NUMSA statement on Ruth Ntlokotse’s Expulsion from the union

8 May 2023

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) has been compelled to set the record straight on the expulsion of Ruth Ntlokotse, as a result of what clearly is a continuation of misconduct by the former 2nd Deputy President. It is a fact that the National Executive Committee (NEC) of NUMSA that took place on the 3rd and 4th of May 2023, received the outcome of Ruth Ntlokotse’s case from an independent Chairperson who recommended that she be expelled from the union. She was charged by the Union for the following allegations and acts of misconduct as stated in the Chairperson’s Outcome Report:

The charges levelled against the member of which I have found her guilty can be summarised as follows:

1. Charge 1: Gross insubordination by refusing to comply with a lawful and reasonable instruction to return the union’s motor vehicle, laptop and cellphone;

2.  Charge 2: Failure to comply with the constitutional duties as a member and NOB of the union by objection to the GS deposing to an affidavit;

3.  Charge 3: Failure to comply with the constitutional duties as a member and NOB of the union by campaigning for the position of President of SAFTU

The NEC considered and endorsed the expulsion of Ntlokotse as a union member based on the recommendations made by the independent Chairperson. The NEC further gave her seven days to appeal her case if she wishes to do so in line with Chapter 8 clause 3 of the NUMSA constitution. Below is the recommendations of the external independent Chairperson, Charlie Higgs:

In Ntlokotse v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others, in a matter between the same parties the Labour Court held that “The relationship between the trade union and its member is not akin to an employment one” and that the “Membership may be terminated by suspension or expulsion.” .[emphasis our own]

In National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa v Lufil Packaging (Isithebe) and Others the Constitutional Court held as follows in respect of the binding nature of a union’s constitution:

“NUMSA has adopted a constitution which is clear in its terms. It is a voluntary association with rules and annexures that collectively form the agreement entered into with its members. The constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary rules of construction applying to contracts in general. The classic interpretative principle is that effect must be given to the ordinary language of the document, objectively ascertained within its context. It must follow therefore that in the course of interpretation, preference should be given to a sensible meaning rather than “one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike results or undermines the apparent purpose of the document.”

In relation to the first charge the member was not re-elected as a NOB during the National Congress that took place on 27 to 28 July 2022. The member accordingly lost her entitlement to benefits that attached to the position of Second Deputy President of the union.

On 01 September 2022 the union instructed the member to relinquish the benefits and return the motor vehicle, laptop and cellphone that were issued during her tenure as Second Deputy President of the union.

Thereafter and on the 8th of September 2022 the member refused to comply with the instruction.

On or about the 28th and 29th of October 2022 the NEC resolved that the property should be returned and Ramokhathali’s testimony that the property had not been returned remained undisputed.

The NEC had the authority to make the decision. The decision-making power is a discretionary power as per the witnesses’ testimony and the contents of the documents I can’t find anything indicating that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary or unfair manner. Even if it was, the instruction remained reasonable and lawful. The reasonableness of the order is in actual fact beyond reproach.

In relation to the determination of a sanction for the misconduct I take guidance from Meyerowitz’ statement that the member’s conduct is a clear example of disrespect of the institution of the union

I am of the view that the relationship between the parties is unlikely to be restored in this matter, especially given the fact that the member continues to undermine the union’s authority in respect of its decisions.

Meyerowitz correctly submitted that organisational discipline is at the heart of this matter. Organisational discipline serves several purposes, which include the portrayal of a united front against employers. The seriousness of the matter is aggravated by the fact that the member is a shop steward. The member has been elected as a union representative and serves as a link to the realisation of social justice. It is incognisable that the member would be able to achieve the aims and objects of the union and promote the interests of fellow members if the member continues to justify her conduct as per her letter dated 08 September 2022.

In respect of the second- and third charges the member had a constitutional duty to observe the provisions of the constitution, the lawful decisions of any body of the union and must not act in a way, which is detrimental or prejudicial to the interests of the union or its members. Throughout the provisions of the constitution and the witnesses’ testimonies it became abundantly clear that all of the members of the union subscribe to the principle of majoritarianism. In Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Putco Limited the constitutional court defined majoritarianism as follows:

“In essence, the principle of majoritarianism states that the will of the majority prevails over that of the minority.”

Cele, having served the union for more than 30 years, explained the principles and benefits pertaining to disunity, difference of opinion, majoritarianism and hierarchy of the union and its decision making policies. The member’s conduct as set out supra was intentional, with an ulterior motive and well calculated with a clear motive of causing a faction in the union. This is amplified by the fact that she involved the media in a matter that was sub judice and limited to a discussion amongst the NOB.

The right to become a member of a union is a constitutional right and a voluntary association. If a member is not satisfied with the manner in which a union conducts its affairs to promote its constitutional aims and objects then that member has the right to go elsewhere, alternatively follow its policies to obtain a majority vote. There are clearly defined structures and channels that an aggrieved member should follow and it serves a very good purpose. If it is undermined, it creates exactly what has happened in this manner as testified by the witnesses ie. embarrassment, division, animosity and prejudiced to its members.

Based on all of the above, the objective facts of the matter and the aggravating factors present I recommend that the member be summarily expelled from the union. [emphasis our own]

If the union accepts this recommendation it is to advise the member of her right to appeal against the decision in writing to the GS within seven (7) days of receiving the notice of the decision.

The Union endorsed the expulsion of Ntlokotse. It communicated this decision to her. It was explained that she can appeal within seven days as stated above. She immediately leaked the Union correspondence onto social media and released the statement to News24. She has been giving various television interviews, and continuing with the same misconduct of undermining the union and attacking its leadership in media houses.

It is not the Union’s intention to continue to entertain the propaganda that Ntlokotse has decided to launch in media houses, of smearing and stigmatising the Union. However, 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. This tendency to deal with internal matters in the external, public eye undermines the fundamental principles of unity and organisational discipline that we are bound by in our NUMSA 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. As such she is expelled and she is no longer a NUMSA member.

However, we think it is important to state the following in relation to her complaining about the disciplinary procedure and subsequent outcomes of the disciplinary hearing:

1. Ntlokotse had been aware of her disciplinary hearing for four weeks prior to the hearing. She voluntarily chose not to appear at her hearing after she requested the Union to book accommodation for her, which the union did. The union also requested time-off from her work, which was granted by her employer.

2. Although an email requesting a postponement was purportedly sent late on Friday, 21 May 2023; the GS’s personal assistant only read the email after the disciplinary hearing had commenced at 10 am on Monday, 24 May 2023. At that late stage the decision to postpone rested solely in the chairperson’s hands. Furthermore, Ntlokotse was obliged to attend the hearing (at the very least through her representative), and make an application for postponement to the chairperson.

3. Ntlokotse’s belief that she was simply entitled to not attend the hearing is extraordinarily arrogant, particularly given the time and resources which the Union has spent in setting up the disciplinary hearing.

4. Furthermore, Ntlokotse’s narrative that she could not atten                             d the hearing because she had a duty to assist NUMSA members is self-serving, untrue, and was almost certainly a tactic to avoid having to face the disciplinary charges against her. As a disciplined Union member she had a duty to abide by the NEC’s instructions that she attend her disciplinary hearing. In reaching this decision the NEC was alive to the fact that she would be precluded from attending to her shop steward duties while at the disciplinary hearing, with the NEC being satisfied that those duties would be attended to by other shop stewards. 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.

5. We have noted the slanderous allegations she made on eNCA where she claims that her expulsion is centred on financial mismanagement and that the General Secretary of NUMSA has not accounted for R20.1 million which was given to NUMSA through NIC sponsorship. We reject this with the contempt it deserves. All NUMSA financials are audited regularly by external auditors, and, all reports are received and accounted for by the NUMSA National Treasurer to the NEC and the Central Committee. The agenda here is to create the false impression that NUMSA NOB’s are a law unto themselves, and are squandering workers money. This is false. We do not have such money on our books and her goal is to liquidate the union by lying. This is nothing more than a dirty campaign to liquidate the union which has been her goal from the beginning.

NUMSA regards the libellous and defamatory statements made by Ntlokotse in a very serious light. We reserve the right to take further legal action against her for defamation. She has been trying to collapse the union since last year and she keeps hoping that if she keeps repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth. A lie is still a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Issued by Phakamile Hlubi-Majola, NUMSA National Spokesperson, 8 May 2023