The court last week ruled against the National Union of Metalworkers South Africa (Numsa), affirming that a trade union cannot represent employees who fall outside its constitutionally defined membership scope.
This question arose when the applicant, AFGRI Animal Feeds, a division of PhilAfrica Foods (Pty) Ltd (AFGRI), which manufactures and distributes animal feeds, raised a preliminary point in proceedings before the Labour Court that the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA), a trade union registered under the Labour Relations Act (LRA), was precluded from representing the dismissed employees in that Court.
The dispute began when AFGRI Animal Feeds dismissed several employees in December 2017 for participating in an unprotected strike. The strike followed AFGRI’s refusal to grant NUMSA organisational rights. NUMSA, whose membership is restricted to the metal industry, represented these employees despite their ineligibility under the union’s constitution.
The union, on the employees’ behalf, referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. The dispute was not resolved, and the union then referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Labour Court in June 2018.
When the case was heard in the Labour Court, AFGRI objected to NUMSA’s standing on the ground that its constitution prohibited the dismissed employees, who were employed in the animal feeds industry, from becoming members of NUMSA. In terms of its constitution, membership of NUMSA is restricted to workers in the metal and related industries and the dismissed employees were formerly employed by AFGRI in the animal feeds industry.
The Labour Court initially ruled in favour of AFGRI, declaring that NUMSA lacked the legal standing to represent the employees. However, NUMSA appealed to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC), which reversed the decision, citing the importance of fairness and access to justice in dismissal disputes. AFGRI appealed to the Constitutional Court to assist with the constitutional interpretation of sections 161 and 200 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Constitutional Court reinstated the Labour Court’s ruling, stating the importance of adhering to a union’s constitutional boundaries. “The integrity of union representation hinges on adherence to constitutional boundaries; deviation undermines the very structure of labour relations,” the ConCourt said in its judgment. The court noted that while section 200 of the LRA granted broad representation rights, these did not override the specific limitations outlined in a union’s constitution.
This ruling serves as a guideline for other unions navigating similar disputes. The decision has broad implications, highlighting the delicate balance between fair representation and the necessity for unions to respect their foundational charters.
Read the full matter here.
