Despite losing a bid to have the Labour Relations Act amended, the Free Market Foundation has welcomed the clarification provided by the Gauteng high court ruling on the matter.
The three-year-long court battle was brought against ministers of labour and justice and constitutional development as well as 47 bargaining councils and challenged section 32 of the Labour Relations Act.
The section of the act allows collective agreements reached in bargaining councils by unions and employers to be extended to parties who were not party to the negotiations if they were in the same sector.
The foundation regarded this as unconstitutional as it viewed it as allowing unions to collude with big companies at the expense of smaller companies.
The court dismissed the application in its entirety on Wednesday, adding that decisions of collective bargaining councils could be reviewed through the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act or on rationality grounds.
"The contention of the FMF that the legislative scheme for the extension of bargaining council collective agreements is unconstitutional because of the absence of the state and judicial control is wrong," reads the court ruling.
"Cosatu and Numsa and the minister are correct in their submissions that the constraints and judicial supervision provided in the LRA, read with the act or the constitutional principle of legality, give adequate expression to the constitutional right to administrative justice and may prove more protective that the remedy sought by the FMF."
FMF executive director Leon Louw said certain parts of the section were inconsistent with the rule of law provision in section one of the constitution as it gave "unfettered" power to bargaining councils to legislate terms and conditions of employment for an entire sector.
He said while the foundation was happy with the clarity given by the court about alternative recourse, it was considering approaching the Supreme Court of Appeals to challenge the law.
Numsa applauded the court ruling, saying if the FMF had succeeded, collective bargaining agreements would become meaningless pieces of paper, which could be implemented voluntarily if not simply ignored by employers.
"Even those employers who signed would [could] renege on the agreements, as their competitors cut their labour costs below the rate agreed by the council," Numsa spokesman Patrick Craven said.
Court rejects labour act amendments
Despite losing a bid to have the Labour Relations Act amended, the Free Market Foundation has welcomed the clarification provided by the Gauteng high court ruling on the matter.
The three-year-long court battle was brought against ministers of labour and justice and constitutional development as well as 47 bargaining councils and challenged section 32 of the Labour Relations Act.
The section of the act allows collective agreements reached in bargaining councils by unions and employers to be extended to parties who were not party to the negotiations if they were in the same sector.
The foundation regarded this as unconstitutional as it viewed it as allowing unions to collude with big companies at the expense of smaller companies.
The court dismissed the application in its entirety on Wednesday, adding that decisions of collective bargaining councils could be reviewed through the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act or on rationality grounds.
"The contention of the FMF that the legislative scheme for the extension of bargaining council collective agreements is unconstitutional because of the absence of the state and judicial control is wrong," reads the court ruling.
"Cosatu and Numsa and the minister are correct in their submissions that the constraints and judicial supervision provided in the LRA, read with the act or the constitutional principle of legality, give adequate expression to the constitutional right to administrative justice and may prove more protective that the remedy sought by the FMF."
FMF executive director Leon Louw said certain parts of the section were inconsistent with the rule of law provision in section one of the constitution as it gave "unfettered" power to bargaining councils to legislate terms and conditions of employment for an entire sector.
He said while the foundation was happy with the clarity given by the court about alternative recourse, it was considering approaching the Supreme Court of Appeals to challenge the law.
Numsa applauded the court ruling, saying if the FMF had succeeded, collective bargaining agreements would become meaningless pieces of paper, which could be implemented voluntarily if not simply ignored by employers.
"Even those employers who signed would [could] renege on the agreements, as their competitors cut their labour costs below the rate agreed by the council," Numsa spokesman Patrick Craven said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos