Spat between rugby player’s union and employers edges towards finality, but ...

Though an arbitrator decided South Africa's professional rugby players must rest for eight weeks straight, SA Rugby has been keen to remind it was merely a draft ruling and that matter is not settled.

The long stand-off between Sarpa (the South African Rugby Players’ Association) and Sareo (the South African Rugby Employers’ Organisation) moved closer to finality with the arbitrator ruling in favour of the players. However, SA Rugby, through its legal team, is carefully studying the ruling and hoping to have a decisive say in the stand-off.

At the crux of the matter is the players' eight-week rest period that Sarpa argues should be taken all at once by all their players. SA Rugby, however, has tried to re-energise the Currie Cup by moving it into a time slot that does not overlap with the United Rugby Championship (URC).

To that end they have secured sponsorship that exceeds R300m with SA Breweries to help restore some of the competition's lost lustre. However, the time slot envisaged for the tournament is in the period usually reserved for the players' rest.

Sarpa insist players cannot be expected to play for more than 12 months, which would be the case if the tournament kicks off as proposed on July 6.

Should the Currie Cup be moved to a later date it will present SA Rugby with a major scheduling dilemma as the sponsor and broadcaster will have a diminished appetite for the tournament due to its clash with the URC.

The Currie Cup has not had a headline sponsor over the past few years and it will come as a big blow to SA Rugby's coffers should the tournament be scrapped.

In fact, as one SA Rugby insider put it, “it will put a significant number of our provincial players out of a job”.

When the final ruling will be made is not clear. SA Rugby and Sareo, while stressing the importance of player welfare, are still hoping to have their say before that is reached.

SA Rugby said in a statement: “The arbitrator had been asked to rule in a dispute between Sarpa and Sareo. SA Rugby was named as a second respondent in the case.

“Sarpa asked the arbitrator to rule on a clause in the players’ collective agreement, which defines the terms and conditions of employment of contracted players. Sarpa argued that the terms required provinces to simultaneously rest contracted players for eight concurrent weeks in any 12-month period.”

In their statement SA Rugby said Sareo argued that the collective agreement was being misinterpreted and that the resting period did not provide for such a period for all contracted players at the same time, nor that such a period had to be compulsorily taken within a 12-month window.

SA Rugby added that arbitrator advocate IC Brembridge SC agreed with Sarpa in a draft award that the rest period for all provincial players must occur at the same time, but ruled that there was no contractual requirement that such rest period must start no later than 12 months from the start of the previous rest period.

An SA Rugby spokesperson said the organisation was consulting with its members and Sarpa to consider the fixture scheduling implications of the award.