The rights of millions of SA workers will be debated on Tuesday at the Constitutional Court, where the National Union of Metalworkers (Numsa) will argue that workers can be represented even by unions that normally represent a different sector.
If the court agrees with Numsa, millions of workers will benefit from a broader range of unions to assist in unfair dismissal disputes.
In 2017, Afgri Animal Feeds, an agricultural manufacturer with operations around SA, refused to grant Numsa workplace organisational rights. Such rights, if granted, would have allowed Numsa to participate in collective bargaining between workers and Afgri.
Aggrieved by Afgri’s refusal, more than 100 of its workers went on a two-day strike in 2017. Of these workers, 12 were dismissed but the workers felt this was wrong. Numsa tried referring the unfair dismissal dispute to the labour court.
However, before the issue of whether Afgri was right to fire the workers could be heard, Afgri argued Numsa could not bring this matter at all. Numsa had no standing to represent these workers, Afgri argued, because they were from the animal feed manufacturing sector. Numsa’s constitution said it represents metalworkers and those from related sectors, and not animal feed manufacturing.
Afgri said the labour court should dismiss the entire case. In 2021, the labour court agreed. Numsa then appealed against this to the labour appeal court.
In 2022, the labour appeal court overturned the previous court’s findings in favour of Numsa. The labour appeal court held that Numsa became involved in terms of an unfair dismissal claim. It was not trying to engage in collective bargaining, where its expertise and knowledge of the particular industry was relevant. Afgri’s concerns were misplaced.
Further, whatever the relationship was between Numsa and members was of no concern to Afgri, since Numsa was a voluntary association and could administer its own membership.
Aggrieved by this finding, Afgri appealed to the Constitutional Court and will, on Tuesday, argue to overturn the labour appeal court’s findings.
The legal provisions regulating unions “do not provide that a union has legal standing to represent nonmembers in disputes before the [labour court]”, Afgri argues in its heads of argument. “Numsa cannot decide, contrary to its constitution, who may join it.” Furthermore, Numsa cannot “choose” to represent nonmembers.
Reading the law otherwise “perverts” the rules and would upend how unions operate.
Afgri says it is not limiting workers’ rights, because either workers can join a union that includes them, or Numsa should “amend its constitutional scope to include employees in animal feeds manufacturing”. Doing otherwise would make nonsense of the procedural rules that regulate how unions can operate.
But, Numsa says this is a “narrow and restrictive” reading of labour laws that should be apply broadly to give effect to workers’ rights. In its heads of argument, Numsa says that without union representation, there remains an “imbalance of power” between workers and employers.
Further, Numsa says that Afgri’s reading of the law is wrong: Numsa was not in the labour courts on “behalf” of the 12 workers, but was cited as an interested party, since the workers themselves had legal representation.
Numsa said while it is correct that its constitution limits its scope to metalworkers, that is the case in matters of collective bargaining. Nothing in law prevents it from being part of unfair dismissal cases.
“Unfair dismissal dispute[s],” Numsa argues, “are not in any way related to a specific industry.” It repeated the point that Afgri has no business being concerned with how Numsa manages its own affairs with members.
There is also the danger that Afgri’s view would allow any employer to challenge a worker by relying on a union’s constitution. This “would be manifestly unfair” to workers’ rights.
Labour laws must be read broadly, given the importance of workers’ rights. Numsa says this is in keeping with SA’s history of labour law.
The matter will be heard on Tuesday morning at the Constitutional Court.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.