The role of the CCMA and bargaining councils in labour dispute resolution
- Authors: Mkalipi, Thembinkosi
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: South Africa -- Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa Collective bargaining -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/32182 , vital:31977
- Description: A feature of collective bargaining is that it has a habit of ending in deadlock. However, in the event of a dispute, an aggrieved party is not free to call an immediate strike or lockout. The Labour Relations Act of 1956 and the Labour Relations Act of 1995 (“the LRA”) provided for a strict procedure to be followed in an event of a dispute. The law before 1995 regarded industrial action in the case of a dispute that did not follow the procedure as an illegal act attracting criminal sanction. The law then distinguished between a dispute of right and a dispute of interest. Like many countries, South Africa, has a very violent history regarding the resolution of labour disputes. This is illustrated by the force and brutality that was used to solve the 1913 white miners’ strike after martial law was declared. The reaction of the employers and the state was more brutal. The same violence and brutality were applied in the 1914 railway-workers strike and the 1946 African workers strike. The most important purpose of labour law is to ensure labour peace will prevail in the labour market and to regulate relations between employer and employee. Labour peace ensures that the economy functions effectively and if this happens, society at large benefits greatly. In Chapter 1 of the LRA one of the purposes of the LRA is stated as: “the effective resolution of labour disputes.” This section is intended to give effect section 23(1) of the Constitution, which provide that, ‘‘everyone has the right to fair labour practices’’1. This treatise will analyse the role of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) in dispute resolution; its functions and jurisdiction, ensure labour peace and whether the dispute resolution system provided in the law and implemented by the different dispute resolution institutions have succeeded to advance Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 [1996]. Economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace to fulfil the purpose of the LRA. Under the previous Labour Relations Act2 (the “1956 LRA”) disputes were resolved through three main institutions namely, Conciliation Boards, Industrial Councils and the Industrial Court3. A Conciliation Board was on ad hoc - body established by the Minister of Manpower on application by any one of the parties in dispute. There was no requirement for an agreement between the disputing parties to apply for the establishment of a Conciliation Board. Either party could approach the Minister for its establishment. This application could be made on the workers side by one or more registered trade unions, one or more employees, or one or more registered trade unions. On the employer’s side, the application can be made by one or more registered employers’ organisations or, one or more employers.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Mkalipi, Thembinkosi
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: South Africa -- Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa Collective bargaining -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/32182 , vital:31977
- Description: A feature of collective bargaining is that it has a habit of ending in deadlock. However, in the event of a dispute, an aggrieved party is not free to call an immediate strike or lockout. The Labour Relations Act of 1956 and the Labour Relations Act of 1995 (“the LRA”) provided for a strict procedure to be followed in an event of a dispute. The law before 1995 regarded industrial action in the case of a dispute that did not follow the procedure as an illegal act attracting criminal sanction. The law then distinguished between a dispute of right and a dispute of interest. Like many countries, South Africa, has a very violent history regarding the resolution of labour disputes. This is illustrated by the force and brutality that was used to solve the 1913 white miners’ strike after martial law was declared. The reaction of the employers and the state was more brutal. The same violence and brutality were applied in the 1914 railway-workers strike and the 1946 African workers strike. The most important purpose of labour law is to ensure labour peace will prevail in the labour market and to regulate relations between employer and employee. Labour peace ensures that the economy functions effectively and if this happens, society at large benefits greatly. In Chapter 1 of the LRA one of the purposes of the LRA is stated as: “the effective resolution of labour disputes.” This section is intended to give effect section 23(1) of the Constitution, which provide that, ‘‘everyone has the right to fair labour practices’’1. This treatise will analyse the role of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) in dispute resolution; its functions and jurisdiction, ensure labour peace and whether the dispute resolution system provided in the law and implemented by the different dispute resolution institutions have succeeded to advance Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 [1996]. Economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace to fulfil the purpose of the LRA. Under the previous Labour Relations Act2 (the “1956 LRA”) disputes were resolved through three main institutions namely, Conciliation Boards, Industrial Councils and the Industrial Court3. A Conciliation Board was on ad hoc - body established by the Minister of Manpower on application by any one of the parties in dispute. There was no requirement for an agreement between the disputing parties to apply for the establishment of a Conciliation Board. Either party could approach the Minister for its establishment. This application could be made on the workers side by one or more registered trade unions, one or more employees, or one or more registered trade unions. On the employer’s side, the application can be made by one or more registered employers’ organisations or, one or more employers.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Legal representation at internal disciplinary enquiries: the CCMA and bargaining councils
- Authors: Webb, Brandon
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Right to counsel -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa -- Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10299 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021066
- Description: The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Webb, Brandon
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Right to counsel -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa , South Africa -- Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10299 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021066
- Description: The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »