Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This thesis seeks to resolve the ambiguities surrounding the use of the unfair labour practice relating to the provision of “benefits” as a dispute resolution mechanism in South African labour law. This mechanism has been plagued with uncertainty, primar-ily because of the lack of a statutory definition of benefits. Evidently, the interpretation and application of benefits have been left to the courts, resulting in two diverse ap-proaches being endorsed. The first one sought to confer a narrow connotation on ben-efits, the rationale being to separate benefits from the definition of “remuneration”. It further sought to limit the use of this unfair labour practice to instances where the benefit claimed was exclusively provided for ex contractu or ex lege. The primary ob-jective was to protect the divide between disputes of right and disputes of interest, a distinction that is recognised and encouraged in our law. The second approach was one that fostered an expansive interpretation of the term, deeming it to be part of re-muneration. Needless to say it resulted in countless items being subject to determina-tion as benefit disputes. Furthermore, it extended benefits beyond those rooted in con-tract or legislation, including those granted or offered subject to the exercise of mana-gerial discretion. The supplementary challenges firstly relate to the absence of statutory direction on the standards of fairness to be applied in evaluating employer conduct. Secondly, the judiciary has provided opportunities for employees to utilise recourse other than the unfair labour practice provisions to address benefit disputes. Such leeway comes in the form of contractual recourse as well as the ability to institute strike action. In search of solutions to the problems identified above, the study explores and anal-yses the history of the unfair labour practice concept. Thereafter, an extensive exam-ination of the developments in this area of the law is undertaken. This includes a com-prehensive analysis of legislation, case law and academic writings. Having docu-mented and analysed the South African position both pre- and post-democracy, the study critically evaluates these sources of law. The study further involves a diagnostic assessment of international legal instruments and foreign law in order to extract best practices. The conclusions reached are, firstly, that an expansive interpretation of benefits is warranted. This is in line with a purposive interpretation of the LRA, which promotes the constitutional right to fair labour practices and international law. This study there-fore proposes a wide-ranging definition of the term benefits. Secondly, standards of substantive and procedural fairness have been found to be applicable in evaluating employer conduct. As such, fairness guidelines based on these standards have been developed. Thirdly, in respect of the alternate avenues available to resolve benefit disputes, it has been found that although there are strong indicators that point to a conclusion that contractual recourse has been supplanted by statutory recourse, such a finding cannot be definitively made. Furthermore, section 64(4) as it stands provides for the right to strike over unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment, which includes unilateral changes to pre-existing benefits. However, the judiciary can limit the use of this section in benefit disputes by prioritising the substance of the dis-pute over its form. This thesis ultimately proposes the incorporation of a Code of Good Practice into the LRA. The Code of Good Practice: Benefits adopts the principal research findings of this study. It encourages the enforcement of benefit disputes through the dispute res-olution institutions set up by the LRA. The adoption of this Code (The Code of Good Practice: Benefits) will bring certitude to this field of labour law.

The rights of freedom of association, to organise and to bargain collectively are recognised internationally and form part of the constitutional framework of progressive and democratic states. The full enjoyment of these rights by trade unions often is hindered by the imbalance in the power relations between the employer and the representatives of the workers, hence the need for statutory intervention. The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA of 1995) postulates a collective bargaining regime which is voluntarist in nature and strengthens its effectiveness through a set of organisational rights and the right to strike. Incidentally, the current statutory framework for the enjoyment of organisational rights has had a direct impact on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of association and the right to organise. It is accepted that possession of the right to collective bargaining is internationally recognised as the basis of the authority to set thresholds of representivity in the workplace. The organisational rights framework in this context has been directly impacted upon. It is this direct impact that necessitates an enquiry to determine whether South Africa’s framework on the acquisition of organisational rights conforms to international standards set by the ILO and the Constitution, 1996. This thesis argues that the policy choice of the South African labour relations system in respect of some of the consequences of majoritarianism insofar as representation in individual cases is concerned does not necessarily foster the ideals of the Constitution, 1996 and the principles of international labour standards. The model of democracy as envisaged in the Constitution, 1996 is not one that promotes exclusivity. However, the effect of section 18 of the LRA of 1995, which allows threshold agreements, arguably may foster such exclusivity in the workplace. This situation has resulted in industrial democracy being a terrain of endless conflict between employers and labour, even more among trade unions themselves. As a result, the rivalry between unions in workplaces is exacerbated. The original intent behind the organisational rights of trade unions and their right to strike was to bolster their capacity to bargain collectively. It was meant to get them to focus on collective bargaining gains they can secure and to bargain more effectively. However, the current framework that favours majority trade unions has the effect of minority trade unions generally finding their existence threatened and their being systematically excluded from the acquisition of organisational rights. This study questions the power of majority trade unions to enter a collective agreement with an employer in the workplace and set unjustifiable thresholds of representivity in respect of organisational rights. This arrangement creates a hurdle in respect of the provisions of the LRA that seek to promote industrial democracy, the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of association, to organise and to engage in collective bargaining. Recent amendments to the LRA of 1995 are an attempt to mitigate the effect of sections 18 and 20 on the enjoyment of organisational rights. The CCMA, inter alia, has been granted powers to grant organisational rights to trade unions that do not meet the set threshold in terms of the empowering provisions of the LRA of 1995 if they meet certain requirements. However, these amendments do not go far enough to prevent employers and majority trade unions from continuing to set unjustifiable thresholds that can have potential to replace the determinations of the CCMA. Therefore, the study discusses the question whether the provision in the LRA of 1995 on the setting of thresholds of representivity for the acquisition of organisational rights and the concomitant amendments are in line with the democratic model envisaged by the Constitution, 1996 and to international labour standards which recognise the rights to freedom of association of minority trade unions. This research concludes by advancing recommendations pertaining to threshold agreements and the rights of minority trade unions and to what extent it is justifiable to permit them to enjoy them.

The study, entitled “Identification of the parties to the employment relationship: an appraisal of teleological interpretation of statutes”, is a legal-interdisciplinary doctrinal investigation situated within the fields of labour law and the interpretation of statutes. It concerns itself with the proper interpretation of labour legislation in general and the interpretive question as to who should be party to the employment relationship in particular, within the context of the advent of constitutionalism and the proliferation of and the increase in the importance of labour legislation. In law, meaning-generation is a function of statutory interpretation and every application of a text to particular circumstances entails interpretation. The protection extended by labour legislation is only extended to those persons who are defined as “employees”. The study describes the teleological model of statutory interpretation, which aims to give effect to the purpose of a legislative provision in light of constitutional values. The study explores the five elements of (teleological) interpretation that should be considered when interpreting concepts such as “employee”: the text, the context, the telos (or values), the history and the comparative dimension. The chief findings of the study includes: that legislation has become an indispensable source of contemporary labour law; that the courts have adopted a teleological approach to the interpretation of statutes; that the courts have, in interpreting the term “employee”, adopted a teleological approach to the interpretation of statutes; and that the interpretations advanced by the courts have not had the profound effect envisaged by the Constitution on the transformation of society.