Section 20 of the LRA, which deals with organizational rights in collective agreements, states that “nothing in this Part (Part A of Chapter 3) precludes the conclusion of a collective agreement governing organizational rights.” At the same time, the door was opened and Mrs. Gordon appeared on the threshold with a gentleman behind her. In December 2019, the USTR set the supply thresholds that will apply from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Schettino also attempted to reach a plea bargaining agreement, which was ultimately rejected by the Grosseto court. The deal has three main points, all of which Iran has fulfilled, according to the IAEA. Ronald Reagan approved the deal and the USTR reviewed Korean practices until the end of his term. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is required by Executive Order 12260 to set the thresholds in U.S. dollars for the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and Free Trade Agreements. The United States of America`s obligations under these agreements apply to covered markets that are valued at or above the specified thresholds in U.S. dollars. The thresholds are adjusted every two years. PopCRU argued, first, that a collective agreement under section 18 was indeed binding on all parties and other workers and unions that are not parties to the threshold agreement within the meaning of section 23 of the LRA.
Therefore, an employer cannot enter into another collective agreement with a minority union that confers on that union rights governed by a collective agreement under section 18. Article 18(1), which deals with the right to set thresholds of representativeness, provides: `An employer and a registered trade union whose members are the majority of the workers employed by that employer in an establishment, or the parties to a collective bargaining committee, may conclude a collective agreement setting a threshold of representativeness necessary for one or more of the organisational rights referred to in Article 12. is; 13 and 15″. SACOSWU, for its part, asserted that a collective agreement under section 20 prevails over a collective agreement under section 18 because section 20 states that “nothing” in that part of the LRA prevents a minority union from entering into a collective agreement with the employer. Article 23, which POPCRU argues gives binding effect to the threshold agreement, falls within the scope of another part of the LRA. SACOSWU further argued that the POPCRU case was at issue because the threshold agreement on which POPCRU`s case was based was replaced by a subsequent agreement. Based on this, popcru referred the matter to the General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council (VSSSP) for arbitration, but the dispute was not resolved. The dispute was then arbitrated. The arbitrator found that the collective agreement between SACOSWU and DCS was valid. PopCRU appealed to the Labour Court, which ruled in its favour that a collective agreement governing the issue of organisational rights would prevail over any other legal provision on organisational rights.
SACOSWU then appealed to the Labour Court of Appeal (LAC) and was successful. LAC concluded that a threshold agreement under section 18 establishes a minimum threshold for the automatic acquisition of rights and does not constitute an obstacle to minority unions receiving rights through their own collective bargaining. In November 2014, this agreement was extended by four months, with some additional restrictions for Iran. poCRU`s appeal to ConCourt follows a decision by the Court of Labour Appeal finding that DCS was entitled to enter into an agreement to grant organizational rights within the meaning of Articles 12 (Union Access to the Workplace), 13 (Deduction of Union Dues or Levies) and 15 (Permit for Trade Union Activities) of the LRA to the South African Correctional Services Workers` Union (SACOSWU). a minority union. These rights were the subject of a collective agreement under article 18 para. 1, which set a membership threshold for the acquisition of these rights. It was common ground that the number of sacoswu members was below that threshold. In a majority judgment on the essential dispute (apart from the point at issue), it was held that it would be in the interests of justice to interpret the meaning of Articles 18 and 20, since such an interpretation may, in due course, still have an impact on disputes arising from the same point of law, but between other different parties. Ultimately, conCourt concluded that POPCRU`s interpretation of section 18 was erroneous because it would effectively deprive minority unions of the right to collective bargaining.
ConCourt argued that this right is granted to every union by the Constitution, whether it is a minority or majority union. It is not surprising, according to ConCourt, that section 18 does not prohibit collective bargaining between an employer and a minority union if there is a collective agreement between that employer and the majority union. Such a prohibition would be contrary to the Constitution and international law. In fact, the ConCourt ruled that an agreement to restrict the right to collective bargaining would be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid if it were not a restriction that met the requirements of section 36 of our Constitution. In the midst of these meditations, the gate of the dungeon opened and Santa Cruz himself appeared on the threshold. In a separate decision by Associate Chief Justice Zondo and based on other reasoning, it was pointed out that a union does not need the consent of the employer to acquire legal organizational rights. It is sufficient that he meets the requirements of the LRA to sufficiently represent the employer`s employees in a particular workplace […].
