Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd v Numsa (C 179/2015) [2015] ZALCCT 22 (2 April 2015) per Steenkamp J.
The Labour Court confirmed on the return day of a rule nisi that the intended strike would not be protected. Two bus drivers are now required to perform various functions previously performed by cabin attendants. The issue was whether this changed a work practice or the terms and conditions of employment. The union referred a dispute to the CCMA in terms of s 64(4) of the LRA alleging a unilateral change to the terms and conditions of employment of its members. Steenkamp J held that if employers unilaterally change terms and conditions of employment then in terms of s 64(4) employees may strike without following the procedures in s 64(1), but not if they only change work practices. But unions are not precluded from declaring a dispute over a matter of mutual interest and striking after following the s 64(1) procedures and abiding by the prescribed time periods.
This judgment again shows that even disputes over changing work practices can be resolved by the exercise of power. They are regarded as disputes of interest and not right. Once again this is proof that the LRA does not prevent the parties to the dispute from resolving it themselves. So the market is largely unregulated and power can be used. But in the absence of a duty to bargain in good faith, which would require the courts to become involved in deciding such ‘rights’ issues, employers will have to accept that where necessary they will have to resort to locking out employees to force them to accept even changes to work practices.