Case CCT 188/22
[2024] ZACC 13
Hearing Date: 21 November 2023 (Tuesday)
Judgement Date: 21 June 2024
Post Judgment Media Summary
The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.
On 21 June 2024, at 10h00 the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Labour Appeal Court. The main issue before the Labour Appeal Court was whether a trade union can represent employees who are ineligible for membership according to its constitution.
The applicant, AFGRI Animal Feeds, a division of PhilAfrica Foods (Pty) Ltd (AFGRI), is a private company that manufactures and distributes animal feeds. The first respondent is the National Union of Metalworkers South Africa (NUMSA). In terms of its constitution, membership of NUMSA is confined to “workers in the metal and related industries”. The second to fourteenth respondents were former employees of AFGRI. AFGRI had dismissed the employees for misconduct after they participated in an unprotected strike following its refusal to grant organisational rights to NUMSA. Consequently, NUMSA referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Labour Court. In the Labour Court, AFGRI raised a preliminary point that NUMSA had no legal standing because the employees could not become members of NUMSA; therefore, it could not represent the employees.
The Labour Court found in AFGRI’s favour. It held that NUMSA’s referral of the dispute under section 200 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) was invalid since AFGRI operates in the animal feeds industry and not in the metal industry. The Labour Court upheld the preliminary point and dismissed the application with costs. NUMSA appealed to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) essentially on the grounds that the case concerned the rights of employees to representation by their trade union under section 200(2) of the LRA its members is a party to those proceedings”. AFGRI contended that a trade union could ignore its own constitution by purporting to represent employees who did not qualify for membership.
The LAC held that where a trade union has admitted to membership, employees outside of its constitutionally-prescribed scope of operation, the union is limited to representing those employees in court. It would not be able engage in collective bargaining on their behalf. However, the LAC held that in an unfair dismissal dispute, different considerations, namely fairness, the right to representation and effective access to justice, applied. Consequently, the LAC held that NUMSA was entitled to represent the employees in terms of section 200(2) of the LRA. The LAC upheld the appeal and set aside the Labour Court’s order.
In a unanimous judgment by Schippers AJ (Maya DCJ, Chaskalson AJ, Dodson AJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, and Tshiqi J concurring), the Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was engaged because the LRA gives effect to the labour rights in section 23 of the Constitution. Similarly, the interpretation of sections 161 and 200 of the LRA raised a constitutional issue. The case also raised a point of general public importance, namely whether NUMSA could represent AFGRI’s former employees who were ineligible for membership according to NUMSA’s constitution.
The Constitutional Court addressed several issues regarding NUMSA’s legal standing and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the LRA. The central question was whether NUMSA could legally represent employees ineligible for membership under its constitution. The Court referred to section 200 of the LRA which allows a registered trade union to act in its own interest in a dispute, on behalf of its members, or in their interest. The Court referred to is decision in National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa v Lufil Packaging (Isithebe) and Others, which established that a trade union is bound by its constitution and cannot admit members outside its defined scope. The Court held that NUMSA lacked legal standing to represent the dismissed employees in the Labour Court because their employment in the animal feeds industry placed them outside NUMSA’s registered scope. For this reason NUMSA had no authority to act of the employees.
Constitutional Court upheld the appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Appeal Court. The Court ordered each party to pay its own costs in this Court and the Labour Appeal Court..
The Full judgment here
