[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

Ladies and gentlemen, honoured guests. I welcome you and thank you for coming here this morning. The purpose of today's gathering is to announce details regarding the implementation of the new Labour Relations Act.

The Department of Labour and the new democratic government are committed to transforming the world of work in South Africa. In this regard four initiatives deserve special mention. First, employment equity. Our aim is to eradicate discrimination in the workplace, to give greater opportunities to those who have suffered indignities in the past, and to make our workplaces look more like our country both in racial and gender terms. Racism and sexism at work, as in society, cannot be tolerated. We have issued a green paper on employment equity and received extensive public comment we hope to begin drafting an employment equity bill soon.

Second, we want to overhaul the system of work-related education and training, modernising our approach, increasing the level of national investment in people, and linking training to grading systems and to prospects for individual advancement. We will, be issuing a green paper before the end of this year to facilitate public debate on the issue.

Third, we, together with our social partners, are working on an Employment Standards law. Millions of South African's workers are not protected by law or by trade unions. Millions of workers live below the breadline. The Department of labour is currently investigating complaints by workers in the clothing industry where wages as low as R1-11 cents per hour - in practice R49-95 per week - are not uncommon! And even worse conditions are still widespread among farm and domestic workers. A set of minimum standards, socially acceptable but realistic for a country at our level of development, is urgently needed; especially for those employees not effectively covered by collective agreements.

The department's fourth major goal is to introduce a new labour relations law. This is the subject of today's gathering.

The need for this new law is indisputable. The current law excludes farm and domestic workers as well as public servants. It tolerates the continued operation of overtly racist unions. It contains little reference to the work place or to key players, such as show stewards. Further, the old law had a poor record in dealing with disputes. Perhaps most importantly, the old law was imposed on unions and employers by the apartheid state.

The new labour relations law ushers in a new era. It introduces one law for all employees. Farmworkers and domestic workers have bargaining rights for the first time. And public servants, teachers and other will fall within the same framework as other workers.

The new law gives unions substantial organisational rights. We want to see stronger and more stable unions. Unions give workers a say in their futures and provide a necessary counter balance to the economic power of employers. Under the new law all workers are free to join unions, and all unions are free to organise and use legitimate means to pursue their goals. The new law is based on consensus between government, business and labour. This was not easily achieved. But the fact that our social partners, with their different interests, were able to reach consensus on a new bargaining framework, is a tribute to the ability of South Africans to solve even the most intractable problems.

The new law revolutionises dispute resolution. In future we expect to see most disputes resolved through mediation or arbitration. Strikes, lockouts and court cases, will not disappear. But, hopefully, their should become the exception rather than the rule. We expect the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) to set a new pattern in our country, mediating conflate effectively and avoiding unnecessary disputes. The new law abolishes the industrial court, although in practise this institution will take some time to phase out. It introduces a new Labour Court - with Supreme Court status and with greater expertise in the adjudication of labour disputes.

The new law favours the evolution of a system of sectoral collective bargaining. The department intends to promote the establishment of bargaining councils and national sectoral bargaining. But we also intend to ensure that such structures do not undermine national economic goals of growth, employment and redistribution.

Perhaps most importantly the new law is written in plain language and makes procedures easier to pursue. This should reduce the need for both employers and unions to engage labour lawyers, frequently at great expense. It should empower those at the coalface of industrial relations to resolve their own problems.

In short, this is the most dramatic overhaul of labour law since workplace relations were first regulated in 1924. Then, union rights were granted grudgingly and essentially only to white workers. Following the Wiehahn commission, these rights were extended to black workers, but with little else changed. The new law, the Labour Relations Act of 1995, can rightly claim to have been written de nova. It is based on a fresh look at actual practices. It attempts to construct a new framework for regulation collective bargaining between organised labour and organised employers. And it does so in ways appropriate to our new democracy and in recognition of the key role played by working people in bringing that democracy about.

In this a law which favours organised labour? To some extent it is, and there is no need to apologise for this. We felt there was a manifest need to level the playing field, to give all workers the rights which many have already won. But it is not a one-sided law. We have recognised the need for negotiated balance in the industrial relations environment. And hopefully the law reflects this.

There have been delays in implementing the new law. Perhaps we underestimated how long it would take to build new institutions or to make the transition from old to new. Perhaps we forgot that every dramatic chance requires long preparation, and in this case even legal amendments before implementation. Perhaps we forgot how long it would take to consult the social partners on the various schedules, committees and regulations associated with the new law. Consensus, like Rome, was not built in a day. Perhaps we forgot that transforming the collective bargaining framework was so substantial and initiative.

But now the light is visible at the end of the tunnel. Let me deal first with three major institutions associated with the new law. There is the CCMA. Its tripartite governing body is headed by Ray Zondo, Charles Nupen, as part of an arrangement with the ILO, is heading the CCMA's operations. It is hard to imagine a more experienced mediator than Mr Nupen. He and his colleagues have been at work building this new institution, recruiting competent staff and training them. He has already given you a progress report. Yes there are uncertainties. Maybe there will be a few hitches. But as I understand it the CCMA is "ready to roll".

There a more than a couple of weeks until the law is implemented. In order to make full use of available resources I will be approaching the CCMA to ask them to assist the Department in the coming weeks. I want some of their permanent commissioners, subject to the approval of the CCMA Board, to help us mediate and conciliate disputes which exist and are still arising under the old law. I want them to help overstretched Departmental officials to clear some of the backlog. This will utilise their considerable conciliating skills and keep the backlog of disputes to a minimum when the new law comes into operation.

Then there is the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court. People of great distinction and energy have been appointed to the Courts. They are also the first judges to have received explicit votes of confidence, prior to their appointment, from both employers and unions. The Labour Court's judgements will not always be appreciated by all litigants. But they will certainly be respected. Judge President Myburgh heads up the Court, ably assisted by his deputy Judge Froneman. A basic administration is largely in place. The Rules of the Court are ready for promulgation. And further judges are currently in the process of being appointed by the President to both the Labour Courts and the Labour Appeal Court. The Court is as ready as it can hope to be.

The third key institution is the Department itself. It is responsible for registering unions, employer organisations and bargaining councils. I have recently appointed Mr Hennie Slabbert as the Registrar of Labour Relations, responsible for such matters. He is a long-standing and very capable member of the Department. Our Agreements section is also being revamped so that I can be advised in line with the new criteria being applied to bargaining council agreements. And our statistical obligations require an overhaul of the collection of strike and unionisation date, a process which is already underway under the guidance of Dr Guy Mhone.

Detailed procedures are still being developed. But I make four comments to give an indication of the approach we will adopt in relation to the CCMA and Departmental institutions.

First, while I see the CCMA operating autonomously, our expectation is that it will reduce significantly the number of unresolved labour disputes. Naturally, industrial conflict will not end. But we expect the substantial resources we are directing towards the CCMA to result in better labour relations, less industrial conflict, and reduced costs to the economy. But labour and business must co-operate here. The CCMA's decisions should be respected although they will not always be to everyone's satisfaction.

Second, while the Registrar of Labour Relations must operate in terms of the statue, I expect him to further both labour stability and our country's constitutional principles in a number of respects. I expect him to remove official sanction from racist unions and abolish this blot on our society. I expect him to make it administratively simple for unions and employer organisations to register without opening the door to fly-by-night unions or labour consultants posing as employer organisations. I hope he will facilitate the formation of representative bargaining councils which negotiate national conditions for their sector.

Third, the new LRA enjoys the Department's staff to take account of both bargaining stability and economic development when deciding whether to recommend that I extend bargaining council agreements. I will be asking Departmental staff to take more consideration of the employment and economic implications when recommending extensions. The need to promote bargaining when recommending extensions. The need to promote bargaining stability will, of course, remain a factor. But I also want to know whether such agreements are sensitive to national economic goals.

Fourth, you should see improved statistics around labour relations. The reported rate of industrial action and the extent of union membership may well increase as new, and more reliable, data is gathered. Whole sectors - the public service, agriculture, educators - will be counted for the first time. And companies which have previously avoided reporting should find it less easy to continue doing so. In initiating a new statistical series, observers should not make the mistake of comparing apples and oranges. There is no reason to believe that union density will not continue to increase. And we expect that the incidence of industrial action will continue its longer-term, post-1994, decline. I request that all labour analysts avoid making superficial and incorrect, comparisons between new and old statistical series.

Our new law has been accused of increasing union and worker rights. To this charge we plead guilty. We have made it easier for workers to join unions and for unions to organise. And we have given labour rights, for the first time, to millions of South Africans. Strong unions are not only a sign of healthy democracy. They are also a precondition for industrial stability. We have a demanding workforce aware of its rights and vocal about its grievances. Let us acknowledge this fact openly as the new LRA does. An educated, productive and well-treated workforce can become a national asset. It need not be, as is sometimes assumed, an albatross around the neck of a developing country.

Indeed, it is an explicit aim of the new law to promote better economic outcomes - to encourage rising levels of productivity and training, and to achieve bargaining outcomes which balance the need for improved living standards for those in employment with greater opportunities for those seeking employment.

Will the new LRA lead to more strikes? I hope not. That is certainly not the intention. The new law makes it relatively easy for workers to embark on a legal strike. But it provides little protection for workers who embark on unprocedural actions. The bottom-line is that the new law recognises the right to strike ... but only after appropriate procedures have been followed. And it insists that disputes and grievances among police and in other essential services be resolved through arbitration rather than industrial action. I need hardly add that it is my hope that lock-outs remain a rare phenomenon and that we see less and less use of replacement labour, since this often contributes to more violence during industrial disputes.

Another key component of the new law is the Essential Services Committee. Frankly speaking, I was not satisfied with some of the original nominations made to this committee by the social partners. Ideally, this committee should have been in operation some months ago. In the circumstances I have had no alternative but to proceed as follows. I intend appointing a smaller three-person committee comprised of one person each with the confidence of the major social partners. I have discussed this, as the new law requires, with my colleague Minister Skweyiya. I intend to announce the names of this committee shortly, once I have finalised consultations at NEDLAC. This committee will operate for a period of three months. Thereafter it will be expanded to the larger committee we had originally hoped to appoint. To enable this committee to deliberate in an environment which is not crisis-driven, I intend extending the existing definitions of "essential services" for a relatively quiet period in industrial relations terms and so it should not unduly inconvenience anyone with high expectations of the new law. I will clarify the details of what this implies at the same time as I announce this three-person committee.

The new law says that workers in essential and maintenance services are not allowed to strike. Disputes involving them are to be dealt with by fair and speedy arbitration. Which services will deemed "essential"? That is for the committee to determine. But the new law implies that the term should not be used as an excuse, as it often has been in the past, for denying basic labour rights. In some instances the needs of society are paramount. In others there is insufficient basis for limiting employee rights. Services deemed essential by their owners are not necessarily deemed by society. Some months ago a businessman who owned a fast-food chicken outlet - I will not name the brand - tried to persuade one of the Department officials that his product was "essential"! I am sure it is, at least to his consumers and his bottom-line. But it probably does not fall within the definition contained the new law.

Another novel feature of the new law is Chapter 5 dealing with workplace forums. We do not expect hundreds of forums to be established overnight. Representative unions hold the key to unlocking these institutions and at this stage many seem to have adopted a wait-and-see approach. This need not be a problem for the Act since Chapter 5 is, in many respects, self-contained. Nevertheless it is my earnest hope that, over time, workplace forums will blossom. For now they are an indication of how co-operation between employers and their employees might be enhanced. Hopefully they will tempt the brave - those who find workplace democracy a challenge and not a threat.

Given the magnitude of what we are introducing - one of the first transformative post-apartheid laws - there will undoubtedly be hitches and glitches. Hopefully these will not be major. I ask for your forbearance in advance. We will be assessing progress once the law comes into operation. Naturally there will be loopholes and unexpected issues. On the basis of this monitoring we will improve the forms and regulations and even, if needed, introduce further amendments to the law. The LRA is, after all, a living document which must serve its primary goals in the dynamic environment of the workplace.

The public is right to expect big changes from this new law. But they should not expect miracles. One piece of misinformation going around is that the new law will set minimum wages for domestic workers and farmworkers. Let me make it clear - the new law does not dictate what people re paid of their conditions of employment. That is the function of minimum standards legislation, both existing and envisaged. The LRA's main purpose is to set out the framework within which collective bargaining will take place. The new law does provide some protection against unfair dismissal for individual workers. But its bottom-line message to workers is - if you want better conditions, go out and organise, then bargain with our employers for improvements. And the bottom-line message to employers is - talk to your employees, negotiate with them and treat them fairly. People are your and this country's greatest asset.

We have all been frustrated by the delays in transforming parliament's intention into reality. It is now slightly over twelve months since the new law was adopted. Today I can announce that the wait is nearly over. If everything runs according to plan the new LRA should come into effect from 11 November 1996. I'm sure you will agree it has been a law worth waiting for. The countdown has therefore begun.

<EOD>