The recent Constitutional Court ruling in the case of AFGRI Animal Feeds v NUMSA and Others (CCT188/22) [21 June 2024] has addressed a significant issue in employment law namely:

“Can a union represent workers in an industry outside its registered scope?”

Background of the Case
In September 2017, employees of AFGRI Animal Feeds (“AFGRI”) initiated an unprotected strike after the company refused to grant organizational rights to the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (“NUMSA”). Following the strike, the employees were dismissed. The dispute over their dismissal was taken to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and subsequently to the Labour Court. NUMSA was named as an applicant, with the dismissed employees as co-applicants.

AFGRI objected to NUMSA’s involvement, arguing that NUMSA lacked the authority to represent the employees since its constitution did not cover the animal feeds industry. The Labour Court was tasked with deciding two key issues:

• whether NUMSA had the right to refer the dispute on behalf of its members or in its own interest, and;
• (ii) whether NUMSA had the authority to represent the dismissed employees.

Labour Court’s Findings
The Labour Court ruled that a union can only represent an employee if the employee is a member of that union and the union is registered for that industry. The court also concluded that a union’s constitution is binding in all matters, not just collective disputes, meaning NUMSA could not represent workers outside its registered scope.

Appeal and Constitutional Court Ruling
The Labour Appeal Court later overturned this decision, allowing NUMSA to represent the employees, citing the broader right to representation under the Labour Relations Act (LRA). However, it also noted that this did not extend to collective bargaining.

The case was escalated to the Constitutional Court, where it was found that the dismissed employees were represented by attorneys, not NUMSA. Therefore, the question of NUMSA’s representation was not directly relevant to this specific case. However, the court emphasized that NUMSA was acting on behalf of its members, yet its constitution did not permit it to represent employees in the animal feeds industry.

The court reaffirmed its previous stance from the 2020 National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa v Lufil Packaging (Isithebe) (2020) 41 ILJ 1846 (CC) case, emphasizing that a union is bound by the provisions of its constitution. The court concluded that since the dismissed employees worked outside NUMSA’s registered scope, they could not legally be members of NUMSA. 

Implications of the Ruling
This ruling clarifies a longstanding ambiguity in labour law, solidifying the principle that union representation is confined to the industries specified in the union’s constitution. Employers should note that workers can only join a union if its constitution allows for it. Attempts by unions to organize or represent workers outside their registered sectors will likely be deemed invalid.

This judgment may significantly impact existing relationships between employers and unions, particularly where unions have been operating outside their registered sectors. The long-term effects of this ruling on employer-union dynamics are yet to be fully understood.

Conclusion
Consulting with labour experts, such as WLC Labour, can help ensure compliance with applicable legislation.

Disclaimer: This content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.