The Labour Court has dismissed a bid by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) that it intervene in disciplinary processes unleashed on hundreds of its employees involved in medical aid fraud at German car manufacturer BMW.
At least 500 employees are embroiled in a fraudulent medical aid claims scandal against the manufacturer’s Employee Medical Aid Society (Bemas), which is administered by Discovery.
The Discovery Forensics Division investigation revealed a scheme perpetrated by the medical practitioners submitting claims on behalf of employees that they purportedly treated or provided services to.
Numsa took BMW to court to finally determine whether its conduct was procedurally fair regarding disciplinary proceedings against its employees based at the Rosslyn plant in Pretoria.
The verdict handed down by acting Judge Sean Snyman this week sets out that Numsa is in essence asking the Labour Court to micro-manage internal disciplinary matters while proceedings have not yet been concluded.
“Disciplinary proceedings, requirement of fair process, principles considered – even on prima facie basis nothing wrong with the process adopted by respondent.
“However, whether the application of such a process would be procedurally unfair is not to be determined in Labour Court on the motion.
“Determination must be made in CCMA /bargaining council at arbitration after considering evidence relating to each individual matter,” Snyman ruled.
In addition to this, the trade union could not convince the court to interdict BMW or to endorse their case of the potential of unfair dismissals due to the flouting of the disciplinary process.
“It [Numsa] wants this court to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings conducted against its members by BMW. It does so on the basis that it contends that such disciplinary proceedings are grossly unfair and would deprive its members of a proper opportunity to state their case prior to dismissal. The point is that Numsa is asking for this intervention because it believes its members are staring an unfair dismissal in the face,” the judgment reads.
“How the scheme of fraudulent claims came to light is due to the suspicions of Discovery being raised as a result of the frequency of claims submitted and the extent of commonality in the type of claims submitted, emanating from the group of medical practitioners referred to above. Discovery as a result commissioned a forensic investigation,” Snyman said.
However, these claims were false as either no such services were provided, or the services provided were not medically necessary. This meant that the claims would reflect an alleged treatment date and a claim amount, which was fraudulent, and which was then settled by Discovery on behalf of Bemas.
