European Committee on Social Rights – 3/7/2013 – Swedish Trade Union Confederation v. Sweden Right to Collective Bargaining Balanced against the Right to Provide Services [Art. 6 European Social Charter]

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-44
Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarence Tshoose

The issue of organizational rights facing minority unions has been a quagmire since the advent of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995(hereinafter “the LRA”). This quagmire exists, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution affords every trade union the right to engage in collective bargaining (s 23 of the Constitution, 1996). The acquisition of organizational rights by trade unions plays a crucial rolein as far as collective bargaining is concerned. It is through collective bargaining that unions are able to negotiate with employers regarding the terms and conditions of employment. Commentators have often viewed the LRA as favouring larger unions and as conferring clear advantages on unions with majority support at the industry level. Chapter III of the LRA regulates collective bargaining. Whereas this chapterostensibly promotes a pluralistic approach to organizational rights it is unequivocally biased towards majoritarianism. This is the case despite minority trade unions fulfilling an important role in the current labour system especially when it comes to the balance of powerin the employment arena. In light of the above, the legal quagmire faced by the minority unions in the quest for acquiring organisation rights in terms of the relevant provisions of the LRA is clearly illustrated by the decision in South African Post Office v Commissioner Nowosenetz No ((2013) 2 BLLR 216 (LC) (hereinafter “ the South African Post Office case”)).


Author(s):  
Johan Kruger ◽  
Clarence Itumeleng Tshoose

The advent of the new political dispensation in 1994 heralded the coming of a new labour dispensation. Labour relations and labour policies changed significantly from that which prevailed under the previous government. The review of the labour legislation framework was at that stage a priority for the new government, with specific focus on the review of the collective bargaining dispensation. The abuse of trade unions under the previous government gave rise to a unique entrenchment of labour rights in the Constitution. The drafters thereof were determined to avoid a repetition of this abuse after 1994. Section 23 of the Constitution goes to great lengths to protect, amongst others, the right to form and join a trade union, the right of every trade union to organise and the right of every trade union to engage in collective bargaining. In furtherance of section 23(5) of the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 was promulgated. One of the most significant changes of the LRA was that it now provided for legislated organisational rights. Commentators have often viewed the LRA as favouring larger unions and as conferring clear advantages on unions with majority support at the establishment or industry level.  It is within this context that this article examines the impact of section 18 of the LRA on the constitutionally entrenched right of every person to freedom of association, the right of every trade union to engage in collective bargaining, and the right of every trade union to organise. Furthermore, this article explores the justifiability of the impact of section 18 on minority trade unions in terms of international labour standards and the Constitution. In part one the article examines the concept of majoritarianism, pluralism and industrial unionism in the context of South African Labour market. Part two deals with the impact of section 18 of the LRA on minority Trade Unions. Whilst part three explores the concept of workplace democracy. Part five investigates the applicability of international labour standards in the context of the right to freedom of association. Part four ends up with conclusion and recommendations on the impact of section 18 of the LRA.


Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
ME Manamela

Access to information promotes values of transparency, openness, and accountability that are important for a progressive constitutional democracy. Section 32(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereinafter “the Constitution”) provides that “everyone has the right of access to information held by the state or by another person that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights”. It is submitted that the word “everyone” in this provision, includes trade unions and employees and that the words “another person” in the provision include employers. Employees and their trade unions, therefore, have the right of access to information that the employer has, which may be required for the exercise or protection of their rights. Section 32(2) of the Constitution, further provides that “legislation may be enacted to give effect to this right”. The Promotion of Access to Information Act (2 of 2000 (PAIA)) gives effect to the right of access to information in general, however, for purposes of this discussion, the Labour Relations Act (66 of 1995 (LRA)) gives effect to the right through a number of provisions; including its sections 16 and 189. While section 16 requires the employer to disclose to a representative trade union all relevant information that will enable trade union representatives to effectively perform functions, which are listed in section 14(4); section 189 regulates the disclosure of information in the context of dismissals based on operational reasons of the employer.The above is in line with the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Collective Bargaining Standards Recommendation 163 (1981) which provides that “measures adapted to national conditions should be taken, if necessary so that parties have access to the information required by meaningful negotiation”. Section 23(5) of the Constitution grants every trade union a right to engage in collective bargaining. This right is protected and supported through provisions mentioned above which permit trade unions to request relevant information, which is important for the effective exercise of the right. This, however, has often proved to be problematic; largely due to the fact that on the one hand, trade unions need information, while on the other hand, employers sometimes regard this as an invasion of privacy. Employers often refuse to divulge information requested by trade unions as they think that the disclosure of information will also negatively affect their bargaining power or that sensitive information may get to competitors and jeopardize their business. Business South Africa (BUSA) raised concerns regarding the right to disclosure of information in its submissions to the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) during the drafting of the LRA as it regarded the obligation to disclose information to trade unions as a threat and an encroachment into management prerogatives. This argument was largely based on commercial secrecy; confidentiality and that disclosure of information would impede effective decision-making.In view thereof, it is important that there be a balance between the right of trade unions to information and the employer’s duty to disclose the information. This analysis will consider the relevant provisions of the LRA that grant trade unions the right to information and employers’ duty to disclose the information, to determine the balance between the interests of trade unions and employers regarding disclosure of information. It will also look at the position in the United Kingdom (UK) in order to determine whether there are lessons to be learned for South Africa.


2021 ◽  
Vol specjalny II (XXI) ◽  
pp. 445-456
Author(s):  
Łukasz Pisarczyk

The article discusses trade union representation of employee interests at the workplace level. The author analyzes the structure of the company trade union organization, the facilitations in its functioning and the most important rights, including the right to collective bargaining. The analysis is the basis for assessing the current regulation and formulating conclusions for the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kananelo Mosito

This article considers Lesotho’s labour laws in the light of the country’s obligations under international labour standards. It assesses the extent to which the international labour standards have had an impact on the development of labour law in Lesotho. It argues that Lesotho’s various Acts perpetuate the country’s non-compliance with International Labour Organization standards as significant aspects of the Acts still undermine workers’ rights. It contends that Lesotho still has a long way to go towards fulfilling the expectations of the International Labour Organization. After noting the various labour-law concepts in the international labour standards which have had an impact on Lesotho law and reviewing the sources of Lesotho’s obligations to respect the various workers’ rights, the article focuses on the workers’ rights to join trade union organisations, the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining and the right to strike. The article concludes that reforms are needed to internationalise Lesotho’s labour law further, in line with International Labour Organization requirements, so that workers’ rights are protected.


Author(s):  
A. L. Fedorova ◽  
O. M. Lysenko

The article is devoted to the protection of the human right to housing in Ukraine in the context of the analysis of the fulfillment of obligations of Ukraine under the article 31 of the European Social Charter revised. Ukraine accepted the first two paragraphs of Article 31 devoted to the right to housing, avoiding the provision enshrined under third paragraph. Since the time of ratification of the ESC, the fulfillment of these obligations has remained problematic for Ukraine in spite of including the key aspects of the right to housing in the Constitution of Ukraine, detailing in numerous national legal acts. European Committee of Social Rights’ recommendations issued following the consideration of Ukraine reports for different periods, including the latest recommendations in 2020 for 2014-2017 are analyzed in the article. The main problems of bringing Ukrainian legislation into accordance of ESC standards in the sphere of right to housing have been identified and highlighted. By comparing the main comments of the European Committee of Social Rights of different years on the right to housing, authors concluded that the lack of significant progress in the implementation of Committee’s recommendations in Ukraine is associated with many factors, among which the total lack of Ukrainian translation of the decisions and conclusions of the Committee, the lack of understanding of the Committee's interpretation of the right to housing and as a result, delays in the submission of state reports, not providing sufficient information in reports, even statistical (for example, data of the number of homeless people), as well as the lack of an integrated complex understanding of the necessary changes in national legislation and practice for the adequate implementation of the Charter standards.


2020 ◽  
pp. 527-558
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Pamela McCormick ◽  
Clare Ovey

This chapter examines the provisions for freedom of assembly and association in the European Convention on Human Rights, and discusses the provisions of Article 11, which covers the protection of political parties, other associations, and a bundle of trade union rights. It explains that the case-law under Article 11 can be divided into two categories: the first is concerned with political or democratic rights; and the second relates to the employment-based rights to join, or refuse to join, a trade union. It examines developments concerning the right to protest and trade union rights such as collective bargaining.


Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Elizabeth Wicks ◽  
Andclare Ovey

This chapter examines the provisions for freedom of assembly and association in the European Convention on Human Rights, and discusses the provisions of Article 11, which covers the protection of political parties, other associations, and a bundle of trade union rights. It explains that the case-law under Article 11 can be divided into two categories: the first is concerned with political or democratic rights; and the second relates to the employment-based rights to join, or refuse to join, a trade union. It examines developments concerning the right to protest and trade union rights such as collective bargaining.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-239
Author(s):  
Monika Schlachter

Defining the personal scope of application of the right to be represented by a trade union for collective bargaining purposes starts by defining the notion of employee/worker on whose behalf the conclusion of collective agreements is not disputed. In the German legal system, a sub-category of self-employed persons, known as ‘employee-like’ persons, is also included in the scope of the statute on collective agreements. For all other self-employed persons, however, no such statutory inclusion exists. They are, rather, prevented from collective price setting by (national und EU) competition law. Upon a closer look at the social purpose of exempting collective agreements from the restrictions of competition law, it is necessary to differentiate according to the existence of a structural power imbalance to the detriment of one contracting party much rather than according to the type of contract concluded. Some self-employed persons, specifically those categorised as workers under a new form of employment, do need collective bargaining as much as employees do, as they find themselves in a comparably weak individual bargaining position.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document