UNIONS UNHAPPY WITH CRIMINAL LIABILITY CLAUSE

MBABANE – Passing the Industrial Relations Act (Amended) Bill of 2014 by Parliament on Wednesday was not all smooth sailing as workers are unhappy about the clause on criminal liability.

In the event of a union protest action that results in offences being committed, the clause, which is in Section 97(1), stipulates that: “where there was reasonable cause to believe that an offence had been committed by a body corporate, criminal proceedings may be instituted against any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, manager, secretary or other office bearer of such a body who was purporting to act in any such capacity.” 

In simpler terms Musa Mdluli, Secretary General of the National Public Servants and Allied Workers Union (NAPSAWU), understood it to still mean that union leaders would still be held responsible for misdeeds that occurred during protest actions. Mdluli said the position of the union, along with the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA), as was communicated since the start of the year, was that criminal liability should be removed from the union and leaders.

“So we are very much at pains about this, after all that was said. People who purport to be union members will join in our protest marches and commit criminal offences for which the union leaders will then be held responsible. We really have a concern here,” expressed the secretary general in an interview yesterday.

He shared that it has happened in the past that individuals with ulterior motives joined protests and committed misdeeds to make unions look bad.
He said during protest actions it was not easy to tell if a person was a legitimate union member or not since they wore the same t-shirts for instance. “Even the very police themselves, we know that some of them in plane clothes participate in our activities as members. So don’t you think the union and leaders are vulnerable to being framed if these engage in offensive behavior?” wondered Mdluli.

TUCOSWA Secretary General Vincent Ncongwane, said the passed Bill was still a blur and would appreciate further clarification. He said the union was going to look at this matter closely because he did not believe that if for example a student stole money somewhere, the school and its head where he goes to must also be held liable.

“If indeed criminal liability still rested on union/leaders, we shall see what happens after,” said Ncongwane. Workers’ unions and government have been sitting on opposite ends where the issue of criminal liability in protest actions was concerned. The former wanted it removed from the union and its leaders, whereas the latter wanted it to stay in the interest of public safety.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: