Unions must operate within 'defined scope', Constitutional Court rules

A landmark Constitutional Court ruling states a trade union cannot act beyond the powers conferred upon it by its constitution.   

The court ruled last week 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.  

Advocate Tertius Wessels, legal director at Strata-g Labour Solutions, said the case involving Afgri Animal Feeds has significant implications for the country's labour landscape. 

Wessels said the dispute began when Afgri Animal Feeds, a division of PhilAfrica Foods, 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.   

Afgri said the union’s constitution stated that persons “working in the metal and related industries are eligible for membership of the union”. 

“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,” Wessels said.  

Afgri appealed to the ConCourt to assist with the constitutional interpretation of sections 161 and 200 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA).  

Wessels said 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 ConCourt 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.  

Wessels said the ruling underscored that unions must operate within their defined scope to maintain their legal standing and legitimacy.  

“The decision has broad implications, highlighting the delicate balance between fair representation and the necessity for unions to respect their foundational charters,” he said. 

This ruling not only affected Numsa but also served as a guideline for other unions navigating similar disputes, he added. 

TimesLIVE