M.Comm. (Labor Relations) / Jan Hiemstra of Barlow Rand, as quoted by Kate Jowell in 1989, had passed the following comment on the industrial council system in South Africa: "The Industrial Council system has survived the first post-Wiehahn decade. I don't think it will see out the second decade." The main purpose of this study was to explore the validity of the above comment and establish a future prognosis of the industrial council structure as a collective bargaining forum in South Africa's formal labour relations system. In the course of the study, which was primarily of a conceptual nature, other aspects of industrial councils were also addressed, such as their theoretical, legal and historical frameworks; with consideration of two operational examples; the presentation of views on contemporary issues affecting industrial councils; and recommendations for their future viability. The methodology adopted was that of the dissemination of literature on the subject, a self-completion survey questionnaire which was submitted to industrial councils and parties thereto, as well as certain authorities on the subject, supplemented by personal interviews. The respondents to the survey questionnaire concluded positively, with a few exceptions, that the industrial council system would survive the second post·Wiehahn decade, provided that individual industrial councils responded to the changing needs of society, and the industries and employer/employee populations that they serve. It was cautioned too that due to the relatively small sample obtained in the survey component of the study, the survey responses should be generalised with circumspection, although the results nonetheless brought forward important issues for consideration by industrial councils.

The promulgation into law of the concept of workplace forums has been beset with immense criticism and opposition from organized labour and some quarters of organized business. Last ditch efforts by the Ministerial Task Team had won the day for the inclusion of this controversial provision in the new Labour Relations Act.1 Commentators on the Act tend to agree that the fallout with organized labour at the negotiations has probably set the scene as to whether the provisions would be widely used or not. History has shown that the establishment of such forums in workplaces has been low. In some situations where workplace forums had been established, their continuous sustainability was put into doubt. This has led to the de-establishment of some of these forums in some workplaces. Various reasons were provided, but the prime factors for its failure could be traced back to the negotiations at NEDLAC. The unions opposed the original proposal by government that minority unions and even non-union employees can trigger the establishment of a workplace forum and insisted that this be restricted to majority unions. The voluntary nature regarding the establishment of a workplace forum and the trigger that only a majority union can invoke the provisions has still seen unions reluctant to utilize the provisions since it did not serve their purpose. The aims of the provisions, namely to increase workplace democracy, was therefore thwarted in favour of more informal procedures. Although the idea is a noble one, it is argued that the introduction of the provisions was ill-timed and inappropriate. The lesson that the legislature can take is that for any provision to be a success, buy-in from all stakeholders is paramount. Research has shown that there was a steady decline in the establishment of workplace forums. Since December 2004 there was not a single application received by the Commission for Conciliation, mediation and Arbitration. There is also doubt as to whether any of the Forums that were previously established are still functional. What is certain is that statutory workplace forums is not at the forefront as a vehicle for change that was envisaged in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the new Labour Relations Act. What is also certain is that employers and employees are utilizing other forums to ensure workplace participation. These forums, however, only provide a voice to unionized workers. The vast majority of non-union workers remain voiceless. The proposed amendments in 2002 that intimated that the trigger be any union and not only majority unions failed to be passed into law. Perhaps it is that type of catalyst that is required to give life to the provisions. The future of workplace forums in South Africa is bleak and will continue to be if there is no intervention by the parties at NEDLAC to revive it. A complete revamp of the legislation would be required for such a revival. Some commentators have made meaningful suggestions on changes that can be made to the legislation to make workplace forums more attractive. Some have suggested it be scrapped altogether and future workplace participatory structures should be left to the parties to embrace voluntarily. Workplace forums are a novel innovation with great potential to encourage workplace democracy. There is nothing wrong with the concept. The application of such forums in the South African context is what is concerning. Perhaps prior experience and experimentation with similar type forums have tarnished workplace participation. The strategies by the previous regime and some employers have caused such participation to equate to co-option. Perhaps not enough spade work was done to ensure that the climate and attitude of the parties was conducive for its introduction. What is paramount no matter the form it takes is that workplace participation is crucial for economic growth and the introduction of new work methods to improve productivity. Without the establishment of such forums, whether voluntary or statutory, the ‘second channel principle’ that promotes non-adversarial workplace joint decision-making would be lost and conflict based participation could spiral leading to economic disaster.