The constitutionality of section 32 of the Labour Relations Act
- Authors: Hemsley, Michael Norman
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Labor unions -- South Africa Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/11070 , vital:26882
- Description: Collective bargaining is the process whereby employees act as a collective unit whilst negotiating terms and conditions of employment with employers. The collective unit typically takes the form of a trade union, mandated by its members to negotiate on their behalf. By negotiating collectively the inherent imbalance of power between employer and individual employee is seen to be neutralised. The process of collective bargaining enjoys legal status in South Africa and around the world. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 institutionalised collective bargaining for the first time in the form of the Industrial-Council system. This sectoral bargaining system stood firm throughout the pre-democracy period but initially excluded non-white employees. Industrial unrest in the 1970s was the catalyst for the Wiehan commission which ultimately brought all employees into the fold. By the dawn of democracy in South Africa the bargaining system enjoyed wide-spread support and legitimacy. This was particularly so amongst the COSATU-led labour movement which enjoyed a position of political strength. This support and strength were reflected in the contents of both the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution which enshrined the constitutional right to engage in collective bargaining. Possibly the most debated aspect of the Council system has been the question of extending agreements to non-parties. Those in favour argue that the Council system cannot function in the absence of extensions. This is so because what would then effectively be a voluntary system would not attract sufficient volunteers. Those against argue that extensions act as a barrier to economic activity, particularly for small and new businesses. Legislation has, since 1924, facilitated the extension of agreements as long as certain criteria are met. Section 32 of the Labour Relations Act is the current extension vehicle. The extension criteria have vacillated over time and especially so in recent history with section 32 being subject to change in every post-democracy amendment to the Act. Possibly the most serious challenge to the extension status quo has come in the form of a constitutional challenge by the Free-Market Foundation. The Foundation advances old economic arguments but links these to an alleged impingement of constitutional rights. The challenge comes at a time when the country is experiencing the most significant socio-political turbulence since democracy. This includes the most enduring strike in our history, a landmark-employer lock-out and a parliamentary facelift. The Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council oversees the biggest manufacturing sector in the South African economy. This status prompted the Council to submit its own responding papers in the Free-Market case. Particularly fascinating is that an employer party to the Council not only supports the Foundation case but has also lodged its own proceedings against the extension of the 2014 Engineering agreement. Both these cases are still pending and the outcomes have the potential to transform the political and economic landscape of our country.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Hemsley, Michael Norman
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa Labor unions -- South Africa Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/11070 , vital:26882
- Description: Collective bargaining is the process whereby employees act as a collective unit whilst negotiating terms and conditions of employment with employers. The collective unit typically takes the form of a trade union, mandated by its members to negotiate on their behalf. By negotiating collectively the inherent imbalance of power between employer and individual employee is seen to be neutralised. The process of collective bargaining enjoys legal status in South Africa and around the world. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 institutionalised collective bargaining for the first time in the form of the Industrial-Council system. This sectoral bargaining system stood firm throughout the pre-democracy period but initially excluded non-white employees. Industrial unrest in the 1970s was the catalyst for the Wiehan commission which ultimately brought all employees into the fold. By the dawn of democracy in South Africa the bargaining system enjoyed wide-spread support and legitimacy. This was particularly so amongst the COSATU-led labour movement which enjoyed a position of political strength. This support and strength were reflected in the contents of both the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution which enshrined the constitutional right to engage in collective bargaining. Possibly the most debated aspect of the Council system has been the question of extending agreements to non-parties. Those in favour argue that the Council system cannot function in the absence of extensions. This is so because what would then effectively be a voluntary system would not attract sufficient volunteers. Those against argue that extensions act as a barrier to economic activity, particularly for small and new businesses. Legislation has, since 1924, facilitated the extension of agreements as long as certain criteria are met. Section 32 of the Labour Relations Act is the current extension vehicle. The extension criteria have vacillated over time and especially so in recent history with section 32 being subject to change in every post-democracy amendment to the Act. Possibly the most serious challenge to the extension status quo has come in the form of a constitutional challenge by the Free-Market Foundation. The Foundation advances old economic arguments but links these to an alleged impingement of constitutional rights. The challenge comes at a time when the country is experiencing the most significant socio-political turbulence since democracy. This includes the most enduring strike in our history, a landmark-employer lock-out and a parliamentary facelift. The Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council oversees the biggest manufacturing sector in the South African economy. This status prompted the Council to submit its own responding papers in the Free-Market case. Particularly fascinating is that an employer party to the Council not only supports the Foundation case but has also lodged its own proceedings against the extension of the 2014 Engineering agreement. Both these cases are still pending and the outcomes have the potential to transform the political and economic landscape of our country.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
The role of the education labour relations council in collective bargaining
- Authors: Foca, Nolusindiso Octavia
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10298 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021054
- Description: The 1996 Constitution provides workers with the right to form and join trade unions and to participate in the activities and programmes of those trade unions. The organizational and associated rights contained in sections 23(2)-(4) of the Constitution of Republic of South Africa, form the bedrock of a labour-relations system characterized by voluntarist collective bargaining. The constitutional protection that the above section gives to these organisational rights shields the trade unions and employer organisations from legislative and executive interference in their affairs and in turn, inhibits victimisation of and interference in trade unions by employers. One of the expressly stated purposes of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “LRA”) is to promote collective bargaining and to provide a framework within which employers, employers’ organisations, trade unions and employees can bargain collectively to determine wages, terms and conditions of employment, other matters of mutual interest and to formulate industrial policy. Notwithstanding the above purpose, the Act does not compel collective bargaining, with the result that the courts have no role in determining, for example, whether an employer should bargain collectively with a trade, what they should bargain about, at what level they should bargain or how parties to a negotiation should conduct themselves. Despite this, by extending and bolstering the right to strike, the LRA has effectively empowered trade unions to have recourse to the strike as an integral aspect of the collective bargaining process. The LRA provides a framework that is conducive to collective bargaining and thus providing for the establishment of bargaining councils. The purpose of this treatise is to examine the role played by the Education Labour Relations Council (hereinafter referred to as the “ELRC”) as one of the sectoral bargaining councils in the Public Service, in collective bargaining. In order to place this discussion in context, it is valuable to know the history of industrial relations and collective bargaining in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
- Authors: Foca, Nolusindiso Octavia
- Date: 2014
- Subjects: Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10298 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021054
- Description: The 1996 Constitution provides workers with the right to form and join trade unions and to participate in the activities and programmes of those trade unions. The organizational and associated rights contained in sections 23(2)-(4) of the Constitution of Republic of South Africa, form the bedrock of a labour-relations system characterized by voluntarist collective bargaining. The constitutional protection that the above section gives to these organisational rights shields the trade unions and employer organisations from legislative and executive interference in their affairs and in turn, inhibits victimisation of and interference in trade unions by employers. One of the expressly stated purposes of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “LRA”) is to promote collective bargaining and to provide a framework within which employers, employers’ organisations, trade unions and employees can bargain collectively to determine wages, terms and conditions of employment, other matters of mutual interest and to formulate industrial policy. Notwithstanding the above purpose, the Act does not compel collective bargaining, with the result that the courts have no role in determining, for example, whether an employer should bargain collectively with a trade, what they should bargain about, at what level they should bargain or how parties to a negotiation should conduct themselves. Despite this, by extending and bolstering the right to strike, the LRA has effectively empowered trade unions to have recourse to the strike as an integral aspect of the collective bargaining process. The LRA provides a framework that is conducive to collective bargaining and thus providing for the establishment of bargaining councils. The purpose of this treatise is to examine the role played by the Education Labour Relations Council (hereinafter referred to as the “ELRC”) as one of the sectoral bargaining councils in the Public Service, in collective bargaining. In order to place this discussion in context, it is valuable to know the history of industrial relations and collective bargaining in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2014
The legal protection of temporary employees
- Authors: Gillespie, Neil
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Employee rights -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10287 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019793
- Description: This paper is divided into two distinct sections. The first being an analysis of the legal protection of temporary employees as things currently stand. It deals with the various labour laws that currently regulate temporary employment as well as the temporary employment contract and the common-law. The second section summarises and analyses the provisions of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill as they apply to fixed-term employees. Temporary employees are protected by the general protection extended to all employees in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, guaranteeing all employees the “right to fair labour practice”. The Labour Relations Act has as one of its main objectives to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Thus the Labour Relations Act must not only give effect to constitutional rights but it must also ensure that it in no way unreasonably or unjustly denies or limits constitutional rights. Temporary employees have a number of labour laws protecting their interests. Where the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, a Bargaining Council Agreement or a Sectoral Determination do not apply the employee will rely on the terms of the fixed-term employment contract and thereafter the common law for protection. The only protection offered to temporary employees contained in the Labour Relations Act is in section 186(1)(b), where a dismissal is defined to include the non-renewal of temporary contracts of employment where there is a reasonable expectation of renewal on the same or similar terms. This provision has proved to be highly controversial in that it does not expressly cater for temporary employees who harbour reasonable expectations of indefinite employment. An analysis is made of the most important cases relating to section 186(1)(b). The second section unpacks and critically analyses the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which have been long in the offing and when they are finally enacted, will bring with them sweeping changes for atypical employment . The amendments will drastically change the way employers make use of fixed-term employees as well as the way in which Temporary Employment Services may conduct business if they are in fact able to keep working at all. There is very little literature of substance written about the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as it applies to atypical employment. The fact that the proposed amendments have changed so many times over such a long period of time might have deterred many writers from investing time and effort in attempts to analyse and summarise the amendments. Articles posted on the internet are in the main short and have very little content. No books were found with any discussion that pertains to the amendments. The amendments divide employees involved in atypical employment into two different categories. These categories consist of employees earning above the threshold in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and those earning below this threshold. All fixed-term employees may rely on the provisions of section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. Employees earning below the threshold are considered to be the most vulnerable and have been afforded additional protections in terms of sections 198(A), (B) and (C). Issues surrounding Temporary Employment Services and fixed-term employees have been very divisive and have been the topics of heated debate at all levels of Industrial Relations for a long time. Discussions regarding the use of the services of Temporary Employment Services can be highly emotive, with Temporary Employment Services being accused of committing wideThis paper is divided into two distinct sections. The first being an analysis of the legal protection of temporary employees as things currently stand. It deals with the various labour laws that currently regulate temporary employment as well as the temporary employment contract and the common-law. The second section summarises and analyses the provisions of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill as they apply to fixed-term employees. Temporary employees are protected by the general protection extended to all employees in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, guaranteeing all employees the “right to fair labour practice”. The Labour Relations Act has as one of its main objectives to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Thus the Labour Relations Act must not only give effect to constitutional rights but it must also ensure that it in no way unreasonably or unjustly denies or limits constitutional rights. Temporary employees have a number of labour laws protecting their interests. Where the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, a Bargaining Council Agreement or a Sectoral Determination do not apply the employee will rely on the terms of the fixed-term employment contract and thereafter the common law for protection. The only protection offered to temporary employees contained in the Labour Relations Act is in section 186(1)(b), where a dismissal is defined to include the non-renewal of temporary contracts of employment where there is a reasonable expectation of renewal on the same or similar terms. This provision has proved to be highly controversial in that it does not expressly cater for temporary employees who harbour reasonable expectations of indefinite employment. An analysis is made of the most important cases relating to section 186(1)(b). The second section unpacks and critically analyses the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which have been long in the offing and when they are finally enacted, will bring with them sweeping changes for atypical employment . The amendments will drastically change the way employers make use of fixed-term employees as well as the way in which Temporary Employment Services may conduct business if they are in fact able to keep working at all. There is very little literature of substance written about the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as it applies to atypical employment. The fact that the proposed amendments have changed so many times over such a long period of time might have deterred many writers from investing time and effort in attempts to analyse and summarise the amendments. Articles posted on the internet are in the main short and have very little content. No books were found with any discussion that pertains to the amendments. The amendments divide employees involved in atypical employment into two different categories. These categories consist of employees earning above the threshold in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and those earning below this threshold. All fixed-term employees may rely on the provisions of section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. Employees earning below the threshold are considered to be the most vulnerable and have been afforded additional protections in terms of sections 198(A), (B) and (C).
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Gillespie, Neil
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Employee rights -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Labor contract -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10287 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019793
- Description: This paper is divided into two distinct sections. The first being an analysis of the legal protection of temporary employees as things currently stand. It deals with the various labour laws that currently regulate temporary employment as well as the temporary employment contract and the common-law. The second section summarises and analyses the provisions of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill as they apply to fixed-term employees. Temporary employees are protected by the general protection extended to all employees in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, guaranteeing all employees the “right to fair labour practice”. The Labour Relations Act has as one of its main objectives to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Thus the Labour Relations Act must not only give effect to constitutional rights but it must also ensure that it in no way unreasonably or unjustly denies or limits constitutional rights. Temporary employees have a number of labour laws protecting their interests. Where the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, a Bargaining Council Agreement or a Sectoral Determination do not apply the employee will rely on the terms of the fixed-term employment contract and thereafter the common law for protection. The only protection offered to temporary employees contained in the Labour Relations Act is in section 186(1)(b), where a dismissal is defined to include the non-renewal of temporary contracts of employment where there is a reasonable expectation of renewal on the same or similar terms. This provision has proved to be highly controversial in that it does not expressly cater for temporary employees who harbour reasonable expectations of indefinite employment. An analysis is made of the most important cases relating to section 186(1)(b). The second section unpacks and critically analyses the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which have been long in the offing and when they are finally enacted, will bring with them sweeping changes for atypical employment . The amendments will drastically change the way employers make use of fixed-term employees as well as the way in which Temporary Employment Services may conduct business if they are in fact able to keep working at all. There is very little literature of substance written about the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as it applies to atypical employment. The fact that the proposed amendments have changed so many times over such a long period of time might have deterred many writers from investing time and effort in attempts to analyse and summarise the amendments. Articles posted on the internet are in the main short and have very little content. No books were found with any discussion that pertains to the amendments. The amendments divide employees involved in atypical employment into two different categories. These categories consist of employees earning above the threshold in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and those earning below this threshold. All fixed-term employees may rely on the provisions of section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. Employees earning below the threshold are considered to be the most vulnerable and have been afforded additional protections in terms of sections 198(A), (B) and (C). Issues surrounding Temporary Employment Services and fixed-term employees have been very divisive and have been the topics of heated debate at all levels of Industrial Relations for a long time. Discussions regarding the use of the services of Temporary Employment Services can be highly emotive, with Temporary Employment Services being accused of committing wideThis paper is divided into two distinct sections. The first being an analysis of the legal protection of temporary employees as things currently stand. It deals with the various labour laws that currently regulate temporary employment as well as the temporary employment contract and the common-law. The second section summarises and analyses the provisions of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill as they apply to fixed-term employees. Temporary employees are protected by the general protection extended to all employees in terms of section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, guaranteeing all employees the “right to fair labour practice”. The Labour Relations Act has as one of its main objectives to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Thus the Labour Relations Act must not only give effect to constitutional rights but it must also ensure that it in no way unreasonably or unjustly denies or limits constitutional rights. Temporary employees have a number of labour laws protecting their interests. Where the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, a Bargaining Council Agreement or a Sectoral Determination do not apply the employee will rely on the terms of the fixed-term employment contract and thereafter the common law for protection. The only protection offered to temporary employees contained in the Labour Relations Act is in section 186(1)(b), where a dismissal is defined to include the non-renewal of temporary contracts of employment where there is a reasonable expectation of renewal on the same or similar terms. This provision has proved to be highly controversial in that it does not expressly cater for temporary employees who harbour reasonable expectations of indefinite employment. An analysis is made of the most important cases relating to section 186(1)(b). The second section unpacks and critically analyses the Labour Relations Amendment Bill and the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which have been long in the offing and when they are finally enacted, will bring with them sweeping changes for atypical employment . The amendments will drastically change the way employers make use of fixed-term employees as well as the way in which Temporary Employment Services may conduct business if they are in fact able to keep working at all. There is very little literature of substance written about the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as it applies to atypical employment. The fact that the proposed amendments have changed so many times over such a long period of time might have deterred many writers from investing time and effort in attempts to analyse and summarise the amendments. Articles posted on the internet are in the main short and have very little content. No books were found with any discussion that pertains to the amendments. The amendments divide employees involved in atypical employment into two different categories. These categories consist of employees earning above the threshold in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and those earning below this threshold. All fixed-term employees may rely on the provisions of section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. Employees earning below the threshold are considered to be the most vulnerable and have been afforded additional protections in terms of sections 198(A), (B) and (C).
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Dismissal law in the education sector
- Authors: Myeki, Mfundo
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation , Labor contract -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10213 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1567 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation , Labor contract -- South Africa
- Description: This treatise will therefore critically discuss fairness requirements in dismissal law within the context of the education sector from: i) the perspective of a dismissed employee; and ii) the perspective of an employer who wishes to dismiss employees fairly; and iii) the perspective of a deemed dismissal. It will be proper to flow this discussion from the premises of what should be considered procedural and substantive fairness in dismissals.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
- Authors: Myeki, Mfundo
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation , Labor contract -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10213 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1567 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation , Labor contract -- South Africa
- Description: This treatise will therefore critically discuss fairness requirements in dismissal law within the context of the education sector from: i) the perspective of a dismissed employee; and ii) the perspective of an employer who wishes to dismiss employees fairly; and iii) the perspective of a deemed dismissal. It will be proper to flow this discussion from the premises of what should be considered procedural and substantive fairness in dismissals.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
The right to organise: critiquing the role of trade unions in shaping work relations in post-apartheid South Africa
- Authors: Nyathi, Mthokozisi
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Labor unions -- South Africa , Apartheid -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor unions -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3690 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003205 , Labor unions -- South Africa , Apartheid -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor unions -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor -- South Africa
- Description: Organised labour continues to play a prominent role in shaping employment relations in South Africa. The individual worker is powerless and in a weaker bargaining position against his employer. The advent of democracy was accompanied by numerous interventions to level the historically uneven bargaining field. The trade union movement has made and consolidated significant gains since the advent of democracy. It however faces a plethora of new challenges, such as the negative forces of globalisation, declining membership (often associated with high levels of unemployment and the changing nature of work from standard to atypical employment), the resurfacing of adversarialism in the bargaining process, and numerous shortcomings inherent in forums established to facilitate corporatism. Business is intensifying its calls for investor-friendly policies, which effectively mean a relaxation of labour policies. The trade union movement faces an enormous task of rebuilding confidence and credibility among its members and at the same time showing some commitment to other social actors, government and business, that it is committed to contribute to economic growth and employment creation. The central focus of this thesis will be to highlight the gains made by the trade union movement, the numerous challenges threatening their existence, and how they have attempted to redefine their role in the face of these challenges. It will attempt to offer advice on how trade unions can continue to play a prominent role in shaping relations of work in South Africa. The study begins with a historical overview of trade unionism in South Africa. It then attempts to establish how trade unions have made use of the institution of collective bargaining, the importance of organisational rights to the trade union movement, the effectiveness of industrial action, and the emerging challenges threatening the vibrancy of trade unions. The overall aim is to assess whether the trade union movement is still a force to be reckoned with and its future role in influencing employment relations in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
- Authors: Nyathi, Mthokozisi
- Date: 2011
- Subjects: Labor unions -- South Africa , Apartheid -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor unions -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3690 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003205 , Labor unions -- South Africa , Apartheid -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor unions -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor -- South Africa
- Description: Organised labour continues to play a prominent role in shaping employment relations in South Africa. The individual worker is powerless and in a weaker bargaining position against his employer. The advent of democracy was accompanied by numerous interventions to level the historically uneven bargaining field. The trade union movement has made and consolidated significant gains since the advent of democracy. It however faces a plethora of new challenges, such as the negative forces of globalisation, declining membership (often associated with high levels of unemployment and the changing nature of work from standard to atypical employment), the resurfacing of adversarialism in the bargaining process, and numerous shortcomings inherent in forums established to facilitate corporatism. Business is intensifying its calls for investor-friendly policies, which effectively mean a relaxation of labour policies. The trade union movement faces an enormous task of rebuilding confidence and credibility among its members and at the same time showing some commitment to other social actors, government and business, that it is committed to contribute to economic growth and employment creation. The central focus of this thesis will be to highlight the gains made by the trade union movement, the numerous challenges threatening their existence, and how they have attempted to redefine their role in the face of these challenges. It will attempt to offer advice on how trade unions can continue to play a prominent role in shaping relations of work in South Africa. The study begins with a historical overview of trade unionism in South Africa. It then attempts to establish how trade unions have made use of the institution of collective bargaining, the importance of organisational rights to the trade union movement, the effectiveness of industrial action, and the emerging challenges threatening the vibrancy of trade unions. The overall aim is to assess whether the trade union movement is still a force to be reckoned with and its future role in influencing employment relations in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011
Critical analysis of the 2007 public service strike and its impact on the evolution of formalised collective bargaining in South Africa
- Authors: Bhe, Vuyisile
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10192 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1043 , Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Description: Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act defines ’strike’ as the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by persons who are or have been employed by the same employer or by different employers, for the purpose of remedying a grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between the employer and employee, and any reference to “work” this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory. According to Mcllroy: “As long as our society is divided between those who own and control the means of production and those who only have the ability to work, strikes will be inevitable because they are the ultimate means workers have of protecting themselves.” 1 The Constitutional Court justified the exclusion of a constitutional right to lock out and the inclusion of a constitutional right to strike by indicating that the right to strike is not equivalent to a right to lock out and is essential for workplace democracy. 2 The right to strike is essential to bolster collective bargaining and thereby to give employees the power to bargain effectively with employers. The employers on the According to the Constitutional Court employers enjoy greater social and economic power compared to individual workers and may exercise a wide range of power against workers through a range of weapons, such as dismissal, the employment of alternative or replacement labour, the unilateral implementation of new terms and conditions of employment, and the exclusion of workers from the workplace. To combat this and have a say in the workplace, the Constitutional Court held that “employees need to act in concert to provide them collectively with sufficient power to bargain effectively with employers and exercise collective power primarily through the mechanism of strike action”. The importance of the right to strike in creating workplace democracy is also reflected in a number of Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court judgments. other hand have economic strength that is used to bargain effectively. That is why the strike enjoys constitutional protection, whereas the lock-out does not. , Abstract
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: Bhe, Vuyisile
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10192 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1043 , Collective bargaining -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Strikes and lockouts -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Description: Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act defines ’strike’ as the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by persons who are or have been employed by the same employer or by different employers, for the purpose of remedying a grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between the employer and employee, and any reference to “work” this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory. According to Mcllroy: “As long as our society is divided between those who own and control the means of production and those who only have the ability to work, strikes will be inevitable because they are the ultimate means workers have of protecting themselves.” 1 The Constitutional Court justified the exclusion of a constitutional right to lock out and the inclusion of a constitutional right to strike by indicating that the right to strike is not equivalent to a right to lock out and is essential for workplace democracy. 2 The right to strike is essential to bolster collective bargaining and thereby to give employees the power to bargain effectively with employers. The employers on the According to the Constitutional Court employers enjoy greater social and economic power compared to individual workers and may exercise a wide range of power against workers through a range of weapons, such as dismissal, the employment of alternative or replacement labour, the unilateral implementation of new terms and conditions of employment, and the exclusion of workers from the workplace. To combat this and have a say in the workplace, the Constitutional Court held that “employees need to act in concert to provide them collectively with sufficient power to bargain effectively with employers and exercise collective power primarily through the mechanism of strike action”. The importance of the right to strike in creating workplace democracy is also reflected in a number of Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court judgments. other hand have economic strength that is used to bargain effectively. That is why the strike enjoys constitutional protection, whereas the lock-out does not. , Abstract
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
Workplace forums in terms of the labour relations act 66 of 1995
- Authors: Pather, Sivalingam
- Date: 2007
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10229 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/845 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Description: The promulgation into law of the concept of workplace forums has been beset with immense criticism and opposition from organized labour and some quarters of organized business. Last ditch efforts by the Ministerial Task Team had won the day for the inclusion of this controversial provision in the new Labour Relations Act.1 Commentators on the Act tend to agree that the fallout with organized labour at the negotiations has probably set the scene as to whether the provisions would be widely used or not. History has shown that the establishment of such forums in workplaces has been low. In some situations where workplace forums had been established, their continuous sustainability was put into doubt. This has led to the de-establishment of some of these forums in some workplaces. Various reasons were provided, but the prime factors for its failure could be traced back to the negotiations at NEDLAC. The unions opposed the original proposal by government that minority unions and even non-union employees can trigger the establishment of a workplace forum and insisted that this be restricted to majority unions. The voluntary nature regarding the establishment of a workplace forum and the trigger that only a majority union can invoke the provisions has still seen unions reluctant to utilize the provisions since it did not serve their purpose. The aims of the provisions, namely to increase workplace democracy, was therefore thwarted in favour of more informal procedures. Although the idea is a noble one, it is argued that the introduction of the provisions was ill-timed and inappropriate. The lesson that the legislature can take is that for any provision to be a success, buy-in from all stakeholders is paramount. Research has shown that there was a steady decline in the establishment of workplace forums. Since December 2004 there was not a single application received by the Commission for Conciliation, mediation and Arbitration. There is also doubt as to whether any of the Forums that were previously established are still functional. What is certain is that statutory workplace forums is not at the forefront as a vehicle for change that was envisaged in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the new Labour Relations Act. What is also certain is that employers and employees are utilizing other forums to ensure workplace participation. These forums, however, only provide a voice to unionized workers. The vast majority of non-union workers remain voiceless. The proposed amendments in 2002 that intimated that the trigger be any union and not only majority unions failed to be passed into law. Perhaps it is that type of catalyst that is required to give life to the provisions. The future of workplace forums in South Africa is bleak and will continue to be if there is no intervention by the parties at NEDLAC to revive it. A complete revamp of the legislation would be required for such a revival. Some commentators have made meaningful suggestions on changes that can be made to the legislation to make workplace forums more attractive. Some have suggested it be scrapped altogether and future workplace participatory structures should be left to the parties to embrace voluntarily. Workplace forums are a novel innovation with great potential to encourage workplace democracy. There is nothing wrong with the concept. The application of such forums in the South African context is what is concerning. Perhaps prior experience and experimentation with similar type forums have tarnished workplace participation. The strategies by the previous regime and some employers have caused such participation to equate to co-option. Perhaps not enough spade work was done to ensure that the climate and attitude of the parties was conducive for its introduction. What is paramount no matter the form it takes is that workplace participation is crucial for economic growth and the introduction of new work methods to improve productivity. Without the establishment of such forums, whether voluntary or statutory, the ‘second channel principle’ that promotes non-adversarial workplace joint decision-making would be lost and conflict based participation could spiral leading to economic disaster.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2007
- Authors: Pather, Sivalingam
- Date: 2007
- Subjects: Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10229 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/845 , Industrial relations -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Works councils -- South Africa
- Description: The promulgation into law of the concept of workplace forums has been beset with immense criticism and opposition from organized labour and some quarters of organized business. Last ditch efforts by the Ministerial Task Team had won the day for the inclusion of this controversial provision in the new Labour Relations Act.1 Commentators on the Act tend to agree that the fallout with organized labour at the negotiations has probably set the scene as to whether the provisions would be widely used or not. History has shown that the establishment of such forums in workplaces has been low. In some situations where workplace forums had been established, their continuous sustainability was put into doubt. This has led to the de-establishment of some of these forums in some workplaces. Various reasons were provided, but the prime factors for its failure could be traced back to the negotiations at NEDLAC. The unions opposed the original proposal by government that minority unions and even non-union employees can trigger the establishment of a workplace forum and insisted that this be restricted to majority unions. The voluntary nature regarding the establishment of a workplace forum and the trigger that only a majority union can invoke the provisions has still seen unions reluctant to utilize the provisions since it did not serve their purpose. The aims of the provisions, namely to increase workplace democracy, was therefore thwarted in favour of more informal procedures. Although the idea is a noble one, it is argued that the introduction of the provisions was ill-timed and inappropriate. The lesson that the legislature can take is that for any provision to be a success, buy-in from all stakeholders is paramount. Research has shown that there was a steady decline in the establishment of workplace forums. Since December 2004 there was not a single application received by the Commission for Conciliation, mediation and Arbitration. There is also doubt as to whether any of the Forums that were previously established are still functional. What is certain is that statutory workplace forums is not at the forefront as a vehicle for change that was envisaged in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the new Labour Relations Act. What is also certain is that employers and employees are utilizing other forums to ensure workplace participation. These forums, however, only provide a voice to unionized workers. The vast majority of non-union workers remain voiceless. The proposed amendments in 2002 that intimated that the trigger be any union and not only majority unions failed to be passed into law. Perhaps it is that type of catalyst that is required to give life to the provisions. The future of workplace forums in South Africa is bleak and will continue to be if there is no intervention by the parties at NEDLAC to revive it. A complete revamp of the legislation would be required for such a revival. Some commentators have made meaningful suggestions on changes that can be made to the legislation to make workplace forums more attractive. Some have suggested it be scrapped altogether and future workplace participatory structures should be left to the parties to embrace voluntarily. Workplace forums are a novel innovation with great potential to encourage workplace democracy. There is nothing wrong with the concept. The application of such forums in the South African context is what is concerning. Perhaps prior experience and experimentation with similar type forums have tarnished workplace participation. The strategies by the previous regime and some employers have caused such participation to equate to co-option. Perhaps not enough spade work was done to ensure that the climate and attitude of the parties was conducive for its introduction. What is paramount no matter the form it takes is that workplace participation is crucial for economic growth and the introduction of new work methods to improve productivity. Without the establishment of such forums, whether voluntary or statutory, the ‘second channel principle’ that promotes non-adversarial workplace joint decision-making would be lost and conflict based participation could spiral leading to economic disaster.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2007
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »