Showing items 1 - 20 of 69

Your selections:

Wage negotiations workbook

  • Authors: Workers' Education Project
  • Date: 19--?
  • Subjects: Labour unions -- South Africa , Wages , Employee fringe benefits -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
  • Language: English
  • Type: text , pamphlet
  • Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/111129 , vital:33388
  • Description: A house that is built on a weak foundation cannot stand. The same is true of a union that is entering the negotiations. A union's foundations for effective and successful bargaining must be built a long time before the negotiations with the employer begins. Many unions fight hard to gain recognition with employers; and then fail miserably in negotiations because they did not make even the simplest basic preparations.
  • Full Text:
  • Date Issued: 19--?

Agreement made and entered into between Wimpy Belfast Onestop (the employer) and the Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU) on behalf of its members

Substantive agreement 2014/2015 by and between Wilmar Continental Oils and Fats (Pty.) Ltd. and Food and Allied Workers Union - Randfontein

Collective agreement on wages and other terms and conditions of employment between Pannar Seeds (PTY) LTD - Delmas - Delmas Research Station and Food and Allied Workers Union, 2013

Wage negotiations agreement between Vusi Sweepers & Scriber and FAWU on behalf of employees

Agreement between United National Breweries (SA)(PTY) LTD (UNB) and Food and Allied Workers Union (Union) 2012/2013

2014 Collective agreement between Tuberflora and Food and Allied Workers Union

Settlement agreement on substantive issues between Food and Allied Workers Union and Tiger Brands - Beverages for the period 01st August 2012 to 31st July 2013

Memorandum of Understanding between Food and Allied Workers Union and Tiger Brands - Beverages

SAB strike settlement agreement between Food and Allied Workers Union and South African Breweries (PTY) LTD and South African Breweries Maltings (PTY) LTD

SAB strike settlement agreement between Food and Allied Workers Union and South African Breweries (PTY) LTD and South African Breweries Maltings (PTY) LTD

Agreement between Sishen Iron Ore Company (Pty) Ltd and Solidarity and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM): the 2014/2015/2106 review periods of wages and other conditions of employment

Agreement entered into between SIS Farming (Pty) LTD (SIS) and Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU)

Wage agreement entered into between FAWU obo employees and Shannon Partners Pty (Ltd)

Wage negotiation agreement between Shannon Farms - Delmas and FAWU obo Employees

Annual salary agreement between Schoonwater Farm and Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU)

Settlement agreement on wages & substantive conditions of employment entered into and between Rainbow Frams (Pty) LTD and the unions Food and ALlied Workers Unione and National Union of Food, Beverages, Wine, Spirits and Allied Workers acting jointly

Settlement agreement on wages & substantive conditions of employment entered into and between Rainbow Farms (Pty) LTD and the Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU) and National Union of Food, Beverages, Wine, Spirits and Allied Workers

Settlement wage agreement entered into between two parties, being: Quantam Foods (Pty) LTD t/a Nulaid, Songloed Farm and Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU)

Dismissals within the context of collective bargaining

  • Authors: Qotoyi, Thanduxolo
  • Date: 2009
  • Subjects: Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
  • Language: English
  • Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
  • Identifier: vital:10223 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1039 , Employees -- Dismissal of -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Unfair labor practices -- South Africa , Collective bargaining -- South Africa
  • Description: Competitive forces in the market force employers to change the way they operate their businesses. The changes that employers have to make often demand an alteration of the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. By law employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to the employee’s terms and conditions of employment. They have to obtain the consent of the affected employees. This is where collective bargaining fits in. The employer has to negotiate with the employees. One way in which through the process of collective bargaining an employer can exert pressure on the employees to accept the changes is to effect a lock-out. Under the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 within the context of a lock-out, an employer was permitted to use conditional dismissal as a bargaining weapon. This conditional dismissal had to be coupled with an offer of reemployment should the employees accept an employer’s demand. In essence, the lock-out had a bite in the form of the conditional dismissal. This made the lock-out quite effective. The 1995 Labour Relations Act prohibits in no uncertain terms the use of a dismissal as a means of compelling employees to accept an employer’s demand in any matter of mutual interest. Within the collective bargaining context, dismissal is not a legitimate option. The employer only has the lock-out as a tool of compulsion. The definition of a lock-out in terms of this Act does not accommodate the use of dismissal. This makes the lock-out option to be less potent than it was under the 1956 Labour Relations Act. However, employers are permitted to dismiss on operational grounds, provided that they follow a fair procedure. Terms and conditions of employment greatly feature in the operational requirements of a business. If the employees’ terms and conditions of employment are not responsive to the operational requirements of the business and they are unwilling to accept changes to those terms, the employer has the right to dismiss them. The employer will not be dismissing the employees as a way of inducing them to accept the changes. He will instead be dismissing them on the basis of operational requirements. iv The question that then arises is how should a dismissal that is intended to compel employees to accept an employers demand (falling within section 187(1)(c) of the 1995 Labour Relations Act be distinguished from a dismissal that is genuinely based on operational requirements as contemplated by section 188(1)(a)(ii). Doesn’t the fact that section 187(1)(c) explicitly prohibits the use of dismissal within the context of collective bargaining give rise to some tension with section 188(1)(a)(ii) which categorically gives employers the right to dismiss on operational grounds. The decision of the Labour Appeal Court in Fry’s Metals v NUMSA has stated that there is no tension whatsoever between the two sections. The court has also ruled that the dismissals that are hit by section 187(1)(c) are those dismissals that are accompanied by an offer of reemployment. According to the court, this offer is indicative of the real purpose of the employer, namely to compel employees to accept his demand. Dismissals not accompanied by an offer of re-employment are on the other hand a true reflection of the fact that the employer is indeed dismissing the employees for operational requirements. This literal interpretation of the meaning and scope of section 187(1)(c) has the potential of opening the floodgates. Instead of resorting to the use of the lock-out to secure the agreement of employees in the collective bargaining process, employers now have a potent tool in the form of a dismissal. As long as the employer makes it abundantly clear that the dismissal is final and irrevocable, he is free from the claws of section 187(1)(c). Given the fact that the lock-out option is not always effective, employers may find it hard to resist the temptation to use the threat of permanent dismissal as a bargaining chip. It is an option that is emasculated by the fact that in an employer initiated lock-out the use of replacement labour is prohibited. The threat of not just a conditional dismissal but a permanent one may force employees to capitulate to the employer’s demand during negotiations. This would effectively render negotiations about changes to terms and conditions of employment a farce. The employer would have an upper hand. The implications of this narrow interpretation are quite far-reaching. The long held view that dismissal is not a legitimate weapon of coercion in the collective bargaining process is under serious challenge. Only conditional dismissals are illegitimate in the collective bargaining v arena. Permanent dismissals are permitted. This negates the very purpose of the collective bargaining process. This study seeks to examine the anomalies that flow from this interpretation of the meaning of section 187(1)(c). The study further investigates if this interpretation is not at odds with what the legislation really intended to achieve by enacting this clause. The study also explores ways in which the sanctity of collective bargaining could be restored. Recommendations are made to that effect.
  • Full Text:
  • Date Issued: 2009
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy
  • Copyright
  • Contact