Irvin Jim, the general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa.
Irvin Jim, the general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), has called a court bid by the suspended members of his union “political lawfare”.
Jim was responding to an affidavit by Numsa’s suspended second deputy president, Ruth Ntlokotse, which is part of a bid at the labour court to declare the suspensions of 30 leaders invalid and allow the members to participate in the union’s congress next week.
In the absence of such an order, the suspended members want the congress interdicted until their disputes with the union are heard. Ntlokotse contends that the suspensions are unlawful and have been used as “a tool to frustrate the democratic process”.
The court battle, which is to be heard on Friday, comes amid a struggle for the heart of the country’s single-largest union, which has been hit with allegations of factionalism and financial abuses. As this skirmish plays out, the positions of a number of elected Numsa leaders, including shop stewards and officials, have come under threat.
In his affidavit, Jim argues that the court should “be slow to interfere with internal disputes unless there have been actions that are manifestly unlawful”.
“It is common for members and whole regions within a national trade union to disagree with each other, and to disagree with national structures. These disputes should, generally speaking, be left to the union to resolve internally,” the Numsa leader states, adding that the union’s decision-makers acted lawfully when they suspended Ntlokotse and other members.
Ntlokotse was placed under precautionary suspension after she contested the position of the presidency of the South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) at its congress in May.
Saftu was formed when Numsa broke away from labour federation Cosatu. Internal divisions were laid bare at the federation’s four-day congress, as Numsa fought to lift the suspensions of four national office bearers, which came after they on their part tried to suspend Saftu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, who was ultimately re-elected.
By contesting the position, according to Numsa’s special central committee, Ntlokotse broke rank with the union, which backed Mac Chavalala, who was among the four suspended prior to the Saftu election. Ntlokotse defeated Chavalala by 91 votes.
In her affidavit, Ntlokotse contends that Numsa’s constitution does not provide for precautionary suspension and that it only envisages a suspension as a sanction following due process.
But Jim says Numsa has been placing people on precautionary suspension since the union’s establishment. “The union’s constitution uses the term ‘suspension’ at several places, but it does not expressly state whether the term refers to precautionary or punitive suspension,” he notes.
“However, the respondents’ will argue that, on a proper interpretation of the constitution, the term does indeed refer to precautionary suspensions.”
Jim argues that, because the central committee is the union’s highest decision-making body, it is empowered to initiate a decision to place a member on precautionary suspension.
The Numsa leader states that the union has not been given enough time to consult the relevant people from all five regions and summarise, in his affidavit, the merits of the different disciplinary charges against all the members who have been placed on precautionary suspension around the country.
“This is particularly so since most of the individuals were suspended in March 2022, and have thus fatally prejudiced the respondents by waiting until mid-July to launch this urgent application. However, under the present time pressure the union can only do its best.”
Jim notes that the disciplinary allegations against Ntlokotse and others relate to a lack of organisational discipline.
“Every member of the union has agreed, in the union’s constitution, to abide by decisions of the union’s democratically constituted structures … Organisational discipline is one of the union’s most important founding principles. It means that no one person is bigger than the collective, that no one person is allowed to go against the will of the majority of members,” he says.
Numsa “must hold its members to the principle of organisational discipline because, otherwise, the union cannot serve its members and continue the fight for a South Africa that is free from economic exploitation”.
Jim alleges that Ntlokotse plotted with various other Numsa members to defy a national executive committee (NEC) decision to back Chavalala.
“The result was a split in Numsa’s voting delegates and, no longer a united front, Numsa’s candidate was defeated and the applicant was elected president of Saftu,” he says. “This result was extremely prejudicial to Numsa as an organisation. Not only did the applicant go against the resolution of the NEC and Numsa’s national caucus, but her conduct undermined Numsa’s elected national leadership and embarrassed the organisation in the eyes of Saftu.”
A recent statement by the suspended Numsa leaders noted that by Thursday the number of members banned from attending next week’s congress had risen from 30 to 54.
“They have now targeted all those they deem to have disobeyed them in the Saftu congress and those who marched to the Numsa head office to protest the NEC decision to suspend the first batch of five comrades,” Thursday’s statement reads.
“It seems that the right to freedom of protest exists in South Africa, but not in Numsa. To use the language of the Numsa leadership, they have defined themselves outside the South African Constitution.”
[/membership]