Facilitator suggested third week in Jan


TV Personality and Presenter Palesa Chubisi has been reinstated by the Labour Court.

The court found merit in the applicant’s contentions that “the SABC’s decision was in bad faith, malicious and intended to humiliate and tarnish her reputation. If not, how does the SABC explain its conduct of conveying its decision to the applicant when she was in the middle of a live show? No explanation was proffered as to the reason the decision could not have been conveyed to her before or after the show. Without making any findings or conclusions on this issue, one cannot think of a more humiliating and embarrassing experience as a TV personality, other than being informed of a non-recognition of one’s employment contract during a live show on national television.

The Labour Court also came down hard on the SABC, criticising it for making “incorrect choices, and acted unlawfully and callously” and punished it with a cost order.

Judge Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje referred to the “sound advice of Moshoana J in South African Broadcasting Corporation (Soc) Ltd v Keevy and Others” which was ignored by the SABC and the clear remedial actions suggested by the Public Protector.

BEMAWU has repeatedly warned and cautioned the SABC to take heed of the advice given by the Labour Court in the SABC v Keevy and others matter and to NOT proceed to terminate the contracts of employees allegedly irregularly appointed.

This was ignored.

Consequence management must now be applied. Most certainly whoever took the decision to dismiss Ms Palesa and others must be held accountable for their decisions.

Employees received letters stating the SABC no longer recognised their employment contracts and the SABC unceremoniously sent them packing.

Judge Tlhotlhalemaje in his judgement found that the concept of ‘non-recognition of a contract of employment’ is unknown, unheard of, and foreign within the context of the LRA, or any other legislative provisions one can think of. In my view, it is a meaningless if not a vague concept.”

The Judge continued: ” The starting point is that nowhere in her report did the Public Protector speak of ‘non-recognition of the employment contract’. In fact, four alternative remedial actions were recommended by the Public Protector and the SABC, despite alleging that it had implemented them, chose an easier option, from which the question of unlawfulness and invalidity comes up.”

“Second, how does the SABC explain the easy option it took, when the Public Protector had guided it on how to deal with the applicant’s appointment. There is no reasonable explanation why the SABC could not have invoked the provisions of the LRA as suggested by the Public Protector to terminate the contract of employment, or why it did not look at its own policies as to how best to deal with the matter.

“It nonetheless gets worse for the SABC in that it never occurred to it that the applicant’s initial appointment at ‘Lesedi FM’ was above board. Nothing was said about that contract having been terminated. The ‘non-recognition of the employment contract’ which was based on the appointment from April 2016, nonetheless appeared to be for a clean sweep, with no regard to the legitimacy of her previous position. Clearly this leads to the invalidity of the decision, which in essence implies that there was never a dismissal within the confines of section 186(1) of the LRA in the first place.”

The SABC is on the same route with the S189 process.


Facilitator suggested third week in Jan


Dear Member,

Kindly find our response to the SABC’s letter to all staff IN BLUE.

“Following the update issued last week on the Section 189 process, I can report that the 7th CCMA facilitated session was concluded on Friday 16 October 2020.”

The SABC presented its structures to the consulting parties at this session, and the consulting parties, on behalf of members questioned the structures so presented. We were still in process of questioning the proposed structures. The previous consultation meetings were fully utilised to question the rationale of the SABC intensively to save member’s jobs and to establish, for ourselves there really exist a rationale to dismiss 600 staff members. We are of the strong view there is not, and this is simply used to make the books look better. A detailed report will be provided in respect hereof and a virtual meeting will be scheduled still this week. In fact, if there was any delay, the delay came as a result of information that is still outstanding like the detailed legal cost the SABC has spent.

“We fully appreciate that the delay in concluding the Section 189 process is causing anxiety and uncertainty to all SABC employees and stakeholders. However, we had to ensure that we conduct this process in full compliance with the LRA and in the interest of the SABC and its employees.”

We deny that the consultation was conducted in full compliance with the LRA. The parties were busy with consultation, and due to the fact that the SABC was properly and intensely questioned about its rationale and structures, in particular the structures where the SABC has increased senior management levels instead of decreasing it, the SABC terminated the consultation process via meetings. The Act requires the employer to fully and properly consult, and does not prescribe an employer must issue termination letters after 60 days. The 60 days is simply a safety measure built into the Act to prevent the employer to issue termination notices before the 60 days have lapsed. Even if consultations were concluded on day 2, for example the employer is barred from issuing termination letters. The 60 days therefore is a prohibition to issue notices, not permission to do so.

“Despite the prescripts of the LRA Section 189 only requiring four (4) consultation sessions in 60 days, the SABC has in good faith, exceeded the prescripts of the Act, and completed sixteen (16) sessions in 120 days: nine (9) bilateral sessions between the consulting parties and the SABC management and seven (7) CCMA facilitated sessions.”

The Act prescribes that parties must properly consult, which has not happened. The Act prescribes minimum consultations, and is not putting a limit to the number of consultations.

“On 6 October 2020, during the 5th CCMA facilitated session, the Commissioners concluded that the parties were not making any progress and each party was at liberty to exercise their rights. The consulting parties requested for another session, and although Management afforded them another two (2) sessions, it was clear that after the 7th CCMA facilitated session, the parties had failed to reach consensus, after four (4) months of consulting.”

Parties cannot reach consensus on issues not yet presented. At the time the SABC has not presented its structure as we were still busy with the rationale. Both Commissioners on Friday expressed their disappointment about the SABC’s decision to abandon the consultation process. Friday’s meeting wat scheduled up to17:00. Some of the parties indicated they had other commitments after 17:00, the agreed time for the meeting to end. The SABC abandoned the process when parties indicated they were not able to proceed after 17:00. Mr Plaatjes was of the view on other days we consulted beyond the agreed time, which we did, but it was simply not possible of Friday. Immediately thereafter he decided that no further meetings will take place.

“According to the Labour Relations Act, the SABC is now at liberty to unilaterally implement the contemplated redundancies/retrenchments having considered any submissions that may still be made in writing by Organized Labour and non-unionized employees.”

We have been invited to make submissions, which we will make as soon as we have received the presentation that was done by the SABC on Friday, and feedback the information to you. If the SABC wants to implement anything unilaterally, they will have to face the legal consequences of same.

“Although the Section 189 process has been concluded and the consulting parties have failed to make any alternative submissions, in the interest of the possible affected employees, the SABC will afford the consulting parties one last chance to make a written submission regarding proposals to the structure or alternatives thereof.”

We have never been invited, before Friday to make submissions, as we have only seen the last structures on Friday. It is blatantly false to allege we have failed to make proposals. We were only informed on Friday the SABC will no longer meet with us, and we can make proposals if we so wish.

“The way forward will be communicated after it is approved by the necessary governance structures.”

It is clear the SABC has already decided what they want to do, and whatever submissions we will make, will not be considered. We will nevertheless make proposals.

“I wish to thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard. We look forward to finally concluding this process, in the interest of all SABC employees.”

Confirmation of Time Lines by Plaatjes,

As soon as we receive the proposed structures, (of which changed between Tuesday and Friday), we will forward same to you.

Be assured of our commitment to continue to protect jobs at the SABC, and to ensure no-one will loose their jobs if there is no other alternative.


Facilitator suggested third week in Jan


The toilets of the SABC’s TV News building in Aukland Park is a pigsty and without water and soap to wash hands.

Some toilets are filled with urine and feces and it is creating a massive stink on the 1st and 2nd floor of the building. This is due to no water available to flush the toilets.

Staff returning to work is fearing for their lives as this could be a COVID 19 haven where the virus can be spread.

BEMAWU received several calls, messages and photos from distressed staff members unable to use the toilets on the 1st and 2nd Floor of the TV Building.

Questions are being asked as to why the SABC has millions to spend on catering and self-initiated litigation whilst basic health and safety issues are not taken care off.

According to a source the situation was reported to SABC Management, but it is evident nothing was done to rectify it.

BEMAWU will take up the matter with the SABC on an urgent basis.

Facilitator suggested third week in Jan


Given that COVID-19 update did not take place last week, management wishes to advise you of the intention to communicate via Corp Comm’s that manual screening will replace the app whilst BIT is still reviewing the app.

This is critical as COVID-19 daily screening is a legal requirement and it forms part of Public Health Emergency response.

It is regulated by DOH Guideline and all employers are expected to fully comply.

To ensure health and safety of all the SABC employees and to fully comply with COVID-19 Health regulations, the SABC will thus request all employees to complete the attached manual questionnaire daily and hand it over after the temperature screening at the security entrances.

Daily symptom screening is important in the management of COVID-19 and prevention of transmission.

The forms will be available at the entrances and employees can print and complete the daily form.

The manual forms will be filed at the SABC wellness and the DOH has outlined the submission of health data.

Group Employee Relations

Facilitator suggested third week in Jan

Hlaudi Motsoeneng and SIU heading for titanic court battle

Johannesburg – The Special Investigation Unit (SIU) is gunning for former SABC chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng to recoup all the monies the national broadcaster spent on his legal fees when he was still employed at Auckland Park.

The Sunday Independent has established that Motsoeneng and the SIU are heading for a titanic court battle in an effort to recoup legal fees as well as the commission he received from the controversial MultiChoice deal.


Facilitator suggested third week in Jan


In a reply to a parliamentary question by communications and digital technology minister Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams, she confirmed the SABC spent R3,106,635 in the 2018/19 financial year and R2,973,768 in the following financial year on catering.

This at a time when 600 employees and more than a 1000 freelancers stand to loose their jobs.


Facilitator suggested third week in Jan

President Ramaphosa announces council to reform SA’s state-owned enterprises

President Cyril Ramaphosa has appointed members of the Presidential State-Owned Enterprises Council, the Presidency announced on Thursday evening.

The council will support government in repositioning state-owned enterprises “as effective instruments of economic transformation and development”, the Presidency said in a statement.

Among its responsibilities will be developing a stronger framework for governing the country’s SOEs, many of which have failed to achieve clean audits in recent years.

Reforms will include the introduction of an overarching Act governing SOEs and stabilising companies through a new shareholder ownership model. 

They will also help implement agreed turnaround strategies. 

The council, which will be led by Ramaphosa, includes Cabinet ministers overseeing SOEs as well as the following members: 

  • Monhla Hlahla: Chairperson of Denel
  • Joel Khathuthshelo Netshitenzhe: Executive Director and Board Vice-Chairperson of the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA)
  • Vusi Khanyile: Chairperson of Thebe Investments  
  • Michael Sachs: Adjunct Professor at Wits University
  • Marion Lesego Dawn Marole: Non-Executive Director of MTN Group Ltd and Development Bank of South Africa
  • Bajabulile Swazi Tshabalala: Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer at African Development Bank
  • Sipho Nkosi: Director of the Sanlam Board
  • Kandimathie Christine Ramon: Chief Financial Officer at Anglo Gold Ashanti
  • Ian Kirk: Group Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director at Sanlam
  • Nazmeera Moola: Economist and Head of investments at asset manager Ninety One.
  • Government said the council will also review the business models and sources of financing.

“The council will also review SOE corporate plans to ensure alignment to government priorities and to ensure appropriate systems are in place,” according to the Presidency, as well as the operational and financial performance of the companies.

In his state of the nation address in 2019, Ramaphosa said the council would work to create better coherence between government’s ailing entities to fine-tune each one’s mandate and sharpen efficiencies.

The impact of the country’s ailing state-owned entities on public finances is often flagged by rating agencies and global agencies, as they often turn to government for financial support and loan guarantees.

Source : https://www.news24.com/amp/fin24/economy/south-africa/ramaphosa-announces-presidential-soe-council-20200611

Facilitator suggested third week in Jan

‘Debt-free’ SABC to lose R1.5bn due to Covid-19, parliament hears

The SABC is “conservatively” projecting a budget shortfall of R1.5bn in the current financial year as its advertising revenue drops significantly due to the economic impact of Covid-19.

This was revealed to MPs on Tuesday night by SABC board chairperson Bongimusa Makhathini and group CEO Madoda Mxakwe during a meeting with the National Assembly’s portfolio committee on communications.

Mxakwe said the SABC clients and regular advertiser have been withdrawing their ad spend and other income streams such as sponsorships as they battled to trade during the national lockdown.


Facilitator suggested third week in Jan


Lungile Tom, who worked for eNCA at the company’s Cape Town office as one of its camera operators, died of Covid-19 on Wednesday morning.

eMedia Investments said Tom was admitted to hospital on Sunday night, with Covid-19 symptoms.

“He was tested and admitted to intensive care. Lungile’s test results confirmed that he had Covid-19, and he passed away in hospital this morning, Wednesday May 13,” the company said.


Facilitator suggested third week in Jan



16. (1) Every person is confined to his or her place of residence.

(2) A person may only leave their place of residence to–

(a) perform an essential or permitted service, as allowed in Alert Level 4;

(b) go to work where a permit which corresponds with Form 2 of Annexure A, has been issued;

(c) buy permitted goods;

(d) obtain services that are allowed to operate as set out in Table 1 to the Regulations;

(e) move children, as allowed;

(f) walk, run or cycle between the hours of 06H00 to 09H00, within a five kilometre radius of their place of residence; Provided that this is not done in organised groups

(3) Every person is confined to his or her place of residence from 20H00 until 05H00 daily, except where a person has been granted a permit to perform an essential or permitted service as listed in Annexure D, or is attending to a security or medical emergency .

(4) Movement between provinces, metropolitan areas and districts are prohibited  except-

(a) for workers who have a permit to perform an essential or permitted service who have to commute to and from work on a daily basis;

(b) the attendance of a funeral, as allowed;

(c) the transportation of mortal remains; and

(d) for learners who have to commute to and from school or higher education institutions on a daily basis during periods when those institutions are permitted to operate.

(5) Any person who was not at their place of residence, or work before the lockdown period and who could not travel between provinces, metropolitan and distr ict areas during the lockdown, will be permitted, on a once-off basis, to return to their places of residence or work and will be required to stay in such place until the end of Alert Level 4.


6) All industries, businesses, entities, both private and in the public sector, which are permitted to operate during Alert Level 4, must-

(a) designate a COVID-19 compliance officer who will oversee the:

(i) implementation of the plan referred to in subregulation (b); and

(ii) adherence to the standards of hygiene and health protocols relating to COVID-19 at the workplace;

(b) develop a plan for the phased in return of their employees to the workplace, prior to reopening the workplace for business, which plan must correspond with Annexure E and be retained for inspection and contain the following information:

(i) which employees are permitted to work;

(ii) what the plans for the phased-in return of their employees to the workplace are;

(iii) what health protocols are in place to protect employees from COVID-19; and

(iv) the details of the COVID-19 compliance officer;

(c) phase in the return of their employees to work to manage the return of employees from other provinces, metropolitan and district areas; and

(d) develop measures to ensure that the workplace meets the standards of health protocols, adequate space for employees and social distancing measures for the public and service providers, as required.


17. (1) The movement of children between co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights or a caregiver, as defined in section 1(1) of the Children’s Act. 2005 (Act No. 38 of 2005), in the same metropolitan area or district municipality is allowed subject to the following if the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights or a caregiver is in possession of-

(a) a court order; or

(b) a parental responsibilities and rights agreement or parenting plan, registered with the family advocate

(c) a permit issued by a magistrate where which corresponds with Form 3 of Annexure A if the documentation in paragraphs (a) and (b) is not available.

(2) The movement of children between co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights or a caregiver, as defined in section 1(1) of the Children’s Act, 2005 (Act No. 38 of 2005), between different metropolitan areas, district municipalities or provinces is allowed if the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights or a caregiver is in possession of a permit. issued by a magistrate which corresponds with Form 3 of Annexure A.

(3) Any child who was not at the residence of their primary caregiver before the lockdown period and who could not travel between provinces, metropolitan and district areas during the lockdown will be permitted, on a once -off basis, to return to the residence of their primary caregiver if the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights or a caregiver is in possession of a permit issued by a magistrate which corresponds with Form 3 of annexure A.

(4) The household to which the child has to move, must be free of COVID -19.

(5) (a) Before a magistrate issues a permit referred to in regulation 17(1)(c), he or she must be provided with-

(i) a birth certificate or certified copy of a birth certificate of the child or children to prove a legitimate relationship between the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights; and

(ii) written reasons why the movement of the child is necessary.

(b) Before a magistrate issues a permit referred to in 17(2) or (3), he or she must be provided with-

(i) A court order

(ii) a parental responsibilities and rights agreement or parenting plan registered with the family advocate or

(iii) a birth certificate or certified copy of a birth certificate of the child or children to prove a legitimate relationship between the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights; and

(iv) written reasons why the movement of the child is necessary.


All persons who are able to work from home should do so.

Persons in the following list of industries and activities will be permitted to perform work outside the home, and to travel to and from work, under Alert Level 4, subject to-

(a) strict health protocols, and social distancing rules;

(b) return to work to be phased in to enable measures to make the workplace COVID-ready; and

(c) return to work to be done in a manner that avoids and reduces risks of infection.



1 – Online services.
2 – Productions for local broadcast and live streaming of creative sector services in support of COVID-19 subject to directions.
3 – Newspapers and broadcasting.


A: Essential and permitted services referred to in section 16(3) of the Regulation shall refer to:

(a) the list of essential services as set out in B below; and

(b) such other service as are set out in Alert Level 4 and where the technological. industrial, structural or similar requirement of the service necessitates a continuous or shift operation, as set out in directions, as set out below.

B: Essential services means the services as defined in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act. 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995), and designated in terms of section 71(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (and which designation remains valid as at the date of publication of this regulation), and as listed below:

1. Medical, Health (including Mental Health), Laboratory and Medical services and the National Institute for Communicable Diseases;

2. Disaster Management, Fire Prevention. Fire Fighting and Emergency services;

3.1 (a) The following services necessary to maintain the functioning of a financial system as defined in section 1(1) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act, only when the operation of a place of business or entity is necessary to continue to perform those services:

(i) the banking environment (including the operations of mutual banks, co-operative banks, co-operative financial institutions and the Postbank);

(ii) the payments environment;

(iii) the financial markets (including market infrastructures licensed under the Financial Markets Act, 2012 (Act No. 19 of 2012);

(iv) the insurance environment;

(v) the savings and investment environment;

(vi) pension fund administration;

(vii) outsourced administration;

(viii) medical schemes administration, and

(ix) additional services set out in directions.

(b) The services listed in paragraph (a) may not be construed to include debt collection services.

3.2 Services necessary for the provision of social grants.

4. Production and sale of the goods listed in Annexure B;

5. Whole sale and retail stores for re-stocking;

6. Electricity (including vital demand management services), water, gas and fuel production, supply and maintenance;

7. Critical jobs for essential government services as determined by Head of National or Provincial Departments in accordance with the guidance of the Department of Public Service and Administration, including Social Grant Payments and pension payments;

12. Newspaper, broadcasting and telecommunication infrastructure and services, including call centres critical for the support of such services;