SAPS promotions on hold over race case
March 26 2015 at 11:26am
By Theto Mahlakoana
By Theto Mahlakoana
INDEPENDENT
Johannesburg - The careers of 1 634 police officers hang in the balance
as a lengthy court case which halted their promotions to senior ranks drags on.
The matter, which is awaiting judgment in the Labour Court in Joburg,
was first brought by labour union Solidarity in early 2012. It is challenging
the way in which the SA Police Service promoted more than 7 500 police
officers.
Solidarity is challenging the lawfulness of a collective-bargaining
agreement upon which the promotions were based, and the fairness of a decision
not to promote some of its members who are co-applicants in the case.
“Solidarity
declared a dispute with the SAPS in 2011 after members of minority groups had
been unfairly discriminated against with respect to appointments on the level
of lieutenant, captain and major,” the union’s Dirk Groenewald told The Star.
In 2011, the police reached an agreement with unions in the Safety and
Security Sectoral Bargaining Council, which dictated the terms of its
promotions policy, following the introduction of new ranks.
According to the agreement, warrant officers who met certain criteria,
which included qualifications, performance, race and sex, would be promoted to
positions of captain and lieutenant, while eligible captains would be promoted
to positions of major. Such changes would have meant that officers not only
ended up in a more senior post, but had more money in their pockets.
However, after the second leg of promotions was meant to take place, Solidarity
took issue and the promotions were put on hold.
The SAPS had been attempting to address bottlenecks through the
promotions as there were 40 000 warrant officers before the two new ranks were
introduced. It had also hoped the move would inspire morale and a work ethic
among its members.
SAPS spokesman Lieutenant-General Solomon Makgale said: “As management,
we are very upset about this matter and it is not unreasonable to expect our
members who stood to benefit to be furious that their promotions have not been
affected. We have explained to the members what the cause of this problem is
and we fought very hard in court for them.
“We are prepared to continue fighting for them right up to the
Constitutional Court.”
The case is based on the same legislation which Solidarity questioned in
the Constitutional Court when it represented former policewoman Renate Barnard.
The union alleged in that application the SAPS had promoted employees
according to race, ignoring factors such as experience.
But the Constitutional Court dismissed Solidarity’s application and
upheld the SAPS’s affirmative action practices. However, this has not
discouraged Solidarity, which, despite not being a recognised union in the
SAPS, continues to challenge its employment practices.
“After phase one was implemented, individuals complained to Solidarity,
saying their experience preceded those of people being promoted. The employment
equity plan was used for this agreement and we decided to attack its
lawfulness,” Groenewald said.
A date for the court judgment is yet to be set.
Union accused of not supporting transformation
Solidarity, which represents the interests of mainly white Afrikaans
workers, has often been accused of interfering with the country’s
transformation agenda.
Some of its main critics are the SAPS and the Correctional Services
Department, which the union has gone to battle against for its affirmative
action.
Since the country’s employment equity laws were enacted, Solidarity has
taken on 42 cases, mainly in these organisations and a couple of private
companies. The union represents 130 000 workers in various sectors, including
engineering, communications, mining and agriculture.
What sets the union apart from others is its willingness to also pursue
matters on behalf of individuals in companies where it is not recognised. This
is the case at the SAPS, where it has taken on a variety of matters related to
the promotion of black candidates over white officers who Solidarity believes
are more deserving.
While the union argues it is not opposed to transformation, analysts
disagree.
“It is only natural that a union like Solidarity and an interest group
like AfriForum would fight for their members, who are mainly white members.
Therefore, any transformation in any society will come in full contradiction
with their interests and fear of losing the privileged position they had always
accorded them,” said Professor Somadoda Fikeni.
Labour analyst Tony Healy agrees. “What this tells us is that Solidarity
is not especially supportive of transformation. In the (Renate) Barnard case
(which was heard in the Constitutional Court), one could argue gender, but it
will never get away from being a predominantly white, male union. Then it is
the majority of their members who are potentially at the greatest risk of
transformation and affirmative action,” he said.
The SAPS, whose promotion policies have been paralysed by the union’s
dozens of court cases, believes that Solidarity’s refusal to accept the
country’s affirmative action laws is problematic.
“They keep losing important cases, but for them they regard the
publicity they get from the media as good because they can be seen as fighting
for white people. We are fighting for the promotion of all employees,
regardless of race,” said SAPS spokesman Lieutenant-General Solomon Makgale.
Groenewald vehemently opposes this view.
“What we are saying is that we are for affirmative action as long as it
is implemented in line with the law. We are challenging the way in which they
are implementing it because if it is not in line with the law; it’s nothing
other than discrimination,” he said.
Healy said reality suggested the opposite to Groenewald’s reasoning.
“Personalities are often the pawns in the process; the ideologies are the true duelling
parties.”
Since the advent of democracy, the government has adopted legislation in
an attempt to balance the scales in terms of racial and gender representivity
in the workplace. It is the implementation of such measures that comes under
attack from organisations such as Solidarity, which rely mostly on the courts
to reverse appointments of personnel covered under the law.
“For millions of South Africans, affirmative action means advancing to a
better life, a long overdue chance to start enjoying the good things the
country has to offer. For others, leading comfortable lives today, it signifies
a new form of discrimination and injustice,” reads the ANC policy document on
affirmative action.
But Solidarity takes issue with the assertion from many that it wants to
maintain the status quo of the past.
“Such a remark is unbelievable. We are a trade union, representing
members. If we don’t represent them, it will be a failure to stickto our
mandates. We get legal opinions and from that pointwe take issues to court,”
said Groenewald.
The Star
