Collective Agreement Sa Labour Law

Dec 5th, 2020 | By | Category: Uncategorized

What happens in a situation where a minority union has entered into a collective agreement that is at odds with a collective agreement renewed under section 23, paragraph 1, point (d)? Du Toit believes that the renewed collective agreement must be implemented as a matter of priority, as it is sanctioned by law (Roof (ed) and al 313). Even if the union had its way and had reached a separate agreement in contradiction with the majority, a good application of the law would impose the will of the majority. This is called employment democracy (Cohen 2210 -2218). It also shows the coherence of the majority character that characterizes the LRA as a whole and the role of Section 23 (1)d) in this regard (Kruger – Tshoose “The impact of the Labour Relations Act on minority trade unions: A South African perspective” 2013 (16) 4 per 288-289). In 2013, the South African Chamber of Mines conducted negotiations on wages and terms of service on behalf of its members of the gold mining industry. The mining companies represented by the Chamber of Mines were Harmony Gold, AngloGold Ashanti and Sibanye Gold. The Chamber of Mines has opened these negotiations with the National Union of Metalworkers (NUM), Solidarity and the United Association of South Africa (UASA), which represent the majority of workers in this sector. The applicant, the Association of Miners and Construction Companies (AMCU), was also invited to these negotiations, as it represented a minority of workers in the sector as a whole, but was the majority in some individual mines. These negotiations resulted in a collective agreement accepted and approved by all parties, with the exception of the AMCU. This agreement provides for wages and other conditions of employment. In addition, the agreement explicitly stated that it was an agreement as provided for in Section 23, paragraph 1, point (d) of the LRA.

In particular, it found that no party linked to the agreement could demand a strike or lockout on the issues covered in the agreement as long as it thought. Although the collective agreement explicitly applies to all workers in the mining companies represented, amCU stated that its members are not bound by the agreement because it does not participate in the agreement. Perhaps it is for the judiciary to mention that the issues raised by the AMCU were legitimate and related to the dignity and livelihoods of minors. The union requested a base salary R12,500 for its members (Mapenzauswa and Shabalala “AMCU accepts the new salary offer Sibanye Gold” April 10, 2016 Moneyweb had access to (available 2018-06-08).. The Court also found that the extension of collective agreements on the basis of the maintenance of a majority is both reasonable and reasonable, as it guarantees peace in the workplace. Section 23 (1) (d) is a tiny arrangement with serious effects. Prior to the introduction of the LRA, there were legal loopholes and uncertainties about the binding effect of the collective agreement (Du Toit (ed) et al 311-312). Only the collective agreement concluded with the works councils had a binding effect and was considered a secondary character (“Collective Agreements: a Comparative Study between Belgium and South Africa” (1998) Unpublished LLM Doctoral Thesis (University of South Africa) 82). However, the labour courts have always expressed: That the will of the majority, if it is in the interest of both the majority union and the majority of the workers concerned, should be given priority over that of an individual (Ramolesane – another v Andres Mentis another (1991) 12 ILJ 329 (LAC) by 335H, see also Du Toit “A wind convention, which is the collective good? Collective representation in non-legal collective bargaining and the limits of union power (1994) 15 ILJ 39).

Comments are closed.