UNTU prepares for possible strike as Transnet wage negotiations reach deadlock
Image: Leon Lestrade/ Independent Newspapers
Transnet's ongoing wage negotiations have reached an impasse, confirming fears of looming industrial action by workers as the United National Transport Union (UNTU) made a clear statement on Friday.
After three days of mediation by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) through the section 150 of the Labour Relations Act, UNTU reported that no progress had been made, compelling them to consider striking if their demands remained unmet.
On Thursday, UNTU completed a ballot process with its members that disclosed a consensus to mobilise for industrial action should the wage negotiations fail. The union said the CCMA has committed to present a revised salary/wage offer by close of business on Monday.
'If no revised offer is forthcoming, UNTU will issue Transnet with a 48-hour notice of industrial action,' it said in a statement.
UNTU general secretary, Cobus van Vuuren, said the majority of ballots cast by the majority union's members was in favour of taking to the streets to demand a wage increment that reflected the deepening economic crisis facing Transnet employees and job security.
Van Vuuren said the three-day S150 CCMA intervention facilitated by two senior commissioners failed to break the Transnet salary/wage 2025/26 impasse; therefore, the status quo remained in terms of this deadlock.
'The proceedings spanning over three days concluded on Thursday, without the parties reaching consensus on a revised salary/wage increase offer. UNTU participated in the S150 process in good faith, fully committed to securing a fair and sustainable outcome amid the rising cost of living and the ongoing operational and structural challenges facing Transnet,' he said.
UNTU is demanding a 10% wage increase for 2025/26, a R2 500 housing allowance, R2 500 medical aid allowance, and the removal of a cap on overtime from Transnet. The union has also rejected a proposed wage increase of 6% over two years and 5.5% in the third year.
Van Vuuren said that throughout the process, UNTU tabled a variety of salary/wage proposals for Transnet's consideration.
'We are confident we are in line with the economic and financial pressures facing our members, with a high emphasis on job security while at the same time paying due cognisance to the challenges Transnet faces. The proposals, which UNTU presented, cannot be disclosed at this time due to the confidential nature of the S150 process,' he said.
'We had hoped that Transnet and its mandate-givers would seriously consider these proposals, particularly given the potential economic impact of industrial action and the value of securing a longer-term agreement securing labour peace during this critical time in Transnet's turnaround into a sustainable self-funded entity.'
Van Vuuren said that the resolution of the deadlock now rested with the CCMA, which he said has committed to present a revised salary/wage offer by close of business on Monday.
'Should no revised offer be forthcoming, UNTU will issue Transnet with a 48-hour notice of industrial action. This could potentially result in industrial action commencing on Thursday, 22 May 2025, in line with the overwhelming mandate secured from its members,' he said.
'UNTU has made the necessary logistical preparations to ensure our readiness for industrial action. If a revised offer is received, UNTU will initiate a structured mandating process to determine if our members accept or reject the tabled revised salary/wage offer.'
The Federation of Unions of South Africa (Fedusa) has backed UNTU as its affiliate in the wage negotiations with Transnet.
'Should the intervention by the CCMA fail and UNTU members find themselves compelled to embark on industrial action to secure fair wages, Fedusa will support them,' said the federation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Why FlySafair pilots are striking: It's more than just money
Long queues formed at the FlySafair counters on Monday morning as the airline grappled with a labour impasse that grounded some flights. Image: Jonisayi Maromo/IOL As hundreds bemoan the FlySafair strike, Solidarity has released a statement expressing the real reason why pilots have downed their tools - and it's not just about the money. While pilots overseas can earn up to R3 million plus housing and extras, earlier reports indicate that FlySafair pilots requested a raise. FlySafair responded stating that their Captains earn between R1.8 and R2.3 million annually, which, according to them, places the pilots within the top 1% of earners in South Africa. With regards to workload woes, FlySafair noted that its Captains spent an average of 63 hours last month in the cockpit flying passengers. It added that this is "well within regulatory limits set by the Civil Aviation Authority, IATA, and ICAO", which cap flight duty at 100 hours per month. While there is no doubt that that is a lot of money, the big question is: What is the point of having a full bank account if you cannot see your loved ones and your quality of life is low? According to Solidarity's statement, the improvement in the pilots' quality of life is the main issue. This is set to be tackled when the mediation process between Solidarity and FlySafair's management takes place on Wednesday. The process was requested by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), in terms of section 150 of the Labour Relations Act. "While the pilots are also seeking a reasonable salary increase – including to restore their compensation to pre-COVID-19 levels – improved working conditions are particularly important. A new rostering system, recently implemented unilaterally by FlySafair, has drastically changed the established working conditions of pilots, which have been in place for the past decade. This new schedule impedes adequate rest periods and undermines pilots' family life," the union stated. "As pilots' workdays often start before sunrise and last until late at night, sufficient rest is of utmost importance for the safety and well-being of pilots and passengers alike. In addition, pilots work seven days a week on a rotating schedule, which significantly impacts their family life compared to those who work standard office hours." Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The proposals to achieve a settlement include, but are not limited to: that pilots will have at least one weekend off within each five-week schedule cycle, as well as two consecutive days off to properly rest and spend quality time with their families; the opportunity for pilots to exchange shifts with colleagues in cases where family responsibilities necessitate such flexibility; that if they have to fly on their days off, they will be compensated for these days off within the next schedule cycle. Additional schedule proposals will also be submitted to FlySafair's management during the mediation. It's worth noting that Solidarity stated that if FlySafair complies with the above requests, it will be prepared to review the salary increase demand and all other related claims and be willing to compromise. This statement comes hours after FlySafair has confirmed that all flights on Tuesday's schedule are departing as planned and assured customers that disruptions have been minimal so far. IOL
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
The MKP's two-faced foreign relations on Western Sahara
South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relied on its reputation for principled support of the occupied peoples. Image: Leon Lestrade / Independent Newspapers. THE Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a complete African Union (AU) member state and is recognised by more than 40 United Nations (UN) member states. Despite decades of occupation by Morocco and the ongoing struggle for self-determination, its existence is a testament to the resilience of its people and the enduring principles of international law regarding decolonisation. The UN classified this contested territory as a non-self-governing territory in 1963, following Spain's submission of information under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter. However, the territory has remained in a state of legal limbo despite multiple resolutions, diplomatic interventions and a protracted conflict involving Morocco, the Polisario Front and Algeria. This status affirms that the Sahrawi people have yet to exercise their right to self-determination under international law. The recent political stunt by Jacob Zuma's Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party), which dismissed this right as 'Balkanisation', reflects a troubling ahistorisation of a people's identity and a flagrant disregard for international legal norms. South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relied on its reputation for principled support of the occupied peoples. The MK Party's stance on Western Sahara would cripple this moral standing, inviting accusations of hypocrisy. Worse, Zuma's use of the national flag during party-to-government talks with Morocco was improper, as he acted solely in his MK Party capacity, not in any official national role. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading In an op-ed, MK Party parliamentarian Mzanyele Manyi attempts to reframe the party's position as a rejection of 'Eurocentric binaries' and a commitment to precolonial African structures. A closer examination reveals a deeply contradictory and, frankly, two-faced approach that undermines the very principles the MK Party claims to uphold. Manyi's argument hinges on a romanticised and selective interpretation of history, conveniently overlooking the realities of international law and the fundamental right to self-determination that the AU has consistently championed. To suggest that Western Sahara was merely 'integrated with Morocco' through 'trade, kinship and religious institutions' before colonialism, and that this somehow equates to legitimate sovereignty, is to deliberately blur the lines between historical influence and political dominion. While precolonial connections existed, they do not negate the distinct identity of the Saharawi people or their internationally recognised right to choose their destiny. The assertion that Moroccan Sultans exercised 'spiritual and political suzerainty' akin to the British monarch's role over the Commonwealth is a disingenuous comparison. Based on colonial logics, the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of so-called independent states. Thus, it does not provide a historical justification for territorial claims over a people who have consistently sought their statehood. Furthermore, equating Morocco's actions in Western Sahara to an 'African character' while simultaneously dismissing the Saharawi's struggle for independence as 'intellectually lazy and historically dishonest' reveals a profound bias. Who, then, defines 'African character' in this narrative? Is it only those who align with pre-colonial monarchies, regardless of the aspirations of indigenous populations? Nevertheless, the 1975 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion found no ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and Morocco. Manyi's dismissal of this advisory opinion as 'just that… an opinion, not a binding judgment' is a classic legal evasion, as it ignores its foundational role in the UN and AU's stance on decolonisation. While advisory opinions are not directly binding in the same way as contentious judgments, they carry significant legal weight and are highly influential in international law. The ICJ explicitly stated that it 'did not find any ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity'. This critical finding, conveniently downplayed by Manyi, directly challenges the MK Party's narrative of historical Moroccan suzerainty. To suggest that those who rely on this opinion are 'disingenuously using it as a hammer' is to accuse the international legal framework itself of being disingenuous when it doesn't align with the MK Party's preferred outcome. Furthermore, it is crucial to recall that Spain's 1975 tripartite agreement with Morocco and Mauritania, which ceded administrative control of Western Sahara without a referendum, was a direct violation of UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which affirms the right to self-determination for all colonial territories. The MK Party's purported 'rejection of the Balkanisation of Africa' is perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy. For a party to claim it stands 'firmly against the further splintering of our continent into externally sponsored micro-states' while simultaneously advocating for the annexation of Western Sahara by Morocco is a monumental contradiction. The Saharawi Republic is a member of the AU, recognised by a significant number of African states, including South Africa. Its struggle is one of decolonisation and self-determination, not 'external sponsorship' designed to create a 'micro-state' for foreign interests. This is a classic case of projection, where the MK Party attributes to the Saharawi what many accuse Morocco of pursuing: territorial expansion under the guise of historical claims. The appeal to 'African sovereignty' and the 'legitimacy of political structures that preceded colonial conquest,' specifically the Moroccan monarchy, is a dangerous precedent. While respecting indigenous institutions is crucial, it cannot come at the expense of human rights or the universally accepted principle of self-determination. If the MK Party genuinely champions African Renaissance, it should uphold the rights of all African peoples, not just those aligned with powerful historical monarchies. To suggest that the AU's decision to readmit Morocco was purely an act of 'African agency' without considering geopolitical manoeuvring or economic influence is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Morocco had voluntarily left the continental body in 1984 because it disagreed with the decision of the AU's predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), to admit the Sahrawi Republic as a full member — effectively refusing to share a room with the very people it claims to share heritage and historical ties with. What Manyi omits to mention is that Western Sahara suffered a similar fate to that of black South Africans during the 1960s, when Britain conferred political independence on Afrikaners. Spain ceded the territory to Rabat instead of the Sahrawi people, leading to a political standoff with Mauritania, which had also made a concurrent claim. Following the colonial terra nullius myth, Afrikaners also make false claims that the land was empty or unused prior to their arrival and that Black South Africans were latecomers, erasing centuries of indigenous presence, land use, and political organisation by African communities. Moroccans follow almost an identical logic in Western Sahara, portraying the territory as historically ungoverned or inherently part of Morocco, thus denying the Sahrawi people's longstanding political identity and their right to self-determination. Like Zambia and others, MK Party appears to have also fallen under the spell of the despotic foreign policy of a pariah state that seeks validation from former colonial powers. In effect, Morocco exercises what Moses Ochonu calls 'colonialism by proxy', a form of indirect rule on behalf of European interests eager to exploit Western Sahara's rich mineral wealth, particularly phosphates and iron ore, without Sahrawi consent. Phosphates are crucial for fertiliser production and global agriculture. Morocco's extractivist agenda violates international law and entrenches neocolonial control over resources that rightfully belong to the Sahrawi people. The export of phosphates from Boucraa has been the subject of international legal challenges, including rulings by the European Court of Justice that trade agreements with Morocco cannot legally include resources from Western Sahara without the consent of the Sahrawi people. Beyond phosphates, Morocco has developed significant wind and solar farms in the occupied territory, such as Nareva's 50MW Foum el Oued farm, specifically powering the Bou Craa phosphate mines. Furthermore, European Union (EU) and Russian fishing fleets continue to plunder Western Sahara's rich Atlantic waters under trade agreements that, per ECJ rulings, cannot lawfully apply to Sahrawi territory. Similarly, Morocco has permitted large-scale agribusiness exports, including citrus and tomatoes, using water-intensive farming on occupied Sahrawi land, exacerbating local water scarcity and environmental degradation. Under international law, primarily UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 (1962) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, the Sahrawi people are the rightful owners of these resources. However, as the territory remains non-self-governing and partially occupied by Morocco, any extraction or export without their free, prior and informed consent is considered illegal by many legal scholars, the AU and the UN. Despite international efforts to find a resolution, including the Baker Plans (Baker I and Baker II), which proposed varying degrees of autonomy for Western Sahara followed by a referendum on self-determination, viable alternatives remain underdeveloped. These UN-backed proposals, though at times accepted by one party and rejected by the other, represent pathways that prioritise the Sahrawi people's right to choose, offering a stark contrast to Morocco's unilateral autonomy initiative. Beyond the MK Party's internal contradictions, Rabat's international manoeuvring also merits scrutiny. France's 2024 endorsement of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, following the US recognition, indicates a concerning shift by major powers, prioritising geopolitical interests over international law and Western Sahara's self-determination. This trend is further amplified by Morocco's strategic utilisation of Israel normalisation, particularly through the Abraham Accords. This exploits a complex regional dynamic to garner global support for its occupation, at the expense of established principles of decolonisation and human rights. The MK Party's position on Western Sahara, as articulated by Manyi, is not a nuanced 'African-centred reading of history'. It is a thinly veiled justification for an international relations position that prioritises a selective historical narrative and the interests of a specific state over the fundamental right of a people to determine their future. MK Party's stance effectively legitimises resource theft disguised as anti-Western posturing. Therefore, the MK Party's foreign relations strategy is not only inconsistent but also fundamentally two-faced: it champions African unity and decolonisation in rhetoric, while actively undermining it in practice, particularly concerning the Saharawi people. The 'ghosts of colonial borders' that Manyi wishes to reject seem to linger quite strongly in the MK Party's approach, but only when it suits their political agenda. There is a need to address the MKP's rhetoric-reality gap, evident in their endorsement of Morocco's 'autonomy plan' as 'decolonisation' while simultaneously silencing Sahrawi self-determination. This constitutes a colonial proxy masked in anti-Western slogans. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Neasa doubles down on opposition to Employment Equity quotas
The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) on Tuesday upped its anti against Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas. Image: Leon Lestrade/ Independent Newspapers The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) on Tuesday upped its anti against Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas and wrote an open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Minister of Employment and Labour Nomakhosazana Meth. This comes hot on the heels of Neasa and Sakekuga earlier this month lodging an urgent legal challenge against the employment equity quotas and accompanying administrative regulations. Neasa said although this challenge deals with both procedural and substantive defects relating to the new numerical sectoral quotas, another major obstacle, which has been amplified by the new quotas, stands in the way of employers even contemplating complying with these regulations. It stated that the Employment Equity regulations and the unconstitutional obligation placed upon employers to classify employees by their race and disability is ethically untenable, impractical, and divisive. Gerhard Papenfus the CEO of Neasa, raised the following points. He said the purpose of the individually completed EEA1 form is to acquire data in order to create a workplace profile illustrating the current racial, gender, and disability composition of the employer's workforce. Therefore, by requesting employees to self-classify as to their race and disability, this form effectively expects them to firstly, navigate the complexities of race, gender and ethnicity in a policy and classification-criteria vacuum and, secondly, in perpetuity, set themselves up to be discriminated against based on a potentially uninformed decision. However, there is no legal obligation on employees to complete the form or to do so 'accurately'. Neasa said it had already heard of employees refusing to complete the EEA1 form for reasons including personal convictions, fear of discrimination, being of a mixed ethnic background, etc. There are no guidelines for employees regarding the determination of race, and the guidelines regarding disability contain a myriad of contradictions. However, it said this eventuality has, seemingly, also been anticipated in the regulations as can be deduced from the wording of the EEA12 form, which stipulates that: 'Where there is doubt in the self-identification process of an employee, existing and/or historical information may be used to assist to verify an employee's status'; and Regulation 8(2), which reads as follows: 'Where an employee refuses to complete the EEA1 form or provides inaccurate information, the employer may establish the designation of an employee by using reliable historical and existing data …' Papenfus said, "Minister, these provisions place employers in a precarious and impossible position, particularly in the context of South Africa's history of state racial classification. The regulations expect employers to unilaterally and arbitrarily classify the race and disability of a particular employee who has elected not to self-identify by these criteria or whom, in the opinion of the employer, or an appointed human resource manager, or consultant, was inaccurate when self-declaring." He said this decision must then be made by an employer to determine the race or disability of a particular employee. However, "it is not within the constitutional ambit of any employer, or any other person for that matter, to decide on these characteristics of another person." Furthermore, although the government no longer has such authority, the Employment Equity regulations impose on employers the obligation to engage in just such classification of people, without any empowering provision to do so, and without providing any guidance on the methods or criteria to be implemented to reach just conclusions, within the framework of the Rule of Law, on the race and disability of a person. Papenfus said this obligation imposed on employers, not only places them in an untenable ethical position, but is also legally impermissible and practically impossible to comply with. Neasa said it could not allow for this unconstitutional obligation and unacceptable burden to be placed upon employers. It called on the state to stop forcing employers to carry out the government's desired racial classification and discrimination on its behalf. "Mr President and Minister Meth, we are not willing to do your dirty work," Papenfus said. BUSINESS REPORT
