Sarpbac Main Collective Agreement 2019

Widget not in any sidebars

[49] The parties agreed that no decision should be made. 3.8. The applicant and the third to five respondents may, by mutual agreement between them, amend any time frame set out in these directives. An agreement is considered to be reached if the applicant and the majority of the three to five respondents have agreed. 4.2. Article 30, which contains a status quo clause. It provides that all material conditions of employment and benefits in effect at the time of the McA`s entry into force and not regulated by the McA remain in effect and remain effective. These include salaries and benefits that are higher or better than those provided by the McA. [3] The parties to the bargaining council, including the employers` organization and the third to fifth respondents, collectively negotiate at the centralized level.

They entered into a main collective agreement (MCA) for the period from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020. The exemption procedure is in Schedule “C” of the McA. [12] The Court is therefore faced with two opposing questions of mouth with respect to jurisdiction. Fortunately, there is no need to analyze the conflicting principles in the NUMSA and Silver and Zietsman cases. This is because the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) dealt with this issue in the case of Trafford Trading (Pty) Ltd v. National Bargaining Council for the Leather Industry of South Africa. In this case, the applicant had asked the respondent to benefit from the exemption from its collective agreement. The applicant did not succeed in both the respondent and the appeals proceeding. It then asked the Court to reconsider and set aside the decision of the emergency body. It failed again and then appealed to the LAC. With respect to the issue of jurisdiction, the LAC stated: [13] At Trafford, the complainant was not a member of a contracting party to the collective agreement and the applicant in this matter is a member of a contracting party to the collective agreement. Does it make a difference? I don`t think so.

Although s32 (3) (e) (i) deals specifically with a competitor, the exceptional appeal office created in the sense of s32 (3)e) was required to submit complaints from parties and non-parties, both at Trafford and in this area. There is no indication in the LAC`s explanatory statement that it intends to distinguish between parties and non-parties to a bargaining council when deciding whether an exceptional redress organization performed an LRA function, and there is no reason to do so. [8] Is the Court of Justice competent to consider a collective agreement decision made under a collective agreement within a bargaining council? This issue was not disinherited by Demdait, as the parties agreed that section 158 (1) g) of the LRA was applicable, but this circumstance does not exempt the Court from the obligation to ascertain whether it is competent in a case. [21] The decision that was the subject of the request for reconsideration is the decision that has been made. It can be said that the second respondent was identified, among other things, under section 32, paragraph 3, of the Act. I say this because section 32, paragraph 3, point (e), provides that a collective agreement cannot be renewed in the subsections (2), unless the Minister is satisfied that the collective agreement provides, among other things, that an independent body hears, as soon as possible, any recourse and rules against the rejection by the Bargaining Council of a non-party request to the provisions of the collective agreement; and the withdrawal of such a waiver by the Negotiating Council.