NUMSA and UASA have jointly concluded a collective agreement with the ASA in the NBF. This collective agreement was a collective agreement within the meaning of The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). The collective agreement has been extended to other trade unions, including SACCA, in accordance with Article 23(1)(d). The collective agreement applied from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. If a collective agreement between a majority union and an employer, but extended to a minority union, may prevent the minority union from striking. In fact, the Labour Court distinguished between an employer`s ability to replace a president`s sanction decision where its powers are defined by a collective agreement, and circumstances in which it is not. In this regard, he confirmed that the principles set out in the relevant case law are that, in the absence of a collective agreement governing discipline, an employer may replace the sanction of a disciplinary chairman, if this is fair and after placing the worker either in another disciplinary investigation or by seizing the worker`s claims. NUMSA attempted to verify the arbitrator`s arbitral award on the ground that it had committed a gross irregularity by misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing investigation before numsa. NUMSA argued that the arbitrator had treated the issue of the replacement of the sanction only as an aspect of the proceedings and not of substantive and procedural fairness. The term “material matters” has been defined in the Constitution as “any matter of mutual interest or any matter related to the conditions of work and employment of workers or to a material agreement between the SAA and trade unions or to other matters having financial implications not covered by workers` employment contracts”. Many of you will have seen propaganda sent by SEIFSA (below) regarding the acceptance of its agreement with the unions. It is regrettable (but not surprising) that SEIFSA once again addresses the truth in an extremely liberal way in this circular.
With respect to Sections 31 and 32 of the LRA, the agreement must be adopted as an agreement of a negotiating council in order to allow for the extension of an agreement. On the Manco of 1 September 27, 2020, SEIFSA and the trade unions proposed to formally adopt their agreement as a meibc agreement. This has not been the case. Indeed, the President of the MEIBC did not even allow the matter to be put to the vote, because the negotiations that preceded the signing of their agreement were not in accordance with the MEIBC Constitution. If you look very closely, you will notice that the letter actually never says that the agreement was adopted as a Council agreement (as I explained, an LRA requirement for prorogation). It says that the parties (i.e. SEIFSA and the trade unions) have accepted their agreement. .