Question NW1243 to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans

Reply:

QUESTION 1

With reference to external fees,

Service providers that Armscor make use

There is a standing panel of legal firms that is utilised by Legal Services department as well the Employee Relations department. The panel was approved by EXCO and is reviewed every three years

How service providers are selected and contracted;

When the nature and the complexity of the dispute at hand warrants the appointment of a Labour Legal Expert, Employee Relations department would then recommend a service provider from the panel of approved service providers, for the approval of two Group Executives and the Chief Executive Officer. The recommendations of a service provider from the Employee Relations Department would be based on the availability, cost, experience, track record in disputes of the same nature. One of the cornerstones of fair labour practice as enshrined in both the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution is procedural fairness. Whilst each matter would be judged on its own merits Consistent application of the rule and precedence set in similar disputes is key in ensuring fairness when handling Employee Relations Disputes as result prior knowledge of the matter is some cases critical in appointing a service provider .

The Employee Relations Department is a small unit that is manned by one Specialist that specialises in labour law and looks after all the aspects of employee relations. Armscor legal department only has three commercial lawyers who focus mostly on projects and commercial contracts.

Whilst it is evident based on the summary below that majority of labour disputes are ruled in Armscor’s favour however some employees still chose to refer the matters to the labour court. Armscor would then exercise their right and oppose the matter, for example the below listed matters of employees who were dismissed for tender irregularities and the cases were ruled in Armscor’s favour by the CCMA however the employees still referred their cases to the Labour Court and Armscor opposed the matters.

Due to the nature of Armscor’s business there are cases which demand that we seek the intervention of external labour law experts .These matters involve intense investigations which deal with sensitive and secret information, they are lengthy due the evidence and voluminous documentation, for example the matter of the employee who was dismissed for being involved in espionage activities.

QUESTION 2

Details of the total legal fees related to dismissals and/or suspensions of employees for the past five years

Nature of Process	Legal Fees 2013-2018
Disciplinary Enquiry	R 1 299 932.99
CCMA	R 1 179 156.75
Labour Court	R 9  565 097 .10
Labour Appeal Court	R 770 000.65
TOTAL	R 10 214 321.51

Dismissal cases for the past five years

In the past five years Armscor has had an average of 5.8 dismissal cases per annum based on the following categories of misconduct. It is worth noting however that some employees resigned before their cases could be concluded and are thus not part of the below statistics. The Occupational Categories of the dismissed employees are as follows

Semi-skilled 8

Professionally Qualified 5

Unskilled 11

Skilled and Technical 2

Senior Management 1

Area	Number of Cases	Nature of the offence	CCMA Outcome	Labour Court Outcome
Armscor Head Office ( Pretoria)	1	Gross Misconduct -Theft	No referral	No referral
	1	Gross Misconduct - Attempting to solicit a bribe from a supplier	CCMA ruled in favour of Armscor	No Referral
	1	Poor work performance	No referral	No referral
	1	Misconduct -Unauthorised use of Company Property	No referral	No referral
	3	Gross Misconduct -Tender Irregularities	In one matter the CCMA ruled in favour of employee.	Armscor has applied for review and the matter at Labour Court
			The second matter the CCMA ruled in favour of Armscor	No referral
			Third matter CCMA ruled in favour of Armscor	Labour Court ruled in favour of Armscor
	1	Misconduct -Misuse of Company Vehicle	CCMA ruled in favour of Armscor	No Referral
	1	Gross Misconduct – Breach of Security	CCMA ruled in favour of Armscor	Labour Court ruled in favour of Armscor
	1	Misconduct – Loss of Security Clearance	CCMA had no Jurisdiction	Labour Court ruled in favour of Armscor
Dockyard -Capetown	1	Gross Misconduct -Fraud	No referral	No referral
	7	Misconduct – Desertion	No referral	No referral
	4	Theft	No referral	No referral
	1	Misconduct – Failure to Maintain Security Clearance due to a Criminal Record	No referral	No referral
	1	Constructive Dismissal	Matter is with CCMA	No referral
Alkantpan	4	Misconduct -Theft	No referral	No referral
	1	Misconduct -Misuse of Company Vehicle	CCMA ruled in favour of employee	Parties Reached Settlement
	2	Misconduct -Desertion	No referral	No referral
IMT - Capetown	1	Gross Misconduct –Insolence, using foul language and verbally abusing his manager	CCMA referral was withdrawn by applicant	No Referral

QUESTION 3

Cases of dismissal and/or suspension that have not been concluded

There are two cases that are pending. One employee resigned in 2018 October and then proceeded to file a constructive dismissal dispute. The second matter is that of an employee who is on suspension since March 2018 and the disciplinary enquiry is scheduled for the 9 March 2018

Date when the disputes arose

The employee was placed on precautionary suspension on the 7 March 2018

The employee resigned on the 28 October 2018

Reasons that each case has not been concluded

In respect of the employee that resigned in October the case is part heard by the CCMA and the next arbitration date is the 15 May 2018. In respect of the employee who is on suspension the disciplinary enquiry is scheduled to resume on 9 May 2018.