Manual Workers challenges withdrawal of recognition by BURS
Mpho Mokwape | Thursday January 19, 2017 16:23
The Union that was on Tuesday afternoon before Court of Appeal (CoA) Justice Monametsi Gaongalelwe appealing judgement made by the Industrial Court end of 2016, said without the recognition, members are the ones who would suffer the most as the employer can change the terms of employment anytime.
The Industrial Court had dismissed the urgency of the matter in which the union was challenging the decision by BURS to withdraw its recognition as a bargaining party at the workplace.
The Union through attorney Mboki Chilisa argued that without the Union members are limited in the powers and that their substantial rights are taken away from them, which includes bargaining.
He explained that without recognition the Union is as good as dead and that it denies members the right to be represented collectively. “The withdrawal should not be taken lightly, especially when it comes to a big employer as BURS. It affects the rights of almost 380 employees. Without recognition, the employer will be at large to unilaterally implement changes to terms and conditions of employment,” he said.
Chilisa explained that the appeal was brought on urgency after all avenues were exhausted to engage with the Commissioner of Labour since he was the one who gave the BURS the go-ahead to withdraw the Union.
He said the court a quo erred in dismissing the urgency of the application as it failed to appreciate that unions derive their strength from their membership and that they mainly function within the realm of the workplace.
That means that once recognition is withdrawn, the Union is unable to offer its primary service to its members, which is to bargain on their behalf better terms of conditions of employment.
Now the Union is seeking from the CoA an order declaring that the dispute was urgent and also an order declaring that unless the Industrial Court authorises the withdrawal of recognition, the recognition of the Union by BURS management shall remain binding and of full force and effect.
In case the court does not find in favour of the Union, Chilisa requested that they be given leave to appeal instead of being directed back to the court a quo to sought leave there.
Countering the appeal, BURS attorney Kealeboga Tshane said the matter was not worthy to be adjudicated on by the CoA on an expedited basis and the issue of urgency should be disturbed.
He explained that effect of the court a quo’s ruling was not final and dispositive of the dispute at hand.
“The Union knew for a long time about this matter and they did not act, the urgency is self-created. There was also adequate notice of intention to withdraw the applicant’s recognition at the workplace given to the applicant as far back as January 20, 2016,” he said.
Meanwhile, the legal woes between the parties started in December 2016, when the union approached the Industrial Court on certificate of urgency seeking to review and set aside the BURS’s decision to implement its decision to withdraw the recognition of the Union. The Industrial Court subsequently dismissed them. Judgement was reserved to undisclosed date.