Gold producers welcome judgment
ConCourt dismisses challenge to collective agreement
GOLD producers have welcomed a Constitutional Court judgment that dismissed a challenge by the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) to a collective agreement between the Chamber of Mines and majority trade unions concluded in 2013.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle of “majoritarianism” in the labour space that saw the agreement reached between employers and the majority trade unions in the sector extended to all parties, including minority unions.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Chamber of Mines – representing AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony and Sibanye Gold – said the judgment “brings final certainty about the binding nature” of the agreement it reached with unions during centralised bargaining in 2013.
Amcu, which was a majority union in certain individual mines, took the chamber to court over whether a collective agreement with unions, which held the overall majority, could be extended to bind its own members from going on strike.
The Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday that the agreement had been validly extended to Amcu members and the statutory provisions that enabled its extension were constitutionally compliant. The union’s appeal was dismissed with costs. Amcu president Joseph Mathunjwa said the union leadership was studying the judgment and would comment later.
The collective agreement was extended to Amcu in terms of section 23 of the Labour Relations Act, which states that a collective agreement binds even employees who are not members of the unions that are party to the agreement.
Amcu was unhappy with the agreement and wanted to go on strike, but the chamber successfully applied to the Labour Court to interdict the strike action.
Amcu unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the Labour Appeals Court.
The union then approached the Constitutional Court on the matter.
It was granted leave to approach the court, but its appeal was dismissed in a unanimous judgment on Tuesday.
The court rejected Amcu’s assertion that the earlier court rulings had impinged on its constitutional right to strike and that the principle of majoritarianism limited its rights.
It held that the infringement of the right to strike in this case was “reasonable and justifiable based on the principle of majoritarianism”.
Majoritarianism, the judgment read, was internationally held to be beneficial to orderly collective bargaining.
“The Labour Relations Act, though premised on majoritarianism, does not make it an implement of oppression,” the judgment, which was penned by Judge Edwin Cameron, read.
“It does not entirely suppress minority unions. Its provisions give ample scope for minority unions to organise within the workforce – and to canvass support to challenge the hegemony of established unions.
“It is precisely because the [act] affords Amcu these rights that Amcu, as an insurgent force in the established union field, was able to increase its membership, its strength and its influence as powerfully as it has.”
Amcu also took aim at the act in its challenge, saying it allowed private actors – referring to the gold producers – to exercise public power “arbitrarily”. However, the court rejected this argument. — BDLive