Please enter your login details

You can also sign in with your Sowetan LIVE
and Sport LIVE account details.
   Sign Up   Forgot password?

Sign in with:

 
  • All Share : 41413.44
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Top 40 : 3353.49
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Financial 15 : 12096.10
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Industrial 25 : 47171.07
    UNCHANGED0.00%

  • ZAR/USD : 9.4046
    UP 0.05%
    ZAR/GBP : 14.2711
    UP 0.34%
    ZAR/EUR : 12.0825
    UP 1.94%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.0911
    UP 0.15%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.1670
    UP 0.39%

  • Gold : 1360.1000
    UP 0.37%
    Platinum : 1455.0000
    UP 0.28%
    Silver : 22.2600
    UP 0.16%
    Palladium : 738.5000
    UP 0.61%
    Brent Crude Oil : 104.640
    UNCHANGED0.00%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by I-Net Bridge
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Sun May 19 19:46:16 SAST 2013

The toyi-toyi will never be the same

AMUKELANI CHAUKE | 14 June, 2012 00:04
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. File photo

A landmark Constitutional Court ruling that could hold all unions liable for damages caused during strikes has been met with mixed reactions.

The Constitutional Court yesterday upheld a high court judgment that the SA Transport and Allied Workers' Union was liable for damages caused during a strike in Cape Town in 2006.

The court ruled that the law aimed to afford victims recourse where a gathering becomes destructive and results in injury, loss of property or life.

In upholding the judgment, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said: "The organisations are intimately involved in the planning, supervision and execution of the gathering, but the potential victims are not . it is thus not unreasonable to allow the victim of riot damage to claim all compensation from the organisers of a gathering and then leave it to the organisers to seek recourse."

During the 2006 strike, shops were looted and several cars were damaged by people involved in the protest.

Satawu general secretary Zenzo Mahlangu said yesterday's ruling was a "disaster" as it set a precedent for organisers of Satawu and other unions to be held liable for damage caused during strikes.

"We still need to be advised by our lawyers as to what we can do," he said.

While Satawu tried to be rational about the matter, it believed "certain clauses" of the constitution needed to be rewritten, Mahlangu said.

Yesterday's ruling meant Satawu would have to cough up just over R500000, but Mahlangu said its main concern was that the ruling would restrict workers' right to go on strike.

The DA saw the ruling as a "massive victory".

The party's spokesman on transport, Ian Ollis, has for more than two years advocated that parliament adopt a "private members bill", legislation that would hold unions responsible for riot damage caused during strikes, marches and pickets.

Ollis said yesterday: "For too long Cosatu and its affiliates have been allowed to engage in violent and chaotic strikes without any repercussions. This ruling sets a precedent that will force them to keep better discipline at marches, pickets and strikes."

Sizwe Pamla, spokesman for health workers' union Nehawu, said yesterday's judgment failed to realise that people who caused damage during strikes were not always union members.

The deputy general secretary of education union Sadtu, Nkosana Dolopi, said the judgment set a detrimental precedent.

Cosatu spokesman Patrick Craven said last night: "We regret the decision and we will be engaging the government to see how the law can be changed to protect the right of workers to strike."

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.

SecretVoice

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
Very good judgement by Mogoeng Mogoeng. If you want to strike it is fine but you must except responsibility for the actions. This is a good step towards curbing thuggery which has become part and parcell of strike action. This thuggery in my view was silently condoned by the union managements and used as a means to threaten and intimidate. The unions will have to behave in future or they will have to double their membership fees to pay for the damages caused by their actions. Another example of the constitution protecting the ordinary citizens of the country against organized thuggery and crime. Viva the constitution Viva!!!
Avatar

InExile

Posted 339 days ago
“KafreeMoneykey although I also applauded the chief justice the decision was that of the full bench. We don't know how they voted and who was against or for. Only that the majority ruled this way.”

We do know how they voted: it was unanimous. Here is the list of Judges all concurring:
MOGOENG CJ (Yacoob ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Maya AJ,
Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and van der Westhuizen J concurring):

Timbuck9

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
Howz that for a BLOW to the "UNTOUCHABLE" Unions?

Was this motion passed because H.R.H. Sisulu is taking over the Dept of Public Works????

Just to make sure they do NOT RUN AMOK when they throw their toys out of their cots?

deebee

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
The unions used to organise extremely peaceful, even soulful marches through the streets of Jo'burg when I was a student. That was during the politically charged late 80's and early 90's, when tens of thousands of union members would march through Braamfontein with barely a scratch to a car. Union leaders were actually strong, decent people who could control and channel the emotions of their followers positively. Union members had a modicum of respect for the property and rights of others.

Today it's very different: union 'leaders' are a pathetic bunch of rabble rousing trailer trash who clearly believe that the right to strike is the same thing as the right to destroy. They're weak, have no vision, no leadership and no ability to do anything other than threaten, destroy and shout pathetic, outdated tub-thumping, empty slogans that are so stupid and outdated they'd make the Cubans and North Koreans blush.
Avatar

KafreeMoneykey

Posted 339 days ago
@deebee...During those days we marched peacefully but we were shot at several times.In 1976, we were also shot at as students while we engaged in a peaceful march. I wonder which march are you referring to as we had to bail people out everytime we had a march.

I think we should welcome this progressive ruling without referring to the events of the past. This ruling will definitely stop thuggery and hooliganism and will force the union leadership to account. Well done Mogoeng Mogoeng, the one who was referred to as a Zuma crony with no experience not so long ago by the DA! Kudos to you Sir, you have touched the untouchables with this ruling! Well done, you indeed making Hebron proud!
Avatar

deebee

Posted 339 days ago
@KafreeMoneyKey

"I think we should welcome this progressive ruling without referring to the events of the past."

I think the fact that in the past people were routinely arrested, beaten, shot at and harrassed by the police when embarking on peaceful marches in the past is exactly what we need to consider. It is within this context that the lawlessness of the current mob needs to be seen.

The marches I refer to were ANC/Union marches that used to wind their way through town and Braamfontein. I was a student and used to watch them from my flat in Jorrisen Street - there was always beautiful singing, toyi-toyiing, banners, colour and good humoured marchers: never violent clashes from what I remember; never trashing and looting; never mindless inciting of violence by 'leaders' - on the contrary, they exhorted their supporters to be peaceful and disciplined. They were real leaders. They showed real leadership. They were honourable people. I can't think of anyone in COSATU today that I would describe in those terms, when it comes to strikes and marches.
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 339 days ago
KafreeMoneykey although I also applauded the chief justice the decision was that of the full bench. We don't know how they voted and who was against or for. Only that the majority ruled this way.

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
Well its not like the unions didn't have fair warning that we were getting sick and sut of their increasingly destructive marches. Now maybe their 'leaders' will stop excusing the trashing of our city streets as simply 'showing their frustration' and realise just how much frustration they are causing.

FreeSpeech

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
May this ruling serve as a warning for future mass actions by UNION members. You break it - you pay for it!

Shongweni

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
This decision is long overdue. If you stage a music festival and attendees trash the neighbourhood guess what, everyone agrees that it is your responsibility to take care of the mess and fix things. Why should unions be treated any differently?

Theye

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
Zuma and Vavi know exactly who voted for and who against. They know who the is in their pocket.Mogoeng Mogoeng reported to his masters exactly who voted against. he just does a simple calculation and runs to he's masters.
Avatar

InExile

Posted 339 days ago
What is so delightfully stunning is that all judges concurred in the judgment. It was unanimous;

This is copied from the heading:
Case CCT 112/11[2012] ZACC 13
Heard on : 9 February 2012
Decided on : 13 June 2012
JUDGMENT
MOGOENG CJ (Yacoob ADCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Maya AJ,
Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and van der Westhuizen J concurring):

Theye

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
But a stunning ruling never the less. A wonderful job by Zille who was persistant in pursuing cosatu since 2006. Well done Zille, well done DA.

cANCerSurvivor

Posted 339 days ago
Avatar
Dear Comrade Craven

How does this ruling at all infringe on the workers right to strike? You can strike and toyi toyi all you want, just remember that property, both public and private, is not on strike with you and therefore you never should have been breaking other people's stuff during the strikes in the first place...