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