CWAO IN THE NEWS

The Registrar of Labour Relations is taking the SWF to the Labour Appeal Court tomorrow to appeal against a July 2023 ruling by the Labour Court that the Registrar must register SWF as a union immediately.The Registrar has insisted on defying the court and proceeding with an appeal that he has no chance of winning, at enormous expense to the public who are paying for the Registrar's expensive legal team. The Registrar has spent hundreds of thousands of rands on different cases. He seems hellbent on taking the matter all the way to the Constitutional Court, where he will again lose because workers have the Constitutional right to join and form unions of their choice.

The Labour Appeal Court date came up on 15 August this year but the judges suggested mediation between SWF and Registrar, which failed.

The case is being heard on 21 November 2024 virtually. We expect the hearing to start at 10am.

Media are also welcome to come to the SWF gathering to watch the court case at 96 Knox St, Germiston, Johannesburg, 1401.

Background:

The SWF has been trying for the past 38 months to register as the trade union that it is. The SWF first applied to be registered as a union in September 2021. In June 2022, the Registrar rejected the SWF's application to register for reasons that have no validity in law, based purely on his own insistence that SWF did not look like a traditional trade union.

The SWF challenged this in the Labour Court and won the case in June 2023, with judge van Niekerk ruling that the Registrar must register SWF within 14 days. The Registrar then brought a fruitless and wasteful application for leave to appeal this ruling, which he again lost in August 2023. He then petitioned the Labour Appeal Court directly and it is this case that will be heard tomorrow.

The Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) clearly only wants to protect politically connected people who own labour broking companies and the unscrupulous employers who hire workers as "casuals" through labour brokers. This is why they do not want to register a union that primarily organises casual workers.

These casual workers are often paid rates below the minimum wage, and sometimes only get one day a week of work. They are among the layer of workers most in need of a trade union, but the country's trade unions have largely refused to organise them because they don't earn stable wages and are not able to pay high union membership fees.

It is only the SWF that has organised these workers but many employers have been refusing to negotiate with the SWF because it is not a registered trade union - and this is because the DEL is spending public money on trying to delay the SWF's registration.

The DEL has argued in court that the SWF is not a real union because it is worker-controlled. This argument was rejected by the Labour Court on several comprehensive grounds. A reminder of the key points in Labour Court judge Andre van Niekerk's ruling:

* The Registrar of Labour Relations was wrong to assert that section 95 of the LRA is so restrictive that it limits workers to joining only unions of a certain type (those unions that do not elect rotating steering committees but only elect a tiny group of leaders who remain in leadership positions for three years). Judge van Niekerk pointed out that the courts have already ruled that the rights of workers to freely associate "must be interpreted generously".

* The Registrar had insisted that SWF’s constitution does not comply with s95 of the LRA, because it does not establish the office of a Secretary. The Court held that this was incorrect: SWF’s constitution does indeed establish the office of a Secretary. Insofar as the Registrar contended that a Secretary must be a permanent General Secretary who manages the union’s administration (instead of a rotating role, elected at each Meeting), the Court held that the SWF constitution provided for the Standing Committee to administer the union, subject to the overall direction and control of Meetings. SWF “is entitled to make that choice”.

* The Registrar had complained that the LRA treats unions equally and does not make provision for ‘traditional’ or ‘new’ forms. The Court agreed that all unions are treated equally, but this does not mean that the Registrar is entitled to refuse to register a union that has chosen to adopt organisational structures which do not replicate those of the unions which are currently registered.

* The Registrar claimed that the Court had measured the union’s freedom of association rights against the SA Constitution instead of the LRA, but the Court held that here again he was wrong: Section 8 of the LRA gives full expression to the constitutional rights to freedom of association.

Important to note:

The SWF has consciously resolved not to have positions such as general secretary, president, and deputy president where there is a lot of power concentrated in a small group. Instead, it has a Standing Committee which takes minutes of all meetings, keeps an attendance register, and controls the collection and spending of membership fees.

Each meeting elects a different chairperson and a secretary, at least one of whom must be a woman. This ensures that everyone gets a chance to develop skills in meeting procedures. It also prevents domination by any particular workplace or grouping, and minimises the likelihood of corruption.

For comment, please call:
SWF - Standing Committee members - Precious Moyo 084 535 1535 or 076 156 3595
Siza Mlambo 076 156 3595
CWAO – John Appollis (Co-coordinator) on 071 576 9930
CWAO - Edgar Mokgola (Organiser) on 063 6945238

Category: PRESS RELEASE | DISPUTES