Salgbc Disciplinary Code Collective Agreement

Published by Admin on

Summary: EU Competition – The right to represent members at disciplinary hearings is not a right that can be acquired through collective bargaining. It is a right-wing consonant with the right to join a trade union and freedom of association. The interpretation of a collective agreement must be compatible with constitutional rights. Any interpretation that does not infringe the rights enshrined in the Rights Bulletin must be favoured. Hero: (1) The request for review is rejected. (2) No charge order. [36] Bringing these two principles together… would propose that a reading of the law, minority unions, the right to strike… the representation of trade union members in complaints and disciplinary procedures would be more entrenched in ILO conventions, in accordance with the principle of freedom of association.

[13] [12] To date, it is clear that a collective agreement entered into the collective agreement only binds to the collective agreement to the parties who are also parties to the collective agreement. In casu is the collective agreement concerned: a) to the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) and b) the parties are SALGA, IMATU and SAMWU. It is therefore binding only on the Council parties and the collective agreement. MATUSA is neither a party to the bargaining council nor a party to the collective agreement involved. In accordance with Section 31, the collective agreement is not binding on MATUSA and its members. [9] The role of an arbitrator in all matters relating to the interpretation and application of a collective agreement is to examine an interpretation of the collective agreement and/or to consider its application between the parties. I mention, however, that MATUSA is not a party to the collective agreement, which is why I do not think there was any power to appeal to refer a dispute over section 24 of the LRA. This point was not addressed or addressed in the arbitration process. It seems to me that the true nature of the litigation is of mutual interest – the « right » to represent members in a disciplinary hearing. It is clear, however, that the case was described as a matter with Derinier and the application of the collective agreement.