17th September 2018 at 1:55 pm #7818Ivan IsraelstamSpectator
TOPIC – RIGHT OF NON-UNIONISED EMPLOYEES TO EXTERNAL REPRESENTATION AT RETRENCHMENT CONSULTATIONS
Section 189(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act provides that when an employer contemplates dismissing employees for reasons of operational requirements the employer must, where there is neither a workplace forum nor a registered trade union, consult with the affected employees or their representatives nominated for that purpose. Does this mean that the affected employees are entitled to nominate a representative who is external to the company/organisation or is such representation limited to internal colleagues?20th September 2018 at 8:36 am #7820Michael BagraimKeymaster
RIGHT TO EXTERNAL REPRESENTATION AT RETRECHMENT CONSULTATIONS
In essence we are guided by Section 189(1)(d). The reality is that a representative can be anyone of your choosing, there is no law or rulings on the meaning of “their representatives nominated for that purpose”. The common practice is for attorneys to represent the employer clients and this has been accepted by the courts since the inception of the current Labour Relations Act.
“What is good for the goose is good for the gander” and therefore it is absolutely right and reasonable for employees to choose a representative of their choice.
18 SEPTEMBER 201820th September 2018 at 11:43 am #7821Patrick DealeKeymaster
I agree that the representative can be an external person. There are several reasons for this view.
Firstly, the LRA makes no reference in the body of the Act to representation in disciplinary or incapacity inquiries – except the need to inform a union when one of its shop-steward is facing an inquiry. However,the LRA Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (Schedule 8) fills the gap by stating that an employee “…is entitled to the assistance of a trade union representative or fellow employee” [Section 4 (1)]. The effect of creating this limited right of representation and restricting it specifically to a union representative or fellow employee, is that it necessarily excludes someone, such as an external lawyer, who is not a union rep or fellow employee.
Secondly, and unlike inquiries, the LRA does make specific reference in the body of the Act [s189(1)(d)] to representation in retrenchment consultations. This gives it more legal “force” compared with inclusion only in a practice. Also unlike inquiries, it does not restrict representation to only union representatives and fellow employees. There must be a reason for this deliberate difference. It must be that representation is not restricted to internal persons. And by implication, it does not exclude external representation.
Thirdly, the rationale for the differences can be explained by the differences between the reasons for disciplinary and incapacity inquiries on the one hand and the reasons for retrenchment consultations on the other. The reasons for the former have to do with the fault or the incapacity of the employee. The reasons for the latter have to do with the operational needs of the employer – not the fault of the employee. For this reason, the right to external representation in a retrenchment consultation serves as an appropriate counter-balance to the employer’s significant right to effect changes in its business for operational reasons which could lead to job losses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.