Variation Agreement Transnet


    In my view, in the circumstances of this case, the respondents` right to strike is related to the reading of clauses 32 and 33 of the variation agreement, which is read in Section 23 of the LRA. Section 32, paragraph 1, of the variation contract is as follows: the limitation of the right to strike is provided for in section 65, paragraph 3, point (a) (i) (i) of the LRA, which provides that no person may participate in a strike, lockout or conduct during the examination or promotion of a strike or lockout if that person is bound by an arbitration award or collective agreement. which settles the dispute. “Unless there are concrete provisions in this agreement or in any other agreement, the provisions of this agreement apply to all workers in the fare unit employed by Transnet Freight Rail in the Republic of South Africa, whether or not they are represented by a union.. Following the variation agreement, the applicant informed The Shop Stewards that management was responsible for the development of the rollover plan. It is clear that the employees of Karzene Farm were not satisfied with what they were told. They expressed their anger and disapproval by launching a work stoppage on July 23, 29 and 30, 2010. With regard to its objectives, the variation agreement provides for the following: with regard to the first dispute, the intimants argue that the applicant violated the standard practice in one of its filings, without consulting the shop stewards and obtaining its consent. The documents show that the amendment in question took place in the Kazerne filing. It seems customary for Kazerne`s practice to be that management always consults with the store stewards and that it would reach an agreement with them before a change to the shift work plan is introduced. It appears that this practice was made because the defendant`s earlier complaint to the first appeal that changes in the posted service have always been implemented to favour members of another union, UTATU.

    Even if it had not changed the shift work, it would not have changed. In support of this argument, the applicant asserts that the workers were transferred because of their employment contract and the variation agreement. I believe that the respondents are not entitled to read section 65, paragraph 3, point (a) (a) of the LRA correctly, because the question they wish to ask is settled by a collective agreement that exists between the parties and is applicable. If they argue that the variation agreement does not affect Kazerne`s practice, I think it is the interpretation and application of a collective agreement that can be resolved by an arbitral award such as that provided in the same section, and that is why the law exercised its right to strike on that basis. “The positions are organized after consultation with the workers and their representatives, in accordance with the provisions of this agreement and according to the requirements of the company.” It is customary for the parties to have reached a amended agreement in April 2009 within the meaning of Basic Law 75 of 1997 on working conditions. The variation agreement was then extended until March 2011. The agreement provides, in its area and scope, that the above points indicate, in my view, that the issues on which the respondents intend to strike are covered by an existing collective agreement binding on all parties.