BP's Mbelle is plain hogwash.

This company would want to wash its hands of this filthy mess, but we are not stupid. An organisation operating within the framework of the law should not simply "encourage" its dealers; it should enforce the laws of the country which are binding on it and its franchises.