Genuine trade union: Matusa registration ordered

3 Comments

1. 

   GilesFiles on September 19, 2015 at 5:51 pm

   Prof Darcy du Toit has commented on this judgment in his latest editorial Is the registration of trade unions a ‘mere formality’? published by LexisNexis on IR Network and is definitely worth reading [subscription required].

   In UPUSA v Registrar of Labour Relations [2010] 2 BLLR 201 (LC) para 10 the Labour Court explained the considerations justifying a decision to deregister a union:

   “Trade unions are public institutions, not private businesses. The act of registration confers many benefits on those trade unions that seek to be registered. But these benefits come at the price of submission to the reporting requirements established by section 100 of the LRA, all of the requirements that are intended to provide a guarantee to union members that their membership subscriptions have been utilised to further their interests. A failure by a registered trade union to comply with section 100 and to keep books of account and records to the standard required by section 98 undermines this statutory guarantee. Ultimately, it is the Registrar who is the underwriter of this warranty, and like all underwriters, the Registrar must protect the general interest at the expense of the particular when this is necessary.”

   In this case the Registrar’s decision to deregister the applicant union was upheld on the basis that the union had not complied with sections 98, 99 and 100 of the LRA – in other words, much the same lapses that the Registrar considers CEPPWAWU to be guilty of.

   However, the Registrar’s judgment is not infallible. This was demonstrated in the case of Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Crouse NO & others (Case no: C 261/15, 1 September 2015) in which the Registrar’s refusal to register the union (see above) was successfully challenged.

   As noted already, the requirements for registration are simple and largely down to common sense. “Trade union” is defined in section 213 of the LRA as “an association of employees whose principal purpose is to regulate relations between employees and employers, including any employers’ organisations”.

   . . . .

   That leads on to the second and more important lesson: the provisions of the LRA regulating the registration and deregistration of trade unions must be applied in light of the principal objects of the Act, crucial to which is the promotion of orderly collective bargaining. Although this affects only a minority of the total workforce, it is a very important minority. And collective bargaining depends on functional trade unions. But trade unions can only be functional if they are accountable to their members.

   Ensuring such accountability is what the criteria for registration as well as the requirements of sections 98-100 of the LRA are aimed at. The Registrar is the official charged with applying those criteria and requirements objectively and fairly. The Labour Court has the responsibility, in cases of dispute, of ensuring that the Registrar is able to perform this function and does so properly. Embedding these principles in the conventional wisdom of labour relations practice will do much to eliminate destructive intra-union disputes and enable trade unions to play a more creative role.

2. 

   GilesFiles on October 3, 2015 at 3:07 pm

   Reported [2015] 11 BLLR 1172; (2015) ILJ 3122 (LC)
   BLLR headnote:
   Trade union – Registration – Refusal by registrar – Registrar of Labour refusing to register trade union by purporting to limit proliferation of trade unions and without considering numerous factors which made applicant trade union “genuine” – Registrar directed to register applicant union.

3. 

   GilesFiles on March 23, 2017 at 12:14 pm

   Genuine rival trade union must be registered
   Posted on March 22, 2017 by GilesFiles

   The LAC disallowed Imatu’s appeal against the appeal to the labour court (Steenkamp J) under s 111(3) of the LRA and upheld the setting aside of the decision of the Registrar of Labour Relations who refused to register Matusa as a ‘genuine’ trade union. The registrar was ordered to register Matusa in terms of ss 95 and 96 of the LRA and to issue a certificate of registration within 14 days. The applicant is a breakaway trade union formed by disgruntled former office bearers and members of Samwu, a Cosatu affiliate. Imatu’s objection to the name Matusa was not upheld. The LAC held that:

   “ . . . the impact and overall impression created by the names are not such that there exists a reasonable likelihood of a substantial number of interested people being misled or confused by the names”. [para 22]

   Imatu v Matusa (Crouse NO) (CA20/15) (22/3/2017) per Savage AJA (Coppin JA and Phatshoane AJA concurring).