ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Acting Director of the Rhodes University Law Clinic, Rhodes University
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 28 Issue 3, 2016, p. 461 – 479
None
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Professor, Faculty of Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 28 Issue 3, 2016, p. 436 – 460
Frequent, protracted and violent strikes in South Africa are seen as a symptom of the failure of the country’s collective bargaining system. The proposed 2012 amendments to the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which aimed at preventing high strike levels and unacceptable behaviour during strikes, included a compulsory strike ballot and compulsory interest arbitration. These proposals were not included in the final version of the amended LRA because of opposition by the trade union federation Cosatu. This article endeavours to answer the question whether a ban on replacement labour could be conducive to peaceful industrial relations. Studies of the Canadian system indicated that there is no clear correlation between a ban on replacement labour and shorter and less frequent strikes, but there is strong evidence that a ban on replacement labour is conducive to generating less violent behaviour. In the light of the constitutional guarantee of the right to strike and the fact that there is clear evidence that replacement labour exacerbates violence during strikes, it is recommended that a ban be placed on replacement labour in South Africa.
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, UNISA
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 28 Issue 3, 2016, p. 399 – 398
None
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 28 Issue 3, 2016, p. 375 – 398
Whereas the Labour Relations Act was flexible enough to protect even employees that would not qualify as such at common law, nonstandard employees were afforded minimal protection by the labour statutes. They faced unfair labour practices and unfair dismissals yet they did not have recourse to the protection of the law. On the other hand, employers changed the face of the labour market and increasingly resorted to the use of non-standard employees. Because of the injustices and poor working conditions that non-standard employees faced, unions called for an outright ban of non-standard employment contracts, particularly temporary employment services. The legislature responded by amending section 198 of the Labour Relations Act in 2014 to regulate non-standard employment relationships. Focusing solely on temporary employment services and fixed-term contracts, this article seeks to determine whether the legislature has obtained a balance between the needs of employers to use atypical employment contracts and the call for unions to ban this form of employment relationship. The analysis of section 198 reflects that while the Labour Relations Amendment Act of 2014 has duly maintained temporary flexibility by allowing employers to use non-standards employees, it also afforded protection to the employees in question thereby striking the required equilibrium. However, the article concludes by noting the uncertainties that are created by the Amendment Act regarding the relationship between employees and TES/client.
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, College of Law, University of South Africa
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 28 Issue 2, 2016, p. 360 – 373
None
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Pretoria
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 28 Issue 2, 2016, p. 346 – 359
None