Publications
Partners
The SA Federation of Trade Unions' (Saftu) president, Ruth Ntlokotse, has been expelled in her capacity as a member of the federation’s largest affiliate, the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa) on Thursday.
This after a disciplinary inquiry was held at Birchwood Hotel in Boksburg, Ekurhuleni, on April 24, when Ntlokotse was charged with misconduct with the possibility of being expelled from the union. The union's national executive committee (NEC) accepted the recommendation of Ntlokotse's expulsion from an independent chairperson.
READ: Ntlokotse’s contempt application against Numsa dismissed
The letter from the union's NEC to Ntlokotse, which City Press has seen, states:
Ntokotse’s ultimate expulsion comes after a court challenge that she initiated that sought to nullify the decisions and elections made at the union’s 11th congress in July when she and 50 other members were barred from attending because they were suspended, preceding the congress.
The disciplinary inquiry was held in Ntlokotse’s absence since she submitted her request for the postponement of the inquiry on April 21, while the notice of the hearing was issued in December.
In the document, which City Press has seen, the chairperson of the disciplinary inquiry and labour law specialist Charlie Higgs concluded:
One of the charges preferred against Ntlokotse is the non-return of union property, such as vehicle, laptop and cellphone after the union moved to withdraw her benefits from July. Another charge relate to Ntlokotse writing a letter and allegedly leaking it to the national office bearer and the media while she was still the union’s second deputy president, thereby, bringing the union into disrepute.
The third charge relates to Ntlokotse failing to comply with constitutional duties as a member of the national office bearer of the union by campaigning for the position of president of Saftu and accepting the nomination, which is a slap in Numsa's face because the union nominated Mac Chavalala for the same position.
City Press reached out to Numsa's spokesperson, Phakamile Hlubi-Majola, for comment. She did not respond at the time of publication.
Meanwhile, Saftu's spokesperson, Trevor Shaku, said: “We are still discussing the matter internally and do not have a comment as yet.”
According to the document, the union’s initiator, Advocate Mark Meyerowitz said:
He said that no person is higher than the union itself, and that organisational discipline serves several purposes, which include the portrayal of a united front against employers, and it is a democratic institution as the will of the majority prevails.
Numsa's second deputy president, Basil Cele, who has been a leader since 2013, testified in the disciplinary inquiry proceeding that members were not allowed to create disunity in the union.
Cele said: “Members are not allowed to create disunity as once there is a majority decision, they should all respect and abide by the majority decision. If you want to change it, then go to the structure. The constitution makes provisions to have a right and go back to the structure and ask that it be changed. The constitution will set up a debate once a two-thirds majority has voted in favour of reopening a discussion.”
The suspended Saftu president, Ruth Ntlokotse, told City Press that on the day of the disciplinary inquiry, she was attending a CCMA Section 189 consultation at Johnsen Matthey, a company that makes catalytic converters for vehicles and refines platinum, where she was representing workers in her capacity as Numsa's shop steward, hence, she postponed.
According to Ntlokotse, the company is contemplating closure.
Ntlokotse said that she was shocked when she discovered from colleagues that the disciplinary process proceeded in her absence. She added that she learnt from other comrades that Jim said it was not necessary for her to attend that consultation process, as any shop steward would have gone there.
READ: Numsa wants to set the record straight on appeal
She maintained that all shop stewards in her area were new and no one had experience in handling a section 189 process, as she had handled many in her term as a shop steward.
“The question I had in my mind was if the union would insist that the process was not important which affects 387 permanent workers and contractors, then what is the union's priority, expelling me or taking care of the worker's interest?”
She added that she discovered at a later stage that Johnsen Matthey (with whom she was negotiating) had decided to allow her to attend her own disciplinary process, but had not informed her after Jim sought permission from the company.
Ntlokotse has since laid a complaint against Johnsen Matthey for not informing her that they had agreed with Jim that she could attend her own disciplinary inquiry.
