Cape Town - The National Employers’ Association of South Africa (Neasa) has filed a petition at the Constitutional Court following the Labour Appeal Court’s dismissal of its applications to extend the wage deal signed with the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC).
Last September, Neasa opposed the gazetted extension of the deal in the Labour Court and argued that it could not afford it.
The wage agreement at issue is a 6% increase to the minimum rate in the metals and engineering sector.
In his ruling at the time, Acting Judge Sean Snyman concluded that Neasa had failed to make out a proper case and accordingly awarded costs against the employer association.
In his ruling, the judge said: “An application for leave to appeal must convince the court, on proper grounds, that there is a reasonable prospect or realistic chance of success on appeal.”
Judge Snyman said that having considered the merits, there was no reasonable prospect that another court could come to a different conclusion.
Disagreeing with an outcome, Judge Snyman ruled, does not on its own establish prospects of success on appeal.
Unhappy with the decision, Neasa approached the Labour Appeal Court, which denied the organisation’s petition for leave to appeal the Labour Court judgment.
The judgment had also dismissed Neasa’s application to interdict Employment and Labour Minister Thulas Nxesi from extending the MEIBC’s consolidated main agreement to non-parties.
Neasa president Gerhard Papenfus said in a letter to steel industry employers: “After consultation with our legal team, the decision was taken to petition the Concourt for leave to appeal.”
Papenfus said he advised employers not to implement the agreement until the matter had been determined by Concourt.
He said in the interim they should apply for exemption from the provisions of the agreement.
“This fight is far from over, and employers should not lose hope. All avenues have not yet been exhausted,” Papenfus said.
Neasa said the Labour Court was only required to determine the application for an interim interdict, pending the determination of a review, however, the court also dismissed the related review application.
Neasa argues that the review application was neither ripe for hearing nor set down for hearing by any party, nor allocated to the judge for hearing, nor argued before the judge.
They also argue that the judgments or rulings by the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court constitute a fundamental breach of Neasa’s right of access to courts.
Following the original Labour Court ruling, Steel and Engineering Industry Federation of South Africa CEO Lucio Trentini said: “In the eyes of the court, this application should never have been brought.”
mwangi.githahu@inl.co.za