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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:10229 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Pather, Sivalingam |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, LLM |
| Format | iv, 48 leaves ; 30 cm, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0033 seconds