Feedback on engagements with the DFSC and the way forward; with Ministry

Meeting report

The Chairperson began the meeting by noting apologies from Mr I Mafanya (EFF) and Mr M Shelembe (DA). He welcomed Ms Thandi Modise, the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, and started the first agenda item for the evening.

Draft fourth term programme

The Chairperson took the Committee through the draft fourth term programme and outlined the agenda items for each meeting.

The Committee did not raise any objections to the programme.

Report back on engagements with Defence Force Service Commission

The Chairperson said that the Defence Force Service Commission (DFSC) had been put together to deal with the complaints laid by soldiers in the Department of Defence (DoD) regarding conditions of service and related issues that would be usually attended to by a union. The DFSC was proposed to fill this gap, and it dealt with issues that were seemingly beyond its scope of work and potentially overlapped with the scope of work of other entities, such as the bargaining council. Minister Modise joined the Committee to formulate her opinion on how the DFSC and the South African National Defence Union (SANDU) would work side by side.

Minister Modise said the Chairperson was correct in stating that the DFSC had been formed at a time when there were no trade unions for soldiers, and the need had arisen to allow for bargaining and to look after the needs and the morale of the troops. However, when you looked at the issues that the DFSC had put on the table, such as assessing the type of training and considering the trends of the pensionable quantum, one could see that these were matters that tended to fall outside the scope of an ordinary trade union. A broad discussion was needed to indicate what the Department of Defence was thinking. She therefore asked Major General Katoki Motlhabane, Chief Director: Human Resource Management, South African Defence Force (SADF), to make that presentation. She noted that Mr Ian Robertson, Chairperson of the Defence Force Service Commission, was present in the meeting. The Department would round off by sharing their thoughts on the coexistence of a trade union and the DFSC.

Presentation by the Department of Defence

Vice Admiral Asiel Kubu, Chief: Human Resources, SANDF, said he was linked to Maj Gen Motlhabane, and she could take over in the event of load-shedding, as they had worked together on the presentation.

He reported that the Minister of Defence and Military veterans had met with the DFSC on 8 November 2021. A commitment had been made at this meeting through the Minister to unpack the mandate of the Defence Force Service Commission, amongst other things, given the re-establishment of the Military Bargaining Council (MBC). To give effect to this intention of the Minister, a number of interventions took place between the Department and the DFSC. The DFSC and MBC had resolved to continue with its various mandates for a period of one year to allow the entities to find one another, and also to identify the boundary to management issues between the two entities. The intention was that the situation would be reviewed in a final decision after a year.

The South African National Defence Union was a registered military union, which was fully recognised by the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. At the time, it met a threshold of 16 728 members. By reaching this threshold, the requirements were that the MBC was now allowed to not only negotiate with the Department on matters pertaining to service benefits and conditions of uniformed members, but also, importantly, to conclude collective agreements with the Department.

The implications were that all the legislative and procedural issues that had to be finalised before the operationalisation of the MBC had delayed the identification of the boundary management issues, as directed by the Minister on 11 August 2022. The Department felt that it needed to finalise the whole process and start sitting with the unions so that clear discussions took place, and that it was clear what was relevant with the DFSC before the Department committed to say that there were boundary management issues. Discussions might take place with the new commissioners of the DFSC. The Department believed that once these particular issues had been finalised it, would be very clear whether the DFSC was still required or both entities could coexist.

The way forward was that it was foreseen that the MBC would be fully operational in January 2024. All the issues that the Department needed to finalise with SANDU and the MBC would be finalised towards the end of this year. It needed to be confirmed that once the MBC was fully operational, some of the other boundary management issues would have been clarified.

Minister Modise said one of her performance priorities was also the review of the 2015 Defence Review. The Department had already started working on two to three strategic position papers. It was looking at the capstones and was coming up with “the journey to greatness." The Department had stated that they would not be doing a 100% Defence Review, but would be looking at what was possible for them to do with the meagre resources they had to make sure that the 2015 Defence Review was not just a waste. One could not then take away the DFSC before one concluded what the minimum that one could do was.

One of the things that the DFSC had recommended was, for instance, a relook at the pensions, especially for the lower ranks at the point of retirement. This could be done only when one took into totality where they wanted to focus -- how big the strength of the imagined 2015 Review was. The Department would also look at issues like including an additional structure focusing on disasters. This meant that not only a brand-new service MBC would be relied on, but there were also going to be issues that fell in between the structures that had been re-established, as demanded by the Defence Review. It would mean committing to extending the life of the DFSC while the Department wrapped up the 2015 Defence Review.

The Department was not in a hurry to close down the DFSC, as there were too many things and recommendations that may not necessarily fall within the purview of an ordinary bargaining council and trade union matters -- for instance, morale. Regarding the legislation that set up the service committee, she could see a point where the two structures could coexist. In the meantime, it was important to have the gap filled by the DFSC so that a gap did not persist between what the Department could do and what it could not do, so she did not see them closing down on the Service Commission by December. The Minister did not see the Department closing down the DFSC until they had reviewed and adopted the Defence Review of 2015 after public comments and all the other steps that needed to be taken.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Mr S Marais (DA) asked the DoD when the Committee could expect the first draft of the new review, considering that the revised Defence Review would clearly play a significant role in how the Committee and the Department would go forward. The DoD had close to 70 000 people as staff in their department, and SANDU was representing only just below 17 000 people, so clearly, one could not have a situation where the interests of the rest of the staff were not represented. He knew that the Defence Force Service Commission represented all staff, whether they were members of SANDU or not. He could not understand the difficulty of operationalising the MBC. If the DFSC remained, one just had to add SANDU to that whole bargaining council process. He did not understand why the process was taking so long.

He referred to the communication from the DoD that the Committee received on 25 August 2022, in which the Department agreed to arrange a retreat to streamline the implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee, and to unpack the mandate of the DFSC. In that process, the Committee welcomed the invitation from the Minister and was excited that the recommendations of the Commission were receiving attention. 25 August 2022 had come and gone, and 2023 was nearly over too, yet that retreat had not taken place and it seemed as if both the Minister and the Department had moved on and not had that retreat. Why was that commitment not honoured? What was the Department’s motivation to not honour that commitment and undertaking?

He referred the Committee to slide five, where it stated that “after a year, the situation would be reviewed, and the final decision would be made.” He did not understand what the Department was referring to, and whether the Department was referring to the recent 8 September now. He could not see what the final decision really was -- was it only being postponed further? He asked the Minister whether there had been any further interactions between her and the DFSC on the whole process and their involvement. He had got the impression that the DFSC had been left in the dark, wondering what their role and their future would be. It took a long time before the commissioners of the DFSC were appointed -- they had been appointed temporarily, and there had been a long lag time during which they were basically hanging in the air. Where did they stand now with the appointment of the commissioners?

Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) said he was still not comfortable that he understood the roles properly. There was the existence of the military ombudsman, the DFSC, and the military bargaining council. There seemed to be grey areas and overlaps that he did not fully understand. He requested "an idiot's guide" to the aforementioned entities, and perhaps a tabulation of the three different entities and what their responsibilities were. He had asked the question several times about overlaps, and still did not find himself in a position where he could speak with authority on the differences.

He then reiterated the Defence Force Service Commission’s indication that they did not seem to be getting the ear of the ministry, and did not feel they were making progress. An entity of this nature relied on its credibility in order to serve its members, so if one ran a complaint centre and people came to complain to the centre yet nothing ever happened, this would result in people stopping to come to complain. The Defence Force Service Commission was finding itself in a position where it had lost its credibility amongst the people they were supposed to be serving through no fault of their own, purely because they were not getting the responses it should be getting from the ministry. The Committee should ask the Minister about her previous undertakings to spend more time with the Defence Force Service Commission. If it was not herself personally, then there certainly should be staff within the ministry that should give the DFSC adequate attention, appropriate hearings and sufficient access so that they could be operating as a credible entity and hereby helping the Committee to fulfil its own mandate.

DoD's response

Minister Modise replied that the 2015 Defence Review was never actualised and had never been acted upon, mainly because there were no resources to really support it. The 2015 Report became a focal point. The rights of soldiers to organise continued, alongside the Department's consideration of what needed to be done. The requirement to bring down the cost of employment necessitated the Mobility Exit Mechanism (MEM) having to kick in. That was working, but also created a dilemma as to where exactly it was working. If one wanted to bring down the cost of employment quickly, one begins by trimming from the top, because those were the high enders. That did not necessarily tell one whether one would be left with the required skills, and what the future holds. That was why the focus had now been on reviewing this and ensuring that South Africa still had what it takes to defend herself. The defence force was well equipped, and the training was focused, but one must also be able to renew as one thins out the top. So that was the first thing. Doing that allowed for the different arms of services to look within and come together, so that when they started going out there, their documents made sense -- even to themselves.

At that point, the structures that were there had not been disturbed. The DFSC had been allowed to continue because, in any case, there was only one union recognised and there were too many soldiers, other than the 70 000, that had joined, so one could not rely on one commission. However, when one looks at the recommendations previously that came from the DFSC, one could not conclude that the Service Commission had been ignored precisely because of the recommendations they had made. That was why it was important to rather go along with both of the recognised trade unions, and hopefully see the other workers continuing to mobilise or join more in numbers to the union that had already reached the threshold. One did not want to lose anything in between.

She did not want to respond to the statement that the DoD was ignoring what the DFSC was saying, because the Department was trying to focus on what was best without losing the valuable advice and direction it might get in the end from the observations and the recommendations that would come from the DFSC. What the military ombud did and what the DFSC did were two different things. Their duties sometimes intersected, but they were not necessarily the same. The impression must not be that because there may have been interactions that had been delayed or have not taken place, the service corps was not being taken seriously. The Department’s position was to continue with the DFSC, because the focus was slightly different. Morale might be something that was needed for the oversight and the following up by the Committee, but what was also needed was an administrative body that would also make sure that what was needed to be done to keep the morale of the troops up and so on and was in place, and that was why they were not letting go of the DFSC.

Regarding the retreat between the Committee and the Department not taking place, she replied that the Department had also wanted to have a defence industry indaba and it had kept on being postponed, not because the Department did not want to have it, but because of the dynamics that were playing out in the industry itself. The DoD would have a comprehensive bringing together, because they were not going to be finishing the service corps or taking the Defence Review documents out to the public without the participation of the DFSC that had not provided its input. She did not see that people were being excluded -- she thought that the Department was trying to be as comprehensive and encompassing as possible. It had absolutely not disrespected the DFSC, and she apologised if she had misunderstood what Mr Ryder was saying. They wanted in fact to keep them where they were. All in all, the Department would work flat out on finalising the documents that were before them on the Review. They were aiming to work flat out during December, when they would put out a team of experts and work on this so that they could have something to bring to the Committee in January or February.

Vice Admiral Kubu responded to the question asked by Mr Marais about the situation being reviewed after one year, and said that the Department realised that there was so much expectation from SANDU in terms of their day-to-day functioning in the military. The Department realised that there had been a big gap during the period when SANDU was not in place and had not reached the threshold. With the administration that the DoD had to do, they felt that they did not want to rush it so that the Department and SANDU could find one another and did not end up going to court. What was of importance at this stage was to make sure that the Department cleared up all the issues with SANDU, and the two entities had been having a lot of engagements.

The Department could confirm now that the composition of the MBC had been finalised and signed off by the chief and the Minister. It was now comfortable that they could operationalise it. The most important issues on the table for discussion were the service conditions of the members of the Department of Defence. They had not been able to deal with them decisively to the extent that they would be able to know why there could be management issues between the MBC and the DFSC.

The Department had clearly stated to SANDU that the service benefit issues were dictated by the fiscal constraints that the country was experiencing. SANDU may talk to National Treasury or the Minister of Finance on the Department’s behalf. The Department was streamlining the processes and could make the Committee understand that the engagements with SANDU were seriously and aggressively happening. The Department hoped that many other issues would be easier to take to the DFSC after the two entities had found one another. The three entities needed to sit and discuss matters amongst themselves and see how they were going to move forward. The one year had not been lost at all, which was why they were saying that from next year, when the Department operationalises the MBC, many things would come on the table.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could leave the meeting where it was now, as he was persuaded that even after the Department had completed its boundary management issue analysis, it would still come to the conclusion that these two entities needed to exist side by side. He saw the entities as complementary to each other, mainly for the welfare of the country’s soldiers. The military was a different entity altogether and it could not be treated like any other entity in a labour environment. He was assured that the views of the Department’s commissioners were in sync with the Minister’s views. The Committee was happy that the MBC was ready to come into operation as from January 2024, as only then would the issues become much clearer.

The Chairperson acknowledged the presence of Deputy Minister Thabang Makwetla.

Minister Modise emphasised that the Department should return to the Committee with the draft review in mid-January/February, as they intended to focus on this matter during December when everybody had a little free time. It would not be brought back to the Committee until the DFSC had had a look and had commented on the matter.

The Chairperson excused the Department’s delegation, and moved to the next agenda item.

Consideration of Committee’s minutes dated 12 October

Adv M Mothapo (ANC) clarified that she had sent an apology, but apparently, it was not recorded for the meeting of 12 October. The apology had not been registered.

The Chairperson said that the apology could not be registered as it was not passed.

No further amendments were made.

Mr Marais moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Ms M Bartlett (ANC, Northern Cape) seconded.

Mr T Mmutle (ANC) clarified that Adv Mothapo’s apology had not been registered because he erroneously had not rendered the apology.

The Chairperson noted this.

The meeting was adjourned.