Publications
Partners
Nehawu-affiliated parliamentary employees have once again dug in their heels against the controversial vetting process which Parliament now says “had never stopped”.
Parliament spokesperson Manelisi Wolela told City Press that vetting was continuing despite earlier objections by the union and at least one complaint against state security services agents back in 2015. He defended it as “normal practice”.
“This service, as a normal practice also internationally, is done by state security services,” Wolela said. But Nehawu has since 2015 raised concerns about the involvement of the State Security Agency and the type of information requested.
Union spokesperson Sthembiso Tembe said the agency had already approached numerous parliamentary employees despite their objections and requests for explanations. Nehawu was seemingly under the impression the vetting stalled after their earlier objections. Tembe questioned the need for this new round of vetting because all staff were vetted before they could be employed by Parliament.
“Not all Parliament employees work with highly sensitive and secret information, and therefore not all employees should be subjected to such levels of security clearance,” said Tembe.
Late last year, a content editor in Parliament’s communication service, Moira Levy, objected to vetting process.
She wrote an article in the Mail & Guardian, saying that staff had to supply four months of bank statements and a passport photo.
The phone numbers of at least five friends had to be given to the security agency, and the friends needed to be informed that agents may contact them.
Levy wrote that staff had been told that the process would also include a “one-on-one” interview with a security agent and a polygraph test.
Parliament subsequently initiated disciplinary action against Levy.
Wolela didn’t elaborate on whether the vetting process under way confirmed Levy’s statements.
He said employees were told about the clearances in 2015 and the union was consulted – “not for purposes of seeking concurrence but to ensure openness, assurance about the fairness of the process and promotion of good governance as this is one of management’s prerogatives that are not unique to the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, but a common practice nationally and in advanced democracies”.
Wolela said vetting was primarily aimed at “protecting the integrity of an institution”.
“It is done at the beginning of the employment relationship, and at various stages of staff’s employment tenure, subject to the expiry date of the vetting report of individual employees.”
But Tembe said Nehawu members would not cooperate until a proper explanation was given. He demanded a meeting with the security agency and Parliament early next year that, along with grievances about performance bonuses, might escalate existing tension between Nehawu members and Parliament management.
The open hostility between the union and the secretary of Parliament, Gengezi Mgidlana, came to a head this year, with meetings abandoned, and the union walking out of one. The two parties have been at loggerheads since last year’s protracted strike which was mainly over pay increases, bonus calculations and renewed vetting of staff.
At the height of the hostility, Speaker Baleka Mbete called in the police and stun grenades were fired to break up protests by those on strike. Protesters also barged into committee meetings.
 |
| ||||||||||||||
