Unions want court to force state to comply with wage deal

Public sector unions have asked the labour appeal court to force the government to implement the last year of its three-year salary increase agreement between the parties, amounting to R37.8bn.

The deal was signed at the bargaining council in 2017.

The government complied with the first two years of the agreement but not the third year, which began in April 2020.

When the unions approached the court to force compliance, the minister of finance launched a counter-application before the labour appeal court, which sat as a court of instance on Wednesday.

The minister sought an order declaring the third year of the agreement invalid.

The finance minister relies on, among other things, section 79 of the public service regulations, which states that on matters with fiscal implications national treasury must provide a written commitment to provide additional funds.

In this case, the minister says, he has not agreed to provide additional funds, thus rendering the agreement invalid.

Ngwako Maenetje, counsel for unions Popcru, Denosa and Sadtu, said the state was obliged to approach a court to declare the collective agreement invalid and to set it aside.

He said the state could not simply ignore the collective agreement and wait for enforcement proceedings before launching its counter-application.

He said the collective agreement was binding on the state.

Maenetje added that there was substantial compliance with public sector regulation 79 because the ministers, including the finance minister, met as the cabinet to consider and approve the wage agreement. Nehawu s legal counsel,

’

William Mokhare, said the only first problem the government mentioned was that it did not have money.

He suggested the state should have sat down with the unions to find a way of implementing the agreement in phases.

However, Jeremy Gauntlett, for the minister of finance, said that, at its narrowest, the case was about whether the public service regulations were complied with.

Gauntlett said regulation 79 designated a functionary who needed to approve further funding and this was the treasury.

The correct functionary did not exercise the power. There can never be compliance if power is not exercised by the right entity.

Regulation 79 recognises the finance minister. This is not technical,” he said.

Tim Bruinders, for the minister of public service & administration, said the minister had signed the agreement on the basis that it would not exceed the fiscal envelope of R110bn.

He said the minister sought to bring the cost of agreement below the envelope by, among other measures, reducing the headcount.

The court reserved judgment.