as paid public holidays at a time when most public holidays celebrated Afrikaner heritage. Thereafter, many companies conceded these holidays in recognition agreements. Fosatu’s participation in a two-day stayaway in the Transvaal in November 1984 called by the Congress of South African Students (Cosas), also helped weld unity among unions of divergent traditions. In 1985, shortly before Cosatu’s launch, the death in police hands of Chemical Workers Industrial Union (CWIU) organiser and Fosatu’s Transvaal vice-chair, Andries Raditsela, again triggered joint stoppages which involved 100 000 workers.
Workers celebrate May Day in Pietermaritzburg in 1985 (Wits archives)
Cosatu was launched in December 1985, at the University of Natal, by 760 delegates from 33 unions representing over 460 000 workers. Launched during a state of emergency in a country gripped by repression and fear, it had huge appeal for workers because of its openly political stance and its affiliates’ reputation for winning real gains for workers. In the year that followed, unions grew by 5,7 per cent, the biggest expansion in the 1980s.11 Said Erwin: ‘In difficult times Cosatu gave workers a presence – the size, the enthusiasm, the style of Cosatu gave workers a very visible presence.’12 Mawu’s membership grew from 38 789 in 1985 to about 70 000 by 198713 and the organisational strength of Cosatu’s affiliates gave the federation the power to withstand the emergency – indeed, to grow through it.
At the launch, unions resolved to work towards the unity of workers in the same industry, insisting that ‘we will be unable to protect worker interests and advance their rights unless we build large broadly based industrial unions capable of dealing with the highly centralised structures of capital’,14 and they adopted the slogan ‘one union, one industry’. An important consequence of this resolution was that general unions had to break into their industrial components and fuse these into expanded industrial unions. This resolve, to which Fosatu had long subscribed, had profound implications for the metal sector, as Daniel Dube explained: ‘We were influenced by the unity talks that had led to the formation of Cosatu… decisions had been taken at the first Cosatu congress, that we need to start merging, according to the industries they came from, so as to create bigger, stronger, more effective industrial unions. Something that wasn’t easy, but we were saying it’s about time we do it.’15
Naawu banner raised at Raditsela’s funeral (Wits archives)
Textile and Naawu delegates raise their unions banners at Cosatu’s inaugural congress in 1985 (Wits archives)
Naawu delegation to the first IMF conference held in South Africa. Fred Sauls is seated front row left and Les Kettledas stands back row second right (Wits archives)
Mawu had been pursuing a merger of metal unions for some time. In 1984, for instance, its Transvaal branch called for all metal workers to unite in opposing Seifsa. Mawu and Naawu had already enjoyed a cooperative relationship, and Naawu, now organising large auto companies in the Transvaal, often helped the overburdened Mawu. Again at its 1986 congress, delegates resolved to work towards a merger with other large, democratically-controlled metal unions. It was through the IMF Council, however that metal workers’ unity was mainly driven. In 1984, the idea of developing one metal union was mooted in the council, to strong approval from the grass roots. As Jerry Thibedi, a Mawu and Numsa shop steward, asserted, ‘Workers realised they were exploited by a united employer but were trying to fight that employer divided.’16
In May that year, Micwu, Naawu, and Mawu came together ‘to explore ways and means of developing greater cooperation in their organising work. The unions had overlapping interests in the motor industry and were often confronted with jurisdictional disputes with no forum in which to resolve them. The resultant infighting was recognised by all concerned to be destructive and wasteful.17 Micwu, however, was not an IMF member, and it was only after its affiliation in June that unity moves took off. The IMF financed the initiative and hosted workshops which were attended by a negotiating committee of Naawu’s Fred Sauls, Geoff Schreiner and Bernie Fanaroff from Mawu, and Micwu’s Des East. Regional dispute committees with representatives from each union were formed to tackle turf conflicts.
Micwu’s presence in the IMF was part of changes that it had undergone in the early 1980s. After the resignation of its general secretary and Tucsa’s only coloured president, Ron Webb, the union opened its ranks to Africans. Under Webb’s successor, Des East, Micwu decided to democratise and expand by employing organisers and setting up regional offices and local branch executive committees.
IMF meeting to support unity among auto workers. (Note Alec Erwin third left front row; Johnnie Mke and Fred Sauls are seated to the right of him, Gloria Barry sits in front dressed in white and front row second from right sits Les Kettledas smartly dressed in white) (Numsa)
Initially, Micwu clashed repeatedly with the Fosatu metal unions. It locked horns with Naawu in the components sector in the Eastern Cape and Northern Transvaal and accused Naawu of poaching coloured artisans and mechanics in factories such as Busaf, Armstrong Hydraulics and Dorbyl where Naawu had the advantage of plant wage bargaining rights in contrast to Micwu which negotiated through the National Industrial Council for the Motor Industry (Nicmi).
The conflict between Mawu and Micwu was nastier, particularly on the East Rand, as East recalls. ‘The main pressure on us was coming from Mawu which was organising in the vehicle body building sector … it became violent and ugly in the Transvaal. Workers beat each other up on trains, especially in Dorbyl.’18
As it hired new officials and drew in more unskilled and semi-skilled African members, Micwu changed politically. East remembers:
In 1983 I became first vice-president of Tucsa. At the same congress, Micwu tabled a resolution opposing the tricameral parliament.19 SABS [boilermakers’ union] supported us, it was the longest debate in Tucsa’s history – 11 unions voted for our resolution, 61 abstained, and two voted against. It gave us a lot of publicity and we got support from our African members.
Shortly after that [Arthur] Grobbelaar, general secretary of Tucsa, put his name to an advert supporting the tricameral parliament so we decided to pull out of Tucsa. We learnt that Naawu and Mawu’s views of us had changed because of our stance. We felt attracted to the Numsa merger because we could not really speak for ourselves. In a Tucsa conference we felt that their concerns were not our concerns … we reached a stage when we had to ask where are we going with the emerging unions becoming prominent. We looked and realised we don’t belong here.
Micwu executive committee in 1986 just before the union’s merger into Numsa – Tusca’s influence is evident (Micwu)
Micwu organiser Ekki Esau (Numsa)
After disaffiliating from Tucsa in 1984, Micwu joined the IMF Council and was immediately embroiled in a debate on the problem of inter-union violence. Sauls’s view was that only a single union offered a long-term solution. But in Micwu, obstacles had to be overcome. Remarked East: ‘There was strong resistance to the merger within our union, especially those who had been in the union for a long time. The choice we had was this: did we stay as Micwu but die in the long term through a long and destructive process? Or did we more actively start talking seriously about a merger?’
Continuing contact between Micwu and the Fosatu metal unions further broke down barriers.