Important Labour Milestones 2024
1. Court Online System Goes Live for Urgent Labour Applications
On 12 August 2024, the Labour Court introduced the Court Online system, making it possible to submit urgent applications electronically. This change represents a significant step towards modernising court processes, reducing delays, and enhancing access to justice for employers and employees alike.
2. New Labour Court and Appeal Court Rules Introduced
The Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court adopted updated rules effective 17 July 2024. These new rules streamline litigation procedures, improve efficiency, and aim to make the courts more accessible and userfriendly for all parties involved.
3. National Minimum Wage Act Amendments Take Effect
Significant amendments to the National Minimum Wage Act, including changes to section 6(5), Schedule 1, and Schedule 2, came into force on 1 March 2024. These changes address wage structures, compliance obligations, and enforcement mechanisms to better protect vulnerable workers.
4. Proposed Amendments to the Employment Equity Act
Draft amendments to the Employment Equity Act propose the introduction of numerical targets across occupational levels in various economic sectors. These targets aim to promote greater diversity and equity in the workplace, while sparking debate on the practical challenges of compliance and enforcement.
5. Retirement of Labour Court Leadership
2024 marked the retirement of two prominent figures in South African labour law: Judge President Basheer Wagley of the Labour and Labour Appeal Court and Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. Their contributions to labour jurisprudence have left an indelible mark on the legal profession.
6. Increased Pension Benefits for Mineworkers
As of 1 April 2024, pension benefits under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973, saw a welcome increase. This adjustment aims to better support retired mineworkers suffering from occupational diseases.
7. Earnings Threshold Increase for Employees
On 1 April 2024, the annual earnings threshold increased from R241,110.59 to R254,371.67. This change affects the application of certain protections under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, such as overtime and severance pay calculations.
8. New Labour Court and Appeal Court Rules Introduced
The South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU) continues to oppose a contentious amendment to the Labour Relations Act. The amendment removes the obligation for employers to convene formal disciplinary hearings, potentially simplifying dismissal procedures but raising concerns about fairness and due process.
9. Paternity Leave and Discrimination Ruling
On 30 October 2024, a landmark Constitutional Court ruling classified the denial of paternity leave as a form of gender discrimination. This decision underscores the importance of equal parenting rights in South Africa's evolving labour law framework.
10. Labour Court Declares Stockvels Unlawful
In a significant ruling, the Labour Court reviewed and deemed a stockvel scheme an unlawful lending operation. This decision serves as a cautionary tale for informal financial arrangements operating outside legal frameworks.
11. Recognition of our excellence in Employment Law Our Employment Law
Department has been distinguished by David Short's recognition among the Best Lawyers in Labour and Employment Law. This award reflects our team's commitment to delivering class-leading service to our clients.
12. New Judge President for Labour and Labour Appeal Court
Judge President E Molahlehi has been appointed to lead the Labour and Labour Appeal Court. His leadership is expected to bring renewed focus and direction to these critical judicial institutions.
13. Marley Pipes Case: Rethinking Derivative Misconduct in Strikes
The Marley Pipes ruling signalled a shift in how derivative misconduct during strikes is handled. This landmark decision emphasises the need for clearer employer communication and evidence when taking action against employees who fail or refuse to blow the whistle on misconduct during strike action.
STRUCK OUT
When a union fails to give a valid strike notice
In the matter Road Accident Fund v National Union of Metalworkers of SA Others the Labour Court highlights the technical nature of strike action and the consequences which may follow where the Court is not satisfied that the preemptory requirements applicable to strikes have been satisfactorily complied with.
THE INITIAL ISSUE
The employees of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) embarked on strike action in the wake of a facilitation process in terms of Section 189 A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended.
The reason for the RAF embarking on a consultative process as contemplated in Section 189 A of the LRA was as a result of the adoption of a new business operating model in order to render it more efficient in reaction to various criticisms from attorneys as well as the public regarding poor service levels.
The issue which was discussed during the facilitation process was the placement of employees using a culture fit assessment process which in essence amounted to an organizational redesign process aimed at increasing organizational efficiencies.
The Trade Union, The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) did not agree with RAF's proposed organizational re-design, however, RAF nevertheless proceeded to place employees in the new organizational structure which had been adopted.
NUMSA claimed that RAF had unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of its employees who were its members by placing them in re-designed jobs within the new structure and declared a dispute as contemplated in Section 64 (4) of the LRA relating to a unilateral amendment to terms and conditions of employment.
The dispute was conciliated by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), however, the dispute remained unresolved.
DEFECTIVE NOTICE
After conciliation failed, NUMSA then issued a notice to RAF advising that its members would be embarking on strike action.
RAF adopted the view that the strike notice was defective for a number of reasons, which included the fact that the strike notice issued by NUMSA failed to state what demands NUMSA were pursuing, which if acceded to by RAF, would render the strike unnecessary. It is necessary to point out that the LRA contains no provisions prescribing what information should be included in a strike notice and the Court therefore had to determine what information it believed should be contained in a strike notice drawing from previous decided cases.
The RAF promptly approached the Labour Court for urgent interim relief on the basis that it contended that the defects in the strike notice rendered the strike unprotected and sought to interdict the strike.
"A strike notice must be clear and must describe the demand which formed the basis of the intended strike action in sufficient detail in order to enable the employer to decide whether it wishes to accede to such demand to avert the strike."
The Labour Court granted an interim interdict whereby the strike was interdicted pending NUMSA showing cause why the interdict should not be made final.
NUMSA, however, opposed the RAF's attempts to make the interdict final and attempted to defend the validity of its strike notice.
The Labour Court, after considering NUMSA's representations, held that the strike notice given by it was defective in that no particularity was given of the demand it was pursuing. The Court rejected NUMSA's contention that as it had prior to serving the strike notice, set out its demands in a press release with the effect that RAF was patently aware of the demands it would be pursuing through the intended strike action. The Court held that NUMSA could not rely on the press release which itself was not a model of clarity, as it also referred to demands which were not part of the referral of the dispute to conciliation, such as the removal of RAF's Chief Executive Officer Collins Letsoalo as a result of continuous mismanagement of the entity by him.
The Court held that the strike notice should inform an employer of what demands the employees are pursuing through strike action in order for it to discern what action is required by it to avoid the strike.
The Court went on to find that the defective nature of the strike notice given by NUMSA rendered the strike unprotected and it could not be relied upon. The strike was accordingly interdicted solely on such basis.
The Court, however, intimated that the strike could regain its protected status if a fresh notice containing all the required information was issued.
KEY TAKE AWAYS
The Labour Court has developed strike jurisprudence by imposing new criteria for strike notices which would also apply to notices given by employers intending to embark on a lock out.
A strike notice must be clear and must describe the demand which formed the basis of the intended strike action in sufficient detail in order to enable the employer to decide whether it wishes to accede to such demand to avert the strike. Where strike notices are not clear, employees will be in a position to interdict such strikes, which may well cause the employees to lose their appetite for the strike.
Where an employer objects to a strike notice, employees should immediately take steps to remedy the claimed defects in the strike notice to avoid the strike being regarded as unprotected, as this could have dire consequences for the striking employees who could face consequence management as a result of them embarking on an unprotected strike.
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
