Publications
Partners
The National Union of Metal Workers of SA (Numsa) has come out guns blazing, accusing its expelled member, SA Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU) president Ruth Ntlokotse of misconduct and spreading lies regarding her suspension.
This comes after, Ntlokotse was expelled from the union last Thursday following a disciplinary inquiry held at Birchwood Hotel in Boksburg, Ekurhuleni, which Ntlokotse failed to attend, last month.
The hearing was chaired by an independent person and labour law specialist, Charlie Higgs. Ntlokotse was charged with misconduct and Higgs recommended expulsion with an option to appeal within seven days of the expulsion. The national executive committee (NEC) endorsed the recommendation and moved to expel her on Thursday.
“The Union is dismayed by the pack of lies that she decided to unleash in the media interview about the leadership of Numsa. She has presented it as corrupt, and she has been agitating against the union leadership,” said Numsa in a statement released on Monday.
READ: Saftu president expelled from Numsa following disciplinary inquiry held in her absence
Rogue misconduct
Numsa was alluding to the appearance of Ntlokotse on ENCA and Newsroom Afrika, where she claimed that her expulsion did not stem from the charges against her, but the union’s animosity against her questioning of its financial mismanagement.
Ntlokotse claimed:
The insurance company was accused of siphoning millions of insurance premiums paid by members of Numsa to prop up other Numsa-owned companies between 2017 and 2019.
Numsa has criticised Ntlokotse’s tendency to deal with the union’s internal matters in the public eye, purporting that it undermines the fundamental principles of unity and organisational discipline that are enshrined in the union’s constitution.
“This is the very type of rogue misconduct that the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing has found her guilty of, and which has been directly responsible for her expulsion, and she is no longer a Numsa member,” Numsa added in the statement.
It conceded to dispel the allegation of financial mismanagement being the premise of Ntlokotse’s expulsion and that Jim had not accounted for the R20.1 million, which was given to Numsa through Numsa Investment Company sponsorship.
Ntlokotse is accused of having used delay tactics to avoid her disciplinary hearing
Numsa maintained that Ntlokotse was aware of her disciplinary hearing four weeks before the proceeding and opted to not attend after she requested the union book accommodation on her behalf, which was booked.
“The union also requested time off from her work, which was granted by her employer. Although an email requesting a postponement was purportedly sent late on Friday, April 21, Jim’s personal assistant only read the email after the disciplinary hearing had commenced at 10am on Monday, April 24. At that late stage, the decision to postpone rested solely in the chairperson’s hands.”
READ: Ntlokotse’s contempt application against Numsa dismissed
It added that Ntlokotse was obliged to attend the hearing and make her application for postponement through the chairperson.
Last week, City Press reported that Ntlokotse said she could not attend her hearing because she was handling section 189 procedures in her capacity as a longstanding shop steward at Johnsen Matthey as the company was contemplating closure.
Numsa responded to this claim, saying:
It further purported that the NEC was aware that Ntlokotse was exempted from attending her shop steward duties due to her disciplinary hearing and that other unions expected other shop stewards to attend the consultation process.
“Ntlokotse is not the only shop steward capable of representing the Johnsen Matthey workers. The Union also has officials that could have attended the section 189 retrenchment and consultation processes.”
'I owe my existence to workers'
Ntlokotse told City Press that she was served with disciplinary charges in December 2022, and the first date of the hearing was supposed to be at the end of March but was moved to the end of April by the union. Johnsen Matthey announced section 189 on April 4.
“We approached [the] CCMA and the first sitting was on April 17. We have four sittings in total and after the first sitting, it was agreed that the next sitting would be on the 24th of April. This date coincided with the hearing,” she said.
She added that she would have requested accommodation before April 17, before it was decided that the next sitting would be on April 24 in the section 189 consultation.
“They are telling the truth that I requested them to book accommodation; however, I did write to Jim to request for postponement after the sitting and submitted the set down notice from [the] CCMA.
“So, where are the delaying tactics? The disciplinary hearing was scheduled to happen from the 24th to the 26th of April. If they were serious about the hearing, the least they could have done was to proceed on the next day, which was the 25th, and it was within the allocated three days.”
Ntlokotse conceded that when the union requested a postponement, it was granted but when she requested one, the union accused her of using delaying tactics.
“There is no such thing. Before I became an office bearer, I was a shop steward. I owe my existence to the workers who elected me. So, I could not attend the hearing at the expense of workers who could potentially lose their jobs.”
