Who’s in charge? A union leadership dispute and the lessons it offers

In a recent Labour Court decision, a long-running leadership battle within a trade union offered a sharp reminder of how important it is to follow your own rules, especially when it comes to elections and internal governance.

The case, Baloyi and Others v Tshifhesi and Others (J1000/2023), handed down on 4 June 2025, involved rival factions in the Progressive Allied and Travel Union (PATU) and a fight over who the rightful leaders of the union were. But the implications go far beyond one union’s troubles. The ruling is a wake-up call for any organisation, especially unions, with a written constitution or rulebook that guides decision-making.

A divided union, two factions, and one courtroom

This dispute started back in 2021 when PATU’s president tried to remove its general secretary and vice general secretary. What followed was a breakdown in trust and parallel structures forming within the union. By 2022, there were effectively two competing leadership teams, each claiming to be legitimate.

One faction held a National Congress in October 2022 and elected new office bearers. They then turned to the Labour Court to ask for legal confirmation that the congress and the elections were valid.

But the court refused.

What the court found

The Labour Court didn’t take sides between the factions, but it did make one thing very clear: PATU’s constitution had not been followed. As a result, both the National Executive Committee meeting in 2021 and the National Congress in 2022 were declared unlawful.

Key reasons included:

• The 2021 NEC meeting was called without proper notice and chaired by someone who had no authority to do so.
• The 2022 National Congress was organised without the necessary approval from the NEC, and the agenda wasn’t shared with all regions in advance.
• Some of the people elected weren’t eligible, and some regions that took part weren’t even recognised under the union’s rules.
• None of this sat well with the court. It found that the union’s constitution had been breached multiple times and that these weren’t technicalities. They were fundamental errors that went to the heart of the union’s governance.

The message: Follow your constitution or risk legal invalidity

In a powerful statement, the judge made it clear that vague or messy constitutional language isn’t an excuse. Courts will interpret constitutions in their ordinary grammatical sense, but always with an eye on logic, purpose, and fairness. If something doesn’t make sense, or leads to absurd results, the court will prioritise what’s reasonable.

Crucially, the judge confirmed:

• The union president is the rightful person to chair meetings and guard the constitution.
• Only meetings properly convened and chaired have legal standing.
• If a constitution says certain procedures must be followed, skipping them makes the resulting decisions invalid.

What the court didn’t do, and why that matters

Interestingly, the court didn’t rule on who should be in charge or whether either faction’s dismissals were lawful. Instead, it declined to interfere further, signalling that internal leadership battles are not for the courts to resolve unless the basic rules are ignored.

The judge suggested the union take two practical steps:

• Audit its constitution to fix gaps and inconsistencies.
• Consider mediation to resolve the ongoing leadership standoff.

What this means for unions, and those who work with them

This case is more than a technical judgment. It’s a clear reminder of what unions and leadership teams need to get right:

• Constitutional compliance isn’t optional. If the rulebook says how to run meetings or elect leaders, those steps must be followed. Courts won’t rescue a process that cuts corners.
• Clear records and communication matter. Sending agendas, recording decisions properly, and respecting eligibility criteria aren’t just formalities. They’re legal safeguards.
• Courts won’t fix dysfunction. Judges are there to uphold the rules, not step into leadership roles. If your internal processes fall apart, don’t expect the courts to sort them out for you.

A final thought

For unions, HR teams, and legal advisors, this judgment is a useful reference point. Whether you’re revisiting your constitution, managing internal conflicts, or supporting a disciplinary process, the principles are the same: be thorough, be fair, and follow the rules you’ve committed to.

If leadership uncertainty, unclear processes, or internal disputes are slowing you down, now is the time to take stock. Clarity and compliance don’t just protect your organisation; they strengthen its legitimacy in the eyes of the people you serve.

For advice or more information contact Riona Kalua, Head of our Labour and Employment Team.