SANDU v Minister of Defence (2007)

Last updated
SANDU v Minister of Defence
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameSouth African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others
Decided30 May 2007 (2007-05-30)
Docket nos.CCT 65/06
Citation(s) [2007] ZACC 10; 2007 (5) SA 400 (CC); 2007 (8) BCLR 863 (CC); [2007] 9 BLLR 785 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 1909 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)In the Supreme Court of Appeal:
  • Minister of Defence and Others v SANDU; Minister of Defence and Others v SANDU and Another [2006] ZASCA 92
  • SANDU v Minister of Defence and Others; Minister of Defence and Others v SANDU and Others [2006] ZASCA 95

In the High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division:

Contents

  • SANDU v Minister of Defence and Others 2003 (3) SA 239 (T) (SANDU I)
  • SANDU and Another v Minister of Defence and Others 2004 (4) SA 10 (T); 2003 (9) BCLR 1055 (T) (SANDU II)
  • SANDU and Others v Minister of Defence (T) (15790/2003) (SANDU III)
Court membership
Judges sitting Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J and Navsa AJ
Case opinions
Decision byO'Regan J (unanimous)

In South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others, an important case in South African labour law, the Constitutional Court gave judgment on a series of disputes connected to collective bargaining that had arisen between the South African National Defence Union (SANDU) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

Background

Since the 1999 judgment of the Constitution Court in SANDU v Minister of Defence , the legislative framework constructed for collective bargaining in South Africa had taken force.

High Court

The application originated in five separate matters initiated by SANDU against the Minister of Defence in the Pretoria High Court between 2001 and 2003, which resulted in three separate High Court judgments:

  1. The first of these judgments (SANDU I), written by Judge Johann van der Westhuizen, held that the SANDF was not obliged to bargain collectively with SANDU, and that SANDF’s withdrawal from negotiations with SANDU was reasonable.
  2. The second of these judgments (SANDU II), written by Judge J. M. C. Smit, also concerned the duty to bargain, as well as an attack on specific regulations passed pursuant to national legislation, relating to labour relations in the military. This judgment held that the regulations violated the union members’ rights to participate in union activities, as well as their rights to freedom of expression and association; it held that, contrary to the earlier judgment, the SANDF had a duty to bargain with SANDU.
  3. In the third case (SANDU III), Judge Eberhardt Bertelsmann's court made an order preventing the SANDF from implementing a restructuring programme without first consulting with SANDU.

Supreme Court of Appeal

The decisions in these three cases were appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. A single, consolidated hearing was held, resulting in two unanimous judgments:

  1. The first judgment, written by Judge Johan Conradie, held that the SANDF is not obliged by the provisions of the Constitution or any other law to bargain collectively with SANDU.
  2. The second judgment, written by Judge Robert Nugent, dismissed all the challenges to the regulations, save one.

SANDU sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against the large part of the judgments and orders made by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Judgment

Justice Kate O’Regan, writing for the Court, dealt with the history of the relationship between SANDU and the SANDF. She confirmed the principle of subsidiarity, holding that, where legislation has been enacted to give effect to a constitutional right, a litigant is not entitled to bypass that legislation and to rely directly on the constitutional right. If, in other words, a framework has been created to give effect to the Constitution, a litigant must use that framework, unless he means to claim that it falls short or is unconstitutional; otherwise the legislative intervention would serve no purpose. As regulations had been enacted to give effect to section 23 of the Constitution, and to regulate the bargaining relationship between SANDU and the SANDF, the application for leave to appeal must be determined in the light of those regulations. The court did not find it necessary, accordingly, to determine whether section 23(5) of the Constitution confers a justiciable duty to bargain collectively on employers and trade unions.

The judgment concluded that the regulations establish a bargaining forum, the Military Bargaining Council (the MBC), where matters of mutual interest to SANDU and the SANDF are to be negotiated. If disputes arise in respect of such matters, those disputes may be referred to arbitration by the Military Arbitration Board. The court held that, on a proper construction of the regulations, the SANDF may not impose pre-conditions for bargaining; nor may it withdraw unilaterally from the MBC. It also found that the regulations do not permit the SANDF to implement unilaterally a transformation policy which is the subject of a dispute at the MBC, and which has been referred to the Military Arbitration Board.

Finally, the court held that SANDU is not entitled in terms of the regulations to demand that the respondents bargain over the content of the regulations. Were s 23(5) to establish a justiciable duty to bargain, enforceable by either employers or unions outside of a legislative framework to regulate that duty, courts may be drawn into a range of controversial industrial relations issues. These issues would include questions such as at which level bargaining should take place, level of union membership required to give rise to the duty, topics and manner of bargaining. These are difficult issues which the courts are not the best equipped to deal with.

In considering the challenges to the individual regulations, the court dismissed SANDU’s challenge to the regulation that prohibits union members from participating in union activities while undergoing training or participating in military exercises. The SANDF can justifiably limit union activities in instances when such activities may interfere with the military’s ability to carry out its constitutional obligation to protect the country. In the same vein, the SANDF has a legitimate interest in preserving the appearance of the political neutrality of the military by prohibiting association with other trade unions.

The court held, however, that several of the regulations were unconstitutional. It found that the Minister of Defence, as head of SANDF, could not appoint the members of the Military Arbitration Board (the body tasked with settling union disputes) because appointment by an interested party (the Minister as the employer) undermines the impartiality and independence of the Board.

Furthermore, regulations which prohibited union members from being represented by union members or officials in grievance or disciplinary proceedings offended the right to fair labour practices, because representing its members is one of a union’s central tasks. Finally, to the extent that the good order and discipline of the military was not jeopardised, the SANDF could not forbid non-uniformed soldiers from assembling to petition or picket as private citizens.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Finland</span> Political system of Finland

The politics of Finland take place within the framework of a parliamentary representative democracy. Finland is a republic whose head of state is President Alexander Stubb, who leads the nation's foreign policy and is the supreme commander of the Finnish Defence Forces. Finland's head of government is Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, who leads the nation's executive branch, called the Finnish Government. Legislative power is vested in the Parliament of Finland, and the Government has limited rights to amend or extend legislation. The Constitution of Finland vests power to both the President and Government: the President has veto power over parliamentary decisions, although this power can be overruled by a majority vote in the Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of South Africa</span> South Africas head of state and head of government

The president of South Africa is the head of state and head of government of the Republic of South Africa. The president directs the executive branch of the government and is the commander-in-chief of the South African National Defence Force. Between 1961 and 1994, the office of head of state was the state presidency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of South Africa</span> Supreme and fundamental law of South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa. It provides the legal foundation for the existence of the republic, it sets out the rights and duties of its citizens, and defines the structure of the Government. The current constitution, the country's fifth, was drawn up by the Parliament elected in 1994 in the South African general election, 1994. It was promulgated by President Nelson Mandela on 18 December 1996 and came into effect on 4 February 1997, replacing the Interim Constitution of 1993. The first constitution was enacted by the South Africa Act 1909, the longest-lasting to date. Since 1961, the constitutions have promulgated a republican form of government.

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon Canadian and U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group. It is the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

<i>Harvester case</i> Australian labour law decision

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

The Court of Arbitration was the first court in New South Wales, a state of Australia which dealt exclusively with industrial relation disputes in the early twentieth century. Justice Lance Wright claims that it perhaps was the first court of its type in the world. The court was unique at that time as it was the first court of its type to deal with labour relations between employer and employees on a compulsory basis. Previous arbitration measures between employer and employee had been on a voluntary basis or had been based on the criminal justice system through the use of criminal penalties. The conventional economic model is that both employer and employee enjoy equal bargaining power to set wages and conditions. This asserts that both parties are able to agree on a fair market price for the cost of labour free from distortions. However, where employers or employees group together, these outcomes can be distorted particularly in “boom” or “bust” economic conditions. The purpose of the court was to change the manner in which employers and employees negotiated pay and conditions. It was an attempt to reduce the power imbalances between employer groups or employee unions that arose from using collective bargaining, and the resulting use of that market power to influence wages, and also to reduce the threat of lockout or strikes to achieve those ends.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts of South Africa</span>

The courts of South Africa are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in South Africa. They apply the law of South Africa and are established under the Constitution of South Africa or under Acts of the Parliament of South Africa.

Baaitse Elizabeth "Bess" Nkabinde-Mmono is a South African retired judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa from January 2006 to December 2017. During that time, she was acting Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa from 23 May 2016 to 7 June 2017. She joined the bench in November 1999 as a judge of the Bophuthatswana Provincial Division.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law</span> Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

The Labour Court is a South African court that handles labour law cases, that is, disputes arising from the relationship between employer, employee and trade union. The court was established by the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and has a status similar to that of a division of the High Court. It has its seat in Johannesburg and branches in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in South Africa</span>

The South African judiciary has broad powers of judicial review under the Constitution of South Africa. Courts are empowered to pronounce on the legality and constitutionality of exercises of public power, including administrative action, executive action, and the passage of acts of Parliament. Though informed by the common law principles that guided judicial review during the apartheid era, contemporary judicial review is authorised by and grounded in constitutional principles. In the case of administrative action, it is also codified in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.

South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence & Another, an important case in South African labour law, concerned the question of whether or not it was constitutional to prohibit members of the armed forces from participating in public protest action, and from joining trade unions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African National Defence Union</span> Trade union in South Africa

The South African National Defence Union (SANDU) is a South African trade union for SANDF members. It is not affiliated to any trade union federation as state by COSATU. Military trade Unions in South Africa are by law not allowed to affiliate. SANDU is apolitical.

The judicial system of the United Arab Emirates is divided into federal courts and local courts. The federal justice system is defined in the Constitution of the United Arab Emirates, with the Federal Supreme Court based at Abu Dhabi. As of 2023, only the emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah have local court systems, while all other emirates use the federal court system for all legal proceedings.

<i>My Vote Counts v Speaker of the National Assembly</i> South African legal case

In My Vote Counts NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed an application which sought to compel Parliament to pass legislation mandating the disclosure of political party funding information. Split seven to four, the court held that the application transgressed the principle of subsidiarity and separation of powers.

Kylie v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others is an important decision in South African labour law, handed down on 26 May 2010 in the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge of Appeal Dennis Davis held that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applied to sex workers and that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration therefore had jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a sex worker and the brothel that had fired her. Although the court affirmed that sex workers' employment contracts were legally unenforceable, it held that sex workers were nonetheless protected by the labour rights granted in section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa.

References

Notes