NUMSA AGGRIEVED BY IMMINENT RETRENCHMENTS IN MOTOR INDUSTRY

By Irvin Jim
NUMSA General Secretary

NUMSA press statement on the current deadlock in the Automotive Industry; the current Section 189 retrenchments in both Ford and Aspen, the NUMSA Security sector protest march to National Treasury and the union fight against the unfair ArcelorMittal retrenchments

Introduction

The National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) has called this press conference to inform the public of the current dispute and the deadlock with the Automotive Industry employers as the union does not agree with the current offer employers have made for a period of 3 years.

The bone of contention is caused by employers being fixated on the framework of wanting to dictate the offer on the across-the-board increase using the current CPI of 3.4%.

The employers tabled an offer this past weekend of 6.5%, 5% and 5%.

The union was left with no option but to reject this offer for a couple of reasons which is a position we submitted to the CEO’s of the 7 OEMs on Tuesday the 28th of October 2025:

Firstly, we explained to the CEOs of the Automotive Industry that it is not for the first time that the industry has experienced a low or high CPI.

In both scenarios it has always been incumbent on both parties not to act selfishly but to act in ways that take care of workers’ concrete realities in negotiating an agreement for wages and benefits for workers for a 3 year period.

More so because parties have always understood the strategic importance of a 3-year agreement that it has always brought stability and predictability.

To the extent that parties enjoy and benefit from that stability, employers have always known that they have a responsibility to pay for such stability.

As it is critical for the Automotive Industry to maintain such stability so that as South Africa we can continue to be the destination for investments from within the 7 OEMs that are multinational companies.

Whilst the union has a deeper understanding of the geo-global political chemistry, socio-economic challenges confronting the Automotive Industry, and the union and its leadership has always supported the Automotive Industry.

We do not agree that employers must be allowed to adopt a completely unfair position against workers who are the producers of wealth, and attempt to use the current CPI as the determining and dictating factor on what becomes the percentage increases for workers in the 3-year agreement.

The reasoning and the logic of the union is not complex to understand. It is a fact that 57% of workers’ wages go to transport and electricity.

They must engage with the cost of the basket of food and this year Eskom was granted a 12% increase by NERSA.

The difference between CPI and the electricity increase is 9% which is a cost which affects workers standard of living.

The second point the union sharply raised with employers in the Automotive Industry is that if employers want to bind workers with such low increases for the next 2 years ranging around 5%, which the union characterize as nothing less than a wage freeze, then employers must accept that it is better for workers to have a 1-year agreement rather than committing to a 3-year agreement.

The union has informed employers that despite the union remaining flexible and being prepared to negotiate and to compromise, it is important for employers to understand that if things were fair given the challenges confronting workers, they should be adding 1% to the increase of the previous agreement.

Where employers in the last agreement, which is expiring settled with workers on 8.5%, 7% and 7% for the respective 3 years.

If employers claim that the economic situation is tight for them, they should be adding 1% to the 8.5% making the offer 9.5% for the first year.

To the extent that the union understands where things are, we suggested that the union could consider 0.5% as an addition to the previous 8.5% which was offered to workers in 2022, so that the standard of living of workers and the workers share of the national income does not get to be reversed but moves forward given the tough economic conditions confronting workers in the industry.

However, the union being considerate of everything else, called on employers to consider making an offer of 8% in the first year and 6% for the following two years.

Or if employers believe that that is still tough for them the union is willing to settle on 7% for the respective three years and move away from what NUMSA regards as a provocative offer of 6.5%, 5% and 5%.

NUMSA also sharply raised with employers in the meeting with CEOs that it is also completely unfair that employers can expect NUMSA in the Automotive Industry made up of 7 OEMs to settle in the same range which NUMSA settled on with the component supplier value chain of the Auto Industry, (the motor sector), where we settled on 6%, 5% and 5%. We also reminded employers that in sectors that form part of backward and forward linkages, such as the plastic and engineering sector, NUMSA settled on 7%, 6% and 6%.

All of these settlements happened when CPI was between 2% and 3% and this dispute between NUMSA and the Automotive Industry takes place where the CPI has gone up to 3.4%.

The union suggested to employers that if indeed the situation is such that they want to keep workers at 5% increases as a result of affordability we then call on employers to pass the test of transparency and that they must be prepared to disclose their financials. We said they must disclose the following which they have refused to do:

1.All the 7 OEM’s must disclose how much money they have generated out of government incentives in the form of Automotive Investment Scheme (AIS) and other incentives such as Volume Assembly Localization Allowance (VALA).

2.The auto industry must also disclose how much money it has made out of generated credit certificates which it uses to offset duties and bring cars that are not locally assembled but are sold in the same market.

3.This includes disclosing how much money the industry has made out of selling credit certificates to Chinese brands and other OEM’s.

4.The union also demands that the 7 OEMs must disclose in the past 3 years with many short times and lay-offs, we want each company to disclose the savings they generated in such processes.

Employers created an impression that they are prepared to review their position, however in the negotiations yesterday on the 30th of October 2025, we were faced with employers only being prepared to improve their position in the first year and the next two years only by 0.5%. As they offered 7% in the first year and 5.5% in the respective 2 years.

Given that negotiations are a give and take, NUMSA moved and suggested to employers to consider and offer of 7% in the first year and 6.5% for the following 2 years.

When the facilitators pushed NUMSA to consider to further move and consider a settlement of 7%, 6% and 6% as a union we were amendable to take such a position back to our members and recommend a settlement.

However, employer delegation in the negotiations continued to hard line and remained very ridged and arrogant in their position of maintain an offer of 7% and 5.5% for the respective two years.

As a result, parties reached a deadlock and the union was left with no option but to call on the facilitators of the NBF to process a certificate of non-resolution, which the union will take back to its members of the 7 OEMs for workers to decide on the next course of action given that parties have failed to resolve the current impasse.

NUMSA is a worker-controlled union, it will be workers who decide whether we must give employers a 48hour notice for a strike action and when such a notice should be served.

NUMSA remains a responsible and a constructive union and that is why we are using this press conference to make a clarion call to the CEOs of the 7 OEMs to do what is correct and fair and increase the current offer in the coming two years by 0.5%.

It is uncalled for and unnecessary for employers to plunge the industry into a strike action by wanting to tie workers in a completely unfair offer for 2 years as no one for sure can predict as to what the CPI will be in next two years. To the extent that employers are not prepared to move, the industry must consider to sign a 1-year agreement and negotiate again with the union next year in 2026.

NUMSA remains available to meet with employers and the CEO’s to once more explore whether parties can’t be prepared to move from their positions. NUMSA has demonstrated its wiliness and flexibility yesterday, where we have moved from our position of 8% and 6% for the following two years and from the other optional position we proposed of 7% for all three years.

Employers however, have only moved by 0.5%. They will be subjecting the entire industry to a strike because of a difference of 1% for a period of 3 years which says a lot about a lack of vision from the current crop of production managers that are leading the negotiating team on behalf of AMEO. If truth be told companies can give this increase of 1% for the 2 years and still run productivity and efficiencies of managing production and make even more money than the contemplated loss.

The essence of what NUMSA is arguing about the irresponsible nature of these companies refusal to give 0.5% for two years to improve the current offer and the basis of the current dispute can be defined as follows:
Parties are separated by 1% over a 3 year period.
This translate to 0,33% per year of a 3 year agreement.

With good productivity management supported by non-disgruntled workers, the companies can recover that 1% in less than 1 year.
They can even sustain the levels of efficiency for sustainable competitiveness.
On the other hand an intransigent approach will not only lead to short term instability, but long-term inefficiencies at the back of workers struggling with the burden of unmet living costs and the cost of destroying a working relationship with workers is completely immeasurable and extremely expensive.

This is the reason why NUMSA is calling on the CEOs not to be led on an incorrect path by inexperienced industrial relations officers who are leading this AMEO negotiating team and be prepared to break new ground and settle this impasse.

Retrenchments in various companies

Whilst NUMSA has been negotiating in many of its sectors, in the recent past we had to contend and face a job-loss blood bath of retrenchments in the following companies:

Ford Motor Company Southern Africa

Despite the fact that Section 189A consultations are ongoing and in a patently unfair manner, Ford proceeded to unilaterally offer to its workforce meagre Voluntary Severance Packages (VSPs) which was not agreed to with NUMSA and which is intended to take advantage of and exploit workers who are debt ridden and desperately need cash in the short term.

Had Ford been concerned about its workforce it would have agreed to the decent VSPs proposed by NUMSA to be offered in the first instance to workers age 55 years and above and with long service years and thereafter to workers age 50 above, on the basis that any vacancies created could be filled by those who are at risk of retrenchment, inclusive of so-called Fixed Term Contractors (FTCs) who could have been accommodated in such permanent positions.

Ford has completely refused to disclose its financials, this include giving honest answers to the union as to whether it has finished to make its claims of incentives in the form of AIS since it has launched its model in 2022. Despite the fact that the issue of VSPs has been a subject of consultations with no agreement with the union Ford has embarked on unilateral offering VSPs to workers which has not been negotiated or agreed with by the union.

Ford’s disregard for the wellbeing of workers, its undermining of the consultation process and its desire to sacrifice workers in an endeavor to maximize profits is a collision course which will inevitably result in strike action.

NUMSA has made it clear to Ford’s management that should they proceed with any forced retrenchments given what has transpired to date and its unfair and unilateral conduct, NUMSA will be compelled to issue Ford with a 48hour strike notice as the only viable option to counter Ford’s unfair conduct.

Aspen South African Operations

It is with immense concern that NUMSA has noted that this South African registered and based company, together with its South African holding company (Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd) has abandoned South African workers in favor of shifting production to subsidiaries in other parts of the world as to maximize profits. International consultants with dubious track records have been employed to design the demise of the South African based manufacturing operations and management eagerly implement these plans, despite the fact that this company owes its global success to South Africa and South African workers.

In accordance with an overall and long-term strategy Aspen resorts to one after the other retrenchment of South African workers not because of genuine operational requirements beyond its control, but due to an internally manufactured situation where orders are shifted away from South Africa leaving the South African manufacturing plants without volume with the concomitant increase in cost base to the extent of becoming unsustainable. We have written to the PIC as the single largest shareholder of Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd calling for shareholder activism to stop the current abuse of management prerogative.

Aspen has already retrenched 208 workers in June of this year and it has issued a notice for retrenchment of 923 workers in this same year, a number that has now gone down to 656. NUMSA is exposing the aforesaid in the current Section 189A process and is doing everything in its power to prevent Aspen from proceeding with its patently unfair treatment of South African workers.

Today we are filing a legal application to challenge Aspens unfair retrenchment processes with an intention to demonstrate that the current retrenchments are completely unfair and constitute a sham.

ArcelorMittal South Africa (AMSA).

Following NUMSA’s urgent application to the Labour Court, the Labour Court recently issued an Order and Judgment ordering AMSA to return to consultations in accordance with the provision of the Labour Relations Act and not to proceed with any dismissals, and where dismissals were already effected, to reinstate such workers.

In this regard the Labour Court agreed with NUMSA that it was patently unfair for AMSA to dismiss employees based upon a Section 189A process that was included in March 2025 whilst there has been major developments, inclusive of a potential R8.5 billion offer to buy AMSA, in the intervening period up to September/October 2025.

All these further developments in the intervening period should form the subject matter of proper consultations with a view on saving jobs or at least minimize the number of job losses. NUMSA cannot accept that workers be sacrificed in order to set the business up for a potential sale agreement.

However, AMSA is intent on pushing through its patently unfair agenda and it has now resorted to the filing of an application for leave to appeal on the basis of contending that this has the effect of suspending the Labour Court Order as to enable it to proceed implementing and finalizing unfair retrenchments.

As a consequence, NUMSA has been compelled to return to the Labour Court for the purposes of further urgent relief, an application we are filing today.

It is the union’s firm belief that in handling any retrenchments it is important for employers who take a decision to issue Section 189/189A Notices, that such employers must be prepared to embark on a genuine bone fide consultation process where employers must be prepared to make the necessary disclosures and share information so that the consulting parties are in a position to advance meaningful alternatives.

The union wants to inform the public that in the three aforementioned companies the union has been confronted with a sham of consultations.

The Private Security Sector NUMSA is at war with employers in the security industry who continue with under-handed practices that can only be defined as corruption that are completely unethical.

Where these companies find it easy to defraud workers by deducting money for medical insurance and pension fund and not pay it over to the service provider and therefore are not complying with collective agreements in the industry.

This means that when workers have to claim for medical insurance or pension fund, there are not enough funds or no funds at all.

That is why NUMSA has decided today to embark on a rolling mass action to the National Treasury in the form of a march where we are calling on the Minister of Finance to revoke these contracts, and blacklist companies that are failing to comply.

We are calling on workers in the security industry to not only join NUMSA in numbers but workers must stand together, close ranks, defend their jobs so that we are in a position to defeat fly by night employers who are hell bent on stealing from workers, employers who are ant-worker and union bashing.