Scoring an own goal? The Construction Workers 2010 World Cup Strike
- Authors: Cottle, Eddie
- Date: 2011-10-04
- Subjects: Labour disputes -- South Africa , Strikes and lockouts -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: article , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/60018 , vital:27722
- Description: The nationwide strike by 70 000 construction workers between 8 and 15 July 2009 was unprecedented and significant in several respects. This was the first national strike on 2010 World Cup sites by South African construction workers and was therefore an historic event. A second key feature of the strike was the unity displayed by workers and trade unions within a sector organised by several trade unions. Engineering and building workers came out on strike, with the Building Construction & Allied Workers Union (BCAWU) and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) standing together as their representative organisations. A third feature of the strike was the widespread sympathy for it by the South African public and media. This was despite it potentially setting back progress with World Cup projects. Fourthly, the pressure placed upon the trade unions' negotiating team by the Ministry of Labour and the FIFA Local Organising Committee (LOC) proved lethal in undermining their, assisting in causing them to dilute their trade union demands and demobilising the national strike.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011-10-04
- Authors: Cottle, Eddie
- Date: 2011-10-04
- Subjects: Labour disputes -- South Africa , Strikes and lockouts -- South Africa , Industrial relations -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: article , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/60018 , vital:27722
- Description: The nationwide strike by 70 000 construction workers between 8 and 15 July 2009 was unprecedented and significant in several respects. This was the first national strike on 2010 World Cup sites by South African construction workers and was therefore an historic event. A second key feature of the strike was the unity displayed by workers and trade unions within a sector organised by several trade unions. Engineering and building workers came out on strike, with the Building Construction & Allied Workers Union (BCAWU) and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) standing together as their representative organisations. A third feature of the strike was the widespread sympathy for it by the South African public and media. This was despite it potentially setting back progress with World Cup projects. Fourthly, the pressure placed upon the trade unions' negotiating team by the Ministry of Labour and the FIFA Local Organising Committee (LOC) proved lethal in undermining their, assisting in causing them to dilute their trade union demands and demobilising the national strike.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2011-10-04
The substantive and procedural limitations on the constitutional right to strike
- Authors: Gathongo, Johana Kambo
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa , Employee rules -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:9254 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021205
- Description: This treatise discusses the increasing of the procedural and substantive limitations on the employees’ right to strike. The Constitution permits the right to strike to be limited in terms of the laws of general application. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) is a good example. Such limitation must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The study sought to investigate whether further increasing the existing limitations on the right to strike unduly breaches employees’ Constitutional right to strike and the purpose of the LRA. Further, the study sought to find out whether the additional content requirements in the strike notice amount to importing into the LRA additional limitations on the fundamental right to strike that enjoys no textual support. Through an extensive literature review, the findings arguably show that indeed further increasing the limitations on the employees’ right to strike may unduly infringe their right to strike. Moreover, the increase of the content requirements in a strike notice creates an unnecessary hurdle to employees wishing to strike. One of the most important finding made is that instead further increasing the limitations on the right to strike, going back to the basics of negotiation to alleviate strikes, particularly wage-related strikes is vital. To achieve this, it is important for employers to re-establish social and individual relationships with their employees, whereby they become aware of the issues that employees face on a daily basis. Also, establishing proper workplace dialogue and forums would assist employers in becoming aware of employees concerns. This would thereby prevent strikes, as problems can be dealt with beforehand. The findings above informed in the recommendations at the end of the study.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Gathongo, Johana Kambo
- Date: 2015
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa , Employee rules -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:9254 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021205
- Description: This treatise discusses the increasing of the procedural and substantive limitations on the employees’ right to strike. The Constitution permits the right to strike to be limited in terms of the laws of general application. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) is a good example. Such limitation must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The study sought to investigate whether further increasing the existing limitations on the right to strike unduly breaches employees’ Constitutional right to strike and the purpose of the LRA. Further, the study sought to find out whether the additional content requirements in the strike notice amount to importing into the LRA additional limitations on the fundamental right to strike that enjoys no textual support. Through an extensive literature review, the findings arguably show that indeed further increasing the limitations on the employees’ right to strike may unduly infringe their right to strike. Moreover, the increase of the content requirements in a strike notice creates an unnecessary hurdle to employees wishing to strike. One of the most important finding made is that instead further increasing the limitations on the right to strike, going back to the basics of negotiation to alleviate strikes, particularly wage-related strikes is vital. To achieve this, it is important for employers to re-establish social and individual relationships with their employees, whereby they become aware of the issues that employees face on a daily basis. Also, establishing proper workplace dialogue and forums would assist employers in becoming aware of employees concerns. This would thereby prevent strikes, as problems can be dealt with beforehand. The findings above informed in the recommendations at the end of the study.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2015
Strikes in the transport sector
- Authors: Grigor, Marius Hugo
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial , Right to strike
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10300 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021100
- Description: Strike action by employees is globally used in matters of mutual interest in order to place pressure on employers to meet their demands although the right to strike is not contained in any of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) conventions or recommendations. Two conventions of the ILO are however relevant in the context of strikes and lockouts.1 The first is the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 87 of 1948 and the second convention of importance is the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 98 of 1949, both of which was ratified by South Africa and accordingly binds South Africa to comply with their provisions. The ILO appointed legal experts to assist the drafters of the Labour Relations Act,2 (LRA) in order to comply with these conventions. Furthermore section 3 of the LRA provides that the LRA must be interpreted in compliance with the international law obligations of South Africa. Section 27 of the Interim Constitution3 made provision for both the right to strike and the right of employers to lockout. In the proposed text of the final Constitution the recourse of the employer to lockout was not included. The text of the final Constitution was submitted to the Constitutional Court (CC) for certification in that it had to decide whether the new text of the final Constitution complied with the constitutional principles agreed to by the different political parties as the inviolable framework for the final Constitution. The CC delivered its judgment in Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa4 and concluded that the omission of a right to lockout from the final Constitution does not conflict with constitutional principles. The CC did not agree with the argument, raised by Business South Africa, based on the proposition that the right of employers to lockout is the necessary equivalent to the right of workers to strike and that therefore, in order to treat workers and employers equally, both should be recognized in the new text. The result of this judgment is that employees’ right to strike is expressly protected by section 23 of the Constitution whilst the right of employers to lockout their employees is not expressly entrenched. The employers’ right is however protected by implication through the express protection of the right to bargain collectively in terms of section 23(5) of the Constitution and section 64 of the LRA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Grigor, Marius Hugo
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Strikes and lockouts -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial , Right to strike
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10300 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1021100
- Description: Strike action by employees is globally used in matters of mutual interest in order to place pressure on employers to meet their demands although the right to strike is not contained in any of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) conventions or recommendations. Two conventions of the ILO are however relevant in the context of strikes and lockouts.1 The first is the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 87 of 1948 and the second convention of importance is the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 98 of 1949, both of which was ratified by South Africa and accordingly binds South Africa to comply with their provisions. The ILO appointed legal experts to assist the drafters of the Labour Relations Act,2 (LRA) in order to comply with these conventions. Furthermore section 3 of the LRA provides that the LRA must be interpreted in compliance with the international law obligations of South Africa. Section 27 of the Interim Constitution3 made provision for both the right to strike and the right of employers to lockout. In the proposed text of the final Constitution the recourse of the employer to lockout was not included. The text of the final Constitution was submitted to the Constitutional Court (CC) for certification in that it had to decide whether the new text of the final Constitution complied with the constitutional principles agreed to by the different political parties as the inviolable framework for the final Constitution. The CC delivered its judgment in Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa4 and concluded that the omission of a right to lockout from the final Constitution does not conflict with constitutional principles. The CC did not agree with the argument, raised by Business South Africa, based on the proposition that the right of employers to lockout is the necessary equivalent to the right of workers to strike and that therefore, in order to treat workers and employers equally, both should be recognized in the new text. The result of this judgment is that employees’ right to strike is expressly protected by section 23 of the Constitution whilst the right of employers to lockout their employees is not expressly entrenched. The employers’ right is however protected by implication through the express protection of the right to bargain collectively in terms of section 23(5) of the Constitution and section 64 of the LRA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »