scholarly journals The tentacles of majoritarianism: How far can they reach into retrenchment?

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-503
Author(s):  
Rochelle Le Roux
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Right

Majoritarianism enables a trade union with a majority in the workplace to prevail over minority unions and their members as well as non-unionised employees and to limit some of the minority’s rights, including the right to strike. This article revisits the basic tenets of majoritarianism and calls for a more nuanced distinction between legislative provisions giving special privileges to majority unions and those provisions that enable majority unions to prevail over minority unions. Ultimately, the focus of the article is on the interface between majoritarianism and retrenchment. While it argues that there is legitimate scope for a collective agreement concluded after retrenchment consultations to be extended to the members of minority unions, the article expresses reservations whether a collective agreement regarding the identity of consulting parties in the case of retrenchment can similarly be extended. Nonetheless, the article concedes that the model of majoritarianism informing the Labour Relations Act (LRA) possibly lacks the subtlety to accommodate this distinction.

16. Wrongful Dismissal

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

Under the law which existed prior to 1971 an employer was entitled to dismiss an employee for any reason or no reason at all. In 1971 the Industrial Relations Act created the right for many employees not to be unfairly dismissed, and though that Act was repealed, the relevant provisions were substantially re-enacted in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, and further changes were made by the Employment Protection Act 1975. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended) contains most of the relevant statutory provisions currently in force. This chapter discusses the ways in which wrongful dismissal may occur; collateral contracts; summary dismissal; and employment law remedies.

scholarly journals Collective Rights of Persons Engaged in Gainful Employment Outside the Employment Relationship – en Outline of the Issue

2021 ◽  
Vol 95 ◽  
pp. 7-18
Author(s):  
Tomasz Duraj
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Employment Relations ◽  
Gainful Employment ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Adopted Model ◽  
Atypical Employment ◽  
The Right

The main objective of the following study is to introduce readers to the issue of the 2nd National Scientific Conference in the series “Atypical Employment Relations” organized on 3 October 2019 by the Centre for Atypical Employment Relations of the University of Lodz. The consequence of extending the right of coalition to persons performing paid work outside the employment relationship was that they were guaranteed important collective rights, which until 1 January 2019 were reserved primarily for employees. The rights which Polish legislator ensured to non-employees include the right to equal treatment in employment due to membership in a trade union or performing trade union functions; the right to bargain with a view to the conclusion of collective agreement and other collective agreements; the right to bargain to resolve collective disputes and the right to organize strikes and other forms of protest, as well as the right to protect union activists. The author positively assesses the extension of collective rights to people engaged in gainful employment outside the employment relationship, noting a number of flaws and shortcomings of the analyzed norms. The manner of regulating this matter, through the mechanism of referring to the relevant provisions regulating the situation of employees, the statutory equalization of the scope of collective rights of non-employees with the situation of employees, the lack of criteria differentiating these rights, as well as the adopted model of trade union representation based on company trade unions, not taking into account the specific situation of people working for profit outside the employment relationship, are the reasons why the amendment to the trade union law is seen critically and requires further changes.

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
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
South African ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Post Office ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Industry Level ◽  
Pluralistic Approach ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conditions Of Employment

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”)).

scholarly journals The Impact of the Labour Relations Act on Minority Trade Unions: A South African Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 284
Author(s):  
Johan Kruger ◽  
Clarence Itumeleng Tshoose
Keyword(s):  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
South African ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

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.

21. Individual Trade Union Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 537-562
Author(s):  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Union Membership ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Potential Employer ◽  
Industrial Action ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the rights of an individual in respect of his trade union membership and/or non-membership and remedies for breach of those rights. These rights exist vis-à-vis a trade union or against an actual or potential employer. They include the right not to be excluded from a union; the right not to be unjustifiably disciplined; the right to resign; the right not to be expelled; the right to have a ballot before industrial action; and the right to take time off work for trade union duties. The relevant statutory provisions are contained in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A), which has been amended by subsequent legislation, and reference will also be made to a number of legal decisions.

16. Wrongful Dismissal

2020 ◽  
pp. 390-401
Author(s):  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

Under the law which existed prior to 1971, an employer was entitled to dismiss an employee for any reason or no reason at all. In 1971 the Industrial Relations Act created the right for many employees not to be unfairly dismissed, and though that Act was repealed, the relevant provisions were substantially re-enacted in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, and further changes were made by the Employment Protection Act 1975. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended) contains most of the relevant statutory provisions currently in force. This chapter discusses the ways in which wrongful dismissal may occur; collateral contracts; summary dismissal; and employment law remedies.

Trade union struggle for workwear in Swedish elder care

2021 ◽  
pp. 102425892110313
Author(s):  
Annette Thörnquist
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Elder Care ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Work Safety ◽  
Swedish Model ◽  
Municipal Workers ◽  
General Obligation ◽  
The Right

This article investigates why it took over 20 years of trade union struggle before workers in Swedish elder care were granted the right to free workwear. How did the Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union (Kommunal) tackle the problem; what obstacles did the union face; and why was the matter finally regulated by the state (in 2015 and 2018) and not by collective agreement in line with the Swedish model of self-regulation? The study draws mainly on an analysis of important court cases. The results indicate that the process was protracted mainly because of the unclear legal basis for pursuing demands concerning workwear, municipalities’ (local authorities’) opposition to a general obligation to provide workwear, mainly for financial reasons, and the fact that the issue was deadlocked between the remits of two government authorities, representing patient safety and work safety respectively. The main reason why the union eventually preferred to fight for a legislative solution was that a negotiated solution would probably have come at the expense of other urgent union demands in this female-dominated low-wage sector. When Kommunal intensified the struggle for free workwear in the 2010s, the union also stepped up its struggle against the structural gender differences in wages in the municipal sector.

scholarly journals Limiting Organisational Rights of Minority Unions: POPCRU v Ledwaba 2013 11 BLLR 1137 (LC)

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 2227
Author(s):  
Tamara Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Collective Agreements ◽  
Legislative Model ◽  
The Right

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.

21. Individual Trade Union Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Union Membership ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Potential Employer ◽  
Industrial Action ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the rights of an individual in respect of his trade union membership and/or non-membership and remedies for breach of those right. These rights exist vis-à-vis a trade union or against an actual or potential employer. They include the right not to be excluded from a union; not to be unjustifiably disciplined; right to resign; not to be expelled; to have a ballot before industrial action; and time off work for trade union duties. The relevant statutory provisions are contained in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A), which has been amended by subsequent legislation, and reference will also be made to a number of legal decisions.

scholarly journals A PERSPECTIVE ON CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS THROUGH CORRELATIVE RIGHTS

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Adriaan Norval
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Union Membership ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Union Security ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Collective Agreements ◽  
Generic Term ◽  
The Right

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document