Home » Conference Reports » National Congresses » 9th National Congress » 9th National Congress Union Sponsored Entities

9th National Congress Union Sponsored Entities

PART THREE: UNION SPONSORED ENTITIES RESOLUTIONS

 

1.         SACCAWU INVESTMENTS COMPANY

 

Noting That:

 

  • The Union had its investment company called SACCAWU Investment Holdings (SIH);
  • The operations of the said Investments Company were guided by the Union’s Investment Policy which was adopted in 1998; based on recommendations of the Investment Conference;
  • The said investment company was successful in its operations until this was disrupted by the SACCAWU National Provident Fund being put under Curatorship;
  • The SACCAWU Investment Company through the SACCAWU Investment Trust was able to make financial contributions to the Union;
  • SACCAWU is currently the only major trade union without an Investment Company;

 

Believing That:

 

  • The establishment of an investment company by SACCAWU is more of a priority than ever before;
  • Some aspects of the Union’s Investment Policy might be outdated;
  • The Union cannot survive through the members’ subscriptions only.

 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS THEREFORE RESOLVES THAT:

 

  1. Attempts by the National Office Bearers to establish the said investment company must be supported;
  2. The proceeds of the said Investment Company must benefit SACCAWU members and their families and the Union in general;
  3. The Central Executive Committee should review the Investment Policy of the Union and resolve in the best interests of the Union and its members.

 

2.         SACCAWU NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

 

NOTING THAT:

 

  1. The Union has been spending millions of rands recruiting and servicing members of the SNPF since 1994;
  2. One of the major worker-controlled Provident Funds, the SNPF, is currently under Curatorship and that this is a thorny and sensitive issue;
  3. It has taken very long for the Fund to be returned to its rightful owners, the workers;
  4. The removal of the SNPF from Curatorship, under Mostert, is long overdue;
  5. There are serious problems encountered by members of the Fund, such as:

 

(a)  Gross negligence due to mistakes committed during the processing  and distribution of benefit statements;

(b)  Delays in signing off on death benefits, as beneficiaries are always told of outstanding Trustee Resolutions;

(c)  Undue delays in processing of Withdrawal and Disability claims;

(d)  Long delays in processing of Secured Loans and unreasonable interest rates that were arbitrarily decided upon without any consultation with members of the Fund and the Union;

(e)  Systematic erosion of member value as a result of exorbitant administration costs; including that of Curatorship on unmonitored hours of work claimed running into millions of rands since inception of such Curatorship.

 

6.   The SACCAWU National Provident Fund (Under Curatorship) was established by the Union in 1994 through the SACCAWU Staff Provident Fund that was initially administered by Southern Life;

7.   Since then the Union has invested millions of rands from its own coffers in ensuring that the said Fund becomes a success;

8.   The Union through its own human and financial resources grew the said SNPF from an asset based of R 449 000 in 1994 to close to R 3 Billion by the time the said Fund was placed under Curatorship.

 

BELIEVING THAT:

 

  1. Time has come for Mostert and/or the Financial Services Board to return the Fund to its rightful owners by moving the SACCAWU National Provident Fund out of Curatorship;
  2. The Curator’s investigations have failed to yield any tangible results and have cost the Fund huge amounts of monies resulting into an erosion of member benefits in the process;
  3. The Union is still continuing to utilize its human and financial resources for the benefit of the SNPF and its members even though under Curatorship whilst not all SACCAWU members are SNPF members;
  4. The Union is entitled to compensation for its financial and human resources for the establishment, marketing and servicing of the said fund from the inception of Curatorship/(from the inception of the Fund) as the funds that were utilized belong to the Union whilst some Union members are not members of the SNPF;
  5. The union is still involved in aggressive recruitment of members to the SNPF including negotiating with companies to be Participating Employers using its member’s funds without receiving any compensation;
  6. With the current standard and cost of living the current funeral cover of R 5,000. 00/R 10 000-00 offered by the SNPF does not come nearer to the escalating expenses for a funeral;
  7. The said R 5,000. 00/R 10 000-00  Funeral Cover is not competitive to the Retirement Industry;

 

THEREFORE RESOLVE:

 

  1. To re-affirm the Declaration of the 8th National Congress, on the SNPF, in its totality;
  2. That; in the meantime; the Board that was set up to work with the Financial Services Board should be given enough powers to make improvements on the Funeral Cover to match the employers Funds to R15 000.00; as this will be in line with the current increase in the standard and cost of living while at the same time being competitive within the Retirement Fund Industry; and finalize this matter and hand over the Fund to its rightful owners;    ;
  3. The Union must demand; from Old Mutual and the SACCAWU National Provident Fund; compensation for the human and financial resources that it has contributed, and continues to contribute, towards the establishment, marketing, including negotiation of participating agreements by various employers, and servicing of the SNPF even now whilst it is under Curatorship as the these funds belong to the Union, as a body corporate, whilst some Union members are not members of the Fund;
  4. The compensation to be claimed and income derived from such compensation for building the Fund must be invested for the benefit of the Union and its members;
  5. That the Political Committee should commission a thorough investigation into the affairs of the Fund since the inception of Curatorship. Such an investigation should include but should not be limited to:

 

(a)           Procurement policies and practices that have been followed in appointment and/or retention of various service providers;

(b)           The impact of the apparent conflict of interests in various service providers that have been appointed by the Curator including appointment of his own Law Firm to undertake litigation on behalf of the Fund;

(c)           Investment decisions and their impact on member benefits;

(d)           Administration expenses; including costs arising from Curatorship; since the inception of such Curatorship;

(e)           Causes of delays and the poor quality of service rendered by various Fund representatives and service providers that have been appointed by the Fund.