Sssbc Agreement 4 Of 2017

[6] However, this court is not in a position to rule on the unpunability of the strike, as saPU referred to SSSBC a dispute on the interpretation and application of the collective agreement before bringing this claim before the Labour Court. This dispute is still ongoing at the SSSBC and is essential to the question of whether the strike is protected or not. [3] In my view, SAPS brought forward a mandatory case of non-protection of the strike, as the issue of the dispute was settled by a collective agreement between the SAPS and the majority union. POPCRU. [4] Section 23(1)(d) authorizes employers and majority unions to make a collective agreement binding on non-parties. Agreement 4/2001 introduced a service premium which took into account the unique situation of saps as regards the affordability of hazard pay and other allowances. The agreement was a consolidation of the hazard pay, special hazard pay and on-call allowance to an amount of R400.00 [9] In Lesiba v Department of Justice[1], Van Niekerk J found that court intervention in internal disciplinary proceedings in the workplace would undermine the legal objective underlying dispute resolution within the meaning of the LRA. Disciplinary challenges must be addressed in the normal course of discipline in the workplace. Where decisions taken in these internal disciplinary proceedings are the subject of disputes, these are matters that should be dealt with in arbitration proceedings under the aegis of the CCMA or the competent negotiating board.

This court exercises supervisory jurisdiction through its power to review the arbitral decisions and awards of arbitrators. This system is totally undermined when the parties request the intervention of the court as the first instance to effectively manage disciplinary hearings in the workplace. [2] B. This amount has not been reviewed since 2001 and is currently on the agenda of the SSSBC for consideration. [5] It is also doubtful whether the continuation of the strike is functional for collective bargaining, given that it is general, between the parties, that the SAPS does not have the power to define and improve the conditions of service and remuneration of PSA employees. This authority falls under the mandate of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and is negotiated within the Public Service Collective Agreements and Coordination Council. [8] In fact, the SAPU asks this court to intervene at first instance in internal disciplinary proceedings and to rule on internal disciplinary matters. . . .

filed under: Uncategorized