We also acknowledge the effect that the mass action will have on our children’s schooling but believe this is a necessary temporary inconvenience. South Africa has some of the world’s best Collective Bargaining Structures and each one of the country’s citizens needs to protect these. When agreements are signed, it should not then be left to one party to the agreement to change it as they like.

POPCRU also opposes the abuse of state funds in legal processes to defend this decision. There are pressing needs in various schools across the country, not to mention the lack of decent buildings where the millions which the department is spending in legal fees could be invested. We appeal with the minister to swallow her pride and admit her shortsightedness with regard to this matter as in hindsight it is very clear that her actions seek to erode our hard gained rights.

Our 150 000 members support SADTU’s “Work to Rule” stance.

Issued by POPCRU on 22 May 2013

For more contact;

Theto Mahlakoana
Media & Communications Officer

Tel: 011 242 4615
Cell: 076 851 8884
E-mail: thetom@popcru.org.za

We are also pleased with the arrest of the three suspects who violated the officer and stole from her. POPCRU leaders in the area who are in constant contact with the member praised her strength. Social workers have also been arranged to help the member through the ordeal. We appeal with colleagues in Khayelitsha to work hard to ensure that the culprits responsible for this crime face the full might of the law.

POPCRU advises SAPS members to execute their duties with confidence and not be deterred by horrendous incidents such as these. POPCRU calls for an end to rape and all forms of violence against women.

Issued by POPCRU on 11/04/2013

For more information contact;

Theto Mahlakoana

Media & Communications Officer

Tel:            011 242 4615

Cell:           076 851 8884

E-mail:      thetom@popcru.org.za

POPCRU however believes this is just the tip of the iceberg as the problems which exist in other Traffic departments nationally are deep rooted in the way the entire system is run. The union has for years been calling for the Nationalisation of Traffic departments. This would be a great victory for workers who are currently governed by difference policies depending on where they are based. It is also currently impossible for these workers to belong to the same Bargaining Council which means despite having similar working conditions, their terms of employment and benefits differ.

The Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union pleads with the National government to truly consider the benefits of the nationalisation of traffic as opposed to the mess which is the current state of affairs. If centralised, the departments will be better positioned to serve the public and save millions of rands which go to waste in the form of RTMC and other ventures of a similar nature.

Issued by POPCRU on 09 Apr. 2013

For more contact;

Theto Mahlakoana

Media & Communications Officer

Tel:            011 242 4615

Cell:           076 851 8884

E-mail:      thetom@popcru.org.za

                                                    JUDGMENT ( SUMMARY)

Reportable                       Case No: 107/12

In the matter between;

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICE                              First Appellant

AREA COMMISSIONER POLLSMOOR                                          Second Appellant

And

 POPCRU & 6 Others                                                                        First Respondent

The respondents are male former correctional Officers of the Department of Correctional Services. They were dismissed in June 2007 for their refusal to cut their hair when ordered to do so under the Department’s Corporate Identity Dress Code (Dress Code).

Clause 5.1 read together with sub-clause 5.1.2.3 prohibited male officials from amongst others things wearing dreadlocks as a hairstyle. The respondents were dismissed for the contravention of the abovementioned clause.

Some members amongst the respondents maintained that they were exercising their right to freedom of religion, which is recognised and protected by the Constitution, and constituted unfair discrimination on that basis. The others maintained that the dreadlocks were worn in accordance with their cultural beliefs. They maintained that they were discriminated on cultural grounds.

They lodged an internal appeal against the dismissal but the appeal went against them. They referred the dispute to the Labour Court and their contention was that the dismissals were automatically unfair because the Department had unfairly discriminated against them directly or indirectly on the grounds of religion, conscience, belief, culture and gender as envisaged by section 187 (1) (f) of the LRA.

An expert witness Mr. Toyo Khandekana a traditional healer led evidence to the affect that dreadlocks are a symbol in the realm of Xhosa spiritual healing that their wearer has headed the call of his ancestors to become a traditional healer. That they are cut off at a cleansing ceremony conducted at completion of the process to signify the initiate’s transition into a traditional healer. This evidence was not disputed by the Department.

The Department’s submission was made through the Commission and supported by the expert witness who testified that the uniformity of dress and appearance provided by the dress code is intertwined with and critical for the enforcement and maintenance of discipline and security in a prison environment. Any deviations from uniformity to accommodate diversity would open the flood gates for exemption requests to the department’s detriment. Dreadlocks also posed a particular risk because they could easily be grabbed by an inmate to disarm an official.

The court found that there is no direct or indirect discrimination against the respondents (members) on the grounds of religion, belief or culture. Instead, it held that the respondents had established discrimination against themselves on the basis of gender as the Appellant did not show “why the biological differences between men and women had to justify discriminating between them… When it came to dreadlocks. That the appellants had failed to rebut the presumption of unfairness of the Commissioner’s instruction and that the dismissals were automatically unfair. It ordered reinstatement of those respondents who sought it and compensation for those who no longer wanted their jobs.

The Department appealed to the Labour Appeals Court (LAC). Without first applying for leave, the respondents also noted a cross appeal against the Labour Courts Failure to find unfair discrimination also on the grounds of religion, belief or culture and gender. The court found the cross- appeal, which it said required no leave to be instituted as the rules of court made no provision therefore unnecessary because the respondents accepted the order of the Labour Court but merely sought to have its judgement confirmed on addition grounds.

The Department took the matter on further appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal. The court held amongst others that a policy is not justified if it restricts a practice of religious belief and by necessary extension, a cultural belief that does not affect an employee’s ability to perform his duties, nor jeopardise the safety of the public or other employees nor cause under hardship to the employer in a practical sense. No rational connection was established between purported purpose of the discrimination and the measure taken. Neither was it shown that the department would suffer an unreasonable burden if it had exempted the respondents. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

This is indeed a victor for POPCRU and members at large as we now have a case law which clearly supports the notion that none of our members can be discriminated on the basis of gender, religion and culture.