Bibliographie sélective OHADA

In South African Revenue Services v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration, Kruger, the employee, called his superior a “kaffir” on more than one occasion. The employer unilaterally dismissed the employee after the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing had imposed a lesser sanction. In doing so, the employer disregarded the collective agreement which did not make provision for the sanction of the disciplinary chair to be substituted. The employee claimed that his dismissal was invalid and therefore unfair. The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”), Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court (“LAC”) agreed. However, in the Constitutional Court (“CC”) the employer no longer argued that it was entitled to substitute the sanction in the light of the breach in the trust relationship, but only alleged that reinstatement was a remedy that no reasonable decision-maker would order. The CC agreed and held that the dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. The CC did not answer questions of lawfulness, fairness and invalidity, but in Steenkamp v Edcon the CC held that employees claiming remedies for unfair dismissal in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”) should not rely on invalidity. However, employees still have the right to common-law remedies based on their employment contract. Considering the importance of collective agreements, negotiated disciplinary codes, certainty and consistency, and to avoid employers exercising unfettered power over employees, state organs should apply for a review of an unsatisfactory sanction by the disciplinary chairperson in terms of section 158(1)(h) of the LRA. Private employers could negotiate a disciplinary code which allows both the employer and employee to appeal against the decision of the disciplinary chair which should make provision that a more severe sanction can be imposed on appeal.

This study investigates the impact and importance of the legal regulation of trade union recognition and associated challenges in South Africa. It evaluates the current regulation of trade union recognition, including legislation and judicial attitudes apparent from the interpretation, application, and enforcement of such legislation, to ascertain its continued appropriateness in the current South African industrial relations environment. The study considers the policy choices of both voluntarism and majoritarianism underlying the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”) and the “workplace” constituency to which it applies as factors that might be contributing to challenges experienced in the current regulation of collective bargaining in South Africa. It evaluates the current model of trade union recognition and representativeness as it applies to the acquisition by trade unions of organisational rights, collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition for purposes of retrenchment consultation. It recognises that the specific model chosen to regulate the representative status of trade unions has a significant effect on the ability of trade unions to organise and conclude collective agreements and, as such, on the distributive effects of such agreements in the labour market and broader society. The study commences with an historical overview of the regulation of trade union recognition under the 1956 LRA and thereafter considers the 1995 LRA as a product of criticism against the 1956 LRA. Specific issues considered, largely based on the analysis of the relevant decisions by the Constitutional Court, include the following: the impact of Constitutional Court jurisprudence relating to trade union recognition on the process of collective bargaining and on the legal regulation of the right to strike; the role of representativeness and its link with the workplace as the constituency for recognition and acquisition of organisational rights; the often winner-takes-all effect of the current model on collective bargaining as a major cause of labour unrest; the reactive role the legislature has played over the past, almost three decades to address challenges; the extent to which intervention should take place to safeguard the institution of collective bargaining from being undermined as well as the regulation of collective agreements as the product of collective bargaining and as the primary source of terms and conditions of employment. The comparative review of Canadian law focuses on a number of issues selected specifically for their potential to provide insights into how the weaknesses in South African regulation may be remedied. This includes insights into the accommodation of special or significant minority interests and how to address recognition in the context of multi-location employers. The thesis concludes with remarks on the insights gained from the Canadian model and the 1956 LRA. Where appropriate, suggestions are made on the way forward for South Africa as to the appropriate regulation of trade union recognition and representativeness.