CCMA victory for non-unionised workers

by Labour law

After a lengthy court battle in the Johannesburg Labour Court with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and the Minister of Labour, the Casual Workers Advice Office (CWAO) and the Black Sash have scored a victory in getting representation to non-unionised workers at the CCMA.

The application, filed earlier this year, challenged rule 25 of the CCMA. The rule only allowed office bearers, officials or members of a registered trade union or legal representatives to represent workers in arbitration proceedings at the CCMA. Directors of companies, employees of companies and members of close corporations could also act as representatives of certain parties.

This meant that non-unionised workers who did not have officials to represent them and could not afford legal fees did not have access to arbitration at the CCMA..

As the CWAO pointed out in court papers, only 27% of employees are unionised and afforded avenues to representation by the CCMA rules. As a result, many non-unionised workers approach community advice offices such as the CWAO for legal advice. Many are farm and domestic workers, often unfairly dismissed or facing unfair labour practices which should be brought before the CCMA.

Parliament has been working to protect fixed-term and part-time workers as well as those employed through labour brokers by passing amendments to the Labour Relations Act (LRA). These amendments provide vulnerable workers with rights equivalent to permanent employees. However, employers have been slow to realise these rights which has given rise to many disputes.

The CWAO assisted more than 6,500 workers with disputes about these amendments. Many of these disputes concerned hundreds of workers of a single employer, subjected to the same unfair working conditions.

Under the previous interpretation of rule 25, most non-unionised workers were essentially left to fend for themselves unless they could afford expensive legal representation. The nature of the complaints being filed would have made justice accessible if the workers had been permitted to pool their resources and collectively obtain representation. However, due to the rule, large numbers of claimants had to try to obtain representation individually and the increasing flood of claims made finding pro bono assistance increasingly difficult.

The CWAO, the Black Sash and Maokeng Advice & Resource Centre then filed an application, challenging rule 25.  The applicants requested that the court correct the order to allow people before the CCMA to be represented by registered community advice offices, fellow-employees, fellow-parties to disputes as well as any other person if procedurally fair.

The parties reached a settlement of court. The court confirmed that a proper interpretation of rule 25 allows a commission to authorise representation of any party by another person, if good cause is shown.

In addition, the CCMA was ordered to provide guidance on how the commissioner’s discretion ought to be exercised. This guidance must include specific provisions for representation by community advice offices.

The CCMA has complied with this. It has filed what is called a practice directive that says a commissioner may depart from the rules if this departure is necessary to achieve the objectives of the LRA including condoning non-compliance with rule 25.

As the practice directive stands, if a person other than those listed in rule 25 wishes to be a representative, the party seeking the representation must make an application to the commissioner. This application must comply with the formal requirements outlined in the CCMA rules including giving the other parties notice and being supported by an affidavit.

The practice directive also says that employees do not have an automatic right to be represented by community advice offices. Instead, the employee will need to show good cause to justify being represented by the office. The directive mentions that this representation may be appropriate in “complex matters”.

These additional requirements are potentially unfair, particularly since unionised workers are automatically granted the right to be represented by their union office bearers and members. The fact that the directive imposes additional requirements on non-unionised workers seems to be in conflict with the initial statement that the commissioners should favour substance over form.

However, the practice directive is not set in stone. The court order allows for any party to re-enrol the matter for further applications or hearings including an application challenging the directive. What remains to be seen is whether the practice directive will be left unchanged.

The CWOA has confirmed that it is negotiating portions of the practice directive with the CCMA.

By Safura Abdool Karim

Article first published by GroundUp

Picture: Ashraf Hendricks

Disclaimer

These articles are for general information and should not be used as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

Silver Bullet Tactics in custody disputes

In South Africa, the phenomenon of "Silver Bullet" tactics in custody disputes—where one parent makes false or exaggerated claims against the other to limit their access to children—presents unique challenges. The South African legal framework, particularly in family...

Pretoria High Court Finds Parts of The Divorce Act to be Potentially Unconstitutional

The Pretoria High Court has made a ruling which found certain parts of the Divorce Act, Act 70 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Divorce Act”) to be unconstitutional. This article will discuss this landmark ruling and indicate the consequences it might have for...

A Courageous Fight for Joint Custody and Legislative Change

Although, having had the honour of being part of the legal team that was nominated into the final round for the Princess of Asturias Award in the “concord” category in 2019, we were not the recipients of the award. The Princess of Asturias Foundation convenes the...

COVID-19 Retrenchments and what to expect in simple terms

At the end of March 2020, the President of South Africa announced the nationwide lockdown, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This announcement had a severe negative impact on South Africa’s economy and accordingly also on all businesses and employers in...

Regulations unmasked

In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act an offence is stated as an act that is punishable by law. The Minister of Justice stated that not wearing a mask is a criminal offence in terms of the Disaster Management Act. The onus however does not rest on individuals to wear...

Criminal offenses under COVID-19

In the latest Regulations that was issued under the Disaster Management Act the most important regulation that was added is the one banning the transportation of liquor at all until the 30th of April 2020. The only liquor that can be transported is alcohol that is...

Between two parents – movement restrictions of children relaxed

Yesterday, the 7th of April 2020, the Minister of Social Development, Lindiwe Zulu amended her directions that she had previously given with regard to the movement of children between parents. If parents are the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights as...

COVID-19 & Family Movement

Since the previous notes appeared on this website with regards to access to minor children the Minister made it clear that, despite what the order with regards to the custody of children determines, the children has to stay with the parent that they are with. This...

COVID-19 & Civil Obedience

Civil disobedience forms part of the DNA of South African citizens. That is how the struggle of our democracy started. We have now come to a point where we will have to change our attitude in this regard. The National Disaster and the Regulations imposed through two...

COVID-19 lockdown 2020

In terms of Section 27 of the Disaster Management Act, a national disaster was declared by the President. The Disaster Management Act provides for a national disaster to be declared if the existing legislation does not provide for the Government to deal effectively...