https://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Legal Briefs / Other Briefs RSS ← Back
Construction|Gold
Construction|Gold
construction|gold
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

Can an employer prevent employees from joining and participating in the lawful activities of a trade union?

Close

Embed Video

Can an employer prevent employees from joining and participating in the lawful activities of a trade union?

Other briefs

31st October 2024

ARTICLE ENQUIRY      SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

This article provides insight into whether or not an employer can avert employees from joining and participating in the lawful activities of a trade union and unpacks the lessons learnt from AMCU obo Maluleke and Others v Gold Plat Recovery (Pty) Ltd (JS202/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 289 (29 July 2024).

In this case, the Respondent argued that the individual Applicants were dismissed for allegedly intimidating their colleagues into joining the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU). On the other hand, AMCU claimed that the five members were dismissed around 31 August 2016 for simply exercising their rights by joining the union and encouraging others to do the same.

Advertisement

The Labour Relations Act (LRA) grants employees key rights concerning union membership and participation. Section 4(1)(b) of the LRA guarantees all employees the right to join a trade union, subject to that union’s constitution. Additionally, Section 4(3)(a) allows union members to partake in lawful union activities. These provisions make it clear that no employer can lawfully prevent an employee from joining or engaging in union-related activities.

AMCU began recruiting employees at the Respondent’s workplace in 2015. By 2016, the union had garnered enough support to request organisational rights. However, this request was denied by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) because AMCU’s membership constituted only 23.3% of the workforce—below the required 30% threshold for such rights. In response, AMCU continued its recruitment efforts to bolster its numbers.

Advertisement

The Respondent’s hostility toward AMCU’s recruitment efforts, particularly by the five individual Applicants, stemmed from concerns over potential disruptions, including fears of a Marikana-style situation. The Respondent also believed that granting the union organisational rights would lead to unmanageable demands.

On 31 August 2016, the individual Applicants were called into the company’s boardroom one by one, accused of intimidating their colleagues, and summarily dismissed without a disciplinary hearing. Notably, the dismissal notices were pre-signed before the meetings even took place, suggesting that the decision to dismiss had been predetermined. This procedure was a clear violation of the LRA’s prescribed dismissal processes.

The Applicant union argued that the dismissals were automatically unfair under Section 187(1)(d) of the LRA. This section stipulates that dismissals are automatically unfair if they are motivated by an employee exercising a right under the LRA, such as joining or campaigning for a union. The union further contended that the Respondent’s actions violated Section 5, which protects employees from discrimination or prejudice based on union membership or participation in union activities.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court determined that the Respondent’s real motive was to dismiss the employees for their involvement in AMCU’s recruitment efforts. The dismissals were intended to discourage other employees from joining the union, a clear violation of Section 5(1), which prohibits discrimination against employees exercising rights under the LRA. Furthermore, Section 5(2)(c) reinforces that no employee should face prejudice for being a union member.

The court found that the dismissals were directly linked to the individual Applicants’ union activities, rendering them automatically unfair under Sections 5 and 187 of the LRA. Specifically, Section 187(1)(d) states that dismissals motivated by the exercise of LRA rights are automatically unfair.

As a result, the court ordered the Respondent to reinstate the individual Applicants and pay them backpay along with other associated costs.

This case reaffirms that the LRA firmly protects employees’ rights to join and participate in trade union activities. Employers cannot lawfully undermine or penalize employees for exercising these rights. Failure to adhere to these legal provisions can result in severe consequences, as evidenced by the Respondent’s liability for unfair dismissal in this case.

Written by Clydelle Govender, Legal Assistant at Consolidated Employers Organisation (CEO SA)

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options

Email Registration Success

Thank you, you have successfully subscribed to one or more of Creamer Media’s email newsletters. You should start receiving the email newsletters in due course.

Our email newsletters may land in your junk or spam folder. To prevent this, kindly add newsletters@creamermedia.co.za to your address book or safe sender list. If you experience any issues with the receipt of our email newsletters, please email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za