Agency Shop Agreement In South Africa

The labour tribunal agrees that an agency enterprise agreement cannot be challenged without challenging LRA s25. It is clear that the CCMA does not have the power to decide the legality or validity of agency agreements. BECSA intended to deduct, as of November 2009, agency fees of 1% of the base salaries of all BECSA employees in the beCSA classes who are not members of NUM. The CCMA has jurisdiction only to interpret and enforce a valid collective agreement (including a boutique agency contract) with respect to S24 (6) of the LRA (see, to the extent that nUMSA et al. v Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Ltd [2002] 1 BLLR 13 (LAC) en Rn. [21] and Annandale Building Materials (Pty) Ltd t/a Altocrete Brickworks and Another v NUM [2002] 11 BLLR 1058 (LC) at Randnr. [40]) .b) by members of an employer organization in a sector and territory subject to the agency agreement. (a) Is the CCMA competent to decide on the legality or validity of an agency contract? b) In the above scenario, if it is determined that the CCMA is not competent, on what basis should it be determined that the labour tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the legality or validity of an agencyshop contract? (c) Is it the jurisdiction of an applicant to challenge a boutique agency agreement in violation of the Rights Act, without challenging as unconstitutional the LRA`s authorization, that is, s25? The second assertion (provided that the agency contract is lawful and otherwise enforceable) relates to the constitutionality of the agency shop contract. In essence, it is argued that the boutique agency agreement constitutes an unacceptable violation of the rights to freedom of association and fair working practices set out in clauses 18 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Bulletin of Rights. In July 2009, BECSA and NUM entered into an agency agreement (the so-called “agreement”). The agreement provides for the deduction of employee agency fees “within grades B and C at a BECSA workplace.” The agreement also provides that becsA is a single entity and the degree of representation for the granting of office rights (a clear majority) is determined by reference to the becsa company as a whole. The applicants are seeking an order declaring the agency purchase agreement illegal and invalid and a request for omission that prevented the respondents from implementing the agency agreement.

Taking into account the applicants` amended application, it is clear that the applicants declare an order motivating the agency contract (which annuls the deduction of an agency tax on the applicants` salaries by the applicants` members illegally) and that all funds illegally withdrawn by members interested in the applicants will be reimbursed. As noted above, the applicants argue that the Agency-Shop agreement is unconstitutional. It is therefore questionable where the jurisdiction of this court may be to determine the applicants` first application concerning the validity and/or legality of the agency contract. The first grievance relates to a violation of the LRA s25. The applicant parties argue that agency operating agreements can only be lawful according to LRA s25 if the union enjoys majority support in the workplace where the agreement is considered binding. Within BECSA, such support must be determined by employees in each of the eight jobs and, to that end, treated separately and discreetly. If you are not sure if your job is subject to an agency contract, you can contact your advice or our offices directly for additional support.

Write a Comment