Lawyers for the Broadcasting, Electronic, Media & Allied Workers Union (Bemawu) have served the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) with a letter of demand over its planned retrenchments.

1. SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Radio Park
Corner Artillery and Henley Roads
Auckland Park
Johannesburg
2092
Tel: (011) 714 4711
ATTENTION: GROUP EXECUTIVE: HUMAN RESOURCES
DR MOJAKI MOSIA
BY EMAIL: mosiam02@sabc.co.za
URGENT
Our ref: WM0069 Your ref: Date: 23 October 2020
____________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir,
BROADCASTING ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION
(BEMAWU) // THE SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (SOC)
LTD: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 189 AND 189A OF THE LABOUR
RELATIONS ACT– LETTER OF DEMAND
In the above-mentioned matter, we confirm that we represent the Broadcasting,
Electronic, Media and Allied Workers Union (“BEMAWU”) our client.
We have been instructed by our client to address this letter of demand to the South
African Broadcasting Corporation (“SABC”) due to the SABC’s refusal to continue with
the bona fide consultative process, as required by section 189 of the Labour Relations
Act, 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). The following summary of facts provide the background to our
client’s demands in this regard, but should not be construed as the complete factual
matrix of our client’s case:
1. Our client and the SABC entered into a joint consensus-seeking exercise
(“consultative process”) as envisaged by section 189 of the LRA on or

2. about 02 July 2020, after the SABC served section 189(3) notices on the
members of our client on 18 June 2020;
2. The consultative process was facilitated by two Commissioners appointed
by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”) in
terms of section 189A(3) under case number HO1567/20, as requested by
the SABC in the notices served on the members of our client in terms of
section 189(3);
3. The consultative process has proceeded at a steady pace, keeping in mind
that the parties had to consult on various issues within the complex
governance and structural framework of the SABC. Not only did the SABC
seek to reduce its headcount but also envisaged to change its structures,
and review current employment position. Further, the parties are attempting
to seek alternatives to the proposed dismissal of approximately 600
employees, which include the members of our client. Further, the effect the
COVID-19 pandemic had on the consultative process must not be
disregarded;
4. To date of this letter of demand, parties have not been able to consult on
the following issues, as required by section 189(2):
4.1 appropriate measures to minimise the number of dismissals;
4.2 appropriate measures to change the timing of the dismissals;
4.3 appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the
dismissals;
4.4 the method for selecting the employees to be dismissed;
4.5 the severance pay for dismissed employees.

3. 5. On 16 October 2020 Commissioner Shimane Kgantse issued a procedural
ruling, stating the procedure how the parties must proceed in exchanging
information, after which the parties would then reconvene for the
consultative process to continue;
6. On 16 October 2020 the SABC representative, Mr Ian Plaatjes stated that
the SABC will not comply with the procedural ruling issued by
Commissioner Shimane Kgantse in that the SABC would withdraw from the
consultative process with immediate effect.
7. On 16 October 2020, as an afterthought the SABC required the other
consulting parties to send their remaining questions of clarity regarding the
proposed structure to the SABC via email by close of business
26 October 2020.
8. The arbitrary deadline set by the SABC regarding the questions of clarity
does not take into consideration the fact that our client has to consult with
its members (more than a thousand) via limited electronic platform due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the final structural documents, on which
our client had to consult with its members and make proposals, was only
provided to our client on 19 October 2020 by the SABC.
We have considered the facts of this matter as presented to us by our client, and we
believe the SABC’s refusal to continue with the bona fide consultative process falls
short of the requirements for meaningful consultation, equity and fairness as enshrined
in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, the LRA and
applicable case law.
Given the SABC’s refusal to continue with the bona fide consultative process we have
been instructed by the client to demand the following from the SABC:

4. 9. That the SABC in writing confirms that it will return to the consultative process
with immediate effect;
10. That the SABC in writing confirms that it will continue to consult in a bona
fide manner with our client until all the issues as required by section 189(2)
of the LRA had been addressed and ventilated through the consultative
process;
11. A written undertaking from the SABC that no members of our client will be
dismissed for operational requirements until all the issues as required by
section 189(2) of the LRA had been addressed and ventilated through the
consultative process;
12. That the SABC in writing confirms that our client will be allowed sufficient
time to consult with its members regarding the final structural documents,
draft questions of clarity and present these question to the SABC during the
consultative process.
If the SABC fails or refuses to accede to our client’s demands before 12:00 on
24 October 2020, we hold instructions to immediately approach the Labour Court on
an urgent application to compel the SABC to comply with a fair procedure and to
interdict the SABC from dismissing any of our client’s members until the SABC has
complied with a fair procedure.
The contents of this letter and the SABC’s actions prior and in reply thereto will be
submitted in arguments for a cost order against the SABC.

5. We await your urgent reply in this regard before noon on 24 October 2020.
Client’s rights remain reserved in toto.
Yours sincerely,
JAMES WELMAN
WELMAN AND BLOEM INC.