The Interpretation to be accorded to the Term "Benefits" in Section 186(2)(A) of the LRA Continues: Apollo Tyres South Africa (PTY) LIMITED v CCMA (DA1/11) [2013] ZALAC 3

Authors

  • Shamier Ebrahim University of South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2014/v17i1a2267

Keywords:

Benefits, remuneration, disputes, collective bargaining, arbitration, strike action, unfair labour practice, unfairness

Abstract

The interpretation to be accorded to the term benefits in section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the "LRA") has come before the Courts on several occasions. In terms of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA any unfair act or omission by an employer relating to the provision of benefits to an employee falls within the ambit of an unfair labour practice. In Schoeman v Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd[1] the Labour Court (the "LC") held that the term benefit could not be interpreted to include remuneration. It stated that a benefit is something extra from remuneration. In Gaylard v Telkom South Africa Ltd[2] the LC endorsed the decision in Samsung and held that if benefits were to be interpreted to include remuneration then this would curtail strike action with regard to issues of remuneration. In Hospersa v Northern Cape Provincial Administration[3] the issue regarding the interpretation of the term benefits did not relate to whether or not it included remuneration but rather to whether it included a hope to create new benefits which were non-existent. The Labour Appeal Court (the "LAC") held that the term benefits refers only to benefits which exist ex contractu or ex lege but does not include a hope to create new benefits. The LAC adopted this approach in order to maintain the separation between a dispute of interest and one of mutual interest, the latter being subject to arbitration whilst the former is subject to the collective bargaining process (strike action).

 

In Protekon (Pty) Ltd v CCMA[4] the LC disagreed with the reasoning in Samsung and held that the term remuneration as defined in section 213 of the LRA is wide enough to include payment to employees, which may be described as benefits. The LC remarked that the statement in Samsung to the effect that a benefit is something extra from remuneration goes too far. It further remarked that the concern that the right to strike would be curtailed if remuneration were to fall within the ambit of benefits need not persist. It based this statement on the reasoning that if the issue in dispute concerns a demand by employees that certain benefits be granted then this is a matter for the collective bargaining process (strike action) but where the issue in dispute concerns the fairness of the employer’s conduct then this is subject to arbitration.[5]

 

It is then no surprise that the issue regarding the interpretation of the term benefits once again came before the LAC in Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Limited v CCMA & others.[6] The LAC was tasked with deciding if the term could be interpreted to include a benefit which is to be granted subject to the discretion of the employer upon application by the employee. In deciding this, the LAC overturned the decisions in Samsung and Hospersa and opted to follow the decision in Protekon.

 

Apollo is worthy of note as it is the latest contribution from the LAC regarding the interpretation of the term benefits and it is of binding force for the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Labour Courts in terms of the principle of stare decisis. The purpose of this note is threefold. Firstly, the facts, arguments and judgment in Apolloare stated briefly. Secondly, the judgment is critically analysed and commented upon. Thirdly, the note concludes by commenting on the way forward for benefit disputes in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA.

    ScienceOpen_Log0343221.png

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Literature

Duggan Equal Pay

Duggan M Equal Pay - Law and Practice (Jordans Bristol 2009)

Du Toit et al Labour Relations Law

Du Toit D et al Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide 5th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2006)

Grogan Employment Rights

Grogan J Employment Rights (Juta Cape Town 2010)

Le Roux 1997 CLL

Le Roux PAK "Preserving the Status Quo in Economic Disputes" 1997 CLL 6(11) 93-98

Le Roux 2005 CLL

Le Roux PAK "What is an employment 'benefit'?" 2005 CLL 15(1) 5-6

Le Roux 2013 CLL

Le Roux PAK "What constitutes a 'benefit'?" 2013 CLL 22(8) 76-80

Le Roux 2006 ILJ

Le Roux R "The Anatomy of a Benefit: A Labyrinthine Enquiry" 2006 ILJ 53-66

Oelz, Olney and Manuel Equal Pay

Oelz M, Olney S and Manuel T Equal Pay: An Introductory Guide (ILO Geneva 2013)

Case law

Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Limited v CCMA 2013 ZALAC 3

Aviation Union of South Africa v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd 2011 ZACC 39

Ceramic Industries Ltd t/a Betta Sanitary Ware v NCABAWU (2) 1997 18 ILJ 671 (LAC)

Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd v Adams 2000 21 ILJ 924 (LAC)

Department of Justice v CCMA 2004 25 ILJ 248 (LAC)

Eskom v Marshall 2002 23 ILJ 2251 (LC)

Fidelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Professional Transport Workers Union (1) 1998 19 ILJ 260 (LAC)

Gauteng Provinsiale Administasie v Scheepers 2000 21 ILJ 1305 (LAC)

Gaylard v Telkom South Africa Ltd 1998 9 BLLR 942 (LC)

GS4 Security Services (SA) (Pty) Ltd v NASGAWU (LAC) unreported case number DA3/08 of 26 November 2009

Hospersa v Northen Cape Provincial Administration 2000 21 ILJ 1066 (LAC)

IMATU obo Verster v Umhlathuze Municipality 2011 JOL 27258 (LC)

Maritime Industries Trade Union of SA v Transnet Ltd 2002 23 ILJ 2213 (LAC)

Monyela v Bruce Jacobs t/a LV Construction 1998 19 ILJ 75 (LC)

NEHAWU v University of Cape Town 2003 24 ILJ 95 (CC)

Nkutha v Fuel Gas Installatations (Pty) Ltd 2000 2 BLLR 178 (LC)

Northen Cape Provincial Administration v Comissioner Hambridge 1999 20 ILJ 1910 (LC)

Protekon (Pty) Ltd v CCMA 2005 JOL 14544 (LC)

SACCAWU v Garden Route Chalets (Pty) Ltd 1997 3 BLLR 325 (CCMA)

SAPU v National Commissioner of the South African Police Service 2006 1 BLLR 42 (LC)

Schoeman v Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd 1997 10 BLLR 1364 (LC)

Sithole v Nogwaza 1999 12 BLLR 1348 (LC)

South African Revenue Services v Ntshintshi 2013 ZALCCT 17

Legislation

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

International instruments

Equal Remuneration Convention 100 of 1951

Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) (1957)

Published

2017-04-21

How to Cite

Ebrahim, S. (2017). The Interpretation to be accorded to the Term "Benefits" in Section 186(2)(A) of the LRA Continues: Apollo Tyres South Africa (PTY) LIMITED v CCMA (DA1/11) [2013] ZALAC 3. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 17(1), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2014/v17i1a2267

Issue

Section

Notes