It is with shock and anger that we note the latest scandal unfolding at the public broadcaster, again, caused by non-employees of the SABC…the Board.

On the sixth of November BEMAWU wrote an email, requesting that the SABC follow a transparent process in filling the top 3 positions at the broadcaster.

We have not received a response from the SABC. And we are currently contemplating bringing a court application to compel the SABC to follow a transparent and open process, when appointing it’s executives.

The SABC is like a broken record. It once again finds itself on a slippery slope, and failing correction, employees will once again suffer the consequences of the instability created by the Board.

We commend Ms Kalidass for her courage to speak up, and regret that she has resigned. The SABC needs more people of her caliber to serve on the board.

We call for the urgent intervention of the Portfolio Committee, as well as the Communications Minister to speedily resolve this latest crisis. We are asking for measures to be put in place whereby the Board can be closely supervised by the Portfolio Committee, at least until there is proper stability.


Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:32 AM

To: Nomsa Philiso <>


The Group Chief Executive


Auckland Park


Ms. Nomsa Philiso

Dear Madam,

This serves as a request to bring the contents of this email to the attention of the SABC Board.

The Broadcasting, Electronic Media & Allied Workers Union (BEMAWU) is calling on the SABC Board to publish the names, qualifications and CV’s of all the applications it received for the positions of Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The Public Broadcaster is a national asset, belonging to the people of South Africa and we believe it is only fair the very same people are aware of who applied for those positions, and to follow the appointment process of the best candidates. We believe the same public scrutiny process must be followed as was done in the instance of the Board to remove any bias and suspicion of improper decisions when filling the top three positions.

As no appointment has been made as yet, we urge the Board to confirm in writing to BEMAWU it will make public the names of the Applicants and their CV’s on the SABC’s website within seven (7) days from this communique.

Kindly also provide us with a contact email address of the Board.


Hannes du Buisson








Dear Sir,

Kindly confirm whether the SABC Interim Board

  • has been paid for the six (6) months they have been in office,
  • and if so, how much were they paid?

The information is not privileged, as it will be published in the Annual Financial Statements of the SABC.

Awaiting your urgent response.





The matter between BEMAWU and others vs SABC and 2 others will be heard in the Labour Court on & November 2017.

BEMAWU obtained a personal cost order against Mr Motsoeneng and Tebele for their role in the dismissal of the SABC 8.

Both Motsoeneng & Tebele filed leave to appeal against the personal cost orders. The judgement is tomorrow, 7 November 2017 at 10:00, 6th Floor.



Dispute to SABC in respect of 10% Salary Increase.








Dear Sello,

The Salary Negotiations of July 2017, our letter of 13 October 2017 and the several meetings we had thereafter refers.

Further to these meetings and interactions we wish to confirm we have reached a dead-lock on our demand for a ten (10) percent salary increase across the board for BEMAWU members.


BEMAWU members (and only members of BEMAWU) demand an increase of ten (10) percent increase across the board, backdated to 1 April 2017.


The SABC has offered BEMAWU members no increase at all (0%)


Since both parties have not moved from these respective positions, and/or there is no agreement, the parties have reached stalemate, and is therefore in deadlock. To break the deadlock and to settle this dispute, the SABC is required to increase the salaries of BEMAWU members with ten (10) percent, and backdate such increase to 1 April 2017.

Should the dispute not be settled, BEMAWU members may exercise their rights to embark on a strike.

We await your invitation to a dispute resolution as per the Collective Agreement between the parties. Should the SABC not schedule the dispute resolution within the prescribed period, we will proceed to refer the dispute to the CCMA for Conciliation.



Letter to SABC Dispute 10%



Whilst midst a protected strike and firmly believing to have the backs of what we believed to be our comrades, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) withdrew the mutual interest dispute in respect of a salary increase for SABC employees and rendering the continuation of the strike risky and possibly unprotected.

As a responsible union, having members interests at heart, we immediately suspended the strike and requested our member to report for duty.

We are disgusted by the conduct of the CWU, who has messed with employee’s livelihoods, emotions and feelings. Our dispute is well and alive, not resolved and it is not going to disappear.


The communication here under is self explanatory.

From: Sello Xama []
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:48 PM
Subject: FW: Withdrawal of Referral – Case No. GAJB20270-17


Dear Sir/Madam

The above matter and the attached documents refer.


Sello Xama

General Manager: Group Employee Relations (Acting)

SABC SOC Limited.

SABC Radio Park Building, Office 1925, 19th Floor,

Corner Henley and Artillery Roads, Auckland Park, Johannesburg

Private Bag X1, Auckland Park, 2006,

Gauteng, Republic of South Africa,

Tel: +27 (11) 714 2708 | Fax: +27 (11) 714 4030 / 3001



From: Shimane Kgantse []
Sent: Friday, 03 November 2017 1:43 PM
To: Thabo Mogalane; Boitumelo Fatane
Cc: Hannes du Buisson; booysen.mashego; Sello Xama
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Referral – Case No. GAJB20270-17


Thank you Mr Mogalane


Shimane Kgantse

Acting Senior Commissioner Collective Bargaining
Telephone: +27113776733

Fax2Email:   086 506 9557

Cellphone:    071 306 5407
Call Centre: 0861 16 16 16 | Website:





From: Thabo Mogalane []
Sent: 03 November 2017 01:42 PM
To: Boitumelo Fatane <>
Cc: Shimane Kgantse <>; Hannes du Buisson <>; booysen.mashego <>;
Subject: Withdrawal of Referral – Case No. GAJB20270-17


This serves to inform you that Communication Workers Union is hereby withdrawing its referral to the CCMA – Case No. GAJB20270-17.

We would therefore appreciate it if all the necessary administrative arrangements in this regard could be done by the CCMA.

Thanking you in anticipation.



Thabo Mogalane

Deputy General Secretary

Communication Workers Union

Tel:  0117200360

Mobile:  0827105666

Fax:  0866701229



From: Shimane Kgantse <>Date: 27 October 2017 at 12:00:13 SAST

To: “” <>

Cc: “” <>, “” <>, Boitumelo Fatane <>

Subject: FW: GAJB20270-17- CWU vs SABS Soc Limited heard on 18 October 2017 at CCMA National Office
Dear Mr Booysen


Thank you for your mail.


The view of the Commissioner Madubanya who facilitated the wage dispute is that she did not get an opportunity to mediate over the dispute. We are mindful that legally there’s nothing precluding the Trade from embarking on a protected strike since thirty days has lapsed from the date of the referral. We however request you indulgence and provide us with an opportunity to have a mediated session with the parties before exercising your rights.

Looking forward to your positive response. 


Shimane Kgantse

Acting Senior Commissioner Collective Bargaining 

Telephone: +27113776733

Fax2Email: 086 506 9557

Cellphone: 071 306 5407

Call Centre: 0861 16 16 16 | Website:

From: Boitumelo Fatane 

Sent: 27 October 2017 11:44 AM

To: Shimane Kgantse <>

Subject: FW: GAJB20270-17- CWU vs SABS Soc Limited heard on 18 October 2017 at CCMA National Office


From: Booysen Mashego [] 

Sent: 25 October 2017 04:00 PM

To: Boitumelo Fatane <>

Cc: BEMAWU HEADOFFICE <>; Thabo Mogalane <>

Subject: Re: GAJB20270-17- CWU vs SABS Soc Limited heard on 18 October 2017 at CCMA National Office

We refer to the above matter and apologies for the delay to revert to you. We met on Thursday, 18 October 2017 with SABC, unfortunately parties could not agree on the settlement proposal. Kindly issue the certificate of non- resolution. 

Yours Faithfully


Booysen Mashego

National Legal Officer


On Tuesday, October 24, 2017, 2:52:12 PM GMT+2, Thabo Mogalane <> wrote: 

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Boitumelo Fatane <>

Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:32 PM

Subject: GAJB20270-17- CWU vs SABS Soc Limited heard on 18 October 2017 at CCMA National Office

To: “” <>

Cc: “” <>

Dear Mr. Mashego

Commissioner Duduzile Madubanya indicated that we will receive feedback from parties on the 20th of October 2017.

Kindly give us feedback of the above mentioned matter.

Your assistance in this regard will be highly appreciated. 

Kind Regards,

Boitumelo Fatane

HO-Case Management Officer: Mediation 

Telephone: +27113776937 

Call Centre: 0861 16 16 16 | Website:







This morning at approximately 09:40 BEMAWU received a letter from the SABC alleging the strike at the SABC is unprotected. 

BEMAWU vehemently denies this. We are in posession of a letter from the CCMA confirming our strike is protected and we may proceed with a strike. 

We nevertheless are in process to again confirm legally, in addition to the CCMA comminique that we are protected. 



BEMAWU today met with a delegation of the Board and Management to attempt to resolve the 10% wage demand.

Our expectation was, given the urgency of the matter, the Board would come with an offer as they discussed this and the pending strike in their three day meeting.  We were met by what appeared to be a semi hostile Board delegation which spent 20 minutes of the 1 hour meeting to try and lambaste BEMAWU  for sharing voice clips of the previous meeting with you, the members.

It was agreed to park that particular issue and get on with the businesses of the day.

The Board delegation was adamant they will not personally negotiate with BEMAWU, but merely wanted to inform us they want to reopen negotiations, and follow the normal process of putting together a management team to negotiate, securing a venue, bringing representatives from the Regions and restart, from scratch negotiations.

BEMAWU made it clear we will not agree to that process. We in fact informed the delegation we are past the stage of negotiations, and insisted mediation must take place tomorrow, (2 November 2017) where we obtain the services of a mediator, which we offered to pay for, should there be a cost involved. It was then agreed the SABC will make available a delegation, and so will BEMAWU to meet at 09:00 tomorrow (2 November 2017) and we will proceed, with or without a mediator to attempt to resolve the impasse.

We reported back to members and on behalf of management requested that the strike be suspended with one day to allow for the process to unfold. The members refused, and we reported that to Management. As we were concerned about the SABC, we proposed to management that we immediately (16:30) starts with mediation and negotiations to try and resolve the impasse, and that we continue through the night, if necessary. Management were unfazed by our plea for urgency. They insisted on tomorrow, at 09:00.

The strike is fully protected, and any employee or other trade union member may participate in the strike.

This strike is not only about a salary increase. The strike is also about unresolved grievances, unprocedural restructuring, abuse by management, unilateral change to shift rosters, unilateral change to terms and conritions of employment, abuse of staff in that freelancers are working for years now without any medical aid, pension ,leave, sick leave and other benefits. The strike is about the attitude of management in dealing with staff.

Most importantly, its about the future, and future treatment employees can expect from the SABC.

If the SABC is allowed to get away with a 0% increase, what is next?

  • Your 13th cheque?
  • The cancellation of their contribution to your medical aid? Will employees be able to then afford medical aid?
  • Taking away SABC contribution to your pension fund?
  • Another 0% next year?

Let us all withhold our labour, and make this strike as effective and short as possible.

We are the SABC!

We carried it, we continued to broadcast, we tried to upheld its integrity, its independence, its operations, its reputation, its well being  whilst being dismissed, victimised and intimidated by the previous political regime. We deserve respect.  We are not 5 year visitors, we are upstanding, professional men and woman, journalists, broadcasters, support staff, fathers, mothers, grandparents,  human beings…we deserve to be paid for our labour.   #WeAreSABC!

(Please note, our only official demand is a 10% increase. We are not adding demands like the unilateral restructuring  or anything else to the demands. These issues are principle, underlying issues)

Please use #WeAreSABC in all tweets!


  1. The strike is protected.
  2. All BEMAWU members, SABC staff, managers and other union members are entitled to participate.
  3. The strike starts at 06:00 tomorrow morning, 2 November 2017.
  4. Further communication will follow tomorrow.
  5. Join the applicable group hereunder.


Gauteng Strike Group

Mpumalanga Strike Group

Western Cape Strike Group

Northern Cape Strike Group

Tshwane Strike Group

Limpopo Strike Group

Freestate Strike Group

Eastern Cape Strike Group

KZN Strike Group



If you are not a member of a trade union at all, or you are a member of  another trade union who did not refer a dispute about a matter of mutual interest, can you strike and will it be a protected strike?

This is one of the questions the Constitutional Court had to decide in 2012.

In the  matter of  SATAWU v Moloto, the Court  was seized with the interpretation of section 64(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (Act). The applicants seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others,2 which construed the provisions of section 64(1)(b) of the Act as obliging every employee who intends to embark on a strike to notify his or her employer of that intention personally or through a representative for the strike action to be protected.

The relevant provision of the Constitution section 23(2)(c)  grants every employee the right to strike.

The right, which is granted without any express limitation in the Constitution, is given content and regulated by the Act in fulfillment of one of its primary objects.To that end, the Act provides substantive limitations and procedural pre-conditions for the exercise of the right to strike and the employer’s corresponding recourse to lock-out.

Section 64 reads in relevant part:

(1) Every employee has the right to strike and every employer has recourse to lock-out if—

(a) the issue in dispute has been referred to a council or to the Commission as required by this Act, and—

(i) a certificate stating that the dispute remains unresolved has been issued; or

(ii) a period of 30 days, or any extension of that period agreed to between the parties to the dispute, has elapsed since the referral was received by the council or the Commission; and after that—

(b) in the case of a proposed strike, at least 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the strike, in writing, has been given to the employer, unless—

(i) the issue in dispute relates to a collective agreement to be concluded in a council, in which case, notice must have been given to that council; or

(ii) the employer is a member of an employers’ organisation that is a party to the dispute, in which case, notice must have been given to that employers’ organisation; or

(c) in the case of a proposed lock-out, at least 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the lock-out, in writing, has been given to any trade union that is a party to the dispute, or, if there is no such trade union, to the employees, unless the issue in dispute relates to a collective agreement to be concluded in a council, in which case, notice must have been given to that council; or

(d) in the case of a proposed strike or lock-out where the State is the employer, at least seven days’ notice of the commencement of the strike or lock-out has been given to the parties contemplated in paragraphs (b) and (c).” (Emphasis omitted.)

Other relevant provisions are found in section 67 of the Act which, in addition to defining “protected strike” and “protected lock-out”, provides various forms of immunity for participation in these actions where the relevant requirements have been met.

Protection for strikers cuts across a wide spectrum and ranges from delictual and contractual immunity to protection from dismissal, barring fair dismissal for misconduct or operational reasons, and immunity from criminal prosecution for contravention of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act or the Wage Act.

 The consequences of non-compliance with the requirements of “protected” industrial action, which include the grant of an interdict against the action and payment of compensation for loss attributable to the action, are contained in section 68 of the Act.

In terms of Section 64, Subsection (1)(a) allows the parties room to negotiate a settlement of their dispute through conciliation before the employees exercise their right to strike, whereas subsection 1(b) requires a warning to the employer of an imminent strike in the event that conciliation fails. As I see it, it would make no practical sense to require employees who were affected by an issue in dispute to undertake the same process in respect of the same dispute when conciliation had already failed. In any event, “issue in dispute” in relation to a strike or a lock-out is defined in the Act – it means “the demand, the grievance, or the dispute that forms the subject matter of the strike or lock-out” – whereas the definition of strike is couched in wide, non-specific terms.

The Court thus found that it is not necessary for non-unionised employees, and for that matter any other employee who is not a member of the union who referred the dispute, to give notice of a strike.

Furthermore, any employee of that employer where the dispute exists, even if  they have not been part of the conciliation, or have been joined as a party to the dispute, may participate in a strike, and it will be considered a protected strike.

SATAWU v Moloto file.



BEMAWU will meet with the Board today at 14:00.

CWU unconditionally withdrew their notice to strike. We proceed until we receive a different mandate from members.  We intend having a feedback meeting today, after our meeting with the Board. We will keep you informed of the time and venue.

ONLY if you have not done so previously, please go to the form below and update your mobile phone details.



Enter your mobile number starting with 27