A comparative study on the effectiveness of minimum service agreements within the public service

De Bruin, Frederik Johannes

Title: A comparative study on the effectiveness of minimum service agreements within the public service
Creator: De Bruin, Frederik Johannes
Subject: Strikes and lockouts -- Public utilities
Subject: Collective labor agreements -- Service industries
Date Issued: 2013
Date: 2013
Type: Thesis
Type: Masters
Type: LLM
Identifier: vital:10253
Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1020811
Description: The principle of the right to strike is Internationally recognised. Although the right to strike is not set out explicitly in the International Labour Organizations (ILO) Conventions and Recommendations. It has been discussed on several occasions in the International Labour Conference during the course of preparatory work on instruments dealing with related topics, but for various reasons this has never given rise to international standards (Conventions or Recommendations) directly governing the right to strike. The ILO has determined that the right to strike can be derived from the right to Freedom of Association. The ILO Committee does however recognises certain limitations on the right to strike such as not finding any objection to national legislation that would prohibit the right to strike of armed or police forces. Both the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of experts were also mindful, where public servants are concerned, that the recognition of the right to association of public servants in no way prejudges the question of the right of public servants to strike. The ILO also makes provision for the establishment of essential services as to ensure the continuation of services were the interruption of such would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In this limitation it however holds that a “minimum safety service” may be imposed to ensure the safety of persons, the prevention of accidents and the safety of machinery and equipment In our Constitution, the supreme law of the Country, the right to strike is enshrined and protected in section 23 under the bill of rights. The Constitution however allows enabling legislation, under specific circumstances, to limit a right listed in section 23. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) places a limitation on the right to strike, specifically providing that no person may take part in a strike if that person is engaged in an essential service. Because the right to strike is so important, a limitation of these kind needs to be justified and, to be justified it needs, among other things, to be limited. In section 72 of the LRA provision is made for a minimum service within a designated essential service. Therefore, the ambit of the designated essential service is shrunk to the minimum service and those employees who were denied the right to strike while the broader essential service designation was in place, but who fall outside the defined minimum service, regains the right to strike. The concept of minimum services has however became a matter of regular discussion and debate. The concept of minimum services is not defined to the letter but it is regarded as the minimum service an industry or workplace would require as to ensure interruption of services would not endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Our legislatures have also been grappling with the concept of essential and minimum services. They have developed a comprehensive set of amendments trying to address some of the concerns in the composition, powers and functions of the Essential Services Committee (ESC). It is debatable if these proposed amendments would bring forth the necessary change to address these concerns or just become a further bureaucratic hindrance and due to the extreme complexity may even pose a limitation on the right to strike. There is also no differentiation made in the current labour legislation and the proposed amendments, between the public service and the private sector in application of the principle of essential and minimum services. Implementation of these principles in the public services has shown to be extremely challenging. Part of the proposed amendments however makes provision for the specific inclusion of government in the composition of the ESC. It is viewed by the drafters, that the introduction of government nominees to be an innovation to ensure that government is adequately represented on the essential services committee in its capacity as an employer, as a high proportion of essential service matters occur within the public service. This may be viewed as contrary to International standards as the ILO makes clear provision for a differentiated interpretation of the right to freedom of association, the right to strike, essential services and minimum services for people performing functions in the name of the State (public servants). The concept of public servant varies considerably from one country to another. Germany within their governance structure makes provision for a differentiation between civil servants and public servants and the labour rights the two groups may have. In France the military, police and prison services does not have the right to strike. In India public service employees have very limited organising and collective bargaining rights. In Brazil the police and the military do not have the right to strike and there are no legal provisions concerning the right to strike for civil servants. This is in strong contrast with the South African model. The South African Constitution and National Legislation does not allow for a differentiation in the application of labour legislation in the public service and the private sector. The application of the principles of labour relations and more specifically that of the right to strike and the determination of essential services must differ in the public services from that of the private sector. The public service is unique in that when workers in strike action it is not a purely defined labour process between an employer and employees but the public at large becomes a third player within the process. When public servants engage in industrial action they do not only deprive the community of certain rights, but indirectly deprive themselves from the same rights. There has been a resistant fear to implement the provisions of minimum services within the designated essential services within the public service, mainly because of the challenges in conceptualization of the practical implementation of the same. The environment created by the LRA does not specifically provide for the unique circumstances of the public service. The right to strike is a fundamental right for workers and therefore public servants won’t forfeit such. There is a recognition that the State needs to deliver services which will necessitate the application of the principle of essential services. However the answer will be in how minimum services is determined within these essential services. An answer that may not necessarily be contained within the Labour Relations Act.
Format: vii, 107 leaves
Format: pdf
Publisher: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Publisher: Faculty of Law
Language: English
Rights: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Hits: 1611
Visitors: 1809
Downloads: 322

Collections

NMMU Department of Mercantile Law

		Thumbnail	File	Description	Size	Format
View Details Download			SOURCEPDF	PDF	793 KB	Adobe Acrobat PDF	View Details Download