Johannesburg - Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant acted unlawfully, irrationally and unfairly in a bid to protect a dysfunctional Cosatu union from being placed under administration.
The minister further interfered with the independence and statutory functions of the labour registrar by demanding to be briefed on a particular case that the office was handling.
The Labour Appeal Court in Joburg delivered this damning judgment on Oliphant this week, standing by a prior court ruling that her decision to reverse the designation of Johan Crouse as labour registrar two years ago had a significant effect on the incumbent and beyond.
Crouse and the minister were engaged in a long, bitter court battle that was a culmination of the registrar’s refusal to withdraw a court application seeking to place the Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union (Ceppwawu) under administration.
Independent Media reported last September that the deputy registrar at the department had reversed the decision, letting Ceppwawu off the hook as the minister had desired.
The minister’s conduct, which was not prescribed anywhere in law as detailed in the ruling, has raised eyebrows, with labour consultant and analyst Tony Healy saying she was clearly conflicted.
“You must remember that Ceppwawu is a Cosatu union and Cosatu is part of the alliance with the ANC.
"The minister has two hearts, she heads up the department and she is also a politician of the ruling party and that presents eventually a conflict of interest and it could raise legitimate concerns,” he said.
Ceppwawu had failed to submit audited financial statements for a period of five years and had not been able to hold constitutional meetings among other violations.
Different Ceppwawu factions have launched close to 20 litigations against each other as they struggle for power linked to the control of a R6billion investment fund which remains inaccessible to members in light of the unabated chaotic state the union is in.
Despite the blatant evidence suggesting an intervention was needed, the minister stopped Crouse in his tracks.
“Accordingly, I call on you to suspend the labour court application in question until such a time that you have briefed me fully on this matter. My PA will liaise with you on the suitable date when you can brief me in this regard,” read a letter addressed to him from the minister.
In the 20 years he had worked in the office of the registrar, Crouse said he had never been issued with such an instruction.
“It boggles the mind that the minister would not step in and try and save the union, because if you allow the union to mismanage and not comply with its constitution the whole structure and intention of the legislature, the UN convention, the constitution, everything goes out the window,” he said.
Healy expressed scepticism about the future independence of the labour registrar’s office.
Although the appeal court had definitively clarified that the minister has no power over the labour registrar, this could also expose the office to political manipulation.
“It creates a potential for cadre deployment,” said Healy.
Crouse said his office had always been ignored, seen as unimportant until it was realised that there was something that it could do to “harm the alliance”.
The only recourse the minister now has is to approach the Constitutional Court should she seek further review of the judgment as cases from the Labour Appeal Court could no longer be referred to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Several attempts made to obtain comment from Oliphant before going to press proved unsuccessful.