- Title
- Disputes about the interpretation, application and breach of collective agreements
- Creator
- Roelofse, Cornelius Johannes
- Subject
- Collective labor agreements -- South Africa
- Date Issued
- 2020
- Date
- 2020
- Type
- Thesis
- Type
- Masters
- Type
- LLM
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/10948/47414
- Identifier
- vital:39988
- Description
- Section 24 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the Act) regulates disputes about the interpretation and application of collective agreements. On the face of it, there is nothing particularly complicated about section 24 of the Act. This section provides that, if there is a dispute about the interpretation or application of a collective agreement, any party to the dispute may refer the dispute to the CCMA; firstly, if the agreement itself does not provide for its resolution by conciliation or arbitration by another body; secondly, if the dispute resolution procedure is inoperative and finally, if a party is frustrating the resolution of the dispute under the dispute resolution provisions of the collective agreement. Most bargaining council main agreements provide for the resolution of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of their collective agreements by conciliation or, if that fails, by arbitration. But what exactly is the scope of these provisions, and what are the powers of arbitrators when entertaining such matters? These questions are significant. If the scope of section 24 of the Act is as limitless as it seems, and if arbitrators acting in terms of that section have full powers not only to interpret and apply the provisions of collective agreements, but also to order parties not only to comply with them, and to make restitution to the other party if they haven’t, then statutory arbitrators may make orders equivalent to those that courts may make in actions for breaches of contract and, potentially, arbitrate matters over which they would not otherwise have jurisdiction. This could complicate affairs if the collective agreement being interpreted and applied is incorporated into the employment contracts of the employees concerned. The Act does not expressly set out the powers of arbitrators dealing with disputes under section 24 of the Act. For a long time after the promulgation of the Act, statutory arbitrators were generally of the view that section 24 meant what it apparently says, that it empowers arbitrators both to declare the true meaning of collective agreements to apply and to enforce them, also to order defaulting employers to compensate employees for the financial loss they have suffered in consequence of the breach. However, this understanding of what section 24 of the Act entails was thrown into confusion by two judgments of the Labour Appeal Court (LAC), Johannesburg City Parks v Mphahlani NO1 (Johannesburg City Parks) and Minister of Safety and Security v SSSBC (SSSBC). 2 In this treatise a discussion and analysis will follow of how these two judgments influenced future case law about the meaning and scope of section 24 of the Act and the uncertainties it created.
- Format
- IV, 52 leaves
- Format
- Publisher
- Nelson Mandela University
- Publisher
- Faculty of Law
- Language
- English
- Rights
- Nelson Mandela University
- Hits: 2304
- Visitors: 3207
- Downloads: 2234
Collections
NMU Department of Public Law
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | SOURCE1 | Roelofse, CJ 215232402 Dissertation April 2020.pdf | 844 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |