Judge Conradie made no order as to costs.
We trust this will send out a strong message to the SABC and the CCMA that employees cannot be suspended without pay.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Labour Court Victory
Today the Labour Court in Durban has set aside the ruling made by the CCMA in December 2007 to suspend Chereldene Hamann and Gavin Ramiah without pay. The Labour Court has also set aside the cost order made against BEMAWU.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Open letter - Request for granting more time
To:
Director General - Mamodupi Mohlala
Department of Communications
iParioli Park
399 Duncan Street
Pretoria
0002
Fax: (012) 427-8026
email: director-general@doc.gov.za
Dear Madam,
We are a specialist trade union organised in the Broadcasting and Media Sector. We represent more than a thousand members in these sectors, particularly at the SABC.
This serves as a request for a shift of the deadlines to submit input in respect of the proposed Broadcasting Bill. Apart from the fact that the Bill, in its current form, cannot work in practice, the process being followed is flawed and unconstitutional.
As a trade union we are particularly concerned about the huge job losses that will occur if this proposed Bill is passed in its current form.
We estimate that between 1200 and 1500 people will lose their jobs. This goes directly against the stated intent, in the pre-amble of the Bill, of its aim of fighting unemployment.
Furthermore, we are of the view that the current tax proposal will not be enough to fund the SABC sufficiently to fulfill its public mandate.
According to the last budget review figure of the SABC R5.1b (Operational and CAPEX) is required for the next financial year. This excludes the current loan repayment of R1m and the repayment of the new loan in process (installment unknown). According to SARS Financial Statements, Financial Year 2008/9, they collected R 196b in Personal Income Tax for the year. This figure will be substantially lower for the current financial year due to approximately 1 million jobs being lost in the first nine months of 2009. SARS reported an expected shortfall of R 70b in Personal Income Tax. At a maximum rate of 1% the proposed Fund would only receive R1.9b from tax this year.
If the SABC only receives 60% (other broadcaster will also benefit from the Fund) they would have received R1.14b. Add to that the current income of approximately R 1.7b from advertising and sponsors the total is R 2.84b. There appears to be a serious shortfall. When commercial advertising is capped, as suggested by the Bill, the shortfall may even be more.
Having said this, it is clear that due and thorough debate and brain storming needs to be done before any new legislation is passed.
We propose that a process be started where all stakeholders are involved, including treasury, to looking at the new funding model, which may simply include a government grant for the PBS part of the SABC and that TV licenses be retained as part of that funding.
As part of this exercise we need to relook the SABC’s very heavy and expensive top structure and the exorbitant salaries Executives are paid.
We also need to look at cutting costs in respect of all the pleasure trips (Beijing, Jazz Festival, Dakar, etc) by the Executive Management of the SABC and there needs to be proper, transparent and thorough accounting and accountability by those individuals.
We need a qualified and competent CEO with a proven track record of successful business operations, not another (incompetent) political appointment. We need a lean and competent top structure which should be effective and understand the business. The SABC cannot afford to pay top management exorbitant packages when they cannot do their jobs properly and they then hire consultants at a cost of Millions of Rands to do their job. If we cannot find competent people, only then should the SABC appoint consultants. We cannot afford to pay both.
A few years ago the SABC had what was known as the Top 100 management team. Then the SABC made a surplus of several millions. It has now become the Top 250, if not more, and the financial situation is dreadful.
Some of our other concerns (extracted from a SOS Coalition document of which we are a member of) are:
We believe that the Bill introduces a number of fundamental policy shifts that require significant discussion and debate. Briefly, we wish to reiterate some of these shifts:
Given these major policy shifts, we believe that a period for debate of just over a month is not sufficient. Further, we wish to place on record that we are not sure why a Bill of this magnitude and reach needs to be passed in such haste. We believe strongly that the present financial crisis at the SABC is primarily a management crisis and can be dealt with under present legislation.
We believe that the Interim Board has done an excellent job in beginning to stabilise the SABC. We have faith that the new, Permanent Board, will continue this process. The drafting of new legislation should be a separate and parallel process. We believe that rushing this new legislation may very well create new crises for the SABC, which may include industrial action, should employees be retrenched.
A second area of general concern about the Proposed Bill is that it is not clear what exactly the Proposed Bill is and what its full ambit is. The Notice describes the Proposed Bill as a “Bill”. However a “Bill” must be introduced in Parliament. To the best of the Coalition’s knowledge the Proposed Bill has not been introduced in Parliament and therefore it ought, more correctly, to have been called a Draft Bill.
Further, it is customary for Draft Bills to be discussed in Cabinet before being published for public notice and comment in the Government Gazette and yet the Proposed Bill is silent on whether or not the National Executive, acting through the Cabinet, has endorsed this Proposed Bill as indeed reflecting national policy.
Given the number of apparent significant breaks with existing broadcasting and national fiscal policy, the Coalition would have expected that Cabinet approval to have preceded the publication of the Proposed Bill.
The Coalition respectfully requests the DOC to clarify exactly what the nature of the Proposed Bill is if and when it publishes a future iteration thereof.
The Proposed Bill also clearly envisages significant changes to the entire broadcasting sector: public, commercial and community broadcasters as well as, in respect of signal distribution, the role of the regulator etc.
However the Bill makes no proposals for necessary consequential amendments to be made to, inter alia¸ the Independent Broadcasting Authority of South Africa Act, 2000 (“the ICASA Act”) and the Sentech Act, 1996 (“the Sentech Act”). Without these necessary consequential amendments it is likely that there will be inconsistent and clashing provisions in the various pieces of legislation that regulate broadcasting – clearly an undesirable outcome.
SOME CONSTITUTIONALITY CONCERNS – PROCEDURAL
Another third area of critical concern is that it appears from sections in, inter alia, Chapters 4 and 5 of, and the Schedule (what ought to be Schedule 1) to the Proposed Bill, that the Proposed Bill is in fact a “Money Bill” as defined in section 77(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 2006 (“the Constitution”) that is, “a Bill that appropriates money or imposes taxes, levies or duties”.
If this is indeed the case then the Proposed Bill is, on its face, unconstitutional.
The grounds of unconstitutionality include the following:
Section 73(2) of the Constitution provides that only the Minister responsible for national financial matters may introduce a money Bill in the National Assembly. However, it appears that the Proposed Bill is intended to be introduced by the Minister of Communications (“the Minister”) and not the Minister of Finance.
This does not accord with the requirements of the Constitution on the National Legislative Process set out in Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
Section 77(1) of the Constitution specifically provides that a Money Bill “may not deal with any other matter except a subordinate matter incidental to the appropriation of money or the imposition of taxes, levies or duties”. Clearly the Proposed Bill deals with a number of other non-tax related issues and this does not accord with the requirements of the Constitution on the National Legislative Process set out in Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
We wish to place on record our overwhelming support for the concept of public funding of public broadcasting that is, of funding being made available for the public broadcaster out of the National Revenue Fund. This is essential, if the SABC is to deliver on a public mandate. However this must be done in accordance with the Constitution and current Government fiscal policy.
SOME CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS - SUBSTANTIVE
The SABC’s Freedom of Expression Rights:
The Proposed Bill contains what appear to be a number of Schedules to the proposed Bill. One of these is headed “the Charter of the Corporation” (“the Proposed Charter”). As such it forms part of the Proposed Bill and, should the Proposed Bill be passed into law, would constitute legislative provisions. One of the provisions appearing in the Proposed Charter is section 1.5 which is headed “The Independence of the Corporation”. This section provides, inter alia, that the SABC enjoys “freedom to express [sic] and journalistic, creative and programming independence as enshrined in the Constitution”.
The SABC, like all other persons (both natural and juristic) enjoys the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in section 16(1) of the Constitution and does not require section 1.5 of the Proposed Charter in order to enjoy such right.
However, notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.5 of the Proposed Charter, the Proposed Bill contains a number of provisions which directly, and in our view, unconstitutionally limits the SABC’s right to freedom of expression, by subjecting the SABC to National Executive control in a number of important respects, these include but are not limited to:
We submit that it would be entirely unconstitutional for any of the SABC’s programming or services to be subject to National Executive policy and for its editorial policies, which directly influence its broadcasting content, to be approved by anyone, save for the Constitutionally-mandated regulator of broadcasting services, namely ICASA.
A more detailed submission has been made by the SOS Coalition.
Kindly read same into this document.
This was put together in a very short space of time. It is clear that there is still much to be done in the way of thinking and research.
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President
BEMAWU (Broadcasting, Electronic, Media & Allied Workers Union)
Director General - Mamodupi Mohlala
Department of Communications
iParioli Park
399 Duncan Street
Pretoria
0002
Fax: (012) 427-8026
email: director-general@doc.gov.za
Dear Madam,
We are a specialist trade union organised in the Broadcasting and Media Sector. We represent more than a thousand members in these sectors, particularly at the SABC.
This serves as a request for a shift of the deadlines to submit input in respect of the proposed Broadcasting Bill. Apart from the fact that the Bill, in its current form, cannot work in practice, the process being followed is flawed and unconstitutional.
As a trade union we are particularly concerned about the huge job losses that will occur if this proposed Bill is passed in its current form.
We estimate that between 1200 and 1500 people will lose their jobs. This goes directly against the stated intent, in the pre-amble of the Bill, of its aim of fighting unemployment.
Furthermore, we are of the view that the current tax proposal will not be enough to fund the SABC sufficiently to fulfill its public mandate.
According to the last budget review figure of the SABC R5.1b (Operational and CAPEX) is required for the next financial year. This excludes the current loan repayment of R1m and the repayment of the new loan in process (installment unknown). According to SARS Financial Statements, Financial Year 2008/9, they collected R 196b in Personal Income Tax for the year. This figure will be substantially lower for the current financial year due to approximately 1 million jobs being lost in the first nine months of 2009. SARS reported an expected shortfall of R 70b in Personal Income Tax. At a maximum rate of 1% the proposed Fund would only receive R1.9b from tax this year.
If the SABC only receives 60% (other broadcaster will also benefit from the Fund) they would have received R1.14b. Add to that the current income of approximately R 1.7b from advertising and sponsors the total is R 2.84b. There appears to be a serious shortfall. When commercial advertising is capped, as suggested by the Bill, the shortfall may even be more.
Having said this, it is clear that due and thorough debate and brain storming needs to be done before any new legislation is passed.
We propose that a process be started where all stakeholders are involved, including treasury, to looking at the new funding model, which may simply include a government grant for the PBS part of the SABC and that TV licenses be retained as part of that funding.
As part of this exercise we need to relook the SABC’s very heavy and expensive top structure and the exorbitant salaries Executives are paid.
We also need to look at cutting costs in respect of all the pleasure trips (Beijing, Jazz Festival, Dakar, etc) by the Executive Management of the SABC and there needs to be proper, transparent and thorough accounting and accountability by those individuals.
We need a qualified and competent CEO with a proven track record of successful business operations, not another (incompetent) political appointment. We need a lean and competent top structure which should be effective and understand the business. The SABC cannot afford to pay top management exorbitant packages when they cannot do their jobs properly and they then hire consultants at a cost of Millions of Rands to do their job. If we cannot find competent people, only then should the SABC appoint consultants. We cannot afford to pay both.
A few years ago the SABC had what was known as the Top 100 management team. Then the SABC made a surplus of several millions. It has now become the Top 250, if not more, and the financial situation is dreadful.
Some of our other concerns (extracted from a SOS Coalition document of which we are a member of) are:
We believe that the Bill introduces a number of fundamental policy shifts that require significant discussion and debate. Briefly, we wish to reiterate some of these shifts:
- The Bill includes two new Charters – one for the SABC and one for community broadcasting.
- The Bill aligns broadcasting to the “Developmental goals of the Republic” and the developmental state. Previously broadcasting was aligned to the Constitution. It is not always clear what the developmental goals are.
- The Bill introduces fundamental shifts to the broadcasting funding environment. It calls for the scrapping of TV license fees and for amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1962 to ensure that up to 1% of personal income tax is set aside for broadcasting.
- Also, in terms of funding, it introduces a new Public Service Broadcasting Fund, to be administered by the Media Development and Diversity Agency, requiring that the MDDA Act be amended. The Fund is mandated to fund a wide-ranging set of issues including the public service division of the SABC, regional television and international broadcasting services, content development, community broadcasting services and signal distribution.
- The Bill introduces far-reaching and draconian new powers for the Minister of Communications. The Minister can now issue directives to the SABC and community media on “any matter connected to public service broadcasting”. If the entity is unable to “perform its functions as prescribed in this Act”.
- Previously the SABC was split into two divisions – public and public-commercial.
- The SABC is now to be divided into three separate divisions – public, commercial and international.
- Sentech has been designated as ‘the common signal distribution carrier’ requiring amendments to the Electronic Communications Act, 2005.
- Finally, and very importantly, community media’s role has now been re-conceptualised. A new Charter has been introduced for the community media sector specifying the ways in which the community media sector needs to be organised. Further, the Bill requires that community media forge partnerships with their local municipalities.
Given these major policy shifts, we believe that a period for debate of just over a month is not sufficient. Further, we wish to place on record that we are not sure why a Bill of this magnitude and reach needs to be passed in such haste. We believe strongly that the present financial crisis at the SABC is primarily a management crisis and can be dealt with under present legislation.
We believe that the Interim Board has done an excellent job in beginning to stabilise the SABC. We have faith that the new, Permanent Board, will continue this process. The drafting of new legislation should be a separate and parallel process. We believe that rushing this new legislation may very well create new crises for the SABC, which may include industrial action, should employees be retrenched.
A second area of general concern about the Proposed Bill is that it is not clear what exactly the Proposed Bill is and what its full ambit is. The Notice describes the Proposed Bill as a “Bill”. However a “Bill” must be introduced in Parliament. To the best of the Coalition’s knowledge the Proposed Bill has not been introduced in Parliament and therefore it ought, more correctly, to have been called a Draft Bill.
Further, it is customary for Draft Bills to be discussed in Cabinet before being published for public notice and comment in the Government Gazette and yet the Proposed Bill is silent on whether or not the National Executive, acting through the Cabinet, has endorsed this Proposed Bill as indeed reflecting national policy.
Given the number of apparent significant breaks with existing broadcasting and national fiscal policy, the Coalition would have expected that Cabinet approval to have preceded the publication of the Proposed Bill.
The Coalition respectfully requests the DOC to clarify exactly what the nature of the Proposed Bill is if and when it publishes a future iteration thereof.
The Proposed Bill also clearly envisages significant changes to the entire broadcasting sector: public, commercial and community broadcasters as well as, in respect of signal distribution, the role of the regulator etc.
However the Bill makes no proposals for necessary consequential amendments to be made to, inter alia¸ the Independent Broadcasting Authority of South Africa Act, 2000 (“the ICASA Act”) and the Sentech Act, 1996 (“the Sentech Act”). Without these necessary consequential amendments it is likely that there will be inconsistent and clashing provisions in the various pieces of legislation that regulate broadcasting – clearly an undesirable outcome.
SOME CONSTITUTIONALITY CONCERNS – PROCEDURAL
Another third area of critical concern is that it appears from sections in, inter alia, Chapters 4 and 5 of, and the Schedule (what ought to be Schedule 1) to the Proposed Bill, that the Proposed Bill is in fact a “Money Bill” as defined in section 77(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 2006 (“the Constitution”) that is, “a Bill that appropriates money or imposes taxes, levies or duties”.
If this is indeed the case then the Proposed Bill is, on its face, unconstitutional.
The grounds of unconstitutionality include the following:
Section 73(2) of the Constitution provides that only the Minister responsible for national financial matters may introduce a money Bill in the National Assembly. However, it appears that the Proposed Bill is intended to be introduced by the Minister of Communications (“the Minister”) and not the Minister of Finance.
This does not accord with the requirements of the Constitution on the National Legislative Process set out in Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
Section 77(1) of the Constitution specifically provides that a Money Bill “may not deal with any other matter except a subordinate matter incidental to the appropriation of money or the imposition of taxes, levies or duties”. Clearly the Proposed Bill deals with a number of other non-tax related issues and this does not accord with the requirements of the Constitution on the National Legislative Process set out in Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
We wish to place on record our overwhelming support for the concept of public funding of public broadcasting that is, of funding being made available for the public broadcaster out of the National Revenue Fund. This is essential, if the SABC is to deliver on a public mandate. However this must be done in accordance with the Constitution and current Government fiscal policy.
SOME CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS - SUBSTANTIVE
The SABC’s Freedom of Expression Rights:
The Proposed Bill contains what appear to be a number of Schedules to the proposed Bill. One of these is headed “the Charter of the Corporation” (“the Proposed Charter”). As such it forms part of the Proposed Bill and, should the Proposed Bill be passed into law, would constitute legislative provisions. One of the provisions appearing in the Proposed Charter is section 1.5 which is headed “The Independence of the Corporation”. This section provides, inter alia, that the SABC enjoys “freedom to express [sic] and journalistic, creative and programming independence as enshrined in the Constitution”.
The SABC, like all other persons (both natural and juristic) enjoys the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in section 16(1) of the Constitution and does not require section 1.5 of the Proposed Charter in order to enjoy such right.
However, notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.5 of the Proposed Charter, the Proposed Bill contains a number of provisions which directly, and in our view, unconstitutionally limits the SABC’s right to freedom of expression, by subjecting the SABC to National Executive control in a number of important respects, these include but are not limited to:
- Section 15(2)(a) of the Proposed Bill which specifies that the International Services to be provided by the SABC must be subject to the “Republic’s foreign policy”;
- Section 15(4) which specifies that the SABC may only establish any international broadcasting service channel with the approval of the Minister after consultation with the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation; and
- Section 3.11.1 (8) of the proposed Charter of the Corporation which appears to suggest (although the section is confusing and contradictory in this regard) that the Minister must approve various revised editorial policies of the SABC.
We submit that it would be entirely unconstitutional for any of the SABC’s programming or services to be subject to National Executive policy and for its editorial policies, which directly influence its broadcasting content, to be approved by anyone, save for the Constitutionally-mandated regulator of broadcasting services, namely ICASA.
A more detailed submission has been made by the SOS Coalition.
Kindly read same into this document.
This was put together in a very short space of time. It is clear that there is still much to be done in the way of thinking and research.
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President
BEMAWU (Broadcasting, Electronic, Media & Allied Workers Union)
SABC ordered to reinstate dismissed BEMAWU member
The CCMA yesterday ordered the SABC to reinstate unfairly dismissed BEMAWU member Chris le Roux and to pay him compensation of R 85 464.40.
BEMAWU referred un unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA when our member, Mr. Chris le Roux was dismissed after 13 years of service and 17 repetitive fixed term contracts. His last contract was for a 3-year term and just before the lapse of this contract he was informed his contract would not be renewed again. He had a reasonable expectation that his contract would be renewed again as it was done the previous 17 times.
We hope this will send a stern message to the SABC that they are playing with fire when they appoint people on fixed term contracts whilst it is in fact a permanent position. We have urged the SABC for many years to convert all fixed term contracts into permanent contracts if the position is permanent. We will do so again.
Members faced with similar problems should notify BEMAWU in time. We will continue to fight for and protect our members against any unfair and unjust practices.
BEMAWU
BEMAWU referred un unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA when our member, Mr. Chris le Roux was dismissed after 13 years of service and 17 repetitive fixed term contracts. His last contract was for a 3-year term and just before the lapse of this contract he was informed his contract would not be renewed again. He had a reasonable expectation that his contract would be renewed again as it was done the previous 17 times.
We hope this will send a stern message to the SABC that they are playing with fire when they appoint people on fixed term contracts whilst it is in fact a permanent position. We have urged the SABC for many years to convert all fixed term contracts into permanent contracts if the position is permanent. We will do so again.
Members faced with similar problems should notify BEMAWU in time. We will continue to fight for and protect our members against any unfair and unjust practices.
BEMAWU
Santosh Beharie back at Lotus FM
Lotus FM Program Manager Santosh Beharie’s unlawful suspension has been uplifted by the SABC today and he has been instructed to take up his normal duties on Monday, 30 November 2009.
The so-called investigation has, according to the SABC been completed.
BEMAWU will not withdraw its dispute of unfair suspension against the SABC. We will proceed to claim compensation at the CCMA. SABC managers abusing their powers to unlawfully suspend employees will be held accountable for their actions.
Aluta!!!!!
The so-called investigation has, according to the SABC been completed.
BEMAWU will not withdraw its dispute of unfair suspension against the SABC. We will proceed to claim compensation at the CCMA. SABC managers abusing their powers to unlawfully suspend employees will be held accountable for their actions.
Aluta!!!!!
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Harassment at Work
Are you harassed by your manager?
Go through the definition of harassment hereunder and file a complaint with us today if you are harassed at the workplace. You have to take the first step to complain. We will do the rest.
· Bullying
· spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone, particularly on gender, race or disability grounds;
· ridiculing or degrading someone, picking on them or setting them up to fail;
· exclusion or victimisation;
· unfair treatment, for example, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, disability, religion, HIV status, etc;
· overbearing supervision or other misuses of power or position;
· unwelcome sexual advances;
· making threats/comments about job security without foundation;
· deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and constant criticism;
· preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or training opportunities.
Every employee has the right to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace, and employees do not have to tolerate harassment by employers.
The CCMA states that employers have a duty to protect workers from harassment, and employers should develop a code of conduct on harassment in consultation with the employees and employee representatives.
Harassment is in fact classed as an unfair discrimination and only results in a violation of human rights, poor morale among employees, causes unexplained absenteeism, late coming and poor concentration at work. It is the cause of loss of productivity, and a major cause of workers resigning. When employees are unfairly discriminated against in this way, it is advisable that the employee should first confront the harasser directly, in the presence of a witness, and request the harasser to cease the harassment immediately.
Employees also have available to them the normal grievance procedures, or they can turn to their union or employees association for assistance.
Once the case has been reported, the employer is obliged to investigate the case and if necessary disciplinary action must be taken against the harasser.
Any matters that cannot be resolved at employer level can be referred to the CCMA for conciliation and if a resolution is not reached by that process, then the matter will be referred to the Labour Court.
Harassment, because it constitutes unfair discrimination, falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment Equity Act.
Acknowledgement is made for the information contained in CCMA information sheet "Harassment" for the information contained in this article.
Go through the definition of harassment hereunder and file a complaint with us today if you are harassed at the workplace. You have to take the first step to complain. We will do the rest.
· Bullying
· spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone, particularly on gender, race or disability grounds;
· ridiculing or degrading someone, picking on them or setting them up to fail;
· exclusion or victimisation;
· unfair treatment, for example, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, disability, religion, HIV status, etc;
· overbearing supervision or other misuses of power or position;
· unwelcome sexual advances;
· making threats/comments about job security without foundation;
· deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and constant criticism;
· preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or training opportunities.
Every employee has the right to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace, and employees do not have to tolerate harassment by employers.
The CCMA states that employers have a duty to protect workers from harassment, and employers should develop a code of conduct on harassment in consultation with the employees and employee representatives.
Harassment is in fact classed as an unfair discrimination and only results in a violation of human rights, poor morale among employees, causes unexplained absenteeism, late coming and poor concentration at work. It is the cause of loss of productivity, and a major cause of workers resigning. When employees are unfairly discriminated against in this way, it is advisable that the employee should first confront the harasser directly, in the presence of a witness, and request the harasser to cease the harassment immediately.
Employees also have available to them the normal grievance procedures, or they can turn to their union or employees association for assistance.
Once the case has been reported, the employer is obliged to investigate the case and if necessary disciplinary action must be taken against the harasser.
Any matters that cannot be resolved at employer level can be referred to the CCMA for conciliation and if a resolution is not reached by that process, then the matter will be referred to the Labour Court.
Harassment, because it constitutes unfair discrimination, falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment Equity Act.
Acknowledgement is made for the information contained in CCMA information sheet "Harassment" for the information contained in this article.
Salary Increase, Bonus and other matters
The Chairperson of the SABC Board, Irene Charnley re-assured BEMAWU on Monday (23 November 2009) the additional 1.5% increase will be effected by the end of this month, as per the Agreement. Bonuses (a contractual right) will also be paid as usual.
Post Retirement Medical Aid
A judge has been appointed as the case manager in this matter, going on trial in February 2010. We will publish a list soon with all the claimants. Please make sure your name is listed. The SABC is on record that only claimants will benefit from a ruling. Recently Polmed has won a similar case and the SABC has lost three times, the last time in the Appeal Court. BEMAWU members are covered by virtue of their membership as claimants in this matter.
If you are in possession of any documents that you haven’t send us previously relating to Post Retirement Medical Aid, urgently faxed it to us on 0866715585 or mail it to headoffice@bemawu.org.za. This is the only e-mail for BEMAWU Head Office. For personal mail, I can be mailed at president@bemawu.org.za.
In short
WHY NO FURTHER ACTION AGAINST THE OTHERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MESS OF THE SABC? Its Salary Negotiations time soon....
ALUTA!
Post Retirement Medical Aid
A judge has been appointed as the case manager in this matter, going on trial in February 2010. We will publish a list soon with all the claimants. Please make sure your name is listed. The SABC is on record that only claimants will benefit from a ruling. Recently Polmed has won a similar case and the SABC has lost three times, the last time in the Appeal Court. BEMAWU members are covered by virtue of their membership as claimants in this matter.
If you are in possession of any documents that you haven’t send us previously relating to Post Retirement Medical Aid, urgently faxed it to us on 0866715585 or mail it to headoffice@bemawu.org.za. This is the only e-mail for BEMAWU Head Office. For personal mail, I can be mailed at president@bemawu.org.za.
In short
- So the SABC got a guarantee from Government to raise a loan. We trust no money will be squandered again. No Beijing trips, No Jazz Festivals. No Million Rand parties. Keep an eye on this and let us know if you see or hear anything. Let’s save our SABC from the Hyenas who only came to enrich themselves.
- An outside Chartered Accounted will be acting in the suspended CFO’s position.
- No appointments have been made in COO and CEO positions. According to Irene they are still busy with the process. Speculation that Solly Makoetle has been appointed as CEO or COO is simply not true, according to the Board Chairperson.
- Don’t take your accumulated leave, as the SABC will not and can not take away any leave from you.
WHY NO FURTHER ACTION AGAINST THE OTHERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MESS OF THE SABC? Its Salary Negotiations time soon....
ALUTA!
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Substantive Negotiations
The ruling in respect of the Substantive Negotiations.
Keobokile Mosweu now wants to delay the process with all sorts of technical arguments.
It helps to get the right man for the right job....
_____________________________________________________________
DISPUTE BETWEEN SABC AND UNION PARTIES
_______________________________________________________________
1 At the last sitting of this matter on 4 November 2009, I indicated to both
parties that the matter would have to proceed to the next stage of the
enquiry, being the hearing of viva voce evidence in light of the fact that a
dispute of fact exists and it is trite law that same may only be resolved
through the aforementioned process.
2 To this end, I direct that the SABC must extend the life of this process to
20 November 2009.
3 I further direct that my terms of reference as well as the main agreement
creating this process, be amended and that the words “mediation” and
“mediator” (as same appear in both documents), be substituted with the
words “arbitration” and “arbitrator”. The process is therefore akin to a Con
Arb. The aforementioned documents (which documents I direct be
amended refer to” Mediation”, mediator” and are therefore confusing). The
“mediator” is called upon, in the aforementioned documents to “finalise”
the dispute and to make a “determination” which determination will be
“binding”(according to feedback relayed to me by the SABC and the
affected union parties.) I sought audience with the Board to seek clarity
from the Board but was prevented from doing so by the SABC
representative. This much became obvious during the proceedings. The
representative in question further prevented the parties from making
concessions as directed by me and instead argued that I had exceeded
my mandate after I had so directed the parties. The SABC representative
further insisted that I finalise my report after the last sitting of the process
in spite of the issues I had highlighted on record. The SABC
representative’s attitude was totally disruptive and unprofessional.
4 In an attempt to finalise the matter I further direct the SABC to make the
following persons available on 13 November 2009 (and to arrange that
the below-mentioned persons remain in attendance until the matter is
disposed of):
4.1 Mr Sipho Sithole;
4.2 Mr Eddy Molokoane;
4.3 Someone responsible for the administration of the SABC’s
pension fund;
4.4 Someone responsible for the administration of the SABC’s
housing subsidy;
4.5 Someone who can speak authoritatively on the medical aid
scheme of the SABC;
4.6 Someone who can speak authoritatively on the SABC’s group life
scheme;
4.7 Someone who can speak authoritatively on TCOE;
4.8 The SABC’s lead negotiator during the 2008 negotiations with the
affected unions;
4.9 The affected union’s lead negotiator(s) during the 2008
negotiations with the SABC;
4.10 The two parties’ (SABC and the affected unions’) witnesses (if
any).
5 The matter is to proceed before me on 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20
November 2009.
ADV S MTHETHWA
Chambers
SANDTON
10 November 2009
Keobokile Mosweu now wants to delay the process with all sorts of technical arguments.
It helps to get the right man for the right job....
_____________________________________________________________
DISPUTE BETWEEN SABC AND UNION PARTIES
_______________________________________________________________
1 At the last sitting of this matter on 4 November 2009, I indicated to both
parties that the matter would have to proceed to the next stage of the
enquiry, being the hearing of viva voce evidence in light of the fact that a
dispute of fact exists and it is trite law that same may only be resolved
through the aforementioned process.
2 To this end, I direct that the SABC must extend the life of this process to
20 November 2009.
3 I further direct that my terms of reference as well as the main agreement
creating this process, be amended and that the words “mediation” and
“mediator” (as same appear in both documents), be substituted with the
words “arbitration” and “arbitrator”. The process is therefore akin to a Con
Arb. The aforementioned documents (which documents I direct be
amended refer to” Mediation”, mediator” and are therefore confusing). The
“mediator” is called upon, in the aforementioned documents to “finalise”
the dispute and to make a “determination” which determination will be
“binding”(according to feedback relayed to me by the SABC and the
affected union parties.) I sought audience with the Board to seek clarity
from the Board but was prevented from doing so by the SABC
representative. This much became obvious during the proceedings. The
representative in question further prevented the parties from making
concessions as directed by me and instead argued that I had exceeded
my mandate after I had so directed the parties. The SABC representative
further insisted that I finalise my report after the last sitting of the process
in spite of the issues I had highlighted on record. The SABC
representative’s attitude was totally disruptive and unprofessional.
4 In an attempt to finalise the matter I further direct the SABC to make the
following persons available on 13 November 2009 (and to arrange that
the below-mentioned persons remain in attendance until the matter is
disposed of):
4.1 Mr Sipho Sithole;
4.2 Mr Eddy Molokoane;
4.3 Someone responsible for the administration of the SABC’s
pension fund;
4.4 Someone responsible for the administration of the SABC’s
housing subsidy;
4.5 Someone who can speak authoritatively on the medical aid
scheme of the SABC;
4.6 Someone who can speak authoritatively on the SABC’s group life
scheme;
4.7 Someone who can speak authoritatively on TCOE;
4.8 The SABC’s lead negotiator during the 2008 negotiations with the
affected unions;
4.9 The affected union’s lead negotiator(s) during the 2008
negotiations with the SABC;
4.10 The two parties’ (SABC and the affected unions’) witnesses (if
any).
5 The matter is to proceed before me on 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20
November 2009.
ADV S MTHETHWA
Chambers
SANDTON
10 November 2009
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
The most expensive Temp in South Africa?
So the Interim Board issued an unlawful instruction that you may not sell your leave days, despite your contractual right to do so. They furthermore unlawfully and despite your contractual right to accumulate leave threatened that you will forfeit your hard earned leave if you don’t take it. BEMAWU had to take a hard line approach and threaten the SABC with legal action and an urgent interdict before the Acting Chief Executive, Human Capital Mr. Sipho Sithole confirmed that BEMAWU members will not forfeit any leave, except the compulsory 12 days which employees have to take every year, if not taken.
We had seen an application for provisional liquidation of the SABC, strikes and protest action because the SABC alleged they had no money to pay employees, producers and its debtors. Performance management is non-existent, and when applied, it is used to punish and prosecute employees. There is no reward system coupled to it. SABC employees does not have any career paths. No employee can be promoted, say from a secretary to a senior secretary based on meeting standards and good performance. HR will inform that the post have to be re-evaluated. Those who qualify for promotions are told to wait, there is no money. Then some HR Consultants will whisper that Pat Naves, the suspended (why no action?) Chief Executive, Human Capital had issued an instruction that no ad-hoc promotions/salary increases will happen. Sithole denied it. He said it nonsense, no such instruction had been issued.
Fact is, it is almost impossible to get a regrading (move from one scale of seniority to the following), except if your name is connected to the former SABC Board Chairperson and it is starts with a “C” (for Colin). Then you jump several scales at once.
Then another announcement that the SABC deficit is even more than what we were told.
Bottom line is, there is no money... allegedly.
So having said all of this, Mr. Ray Nkwe, please explain where you getting money from to pay a Temp as much as R 40 458.60 per month in April this year, 2009? (There are several other payments made for even higher amounts for Temps) And how does one Temp work 290.5 hours overtime in one month?
And can the SABC please explain whether the moratorium on appointments means Temps can be appointed and paid exorbitant salaries, whilst current, permanent staff cannot sell one day leave to pay for school fees?
Maybe the SABC should borrow money from the Sales and Marketing Division?
R 100 035,00 for a Temp for three months can only mean there is more than enough money for the coming salary negotiations. So please, apply for regradings... Sell your leave, claim your outstanding money if you an independent producer, because the SABC does have money. No need for 1% tax.
We had seen an application for provisional liquidation of the SABC, strikes and protest action because the SABC alleged they had no money to pay employees, producers and its debtors. Performance management is non-existent, and when applied, it is used to punish and prosecute employees. There is no reward system coupled to it. SABC employees does not have any career paths. No employee can be promoted, say from a secretary to a senior secretary based on meeting standards and good performance. HR will inform that the post have to be re-evaluated. Those who qualify for promotions are told to wait, there is no money. Then some HR Consultants will whisper that Pat Naves, the suspended (why no action?) Chief Executive, Human Capital had issued an instruction that no ad-hoc promotions/salary increases will happen. Sithole denied it. He said it nonsense, no such instruction had been issued.
Fact is, it is almost impossible to get a regrading (move from one scale of seniority to the following), except if your name is connected to the former SABC Board Chairperson and it is starts with a “C” (for Colin). Then you jump several scales at once.
Then another announcement that the SABC deficit is even more than what we were told.
Bottom line is, there is no money... allegedly.
So having said all of this, Mr. Ray Nkwe, please explain where you getting money from to pay a Temp as much as R 40 458.60 per month in April this year, 2009? (There are several other payments made for even higher amounts for Temps) And how does one Temp work 290.5 hours overtime in one month?
And can the SABC please explain whether the moratorium on appointments means Temps can be appointed and paid exorbitant salaries, whilst current, permanent staff cannot sell one day leave to pay for school fees?
Maybe the SABC should borrow money from the Sales and Marketing Division?
R 100 035,00 for a Temp for three months can only mean there is more than enough money for the coming salary negotiations. So please, apply for regradings... Sell your leave, claim your outstanding money if you an independent producer, because the SABC does have money. No need for 1% tax.
Update: Another R 175,500.00 plus R 220 000,00 spent on a Temp by Sales and Marketing!!!
Friday, 13 November 2009
This is not the Army, Minister
So we saw the unconstitutional Bill, with no White paper, no Green Paper, no public participation trying to tax citizens for a TV license! What nonsense! So what Minister will be next in the queue and what other taxes will we have to pay for services we constitutionally does not want to associate with? Maybe tax for your dog license, gun license, radio license? What about Domestic Worker Tax? They are the lowest paid, so why don’t we pay tax to be distributed to all registered domestic workers?
Tax is definitely not the answer to the question of TV Licenses. When the SABC goes digital, there will be no longer analogue TV. So the SABC will have to use decoders. Decoders can be switched off if you don’t pay. So no pay, no TV. Easy.
Currently 1500 jobs are threatened by the proposed Bill, that strangely enough make mention of unemployment and the combating thereof.
BEMAWU will continue to fight the new Bill and the proposal to do away with TV Licenses. There are other, less invasive and very effective options available.
This is not the Army, Minister.
Tax is definitely not the answer to the question of TV Licenses. When the SABC goes digital, there will be no longer analogue TV. So the SABC will have to use decoders. Decoders can be switched off if you don’t pay. So no pay, no TV. Easy.
Currently 1500 jobs are threatened by the proposed Bill, that strangely enough make mention of unemployment and the combating thereof.
BEMAWU will continue to fight the new Bill and the proposal to do away with TV Licenses. There are other, less invasive and very effective options available.
This is not the Army, Minister.
Tuesday, 03 November 2009
Draft Bill - SABC
We have received the draft Bill and we are currently studying it. BEMAWU will make representations to Parliament and the Minister in respect of the proposed Act.
If you have any comments, kindly forward same to me as a matter of urgency.
If you have any comments, kindly forward same to me as a matter of urgency.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
The boys will be back!
Acting Chief Executive, Human Capital Mr. Sipho Sithole yesterday confirmed that the Weekend Lift-off show with Ray Maharajh and Vikash Matura will soon return to the airwaves of Lotus FM!!!
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Leave
BEMAWU today met with the Acting Chief Executive of Human Resources, Mr Sipho Sithole who cleared the misunderstanding about leave and confirmed that the instruction to reduce ONLY refers to compulsory leave in terms of the policy, and not to any other leave.
Mr. Sithole confirmed that no employee will forfeit any other leave not taken, but at the same time the SABC wants to encourage employees to reduce their leave.
He confirmed that the SABC will engage organized labour soon to discuss ways and means to lawfully reduce accumulated leave.
Employees must, in terms of the leave policy take compulsory leave. All other leave will remain in tact and cannot be forfeited. No manager can compel an employee to take non-compulsory leave.
Friday, 16 October 2009
Suspension of Board members and Top Management
The SABC last night suspended 4 Top Managers who were implicated in the AG’s report. CFO and Board member Robin Nicholson, Mvuso Mbebe, Anton Heunis and Mabela setekge received precautionary suspension letters last night.
We welcome this, in particular the suspension of Mvuso Mbebe which we believe was long overdue.
However, the whole of Group Executive were fingered in the AG report for serious governance and compliance issues, and they should have been suspended too. We believe the SABC is creating a precedence by not suspending the whole of Group Executive and by doing so creating loopholes, deliberately so or not, for the suspended employees to win their case against the SABC.
Discipline cannot be applied inconsistently and selectively. It is trite law and a sure and successful defense for any accused employee.
As a responsible trade union we cannot ignore this important issue and selective action by the Interim Board, and we urge the Board to suspend the whole of Group Executive and institute disciplinary action against everyone implicated in the AG Report.
We once again would like to remind the Interim Board that the SABC dismissed one of our members for taking six (6) cans of Coke. This intolerance when it comes to public money should now be demonstrated and applied consistently. If not, we will reopen all cases where members were dismissed for lesser offences committed by Group Executive and argue that discipline has not been applied consistently by the SABC. This may result in legal cost of millions again, for which this Board will be held accountable, civilly and otherwise.
Why has the Regional Manager, Mr Zakes Dube, Khabo from HR in KZN and Nokuthula Luthuli not been investigated and suspended for the fruitless and wasteful expenditure of more than R 7Million on one single case against employees who has been reinstated by the labour court? Do they have the right political connections?
Any organization will dismiss employees as quick as possible after a fair hearing for such gross fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Why not the SABC?
Who protects them?
Why do they get indemnity for gross wastage of money but poor chris dismissed for taking six (6) cans of Coke?
What is the moral of the story?
You can waste millions of public money and nothing will happen to you, but don’t dare to take a tin of Coke. Your service of 26 years will then be terminated with immediate effect.
Is the Board saying its a free for all, just don’t take 6 cans of Coke?
In terms of the delegation of authority document the Board can cancel the contracts not concluded in terms of the this document. Why don’t they do it? It will immediately put the sabc in a financial position where all the suppliers payments could be met without asking government to help with finances. Instead, to save money, employees are unlawfully instructed to take leave when no one else is one leave.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
UPDATE ON LEAVE
Letter from our lawyers to SABC’s lawyers re. Leave. We will see council today to bring an application against the SABC..
__________________________________________________________________________________
EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERGS C Brandt/ms/IB1183
Fax: 011 269 7899
F Malan/ R da Silva
13 October 2009
Dear Sir
RE: BEMAWU / SABC
We refer to the above matter and your letter dated 12 October 2009.
We wish to record the following:
1. Our initial letter addressed to your client was dated and dispatched on 3 September 2009;
2. Your client requested an extension to respond to the letter until 16 September 2009;
3. Your client then requested an extension until 18 September 2009, which was afforded;
4. On 21 September 2009 we were in receipt of your letter dated 18 September 2009 to which we responded in a letter dated 21 September 2009 and in terms whereof certain clarification is sought;
5. On 29 September 2009 a further letter was dispatched to your offices in terms whereof a response to our letter dated 21 September 2009 is sought on or before close of business on 1 October 2009;
6. On 29 September 2009 we were in receipt of your letter dated 28 September 2009 in terms whereof, inter alia, you confirmed that you are in the process of consulting with your client, presumably in order to respond to our previous letter;
7. Still receiving no response, our letter dated 8 October 2009 was dispatched to your offices;
8. You had at least 21 days until today to consult with your client and provide us with a proper response;
9. Your client’s procrastination is increasing the urgency of the matter as our client’s members are being expected to reduce accumulated leave within 6 months from 19 August 2009, i.e. by 19 February 2010, or forfeit same.
We are taking instructions from our client who’s rights remain strictly reserved.
Yours faithfully
CARL BRANDT
ASSENMACHER ATTORNEYS
CC: headoffice@bemawu.org.za
__________________________________________________________________________________
EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERGS C Brandt/ms/IB1183
Fax: 011 269 7899
F Malan/ R da Silva
13 October 2009
Dear Sir
RE: BEMAWU / SABC
We refer to the above matter and your letter dated 12 October 2009.
We wish to record the following:
1. Our initial letter addressed to your client was dated and dispatched on 3 September 2009;
2. Your client requested an extension to respond to the letter until 16 September 2009;
3. Your client then requested an extension until 18 September 2009, which was afforded;
4. On 21 September 2009 we were in receipt of your letter dated 18 September 2009 to which we responded in a letter dated 21 September 2009 and in terms whereof certain clarification is sought;
5. On 29 September 2009 a further letter was dispatched to your offices in terms whereof a response to our letter dated 21 September 2009 is sought on or before close of business on 1 October 2009;
6. On 29 September 2009 we were in receipt of your letter dated 28 September 2009 in terms whereof, inter alia, you confirmed that you are in the process of consulting with your client, presumably in order to respond to our previous letter;
7. Still receiving no response, our letter dated 8 October 2009 was dispatched to your offices;
8. You had at least 21 days until today to consult with your client and provide us with a proper response;
9. Your client’s procrastination is increasing the urgency of the matter as our client’s members are being expected to reduce accumulated leave within 6 months from 19 August 2009, i.e. by 19 February 2010, or forfeit same.
We are taking instructions from our client who’s rights remain strictly reserved.
Yours faithfully
CARL BRANDT
ASSENMACHER ATTORNEYS
CC: headoffice@bemawu.org.za
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Letters of support
Shree Kiritbhai Acharya
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
The Bala & Peru performance in Port Elizabeth was a huge success. It was good fun and everyone enjoyed the show very much. It was the first time that the “uncles” have performed in PE and many people wanted to know from them when are they coming back on Lotus FM.
Raybhai and Vikashbhai are committed to bringing communities together and I fully support all their endeavours to return to Radio Lotus.
I wish them well in their endeavours.
Yours faithfully
Kiritbhai Acharya
Priest : PE Hindu Seva Samaj
------ End of Forwarded Message
SOMEONE HAS LIED TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD!!!
The Lotus Saga has not come to end.
Recently BEMAWU met with the Chairperson of the Board and asked her why the Lotus-issue in respect of the Weekend Liftoff show (putting Ray Maharajh and Vikash Matura back on air) has not been resolved. Her response was that they (Ray & Vikash) were implicated in a report of some wrongdoings. We requested a copy of the report, which we received.
The report made absolutely no mention of any wrongdoings by our two members. So someone has lied to Irene.
On the same day we received the report we had a meeting with Charlotte Mampane, Lulama and Mandla Soko. Soko once again confirmed that in the previous meeting it was decided to put our members back on air, but because we spoke to the media about the matter, Thami Ntenteni decided to punish them and to not put them back on air.
After we discussed the report and it was pointed out to Lulama that our members did nothing wrong and in particular there was nothing in the report, she in principle was not opposed to put them back on air, but wanted to discuss it with Ntenteni first.
Lulama (and Charlotte) undertook to revert back to BEMAWU by Wednesday, last week. They did not.
Yesterday we contacted Charlotte and she then alleged that “the stakeholder” did not want our members back on air. She also said the community does not want them back on air.
We will now engage the Board with a copy of the report and request clarity as to what our members did wrong according to the report. We will also engage the community, who are the stakeholder, to ask their opinion. We will post their response on this blog.
We have furthermore consulted our members at Lotus FM, who indicated that they are prepared to strike to undo the bad managerial decisions taken by the previous station manager, Samuels.
Vikash Matura blew the whistle on Samuels, which led to her disciplinary and suspension and he (and Ray) gets sacked for that! As a responsible trade union we will never allow this to happen. We will continue to fight to get our members reinstated.
12 October 2009
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
We were privileged to host the “Bala & Peru” show for the first time in Port Elizabeth, on Saturday 10th October 2009.
The show was a complete sell-out and a resounding success, indicative of the popularity of the “two uncles”.
The most common asked question to “Bala & Peru” was “ When are you coming back on aire. We miss your show over the weekends. Its not the same anymore.”
Since the inception of Lotus FM in the Eastern Cape, mid-2006, the listenership has grown. We fully support and endorse any initiative to restore the personalities to return to the air-waves.
Sincerely yours
Vinash Inderjee
obo Ekta Committee
Tel: 041 408 5000/ Fax: 041 456 2980
Mobile: 083 413 3133
------ End of Forwarded Message
Recently BEMAWU met with the Chairperson of the Board and asked her why the Lotus-issue in respect of the Weekend Liftoff show (putting Ray Maharajh and Vikash Matura back on air) has not been resolved. Her response was that they (Ray & Vikash) were implicated in a report of some wrongdoings. We requested a copy of the report, which we received.
The report made absolutely no mention of any wrongdoings by our two members. So someone has lied to Irene.
On the same day we received the report we had a meeting with Charlotte Mampane, Lulama and Mandla Soko. Soko once again confirmed that in the previous meeting it was decided to put our members back on air, but because we spoke to the media about the matter, Thami Ntenteni decided to punish them and to not put them back on air.
After we discussed the report and it was pointed out to Lulama that our members did nothing wrong and in particular there was nothing in the report, she in principle was not opposed to put them back on air, but wanted to discuss it with Ntenteni first.
Lulama (and Charlotte) undertook to revert back to BEMAWU by Wednesday, last week. They did not.
Yesterday we contacted Charlotte and she then alleged that “the stakeholder” did not want our members back on air. She also said the community does not want them back on air.
We will now engage the Board with a copy of the report and request clarity as to what our members did wrong according to the report. We will also engage the community, who are the stakeholder, to ask their opinion. We will post their response on this blog.
We have furthermore consulted our members at Lotus FM, who indicated that they are prepared to strike to undo the bad managerial decisions taken by the previous station manager, Samuels.
Vikash Matura blew the whistle on Samuels, which led to her disciplinary and suspension and he (and Ray) gets sacked for that! As a responsible trade union we will never allow this to happen. We will continue to fight to get our members reinstated.
12 October 2009
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
We were privileged to host the “Bala & Peru” show for the first time in Port Elizabeth, on Saturday 10th October 2009.
The show was a complete sell-out and a resounding success, indicative of the popularity of the “two uncles”.
The most common asked question to “Bala & Peru” was “ When are you coming back on aire. We miss your show over the weekends. Its not the same anymore.”
Since the inception of Lotus FM in the Eastern Cape, mid-2006, the listenership has grown. We fully support and endorse any initiative to restore the personalities to return to the air-waves.
Sincerely yours
Vinash Inderjee
obo Ekta Committee
Tel: 041 408 5000/ Fax: 041 456 2980
Mobile: 083 413 3133
------ End of Forwarded Message
Thursday, 08 October 2009
Leave
We urge members to not take their accumulated leave. We are in the process of bringing a court application against the SABC in respect of the leave issue. No member will forfeit leave that complies with the Policy.
Friday, 02 October 2009
Salary Negotiations
Conciliation took place at the CCMA in the matter where the SABC unilaterally increased salaries of our members outside the so-called bargaining unit by 5% only. BEMAWU made it clear that we intend to fight for our members only, particularly on the basis of the SABC’s argument that they cannot afford a higher percentage increase. Instead of extending it to all employees we submitted that it should only be applicable to our members. We further argued that no other employee complained about the 5% that we aware of, and on that basis only BEMAWU members should get the increase.
The Commissioner adjudicating in the matter will issue a directive to the SABC but in the meantime has extended conciliation for 30 days.
We believe all our members should get the same increase and we will continue to fight for this.
The Commissioner adjudicating in the matter will issue a directive to the SABC but in the meantime has extended conciliation for 30 days.
We believe all our members should get the same increase and we will continue to fight for this.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Rediffusion
We urge all our members to not attend the rediffusion scheduled for Thursday in protest of the unlawful suspension of Mike Namane, a BEMAWU NEC member who was suspended for asking a question during the previous rediffusion.
In question time, Mike Namane from the Freestate Region asked a hypothetical question about a possible transgression of the Delegation of Authority framework. He was suspended for that.
The Chairperson of the Board and the Acting GCE did nothing to stop this unlawful suspension and victimisation of an union official.
If you really want to attend, please do not ask any questions. The most innocent question can result in your suspension.
In question time, Mike Namane from the Freestate Region asked a hypothetical question about a possible transgression of the Delegation of Authority framework. He was suspended for that.
The Chairperson of the Board and the Acting GCE did nothing to stop this unlawful suspension and victimisation of an union official.
If you really want to attend, please do not ask any questions. The most innocent question can result in your suspension.
Suspensions
Rumor has it that the SABC has suspended at least three Board members and a senior manager. We welcome this step in the right direction and trust the Board will clean out the SABC from all managers implicated in the Auditor General’s report.
There are several other audits done by the Internal Audit Department waiting for action to be taken on.
There are several other audits done by the Internal Audit Department waiting for action to be taken on.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
AG REPORT
Mike Namane, a senior union official was suspended for asking a hypothetical question in respect of the continues breach by Senior and Top Management of the Delegation of Authority policy. Chris Breytenbach was dismissed for taking six cans of Coke.
Madam Chairperson of the SABC Board, please start suspending Top and Senior Management. If you fail to do so, you will be failing your fiduciary duties too.
The AG report is shocking to put it mildly.
We are planning some action.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
BEMAWU official suspended
BEMAWU National Executive Member Mike Namane has been suspended by Vincent Tsoenyane, SABC Freestate Regional Manager for asking a question in a meeting.
Irene, Gab and Phumelele, why are you managing the SABC by fear? The question Mike Namane asked was effectively whistle blowing. He asked a hypothetical question in respect of the Delegation of Authority document. Instead of picking up on that and asking the Auditor General to follow up, you allowed Tsoenyane to suspend him.
You are not serious about whistle blowing, are you? You are equally not serious about so-called First Citizen rights, are you?
After this, do you think any employee will ever ask a question again in an open meeting?
This is called management by fear.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Bloemfontein Meeting
Dear Keobokile,
We requested and received permission to held a general meeting in Bloemfontein today at 13:00. We have incurred costs to travel to Bloemfontein only to be informed when we arrived here that the meeting has been cancelled by Vincent Tsoenyane.
We hereby request that you honor your word and arrange for this meeting to proceed today, at 13:00 as agreed.
Employees are entitled to attend this meeting in their lunchtime. Should you not arrange for a venue inside the SABC, we will continue with the meeting outside the SABC.
Sincerely
Hannes du Buisson
FREESTATE UPDATE
Vincent Tsoenyane has unilaterally cancelled the meeting scheduled and agreed to by Employee Relations for today. If we don't get a venue inside the SABC, we will meet outside the SABC in the street in your lunchtime. Media welcome to attend to hear the grievances of SABC BLOEMFONTEIN.
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom!
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom!
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
FREESTATE GENERAL MEETING
BEMAWU, CWU and MWASA members in the Freestate Region currently experience unprecedented and severe harassment from management of that region.
Organized Labour (BEMAWU, CWU and MWASA) leadership will be in Bloemfontein tomorrow to listen to grievances and complaints of members.
A general meeting has been scheduled for 13:00 tomorrow in Bloemfontein.
We urge members of all three unions to attend the meeting. Venue will be confirmed.
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom!
Friday, 11 September 2009
LEAVE
Once again, clarification of the leave policy of the SABC.
Employees employed before 31 December 1999 will have “old leave days pool”. This leave can no longer accumulate and what you have accumulated to date will remain. It cannot be taken away or you cannot be forced to take it and you can never forfeit it. It can only be reduced in accordance with the Policy, which will be :
All employees will have “new leave days pool”.
This leave is capped to 90 days. All leave exceeding 90 days can be forfeited if not taken.
Compulsory leave cannot be accumulated, and if not taken, will be forfeited. However, if you have applied for yhe taking of compulsory leave, and that application was turned down, you cannot forfeit it.
So, for example:
The 10 days story going around is a flight of managements imagination. Steur jou nie daaraan nie.
Employees employed before 31 December 1999 will have “old leave days pool”. This leave can no longer accumulate and what you have accumulated to date will remain. It cannot be taken away or you cannot be forced to take it and you can never forfeit it. It can only be reduced in accordance with the Policy, which will be :
- The sale of these leave days at the basic salary rate irrespective of the amount of leave days to be converted
- To make good any shortfall in the new leave days pool
All employees will have “new leave days pool”.
This leave is capped to 90 days. All leave exceeding 90 days can be forfeited if not taken.
Compulsory leave cannot be accumulated, and if not taken, will be forfeited. However, if you have applied for yhe taking of compulsory leave, and that application was turned down, you cannot forfeit it.
So, for example:
- You can have 10 000 days “old pool” leave days, and this cannot be reduced by any other means but to sell it or take it, as and when you want to sell or take it, and not by illegal instruction from the Interim Board.
- You can, at the same time have 90 days leave in your new pool, and you cannot be forced to sell or take this leave, and you cannot forfeit it. More than 90 days in this pool must be taken or forfeited.
- If you have days in your compulsory leave pool, it must be taken or it can be forfeited.
The 10 days story going around is a flight of managements imagination. Steur jou nie daaraan nie.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
CCMA DATE FOR SALARY DISPUTE 130 and above
The dispute in respect of the 5% increase given to BEMAWU members on 130 scale and above has been set down for conciliation at the CCMA on 30 September 2009.
Wednesday, 09 September 2009
Re: UNFAIR SUSPENSION - BEMAWU OFFICIAL
Dear Keobokile,
Pardon the little frustration that may filter through here and there in my letter.
We are astounded, shocked and extremely worried about your understanding of Labour Law. The consultation between your office and my office is most definitely not restricted to Collective Bargaining. Collective bargaining is not a consultative process. It is a negotiations process. There is a vast difference between the two. You are furthermore what appears to be shortsighted if you believe that by unfairly and unprocedurally suspending union officials would not affect the Corporation. We will not allow management to victimise our office bearers, not now and never!
You have not properly responded to our previous e-mails. I am referring to “We are still awaiting your reply to our previous letter in respect of the grievance.”
I am referring to you, your Department being the custodians of all SABC Policies, turning a blind eye when it comes to management in breach of policies, like Tsoenyane/Morobe in breach of the Grievance Procedure policy by not hearing Mr Namane’s grievance within 3 days, as per the policy, but when ordinary employees did nothing wrong, you collaborate to suspend them unprocedurally and unfairly.
Your understanding of consultation in terms of Schedule 8 is clearly incorrect. It has in the past always took place between my office and your office, with the line manager present. There was never an HR person involved. This is not a normal suspension, there is a trade union official, an NEC member involved and you have to consult in terms of Schedule 8 of the Act!.
This is a consultation prior to the suspension, and only thereafter there is supposed to be a meeting where the suspension is supposed to take place. It is clear that you are trying to pay lip service to the Act and that a decision to suspend Mr Namae has already been taken. You just want to deal with the formalities.
It is clear that you will never change your stance, no matter what we say to you. We foresee extreme difficulty to have and build a relationship with you, as you are, and always will take the side of the employer, no matter what. Good luck with that attitude. See how long we will have labour peace in the organisation. Keep on turning a blind eye to victimisation of union officials, and see what its going to do to the SABC. You are not now dealing with unschooled workers cleaning dust bins.
Aluta Continua!
Hannes du Buisson
President : BEMAWU
On 2009/09/0In the 9 12:12 PM, "Keobokile Mosweu" <MosweuKE@sabc.co.za> wrote:
Hannes du Buisson
President
BEMAWU
Cell. 0829208669
Fax 0866715585
Tel. 012 6537380
Blog http://bemawu.blogspot.com
Pardon the little frustration that may filter through here and there in my letter.
We are astounded, shocked and extremely worried about your understanding of Labour Law. The consultation between your office and my office is most definitely not restricted to Collective Bargaining. Collective bargaining is not a consultative process. It is a negotiations process. There is a vast difference between the two. You are furthermore what appears to be shortsighted if you believe that by unfairly and unprocedurally suspending union officials would not affect the Corporation. We will not allow management to victimise our office bearers, not now and never!
You have not properly responded to our previous e-mails. I am referring to “We are still awaiting your reply to our previous letter in respect of the grievance.”
I am referring to you, your Department being the custodians of all SABC Policies, turning a blind eye when it comes to management in breach of policies, like Tsoenyane/Morobe in breach of the Grievance Procedure policy by not hearing Mr Namane’s grievance within 3 days, as per the policy, but when ordinary employees did nothing wrong, you collaborate to suspend them unprocedurally and unfairly.
Your understanding of consultation in terms of Schedule 8 is clearly incorrect. It has in the past always took place between my office and your office, with the line manager present. There was never an HR person involved. This is not a normal suspension, there is a trade union official, an NEC member involved and you have to consult in terms of Schedule 8 of the Act!.
This is a consultation prior to the suspension, and only thereafter there is supposed to be a meeting where the suspension is supposed to take place. It is clear that you are trying to pay lip service to the Act and that a decision to suspend Mr Namae has already been taken. You just want to deal with the formalities.
It is clear that you will never change your stance, no matter what we say to you. We foresee extreme difficulty to have and build a relationship with you, as you are, and always will take the side of the employer, no matter what. Good luck with that attitude. See how long we will have labour peace in the organisation. Keep on turning a blind eye to victimisation of union officials, and see what its going to do to the SABC. You are not now dealing with unschooled workers cleaning dust bins.
Aluta Continua!
Hannes du Buisson
President : BEMAWU
On 2009/09/0In the 9 12:12 PM, "Keobokile Mosweu" <MosweuKE@sabc.co.za> wrote:
Dear Hannes
I have previously responded to your emails about this issue. This serves as a further clarity on your concerns:
- My understanding is that consultation is done between the line manager, assisted by the HR representative in that business area and the trade union of the employee. The consultation that requires your office and my office is done when dealing with collective bargaining issues or issues that affect the Corporation as a whole and not on issues that can otherwise be dealt with at plant level, with minimal interference from me.
- I advised that the consultation meeting be scheduled in Bloemfontein because both the line manager and the employee are based there. This will prevent fruitless and wasteful expenditure which I believe you are also concerned about.
- I do not intend to deal with the merits or the demerits of the matter in terms of whether there is victimization or not. There is an opportunity for you to table these issues at the said meeting and will also include them as part of the employee’s representation as such.
- It also seems inappropriate for us to refer to the matter as “Unfair Suspension” because the matter is still at a consultation phase and the outcome of this process cannot be preempted.
- Lastly, I humbly request that you attend the meeting, or at least send someone to attend on behalf of your member with a view to finding a speedy resolution.
I hope this clarifies the position of ER on this matter.
Regards
Keobokile Mosweu
From: BEMAWU HEADOFFICE [mailto:headoffice@bemawu.org.za]
Sent: 09 September 2009 11:32 AM
To: Keobokile Mosweu
Cc: Mike Namane; Vincent Tsoenyane; Kobus Potgieter; Phumelele Nzimande; Irene Charnley; Suzanne Vos; Gab Mampone
Subject: UNFAIR SUSPENSION - BEMAWU OFFICIAL
Dear Keobokile,
Why have you not responded to my questions below?
The consultation must take place between my office and your office, not with Tsoenyane and in Bloemfontein.
I am involved with the SABC for the better part of 20 years now. Not once did any consultation took place in the region, but without exception at head office.
Urgently respond to our questions below, and our request that the consultation be scheduled in Johannesburg.
We once again submit to you that the intended suspension is nothing but union bashing and victimisation from Tsoenyane, because Mr. Namane is an union official, he blew the whistle on irregularities in that region and mainly because he filed a grievance against Tsoenyane . There are absolutely no grounds to suspend him. If there were any grounds and urgency to suspend him, why did Tsoenyane refused to meet last week and why only now, weeks after the meeting?
We furthermore request your and Top management’s intervention in this matter, as a matter of urgency to protect the SABC and it’s resources against further fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Should this suspension continue, particularly under these circumstances, BEMAWU will bring an urgent application in the Labour Court to stop this senseless suspension, obviously at the SABC’s cost. How can a person be suspended for asking questions in a rediffusion after being invited to ask questions?
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President : BEMAWU
On 2009/09/08 9:04 AM, "Keobokile Mosweu" <MosweuKE@sabc.co.za> wrote:
Dear Hannes
Vincent has consulted with the ER department on this matter and we are in agreement that the proposed meeting should be conducted in Bloemfontein.
Regards
Keobokile Mosweu
From: BEMAWU HEADOFFICE [mailto:headoffice@bemawu.org.za]
Sent: 03 September 2009 15:31 PM
To: Keobokile Mosweu
Cc: Mike Namane; Vincent Tsoenyane
Subject: FW: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Importance: High
Dear Keobokile,
We would once again like to put on record that the actions by Tsoenyane against one of our National Executive Members of BEMAWU is nothing but sheer victimisation because he is a union member. The SABC is about to spent again lots of money, which will be fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
This meeting that Vincent Tsoenyane is trying to arrange, must be organised by your Department. You have requested that all correspondence go via your office. Same must then apply to management, and Tsoenyane.
Could you kindly, but urgently intervene and schedule the meeting in Jhb, as is custom and practice.
We are still awaiting your reply to our previous letter in respect of the grievance.
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President
BEMAWU
Cell. 0829208669
Fax 0866715585
Tel. 012 6537380
Blog http://bemawu.blogspot.com
------ Forwarded Message
From: Mike Namane <namanesm@sabc.co.za>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:52:40 +0200
To: Hannes du Buisson <headoffice@bemawu.org.za>
Cc: Vincent Tsoenyane <tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
Subject: FW: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Fly.
Mike Namane
Supervisor: Production Services
(: 051 503 3085
Ê: 051 503 3021
(: 073 206 0279/071 708 2044
8: namanesm@sabc.co.za <mailto:namanesm@sabc.co.za>
:: www.rbf.sabc.co.za <http://www.rbf.sabc.co.za/>
*: M. Namane, P O Box 563,
BFN 9300
From: Vincent Tsoenyane
Sent: 03 September 2009 14:40
To: Mike Namane
Cc: 'BEMAWU HEADOFFICE'; Kobus Potgieter
Subject: RE: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Importance: High
Dear Namane,
The correspondence below refers.
This is the final arrangement to inform you that I am now scheduling a meeting and the following are details:-
¢ Date: 7th September 2009
¢ Time: 10:00
¢ Venue: SABC Building Bloemfontein, the Boardroom on the 1st Floor
Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards,
Thabang Vincent Tsoenyane| SABC Limited
RGM: Free State & Northern Cape Region
Tel: +27 (51) 503 3200| Fax: +27 (51) 503 3264| Mobile +27 (72) 697 6375
P O Box 563, Bloemfontein, 9301, Free State, South Africa
E-mail: tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za <mailto:tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
From: Mike Namane
Sent: 31 August 2009 13:06
To: 'BEMAWU HEADOFFICE'
Cc: Vincent Tsoenyane
Subject: FW: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Fly.
Mike Namane
Supervisor: Production Services
(: 051 503 3085
Ê: 051 503 3021
(: 073 206 0279/071 708 2044
8: namanesm@sabc.co.za <mailto:namanesm@sabc.co.za>
:: www.rbf.sabc.co.za <http://www.rbf.sabc.co.za/>
*: M. Namane, P O Box 563,
BFN 9300
From: Vincent Tsoenyane
Sent: 31 August 2009 12:53
To: Mike Namane
Cc: 'BEMAWU HEADOFFICE'
Subject: RE: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Dear Mike,
My attached e-mail refers. This is a reminder that I am still waiting for a response on the possible dates for the meeting.
Regards,
Thabang Vincent Tsoenyane| SABC Limited
RGM: Free State & Northern Cape Region
Tel: +27 (51) 503 3200| Fax: +27 (51) 503 3264| Mobile +27 (72) 697 6375
P O Box 563, Bloemfontein, 9301, Free State, South Africa
E-mail: tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za <mailto:tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
From: Vincent Tsoenyane
Sent: 28 August 2009 15:25
To: Mike Namane
Cc: Kobus Potgieter
Subject: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Importance: High
Dear Namane,
My discussion with Kobus Potgieter this afternoon refers.
This is to confirm that we have agreed to the postponement of the meeting mentioned in my correspondence to you. Kindly suggest two possible dates, preferably not in the coming week because of my busy schedule.
I hope the above is in order, should you require further clarity please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Thabang Vincent Tsoenyane| SABC Limited
RGM: Free State & Northern Cape Region
Tel: +27 (51) 503 3200| Fax: +27 (51) 503 3264| Mobile +27 (72) 697 6375
P O Box 563, Bloemfontein, 9301, Free State, South Africa
E-mail: tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za <mailto:tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Disclaimer: Everything in this email and its attachments relating to the official business of the SABC is proprietary to the SABC. If the email is used other than for official business of the SABC or the views and opinions expressed in the email are not authorised by the SABC, the views and opinions expressed are those of the individual sending the email.
The content of this email is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. The person addressed in the email is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if this email and its attachments have unintentionally reached you; do not read, copy, disseminate or use the content in any way and delete the email and any copies of it.
Whilst all reasonable precautions are taken to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information, and that this email and its attachments are free from any virus, the SABC accepts no liability however arising or responsibility whatsoever in this regard, and in keeping with good computing practice, the scanning of files and attachments is advised.
------ End of Forwarded Message
Hannes du Buisson
President
BEMAWU
Cell. 0829208669
Fax 0866715585
Tel. 012 6537380
Blog http://bemawu.blogspot.com
UNFAIR SUSPENSION - BEMAWU OFFICIAL
Dear Keobokile,
Why have you not responded to my questions below?
The consultation must take place between my office and your office, not with Tsoenyane and in Bloemfontein.
I am involved with the SABC for the better part of 20 years now. Not once did any consultation took place in the region, but without exception at head office.
Urgently respond to our questions below, and our request that the consultation be scheduled in Johannesburg.
We once again submit to you that the intended suspension is nothing but union bashing and victimisation from Tsoenyane, because Mr. Namane is an union official, he blew the whistle on irregularities in that region and mainly because he filed a grievance against Tsoenyane . There are absolutely no grounds to suspend him. If there were any grounds and urgency to suspend him, why did Tsoenyane refused to meet last week and why only now, weeks after the meeting?
We furthermore request your and Top management’s intervention in this matter, as a matter of urgency to protect the SABC and it’s resources against further fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Should this suspension continue, particularly under these circumstances, BEMAWU will bring an urgent application in the Labour Court to stop this senseless suspension, obviously at the SABC’s cost. How can a person be suspended for asking questions in a rediffusion after being invited to ask questions?
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President : BEMAWU
On 2009/09/08 9:04 AM, "Keobokile Mosweu" <MosweuKE@sabc.co.za> wrote:
Why have you not responded to my questions below?
The consultation must take place between my office and your office, not with Tsoenyane and in Bloemfontein.
I am involved with the SABC for the better part of 20 years now. Not once did any consultation took place in the region, but without exception at head office.
Urgently respond to our questions below, and our request that the consultation be scheduled in Johannesburg.
We once again submit to you that the intended suspension is nothing but union bashing and victimisation from Tsoenyane, because Mr. Namane is an union official, he blew the whistle on irregularities in that region and mainly because he filed a grievance against Tsoenyane . There are absolutely no grounds to suspend him. If there were any grounds and urgency to suspend him, why did Tsoenyane refused to meet last week and why only now, weeks after the meeting?
We furthermore request your and Top management’s intervention in this matter, as a matter of urgency to protect the SABC and it’s resources against further fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Should this suspension continue, particularly under these circumstances, BEMAWU will bring an urgent application in the Labour Court to stop this senseless suspension, obviously at the SABC’s cost. How can a person be suspended for asking questions in a rediffusion after being invited to ask questions?
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President : BEMAWU
On 2009/09/08 9:04 AM, "Keobokile Mosweu" <MosweuKE@sabc.co.za> wrote:
Dear Hannes
Vincent has consulted with the ER department on this matter and we are in agreement that the proposed meeting should be conducted in Bloemfontein.
Regards
Keobokile Mosweu
From: BEMAWU HEADOFFICE [mailto:headoffice@bemawu.org.za]
Sent: 03 September 2009 15:31 PM
To: Keobokile Mosweu
Cc: Mike Namane; Vincent Tsoenyane
Subject: FW: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Importance: High
Dear Keobokile,
We would once again like to put on record that the actions by Tsoenyane against one of our National Executive Members of BEMAWU is nothing but sheer victimisation because he is a union member. The SABC is about to spent again lots of money, which will be fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
This meeting that Vincent Tsoenyane is trying to arrange, must be organised by your Department. You have requested that all correspondence go via your office. Same must then apply to management, and Tsoenyane.
Could you kindly, but urgently intervene and schedule the meeting in Jhb, as is custom and practice.
We are still awaiting your reply to our previous letter in respect of the grievance.
Sincerely,
Hannes du Buisson
President
BEMAWU
Cell. 0829208669
Fax 0866715585
Tel. 012 6537380
Blog http://bemawu.blogspot.com
------ Forwarded Message
From: Mike Namane <namanesm@sabc.co.za>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:52:40 +0200
To: Hannes du Buisson <headoffice@bemawu.org.za>
Cc: Vincent Tsoenyane <tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
Subject: FW: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Fly.
Mike Namane
Supervisor: Production Services
(: 051 503 3085
Ê: 051 503 3021
(: 073 206 0279/071 708 2044
8: namanesm@sabc.co.za <mailto:namanesm@sabc.co.za>
:: www.rbf.sabc.co.za <http://www.rbf.sabc.co.za/>
*: M. Namane, P O Box 563,
BFN 9300
From: Vincent Tsoenyane
Sent: 03 September 2009 14:40
To: Mike Namane
Cc: 'BEMAWU HEADOFFICE'; Kobus Potgieter
Subject: RE: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Importance: High
Dear Namane,
The correspondence below refers.
This is the final arrangement to inform you that I am now scheduling a meeting and the following are details:-
¢ Date: 7th September 2009
¢ Time: 10:00
¢ Venue: SABC Building Bloemfontein, the Boardroom on the 1st Floor
Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards,
Thabang Vincent Tsoenyane| SABC Limited
RGM: Free State & Northern Cape Region
Tel: +27 (51) 503 3200| Fax: +27 (51) 503 3264| Mobile +27 (72) 697 6375
P O Box 563, Bloemfontein, 9301, Free State, South Africa
E-mail: tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za <mailto:tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
From: Mike Namane
Sent: 31 August 2009 13:06
To: 'BEMAWU HEADOFFICE'
Cc: Vincent Tsoenyane
Subject: FW: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Fly.
Mike Namane
Supervisor: Production Services
(: 051 503 3085
Ê: 051 503 3021
(: 073 206 0279/071 708 2044
8: namanesm@sabc.co.za <mailto:namanesm@sabc.co.za>
:: www.rbf.sabc.co.za <http://www.rbf.sabc.co.za/>
*: M. Namane, P O Box 563,
BFN 9300
From: Vincent Tsoenyane
Sent: 31 August 2009 12:53
To: Mike Namane
Cc: 'BEMAWU HEADOFFICE'
Subject: RE: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Dear Mike,
My attached e-mail refers. This is a reminder that I am still waiting for a response on the possible dates for the meeting.
Regards,
Thabang Vincent Tsoenyane| SABC Limited
RGM: Free State & Northern Cape Region
Tel: +27 (51) 503 3200| Fax: +27 (51) 503 3264| Mobile +27 (72) 697 6375
P O Box 563, Bloemfontein, 9301, Free State, South Africa
E-mail: tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za <mailto:tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
From: Vincent Tsoenyane
Sent: 28 August 2009 15:25
To: Mike Namane
Cc: Kobus Potgieter
Subject: Confirmation: Meeting Postponement
Importance: High
Dear Namane,
My discussion with Kobus Potgieter this afternoon refers.
This is to confirm that we have agreed to the postponement of the meeting mentioned in my correspondence to you. Kindly suggest two possible dates, preferably not in the coming week because of my busy schedule.
I hope the above is in order, should you require further clarity please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Thabang Vincent Tsoenyane| SABC Limited
RGM: Free State & Northern Cape Region
Tel: +27 (51) 503 3200| Fax: +27 (51) 503 3264| Mobile +27 (72) 697 6375
P O Box 563, Bloemfontein, 9301, Free State, South Africa
E-mail: tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za <mailto:tsoenyanetv@sabc.co.za>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Disclaimer: Everything in this email and its attachments relating to the official business of the SABC is proprietary to the SABC. If the email is used other than for official business of the SABC or the views and opinions expressed in the email are not authorised by the SABC, the views and opinions expressed are those of the individual sending the email.
The content of this email is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. The person addressed in the email is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if this email and its attachments have unintentionally reached you; do not read, copy, disseminate or use the content in any way and delete the email and any copies of it.
Whilst all reasonable precautions are taken to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information, and that this email and its attachments are free from any virus, the SABC accepts no liability however arising or responsibility whatsoever in this regard, and in keeping with good computing practice, the scanning of files and attachments is advised.
------ End of Forwarded Message