The Constitutional Court has refused to hear an application for leave to appeal by the Health and Allied Workers Indaba Trade Union (HAITU), which was placed under administration by the government, saying it lacked reasonable prospects of success.
An earlier ruling by the labour court ordered that the union, previously known as the Young Nurses Indaba Trade Union, be placed under administration for its failure to adhere to its constitution. It was also accused of mismanagement of funds and a failure to elect qualified leaders.
An earlier application for leave to appeal brought before the Supreme Court of Appeal was also denied.
The union claims to have a membership of more than 21,000 workers in both the public and private health sectors.
“The Constitutional Court took the easy way out and also refused to hear this matter, thus denying us the opportunity to have this landmark court case to be heard,” the union said in a statement.
“It is our view that the department of employment & labour is bullying independent unions using the powers granted to it by the Labour Relations Act.”
In June 2024 judge Dephney Mahosi, who previously handled the case and confirmed the decision to place it under administration, appointed Gerhard Vosloo as the administrator, granting him authority over the union’s control and management.
The administration ruling was a nail in the coffin as the embattled union started experiencing trouble after the Tembisa Hospital controversy involving CEO Ashley Mthunzi, who was also the husband of the union’s general secretary, Lerato Mthunzi. Mthunzi, who died in April 2024, had been accused of managing payments associated with corruption.
Gauteng health department official and whistle-blower Babita Deokaran raised concerns about R850m in suspicious transactions at the hospital shortly before her assassination in August 2023. Deokaran was assassinated because of reporting on corruption practices.
The union has been in conflict with the registrar of labour relations, Lehlohonolo Molefe, who has sought to revoke the union’s registration with the department.
The union initially sought leave to appeal in the labour court, contesting judge Mahosi’s conclusion that placed the union under administration, arguing that Mahosi’s finding that administration was preferable to deregistration was not reasonable because the main issue before court was whether Mahosi had properly exercised his powers in accordance with the law.
Labour lawyer Michael Bagraim explained that the department had lodged complaints in the past and had very carefully assessed the problems.
“There were myriad problems that were not resolved, and hence the need to approach the law courts. The trade union is dealing with workers’ money, which was being abused. After careful assessment of the evidence, the courts decided that it was necessary and reasonable to put the union under administration,” Bagraim said.
“The administrator will protect the workers’ money and will ensure that the systems are properly adhered to. It is correct and absolutely needed to have regulations overseeing public bodies such as trade unions,” he said.
“Trade unions are not profit-making institutions but are there to protect workers’ rights and to act as custodians over the monthly payments received from their members. If the payments are abused, the unions face the wrath of the law, which happened in this particular case. The whole idea is for the administrator to correct the situation and to ensure that the union can exist fairly in the future. There might be a few individuals in the administration of the union that might have to face disciplinary enquiries in due course.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.