Dear cde
I also had almost similar experience working at another org that is a state
organ, i think its high time that we are able to communicate and raise these
issues with our cdes who happened to be appointed as leaders of these
organisations, perhaps this requires a policy position,. by the way nehawu
rescued me
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:39:43 +0200 Matela Mthwalo wrote
Cdes,
When we represent the interests of our members public instotutions like
SARS approach our union leaders and request that we be dealt with, here is
one of those moronic actions of SARS..... read for yourself. What should I
do?
Matela
From: Pule Motingoa ([email protected] [1]) [mailto:[email protected] [2]]
Sent: 04 August 2011 12:24 PM
To: [email protected] [3]
Subject: FW: Representation
Please find the email below
From: Million Mbatha [mailto:[email protected] [4]]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:51 AM
To: Pule Motingoa ([email protected] [5])
Subject: FW: Representation
Dear Comrade Pule
As per our discussions in the short meeting of the 19 January 2010, herewith
find some detailed correspondence from Mr Matela. Since his resignation from
SARS in February 2009, Mr. Matela has been in constant contact with SARS and
communicates directly with the Commissioner of SARS on trivial issues. It is
not our intention to prevent him from raising critical issues that the
Commissioner of SARS may not be aware of, however raising issues of
representation in disciplinary issues with the Commissioner does not only
undermine the employee relations division in SARS but seek to undermine the
relationship that Employee Relations had built over time with the unions. It
is not our intention to prevent him from representing any members of NEHAWU;
however such representation is limited to co-workers, shop stewards and union
officials. Mr Matela argues that as a member of NEHAWU and therefore entitled
to be involved in disciplinary and any matters affecting NEHAWU members at
SARS, particularly his interest in the Klerksdorp Office.
We would appreciate your assistance in this regard by clarifying whether or
not Mr. Matela has been appointed as an official of the Union. I am available
to discuss this matter should the need arises.
Sincerely
Million Mbatha
Regional Employee Relations Manager
MP,FS,NW,LMP
Tel No 012 422 5389
Cell 079 891 9227
Fax 0861618013
email:[email protected] [6]
-------------------------
From: Matela Mthwalo [mailto:[email protected] [7]]
Sent: 18 January 2010 07:49 PM
To: Bizoski Manyike
Cc: Sam Shokane; Visit Gumede; Chris Sithole; Oupa G. Magashula ; Noleen
Tagaree; Million Mbatha; Jabulani J Malobola
Subject: Re: Representation
Hi, My Chief
Thanks for clearing the air, I actually knew that SARS' argument that I
can't represent Noleen is just full of air and it needed someone to relief
it! You know had I said it, some people would have felt that I am actually
demeaning them, but as you can see the line of argument that was persued by
the institution is going to burst anytime 'cause it is just full of air!
Yours In Comradeship
Matela Mthwalo
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Bizoski Manyike wrote:
Heartfelt compliments to all,
Without further ado, the accusation levelled against the drafters of the
policies referred by Cde Matela is regrettable, yet forgivable! Why? There
will always be different interpretation of clauses depending not on the level
of education, but premise that the author anchors his/her basis. The question
of what seem in 'conflict' instead of confusion amongst the policies is usage
of words to mean same thing. Nonetheless, Cde Matela is correct beyond
reproach in respect of being afforded an opportunity to represent a member as
per below referred policies.
The meaning of 'union representative' as contained in the SARS policies,
namely, Disciplinary Code Grievance Code; Recognition Agreement; NBF
Constitution; Incapacity Policy and others, is deliberately inclusively. A
union rep will include any individual of good standing within the union who
is nominated (not necessarily democratically elected leadership) by a member
of the similar union for the purpose of representation. However, the union
should firstly be alerted and consulted of such nomination to cater for any
eventually that may arise (vicarious liability). The employer will have no
say on whether or not to approach such nomination.
Shop steward (sic), office bearer and official are equally union
representatives in their own right, including a cleaner in the union office.
Suffice to indicate that such tasks to represent should be mandate driven! No
where, in the above listed policies exclude a member of Cde Matela's calibre
on the basis 'of being not an employee of the employer (SARS)' to represent
any member of Nehawu in any institution where the later legally organises.
In conclusion, it would augur well to with contention of excluding Cde
Matela from representation only on the basis of his 'good standing' within
the union being justly questionable. As much as divorced couple cannot be
expected to have rights and duties assigned to married couple in relating to
each other after the divorce. Similarly, since Nehawu has never disowned Cde
Matela, he cannot be barred from servicing membership, whenever necessity
demands, as current! We plea that we cease throwing missile and permit
justice to take its full course for a higher cause!!
You're ever well-wisher and servant's servant
Bizoski Manyike
NEHAWU Gauteng Representative
Cherry Lane - Kopano Projects
Brooklyn
Tel (012) 452 4777
Fax 0866991951
Cell 082 926 5767
E-Mail [email protected] [9]
-----Original Message-----
From: Matela Mthwalo [mailto:[email protected] [10]]
Sent: 18 January 2010 08:02 AM
To: Sam Shokane
Cc: Bizoski Manyike; Visit Gumede; Chris Sithole; Oupa G. Magashula ; Noleen
Tagaree; Million Mbatha; Jabulani J Malobola
Subject: Representation
Mr. Shokane, (HR Consultant)
We argued the whole of last week but we never arrived at point where we can
actually agree that my argument is just full air. I just want us to revisit
some of your arguments.
I'd start with Collective Agreements and finish with LRA because you kept
on repeating that I must go and "read" collective agreements. Let me indicate
that the Collective Agreements which you base your arguments on in no way do
they say I have no right to represent Noleen. I want us to go through the
Collective Agreement on Recognition. Please open the Collective Agreement and
go to page 6 of 18 and check point number 7; Representation. Clause 7.2 says I
quote, "SARS accepts that any member of the Union may be represented by a
trade union representative if he/ she choose, on any matter including SARS
Grievance and Disciplinary Codes and Procedures". Now this agreement does not
say the representative within SARS or that SARS deem fit, it leaves the choice
to the member. A member has the right to choose to be represented by "any
member, office bearer or official of the party's registered trade union"; LRA
says that not SARS.
Let us remember that your Collective Agreement in no way says an office
bearer of the Union as voted by members, it says representative. A
representative is someone who represents another regardless of their position
within the Union, as the Labour Law stipulates that "any member, trade union
official or office bearer". Your Collective Agreements seem to have different
meanings for the following words; trade union representative and union
representative. In your Collective Agreement you define these two words
differently, are they really different? SARS' Collective Agreement on
Incapacity Code and Procedure defines trade union representative as "an
employee elected by the employees to represent the union and its members in
the workplace" Your Collective Agreement on Grievance Code and Procedure
defines union representative as "a shop steward and/or union official of the
recognized trade union. This definition differs from the first one. It
differs because the words used to define these words are themselves defined
differently in your Collective Agreements, for instance union official and
trade union official are defined differently in your Collective Agreements
and these are the words that are used to define trade union representative
and union representative. Your Collective Agreement on Grievance Code and
Procedure defines the word union official as "a full time employee and/or
office bearer of the Union who is nominated in terms of its Constitution.
Your Collective Agreement on Incapacity Code and Procedure defines trade
union official as "a person employed by the union". What your definitions say
is that a receptionist or floor sweeper at Union offices is the representative
of members; don't you find these definitions a bit drunk? And which one is
valid? In one of the emails you indicated that the Law (LRA) stipulates "very
clear that we should have collective agreements as to drive the agenda of
labour peace". I agree, but don't you think your definitions as contained in
Collective Agreements sow confusion which is likely to result in conflicts,
and your good intentions might be compromised? And I don't believe that SARS
can, in all fairness, bind us to confusion unless if the institution believes
that it cannot be questioned. And to quote African Communist Journal (Third
Quarter Journal of South African Communist Party in 1994) when it referred to
the attitude of the then governor of Reserve Bank, Chris Stols, and the
institution, it said "clearly we are dealing here with an incredibly
self-righteous institution". Now chief, it would be immoral and
self-righteous to use this confusion in definitions to deny Noleen her
freedom to choose who should represent her, when LRA is so clear as to who
can represent members at both CCMA and Labour Court, though collective
agreement are there for labour peace as you indicated, they are also there to
democratize working environment. The Collective Agreements of SARS cannot
deviate from general principles as contained and expressed in LRA, any
agreement that moves from these general principles renders itself null and
void.
Now, since I am a member of Union that SARS recognizes, I have every right
to represent NEHAWU members. Clause 7.3 of the Collective Agreements says I
quote, "SARS reserves the right to recognize any other Union but may not
recognize any union if they cannot meet threshold as defined in Clause 1.13
of this agreement". It does not say SARS reserves the right to recognize
union representatives either internal or external. Now where does it say
"only those within SARS". I know your next argument might be "the general
practice throughout the industryblahh ..blaah". We are not arguing industry
norms, we are arguing representation as agreed on Collective Agreements that
you are so fond of, whose definitions are so confusing and inconsistent it's
like they were drawn in the wee hours of Saturday morning. And we compare all
this confusion with the Law.
Now let's go to page 11 of 19 in Collective Agreement on Grievance Code and
Procedure, it says I quote, " the employee may be represented/ assisted by a
fellow employee or Union representative in a grievance hearing". Again it
does not say that this particular representative must come from within SARS,
it says a "union representative". But again I don't know which definition of
representative to follow since you have so many. I guess it refers to those
from within and outside SARS. Now, show me in these collective agreements
with confusing definitions where is says only NEHAWU members who are employed
by SARS have exclusive rights to determine NEHAWU members' future.
Now why did your Collective Agreements leave out the word "Any member" when
referring to those who can represent members, was this an oversight on the
part of those who drew them or a deliberate omission to centralize and
control union activities? Please recognize this word as it is contained in
LRA which you so often ask me to study. If SARS changes the provisions of the
Law in its agreements with Labour, then you need to tell me which Law is now
governing labour relations at SARS.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that I can't represent Noleen; you
can raise dispute at CCMA, we will go there to clarify this confusion. One
thing that you need to know is that LRA principles and provisions are
overriding.
Mr Shokane let us meet on the 21 of January 2010 at 09H00 at SARS
Klerksdorp, I represent Noleen.
Regards,
Matela Mthwalo
--
Regards,
Matela Mthwalo
--
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to
this message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum [11] for different delivery
options, pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] .
You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this
address (repeat): [email protected] .
Ntoks
Cell: 0849598224
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"
Links:
------
[1] mailto:[email protected]
[2] mailto:[email protected]
[3] mailto:[email protected]
[4] mailto:[email protected]
[5] mailto:[email protected]
[6] mailto:email%[email protected]
[7] mailto:[email protected]
[8] mailto:[email protected]
[9] mailto:[email protected]
[10] mailto:[email protected]
[11] http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum
____________________________________________________________
South Africas premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za
For super low premiums, click here. http://www.dialdirect.co.za/?vdn=15828
--
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options,
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this
address (repeat): [email protected] .
