scholarly journals DETERMINING THE THRESHOLD FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RIGHTS: THE LEGAL QUAGMIRE FACING MINORITY UNIONS RESOLVED – South African Post Office v Commissioner Nowosenetz No (2013) 2 BLLR 216 (LC)

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.


Author(s):  
Riaz Ismail ◽  
Clarence Itumeleng Tshoose

The main objective of this article is to analyse the issue of onus emanating from the enforcement of unilateral changes to conditions of employment. At the heart of the controversy that has faced the Labour Appeal Court was how to interpret dismissals that appear to be based on operational requirements, and yet at the same time, such dismissals also appear to have the effect of compelling an employee to accept a demand in respect of a matter of mutual interest between the employer and the employee. The core section in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 relating to disputes of this nature is section 187(1)(c) of the Act, and the central enquiry to such disputes is whether they are automatically unfair or operationally justifiable. The fine line that determines whether a dismissal is acceptable or not merits an analysis of the overall onus that faces an employer and employee. This analysis is the focus of the article, which deals predominantly with procedural issues. The issue relating to the promotion of collective bargaining will be assessed against the right to dismiss, based on an analysis of the situation in South Africa, and a brief comparison with the situations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Thereafter, recommendations are made to the South African legislature.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carin Runciman

On 1 January 2019 amendments to the Labour Relations Act came into force that significantly altered and curtailed the right to protected strike action in South Africa. Internationally, the right to strike has been eroded in recent years with many countries adopting legal provisions that violate the International Labour Organization’s principles. Comparatively, the rights of South African workers to go on protected strikes remain better than many other places in the world, a reflection of the militant history of the South African labour movement. But the erosion of these rights, with the active support of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, should be a cause for concern for activists and labour scholars in South Africa and beyond. This article develops the Power Resources Approach to consider how union institutional power has entrenched neo-liberalism in South Africa. Grounding the analysis of institutional power within the analytical framework of corporatism allows this article to develop an analysis of institutional power that is attentive to class forces. This provides an avenue for understanding the “double-edged sword” of institutional power in the South African context in order to comprehend when and under what circumstances trade unions advance and defend the interests of the working class and when they defend those of capital.  KEY WORDS: labour; neo-liberalism; institutional power; corporatism; South Africa


2006 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabiu Sani Shatsari ◽  
Kamal Halili Hassan

Collective bargaining is the best mechanism to attain a cordial relationship between employers and employees. It is also an effective forum to agree on terms and conditions of employment. In order to achieve such purposes, industrial relations systems in a country must provide legal mechanism to enable parties to bargain collectively with a view to concluding a collective agreement. The ILO has adopted a convention providing a framework for member states to enact laws that would facilitate such a mechanism. In this respect, Malaysia has enacted the Industrial Relations Act 1967, which provides among others a mechanism for collective bargaining. In this article we argue on the extent of the right of Malaysian workers to collective bargaining in the context of the ILO standards. Here we argue that despite the legal mechanism available that facilitates collective bargaining between the two parties, Malaysian workers and their trade unions face some difficulties in bargaining with their employers.


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.


Obiter ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monray Marsellus Botha

The purpose of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the LRA) is to advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratization of the workplace. The primary objects of the LRA, inter alia, include the following: “to provide a framework within which employees and their trade unions, employers and employer’s organisations can (i) collectively bargain to determine wages, terms and conditions of employment, and other matters of mutual interest; and (ii) formulate industrial policy”, and “to promote orderly collective bargaining [and] (ii) collective bargaining at sectoral level”. The LRA in its purpose provision also makes provision for the advancement of the effective resolution of labour disputes and employee participation in decision-making in the workplace. Central to collective bargaining is the right to strike and the recourse to lock-out, respectively available to employees and employers. The collective-bargaining system has since 2007 become increasingly adversarial as “a decline in negotiating capacity, the re-emergence of non-workplace issues negotiations, and the rise of general mistrust between the parties” as the key factors contributing to the worsening of the collective bargaining is evident. The focus on strikes, has unfortunately, not been positive, as some industries have been plagued by violent, and/or unprotected and sometimes protected strike action that carries on for long periods of time. The focus of this case note is, however, not to look at the latter categories of strikes but rather to discuss a very contentious issue related to strike action: What constitutes mutual interest with reference to strikes? Two recent cases (Pikitup (SOC) Ltd v SA Municipal Workers Union on behalf of Members (2014) 35 ILJ 983 (LAC); and Vanachem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of SA Case No J 658/14) will be evaluated against the backdrop of existing literature and case law on this issue.


Author(s):  
Tamara Cohen

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 unequivocally promotes the policy choice of majoritarianism, in furtherance of orderly collective bargaining and the democratisation of the workplace. The majoritarian model aims to minimise the proliferation of trade unions in a single workplace and to encourage the system of a representative trade union.Section 18(1) of the Labour Relations Act enables majority unions to enter into collective agreements setting thresholds of representivity for the granting of access, stop-order and trade-union leave rights to minority unions. In furtherance of the majoritarian framework, collective agreements concluded between majority unions and employers can be extended to non-parties to the agreement in terms of section 23(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act provided specified requirements are satisfied. In Police & Prisons Civil Rights Union v Ledwaba 2013 11 BLLR 1137 (LC) (POPCRU) the Labour Court was required to consider if the collective agreements concluded between the employer and the majority union could be relied upon to prohibit the minority union from securing organisational rights. In so doing, the Labour Court had to reconcile the fundamental principle of freedom of association and the right to fair labour practices (to organise and engage in unfettered collective bargaining) within the context of the majoritarian framework. The Labour Court in POPCRU held that the collective agreement concluded with the majority union must have preference over the organisational rights of minority unions, in keeping with the principle of collective bargaining hierarchy and the legislative framework. This case note argues that, while the finding of the labour court in POPCRU is correct on the facts and is in keeping with the principle of majoritarianism, the legislative model may no longer be suitable within the context of the current socio-economic and political landscape. Strike violence, loss of confidence in existing bargaining structures, and the alienation of vulnerable employees from majority unions has resulted in minority unions taking up the cudgels of frustrated and disempowered employees, as witnessed in the Marikana experience. The note suggests that in the light of the changing dynamics of the collective bargaining environment, it may be time to revisit the majoritarian model.


Legal Studies ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-52
Author(s):  
Richard Kidner

For the past 75 years the Trade Disputes Act 1906 has been regarded as a statute of fundamental importance, both for its provisions and for the fact that it established that the future of labour relations in Britain was to be placed firmly on the basis of voluntary collective bargaining rather than arbitration. This Act is often regarded as an immutable foundation of principle based on well debated theory, but it would be a mistake to ascribe such grandiose origins to this particular statute, for it was the result of a combination of political pressure by the trade unions, the nascent Labour Party and the Liberal Radicals, the retreat of the government from its own Bill for political expediency, and the opposition's concern with other problems. Accordingly the Bill had a most remarkable journey through Parliament and the story is not only interesting in itself but also it illustrates many of the theoretical difficulties that face any reform of the law of trade disputes today.


Author(s):  
Jan Adriaan Norval

Section 26 of the Labour Relations Act gives employers and employers’ organisations the power to conclude closed shop agreements through collective agreements with representative trade unions. The closed shop agreement is known as a union security agreement which has been defined as: [a] generic term for an agreement between an employer and a union or unions in terms of which union membership or, alternatively, payment of union subscription is a condition of employment for all employees. Therefore employees are forced to join the representative trade union subject to the conditions being met in section 26(3) of the Labour Relations Act. This has resulted in a lot of debate on whether closed shop agreements are violating the right to freedom of association, or simply limiting it. This article takes the debate further by not only looking at the right to associate, but also looking at this right as a correlative right because ‘freedom of association buttresses and makes good the promise of a variety of other rights.’ Rights such as labour relations rights and political rights rely on the right to associate. Their dependence on the right to associate means that they have to be looked at when determining if closed shop agreements violate or limit the right to associate.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 57-72
Author(s):  
Ivan Yatskevych

The paper covers problematic issues of reforming the legislation on collective labour relations with the participating trade union representing the interests and defending the rights of employees, consisting in a workers’ collective, during collective bargaining, concluding a collective agreement, holding a social dialogue on the local level. The article contains an analysis of a draft legislation such as draft laws On Labour, On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine (Regarding Certain Issues of Trade Unions’ Activity), On Amending the Law of Ukraine On Collective Agreements and Contracts in order to reveal the main trends of the proposed drafts, their scientific analysis, and producing own conclusions regarding impact of these draft laws upon the efficiency of the trade unions movement in Ukraine.The study of the proposed amendments to certain legislative acts as well as corresponding conclusions are made in observance of the current trends in the development of judicial application of legislative provisions on the preferential right of a unit trade union to represent a collective’s interests during collective bargaining regarding concluding or amending a collective agreement at an enterprise or institution. The paper contains a discussion on problematic (from a perspective of legal exercising and research) issues of the current legislative provisions on the safeguarding implementation of trade unions competence conformity to the Constitution of Ukraine, ILO Convention No. 87, and the recent case-law.The accordance of principles of rule of law and legality, representation, and efficient representing of workers’ collective interests during the in-court dispute resolution regarding representing the collective of workers and accession to an effective collective agreement is highlighted.In the conclusion it is stated that there is a negative trend on further deterioration of the trade unions’ position as representatives of labour collectives empowered with representative and defensive functions in relations with employers. Besides that, it is stressed that adoption and implementation of the argued legislative initiatives will eventually cause deepening the crisis of trade unionism and deteriorating of social standards. It will make a negative impact on a person’s social security in the state. There are grounds to assert forming case-law acknowledging works councils as equally authorized representatives of the workers’ collective in collective bargaining. In the meantime, the practice of rejection of new trade union’s units to join an effective collective agreement within the employer’s enterprise persists. It is concluded with the necessity to improve the system of normative safeguards for the trade unions activity and creating an efficient mechanism for countering abuse of rights, including safeguarding provisions, by parties of collective labour relations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document