Unions are only allowed to represent eligible members - ConCourt rules

Image source: KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA from Pexels

This case has significant implications for the country's labour landscape, according to Advocate Tertius Wessels, legal director at Strata g Labour Solutions.

The dispute began when Afgri Animal Feeds, a division of PhilAfrica Foods, dismissed several employees 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 its constitution, invoking Article 23 of the Constitution — the right to fair labour practices.

“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,” explains Wessels.

Unions, membership and the right to representation

Bradley Workman-Davies  3 Nov 2022

ConCourt weighs in

An appeal was made by Afgri to the Constitutional Court to assist with the constitutional interpretation of sections 161 and 200 of the LRA. The case also raised a point of general public importance, namely whether unions could represent former employees who were ineligible for membership according to that union’s constitution.

The Constitutional Court, however, reinstated the Labour Court's ruling, stating the importance of adhering to a union's constitutional boundaries. The apex court stated, "the integrity of union representation hinges on adherence to constitutional boundaries; deviation undermines the very structure of labour relations."

The court further noted that while section 200 of the Labour Relations Act grants broad representation rights, these do not override the specific limitations outlined in a union's constitution. The ruling underscores that unions must operate within their defined scope to maintain their legal standing and legitimacy.

“This landmark ruling clarifies the legal standing of trade unions and clearly states a trade union cannot act beyond the powers conferred upon it by its constitution.

“The decision has broad implications, highlighting the delicate balance between fair representation and the necessity for unions to respect their foundational charters. This ruling not only affects Numsa but also serves as a guideline for other unions navigating similar disputes,” Wessels concludes.