Numsa suffers blow in Labour Court amid BMW medical aid scheme fraud probe

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) has lost its bid to have the Labour Court halt disciplinary action against more than 500 BMW employees accused of medical aid fraud.

Last month, workers staged a protest outside BMW’s Rosslyn plant in Pretoria, alleging that the German automaker intended to fire at least 700 employees.

BMW, however, refuted claims of both the strike and any planned job cuts.

BMW medical aid fraud

According to the company, the protest was triggered by an ongoing investigation into the BMW Employees Medical Aid Scheme (BEMAS), managed by Discovery Health.

The investigation is probing allegations of fraudulent claims involving scheme members and healthcare providers, reportedly occurring between 2021 and 2022.

ALSO READ: BMW workers strike amid medical aid fraud probe

In response, Numsa filed an urgent application with the Labour Court, seeking an order to halt the disciplinary process against its members.

The union also requested the court declare the disciplinary proceedings unfair.

The case was heard on October 10.

BMW workers fired

In a recent ruling, Acting Judge Sean Snyman highlighted that BMW dismissed 20 employees last month, following the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in July.

However, the company was “unaware of the full extent of the employees involved in the fraudulent claims” until Discovery completed its own investigation, which began in 2022 and concluded in August 2024.

BMW received the findings of the Discovery investigation on 18 September, just five days after the initial dismissal of the 20 employees.

Subsequently, six groups of employees were charged.

READ MORE: Striking Ford workers speak out

The first group, made up of 24 workers, was dismissed by BMW on 8 October.

The remaining groups, consisting of 54, 36, 43, and 47 employees, respectively, are still in the midst of their disciplinary proceedings.

“To date, BMW has commenced disciplinary proceedings against approximately 224 employees, with many more to come.

“BMW has stated that in respect of all the employees charged and subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the sanctions of dismissal are not a foregone conclusion,” the judgment delivered on 18 October reads.

Labour Court favours Numsa urgency

Although Snyman determined that Numsa had established a case for urgency, the union encountered “a considerable obstacle to succeeding with its application” in seeking the Labour Court’s intervention in the disciplinary proceedings.

“Truth be told, this is an application that never should have been brought,” he said.

The judge stated that the union was essentially requesting the Labour Court to “micro-manage” disciplinary matters before the proceedings had been fully concluded.

READ MORE: Putco employees dismissed following CCMA ruling on wage strike

“It is not for this court to micromanage internal disciplinary proceedings in an individual employer, be it on an urgent basis or otherwise.”

He remarked that there was “nothing special, unique, or exceptional” about Numsa’s complaints concerning the disciplinary process.

Numsa application dismissed by Labour Court

Snyman noted that Numsa failed to persuade the court to interdict BMW and emphasised that the union was obligated to follow the dispute resolution procedures outlined in the Labour Relations Act (LRA).

As a result, the judge dismissed Numsa’s application.

“Numsa has failed to make out a case for the relief it seeks. Considering it relies on contentions pertaining to rights that squarely resort within the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the LRA, it is compelled to follow the prescribed dispute resolution processes as established by the LRA.

“This entails, in the first instance, a referral of the dispute to the CCMA [Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitratio] or applicable bargaining council for conciliation, followed by arbitration if the dispute remains unresolved.

“There are no exceptional circumstances in existence that would warrant interference by this court at this stage. For all the reasons as set out above, Numsa’s application must fail and thus fall to be dismissed.”

NOW READ: Striking workers demand fair treatment at SABS