Case Law[2025] ZALAC 32South Africa
Registrar of Labour Relations v Simunye Workers Forum (JA 115/2023) [2025] ZALAC 32; (2025) 46 ILJ 1906 (LAC); [2025] 9 BLLR 960 (LAC) (26 May 2025)
Labour Appeal Court of South Africa
26 May 2025
Headnotes
Summary: Appeal against decision of Labour Court to uphold appeal under section 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the refusal of the Registrar of Labour Relations to register trade union – purpose of registration to safeguard members rights and interests and ensure accountability – section 95(5) requirements not met – appeal upheld with no order of costs.
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZALAC 32
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Registrar of Labour Relations v Simunye Workers Forum (JA 115/2023) [2025] ZALAC 32; (2025) 46 ILJ 1906 (LAC); [2025] 9 BLLR 960 (LAC) (26 May 2025)
Registrar of Labour Relations v Simunye Workers Forum (JA 115/2023) [2025] ZALAC 32; (2025) 46 ILJ 1906 (LAC); [2025] 9 BLLR 960 (LAC) (26 May 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZALAC/Data/2025_32.html
sino date 26 May 2025
FLYNOTES:
LABOUR – Union –
Registration
–
Requirements
– Registrar refusing application for registration –
Labour Court overturning decision and ordered
registration –
Constitution adopted a flat and non-hierarchical structure –
Lacked a defined office of secretary
and failed to provide for
other office-bearers or officials – Insufficient to meet
requirements – Failed to prescribe
clear procedures for
electing or removing office-bearers – Non-compliant with
section 95(5) – Appeal upheld –
Labour Relations Act
66 of 1995
,
s 95(5).
THE
LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Reportable
Case
no: JA115/2023
In
the matter between:
REGISTRAR
OF LABOUR RELATIONS
Appellant
and
SIMUNYE
WORKERS FORUM
Respondent
Heard:
21 November 2024
(final
submissions 26 November 2024)
Delivered:
26 May 2025
Coram:
Savage ADJP, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA and Mooki AJA
Summary:
Appeal against decision of Labour Court to uphold appeal under
section 111(3)
of the
Labour Relations Act, 1995
against the refusal
of the Registrar of Labour Relations to register trade union –
purpose of registration to safeguard members
rights and interests and
ensure accountability –
section 95(5)
requirements not met –
appeal upheld with no order of costs.
Judgment
SAVAGE,
ADJP
Introduction
[1]
This
appeal, with the leave of the Labour Court, is against the judgment
and order of that Court
[1]
which
upheld the respondent’s appeal, wherein Simunye Workers Forum
(SWF) sought, under section 111(3) of the Labour Relations
Act
[2]
(LRA), to appeal and set aside the decision of the appellant, the
Registrar of Labour Relations (Registrar), to refuse to register
SWF
as a trade union.
The
Labour Court ordered that the Registrar register SWF as a trade union
in terms of section 96, and to issue it with a certificate
of
registration within 14 days of the date of the order, with the
Registrar to pay the costs of the appeal, save for those related
to
affidavits filed on 9 March 2023.
Constitutional
and legislative framework
[2]
E
very
worker has the constitutional right in terms of section 23(2) to
form, join and participate in the activities of a trade union
[3]
and every trade union and employer’s organisation has the right
‘
to
determine its own administration, programmes and activities
’.
[4]
The
International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions and
recommendations are an important source of international law to be
considered in the interpretation of section 23 of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
[5]
[3]
Article
2 of the ILO’s Freedom of Association Convention, 87
[6]
states that:
‘
Workers
and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right
to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation
concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without
previous authorisation.’
[4]
Article 3 of the Convention provides
that:
‘
Workers'
and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their
constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives
in full
freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to
formulate their programme…’
And
that:
‘
The
public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would
restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.’
[5]
Section
3 of the LRA requires a court to interpret the LRA’s provisions
in a manner which gives effect to the Act’s
primary objects, in
compliance with the Constitution and in compliance with South
Africa’s public international law obligations.
[7]
Freedom of association is given expression in section 8 of the LRA,
which provides that every trade union and employers’
organisation, subject to Chapter IV, has the right to determine its
own constitution and rules and hold elections for its office-bearers,
officials and representatives.
[8]
[6]
The
Constitutional Court has emphasised the importance of the right to
freedom of association, which applies equally to the workplace,
[9]
recognising it as
a
positive right which enables individuals to organise collectively
around issues of concern, including
to
‘
contest
and ameliorate the structure of social power within its midst
’.
[10]
A trade union, as an association of employees whose principal purpose
is to regulate relations between employees and employers,
[11]
reflects
such a collective organisation
.
[7]
Our
courts
have recognised that the role and power of such associations make
them ‘
worthy
of protection not only from the state but also from external actors
who may not share these goals’
.
[12]
In
National
Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) v Lufil Packaging
(Isithebe) (A Division of Bidvest Paperplus) (Pty) Ltd
and Others
[13]
(
Lufil
),
the
Constitutional Court quoted Woolman on the danger of the ‘capture’
of associations
:
‘
[C]apture
justifies the ability of associations to control their associations
through selective membership policies, the manner
in which they order
their internal affairs and the discharge of members or users. Without
the capacity to police their membership
and dismissal policies, as
well as their internal affairs, associations would face two related
threats. First, an association would
be at risk of having its aims
substantially altered. To the extent the original or the current
raison d’etre of the association
matters to the extant members
of the association, the association must possess the ability to
regulate the entrance, voice and
exit of members. Without built-in
limitations on the process of determining the ends of the
association, new members, existing
members and even outside parties
could easily distort the purpose, the character and the function of
the association. Second, and
for similar reasons, an association’s
very existence could be at risk. Individuals, other groups or a state
inimical to the
values of a given association could use ease of
entrance into and the exercise of voice in an association to put that
same organisation
out of business.’
[14]
[8]
T
he
importance of a trade union constitution, as with other voluntary
organisations
,
is that it constitutes the agreement entered into by its members.
[15]
Its
constitution not only determines the nature and scope of the
association’s existence and activities but also prescribes
and
demarcates the powers of the association and its office-bearers.
[16]
[9]
R
egistration
as a trade union or employers’ organisation, while not
compulsory, provides both statutory protections and significant
benefits, including
the
right to exercise workplace rights, bargain collectively and
represent members in various fora, including at the Commission
for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and bargaining
councils. This,
in
exchange for a trade union or employers’ organisation
subordinating itself to the regulatory prescripts of Chapter VI,
administered by the Registrar.
[17]
[10]
Section 95(1) of the LRA permits any trade union to apply to
the Registrar for registration if:
‘
(a) it has
adopted a name that meets the requirements of subsection (4);
(b) it has adopted
a constitution that meets the requirements of subsections (5) and
(6);
(c) it has an
address in the Republic; and
(d) it is
independent.’
[18]
[11]
A trade union is considered independent, in terms of section
95(2), if:
‘
(a) it is
not under the direct or indirect control of any employer or
employers’ organisation; and
(b) it is free of
any interference or influence of any kind from any employer or
employers’ organisation.’
[12]
Subsection 95(5) details the issues that must be reflected in
the constitution of a trade union or employers’ organisation
that seeks to register, with section 95(7), providing that t
he
Registrar ‘
must not
’
register a trade union or employer’s organisation unless
satisfied that it is genuine, having regard to the Guidelines
published by the Minster in terms of section 95(8).
[13]
In issue in this appeal is whether the
Labour Court erred in finding that the Registrar had erred in finding
that SWF’s constitution
did not comply with section 95(5), that
the union did not meet the requirements for genuineness and that it
was not independent.
[14]
The
appeal to the Labour Court under section 111(3) is one in the wide or
loose sense. This meant that, as with similar appeals
against the
decisions of administrative bodies, SWF was entitled
to
exercise a second opportunity before the Labour Court to make out a
case in a rehearing.
[19]
The
Labour Court was entitled to receive evidence not presented to the
Registrar and was not required to show deference to the
views of the
Registrar. This appeal, as was noted in
Registrar
of Labour Relations and Another v Justice for All Workers of South
Africa
[20]
(
JAWSA
),
is
similarly one in the wide or loose sense for the purpose of the
assessment that this Court is called upon to make.
[21]
Relevant
background
[15]
SWF describes itself as a ‘modern’
trade union, not constituted in the same
manner as more
traditional South
African trade unions, but formed by workers in non-standard, often
precarious
employment. Its roots are to be
found in the Casual Workers’ Advice Office (CWAO), a
non-profit, registered, independent community
advice office. The
catalyst for SWF’s formation were amendments to the LRA,
specifically to section 198, which took effect
on 1 January 2015, and
extended statutory protections to employees in non-standard forms of
employment.
[16]
Following
its formation in 2015, in February
2016, SWF adopted a simple constitution and functioned as an
unregistered trade union as defined in section 213 of the LRA.
[22]
In 2020, it resolved to apply for registration in terms of section 95
of the LRA. It adopted a constitution for this purpose in
2021, which
was amended on 26 February 2022. On 22 June 2022, the Registrar
refused to register SWF as a trade union
on the basis
that
SWF’s application did not comply with the requirements for
registration set out in section 95(5) of the LRA, that it
did not
constitute a genuine trade union and was not independent of the CWAO.
[17]
The
2022 SWF constitution records its name
[23]
and provides that:
‘…
15.
Each Meeting elects a Chairperson (who chairs the meeting) and a
Secretary (who keeps brief notes of
the issues discussed at the
meeting) to preside at the next Meeting. Where a
Chairperson/Secretary were not elected, or are not
present at a
Meeting, the Meeting must elect a Chairperson and/or Secretary. A
meeting that does not elect a woman Member as Chairperson
or
Secretary is unconstitutional.
16.
Except for the matters reserved for the Annual General meeting, the
Members present at each Meeting
constitute a quorum for purposes of
that Meeting, and may take decisions by majority vote.
17.
The Secretary records every decision in the Simunye Workers Forum
Minute Book.’
[18]
Clause 21 provides that at only the
annual general meeting, which in terms of clause 18 is to be held
annually in July, if possible,
can
inter
alia
decide to amend the
constitution; approve SWF’s audited financial statements;
appoint the standing committee, subject to
clause 29; set the annual
membership fee and wind up SWF. Clause 22 provides that SWF is
‘
independent of trade unions,
political parties, employers, the CWAO and the state’
.
[19]
SWF does not, in terms of clause 23,
employ officials, with it recorded that all organisational work is
done by its members. Clause
24 states that SWF is:
‘
[S]erved
by a Standing Committee appointed by majority vote at the AGM, which
serves until the following AGM (subject to clause
29) under the
ultimate direction and control of the Meetings.’
[20]
The standing committee, in terms of
clause 25, consists of:
‘
[N]o
more than ten and no fewer than three members appointed by the AGM, a
majority of whom must be women Members.’
[21]
Clause 26 provides that the standing
committee is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day running of the
SWF, including providing
secretarial support to the elected
chairperson and secretary of each meeting, assigning two of its
members to be signatories to
the SWF bank account and administering
that account, banking membership fees and managing special funds.
Clause 27 permits the
standing committee to co-opt any person with
special skills to assist it in fulfilling its functions, provided
that such persons
assist on a voluntary basis and are not
remunerated. In terms of clause 29, ‘
(a)ny
Meeting may add to, recall or replace Members of the Standing
Committee by majority vote’
.
Clause 30 provides that:
‘
Because
Members of the Standing Committee have no material interest in the
office, which is purely an office of service, no provision
is made
for an appeal against recall or replacement.’
[22]
No officials are employed by SWF, and
any member or volunteer may be nominated as an office bearer for the
purposes of the LRA,
CCMA Rules or the rules of any bargaining
council. The standing committee is to ensure that all statutory
requirements are complied
with, including those specified in sections
98 to 101 of the LRA. Membership fees may only be used to advance and
protect the socio-economic
interests of workers, and SWF is neither
to acquire nor control any immovable property or financial
instruments.
Section
95(5) requirements
[23]
Section 95(5) requires that the constitution of any trade
union (or employers’ organisation) that intends to register
must:
‘
(a) …
…
(i) establish the
office of secretary and define its functions;
(j) provide for
other office-bearers, officials and, in the case of a trade union,
trade union representatives, and define
their respective functions;
(k) prescribe a
procedure for nominating or electing office-bearers and, in the case
of a trade union, trade union representatives;
(l) prescribe a
procedure for appointing, or nominating and electing officials;
(m) establish the
circumstances and manner in which office-bearers, officials and, in
the case of a trade union, trade union
representatives, may be
removed from office;
(n) provide for
appeals against removal from office of office-bearers, officials and,
in the case of a trade union, trade
union representatives, prescribe
a procedure for those appeals and determine the body to which those
appeals may be made…’
Section
95(8) Guidelines
[24]
In
2002, the LRA was amended to include in section 95(7) that the
Registrar ‘
must
not
’
register a trade union or employer’s organisation unless
satisfied that it is genuine, with the Minister permitted
under
section 95(8) to publish guidelines to be applied by the Registrar in
determining whether such an applicant is a genuine
trade union or
employers’ organisation. The amendment was aimed chiefly at
preventing labour consultancies from registering
as trade unions or
employer organisations only to secure rights of representation in the
CCMA.
The
Guidelines issued by the Minister in terms of Section 95(8)
[24]
(Guidelines) are concerned with the genuineness requirement and make
it clear that they are ‘
not
concerned with evaluating whether the constitution of a trade union
or employers’ organisation complies with section 95(5)
of the
LRA’
.
[25]
[25]
The
Guidelines require that the Registrar ‘
take
into account all relevant factors
’
in determining whether a trade union or employers’ organisation
is genuine.
[26]
In terms of
paragraph 6, a trade union ‘
cannot
be registered
’
unless it is in fact an association of employees with the principal
purpose of its activities being to regulate relations
between its
members and their employers. This requires that the ‘
actual
process of forming a trade union, its composition and membership and
the activities it undertakes on behalf of its members
’
be examined. Paragraph 7 suggests that the process followed to form a
trade union ‘
can
give important indications as to whether
[it]
is
a genuine trade union
’.
The determination of whether a trade union is genuine includes, the
‘
crucial
issue
’
of ‘
whether
the formation of a trade union involved employees associating with
one another to establish an organisation to regulate
relations with
their employer(s)
’,
considering the number of founding members who attended the inaugural
meeting(s) to establish the trade union and who completed
signed
registers indicating their names and place of work, the means by
which the constitution of the trade union was drafted and
adopted and
the election of executive committee or council members and the
election of office-bearers. Paragraph 8 notes that
‘
t
he
failure to place appropriate qualifications on membership may
indicate, together with other factors, that the trade union is
not a
genuine trade union
’.
[26]
Other
factors require consideration by the Registrar of the size of the
membership
[27]
and the history
of a trade union,
[28]
whether
it has sought to gain a critical mass of members in particular
workplaces or bargaining units that would allow it to gain
organisational rights,
[29]
whether it recruits members who are in employment
[30]
and has sought organisational rights, recognition from employers or
submitted negotiated demands
[31]
or sought to resolve grievances on behalf of its members.
[32]
In addition, regard must be had to whether the trade union is
independent from ‘
direct
or indirect control of any employer or employers’
organisation
’,
[33]
and is an association of employees not for gain. Indicators of the
latter include whether the trade union has functioning branches,
holds regular meetings of members, elects shop stewards and other
trade union representatives in workplaces, elects office-bearers,
[34]
pays unrealistically high salaries or makes low or no interest loans
to officials or their family members, uses income earned for
the
benefit of officials, office-bearers or employees and not members, or
charges members for litigating on their behalf.
[35]
Decision
of the Registrar
[27]
The Registrar refused to register SWF as
a trade union, finding that its
constitution
did not comply with the
requirements for
registration set out in section 95(1)(a), (b) and (c),
nor
with the requirements of section 95(5)(i) to (n) of the LRA and that
it could not be determined if it was a genuine trade unionas
required
by section 95(7) and the Guidelines. The Registrar was not satisfied
that
SWF’s members had adopted its
name and constitution, that SWF had shown that it had an address in
South Africa, nor that it
was
an
independent and genuine trade union. In addition, the Registrar took
issue with the union’s failure to put up a copy of
the minutes
and attendance register of the meeting at which it was established,
which register reflected the names and numbers
of the members who had
attended the inaugural meeting, as well as particulars of their place
of work. No evidence was found to
have been provided to show how SWF
drafted and adopted its constitution, adopted its name, or how the
executive committee or council
of members, office bearers and trade
union representatives were elected. Issue was also taken with the
authenticity of the resolution,
and the nomination of the president
and vice president of SWF when they were not members of the standing
committee. In addition,
the Registrar expressed concern that SWF
was dependent for its survival on the CWAO, and that it was unable to
survive without
the support of the CWAO for office space, a postal
address, a telephone line, education and training of its members, the
development
of organisational management systems and infrastructural
support.
[28]
SWF’s constitution was also found
not to make provision for the employment of officials or office
bearers; with any meeting
entitled to add to, recall or replace
members of a standing committee by majority vote, and with no
provision for an appeal against
any recall or replacement decision
taken. The designations normally used for trade union office bearers
on the application forms
were not applied and those nominated to
complete the application form seeking registration were not shown to
have been nominated
by resolution taken in a meeting of 12 March
2022, when this was ostensibly in contravention of the respondent’s
constitution
in that it is not signed and makes no reference to such
nomination.
[29]
The Registrar stated that:
‘
It
is the conclusion of this office to regard the applicant SWF as CWAO
a registered
non-profit donor funded
independent community advice office with registration number
(NPO-093-222). Furthermore, it is impossible
for this office to
separate CWAO from SWF. SWF cannot be regarded to be independent from
CWAO as one would expect in a genuine
trade union as envisaged in the
LRA. On this basis alone the applicant trade union cannot be regarded
as a genuine trade union
as envisaged in the LRA to quality for
registration as a trade union as required by section 95(7) of the
LRA.’
[30]
The registration of SWF as a trade union
was therefore refused on 22 June 2022 on the grounds that it had
failed to meet the requirements
for registration in terms of the Act
and was not a genuine trade union.
Judgment
of the Labour Court
[31]
Aggrieved with the Registrar’s
refusal to register it, SWF appealed to the Labour Court in terms of
section 111(3) of the
LRA. The Court set aside
the
Registrar’s decision of refusal, finding that SWF was
independent, met the requirements of genuineness despite its unique
organisational structure, and found that to the extent required, SWF
had complied with the provisions of section 95(5)(i) to (n).
The
decision of the Registrar was therefore set aside, and the Registrar
was ordered to register SWF as a trade union within 14
days of the
date of the Labour Court’s order. The Registrar was ordered to
pay the cost of the appeal, save for the costs
related to two lengthy
and unnecessary affidavits filed on 9 March 2023.
Discussion
[32]
The
right
to freedom of association is to be interpreted generously,
recognising
the
importance of fundamental rights and ensuring their protection as
fully as possible,
[36]
in
a manner which promotes the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill
of Rights.
[37]
The words used
in the statute must be given their ordinary grammatical meaning,
unless to do so would result in an absurdity, with
statutory
provisions always to be interpreted purposively, properly
contextualised, construed consistently with the Constitution,
and
where reasonably possible, interpreted to preserve their
constitutional validity.
[38]
A
ny
limitation of rights is to accord with the provisions of section
39(2).
[39]
[33]
The Registrar’s appeal turns on
the Labour Court’s interpretation and application of section
95(5) and its conclusion
that SWF is a genuine trade union
independent from CWAO.
Compliance
with section 95(5)
[34]
Section
95(5) requires that
the
constitution of a trade union that intends to register ‘
must
’
inter
alia
(i)
e
stablish
the office of secretary and define its functions
[40]
,
and (ii) provide for other office-bearers, officials and trade union
representatives, defining their respective functions
[41]
.
In addition, section 95(5)(k) requires a procedure to be prescribed
for nominating or electing office-bearers and trade union
representatives and, in section 95(5)(l), for appointing, or
nominating and electing officials. Section 95(5)(m) requires that
the
circumstances and manner in which office-bearers, officials and, in
the case of a trade union, trade union representatives,
may be
removed from office be established, with section 95(5)(n) requiring
that the constitution provide for appeals against the
removal from
office of office-bearers, officials and trade union representative
and prescribe a procedure for those appeals and
determine the body to
which those appeals may be made.
[35]
SWF
contends that its structure, as reflected in its constitution, is
intentionally flat and non-hierarchical. It relies on the
ILO’s
Compilation of Decisions of the Committee on Freedom of
Association
[42]
as the basis
of its right to determine freely its structure and composition, as
matters for workers to decide. It argues that legislative
provisions
which regulate the details of the internal functioning of workers’
organisations –
‘…
pose
a serious risk of interference by the public authorities. Where such
provisions are deemed necessary by the public authorities,
they
should simply establish an overall framework in which the greatest
possible autonomy is left to the organizations in their
functioning
and administration. Restrictions on this principle should have the
sole objective of protecting the interests of members
and
guaranteeing democratic functioning of organizations.’
[36]
The
Registrar, on the other hand, considers the provisions of section 95
to be peremptory.
In
National
Education Health and Allied Workers Union v Minister of Public
Service and Administration and Others
[43]
,
it was
noted
that a label such as peremptory or directory, mandatory or directory
is not necessarily determinative of whether a failure
to comply with
its provisions inevitably results in nullity. All statutes must be
construed consistently with the Constitution
[44]
and –
‘…
(i)n
deciding whether there has been compliance with the statutory
injunction, what is important is the object sought to be achieved
by
the injunction and whether this object has indeed been achieved.
[45]
The central element is to link the question of compliance to the
purpose of the provision. It has to be determined “whether
what
the applicant did constituted compliance with the statutory
provisions viewed in the light of their purpose”.’
[46]
[37]
Having
regard to the requirements set out in section 95, it is not clear
that these create an
unjustifiable
inroad into SWF’s autonomy or present undue obstacles to
registration. It establishes a framework for registration
to ensure
accountability,
transparency, and democracy in trade unions’ internal processes
and procedures.
[47]
This
serves to protect members, the organisation itself and the external
parties with whom it relates.
Where
a trade union elects not to register, it is not obliged to comply
with the provisions of the section.
[38]
Clause 15 of SWF’s constitution provides for the
election of a secretary and a chairperson for each ordinary meeting,
with
the secretary required, in clause 17, to
record
every decision taken at the meeting in the SWF Minute Book
. In
issue is whether these provisions establish an ‘
office of
secretary
’ and define its functions. In issue is whether an
office of secretary can be said to have been established where a
different
secretary may be elected at each meeting and whether the
requirement that its functions are defined is met by noting that the
secretary
records decisions in a minute book.
[39]
In
attributing meaning to the words used in the statute, regard is to be
had to the context, the language used and the apparent
purpose to
which it is directed. Where more than one meaning is possible, each
possibility must be weighed
in the light of all these factors, with a sensible meaning to be
preferred.
[48]
By
requiring the establishment of an office of secretary, the apparent
purpose of the provision, considered in the context of registration
requirements, appears to be to ensure appropriate administrative
controls are in place to ensure order and accountability and
transparency in the operation and functioning of a trade union.
Allowing a different secretary to be appointed at each meeting is
not
the creation of an office. It amounts to the
ad
hoc
appointment of a different secretary at each meeting, and tasking
such a person with recording decisions in a minute book does
not
reach the threshold of defining the functions of the office. The fact
that the
standing
committee is required, by clause 26, to provide secretarial support
to the elected chairperson and secretary of each meeting,
reiterates
that such functions are not vested in an office of secretary but in a
committee of members elected.
From
this, it is apparent that the constitution does not comply with the
requirement of section 95(5)(i).
[40]
The Registrar disputes that there has been compliance with
section 95(5)(j) in that the constitution has failed ‘
to
provide for other office-bearers, officials and trade union
representatives
’ or ‘
define their respective
functions
’. Section 213 of the LRA defines an official as –
‘
a person employed
as the secretary, assistant secretary or organiser of a trade union…
or in any other prescribed capacity,
whether or not that person is
employed in a full-time capacity…’
[41]
Apart
from the
ad hoc
appointment of a secretary and chairperson at a meeting, the
constitution makes no provision for the appointment of a person to
be
employed in such capacity or in any other capacity which falls within
the definition of an official.
[42]
An
office-bearer is defined as –
‘
a
person who holds office… and who is not an official…’.
[43] SWF’s
constitution does not provide for office-bearers, officials and trade
union representatives, as defined in
section 213 of the LRA, nor does
it provide for their functions
.
Clause
23 states that SWF does not employ officials, with all organisational
work done by members. In terms of clause 24, the union
is served by a
standing committee appointed at its annual general meeting, which is
under the ultimate direction of ‘the
meetings’. Clause 26
provides that the standing committee is responsible for overseeing
the day-to-day running of the SWF,
including providing secretarial
support to the elected chairperson and secretary of each meeting,
assigning two of its members
to be signatories to the SWF bank
account and administering that account, banking membership fees and
managing special funds. Clause
27 permits the standing committee to
co-opt any person with special skills to assist it in fulfilling its
functions, provided that
such persons assist on a voluntary basis and
are not remunerated.
[44] The Labour
Court found that the reason that no officials were appointed was
explained in the constitution and the covering
letter that
accompanied SWF’s application;
and that
to interpret the words ‘provide for’ to mean
‘establish’, as the Registrar contends, ignores the fact
that
the legislature chose to use different terms and that a proper
interpretation of the provision, considered in context and with
regard to the purpose of the Act and section 95, means no more than
that these are matters which must be addressed
in SWF’s constitution. The Court suggested that a different
interpretation
would present an unjustifiable inroad into SWF’s
autonomy and establish an unwarranted obstacle to registration. The
same
considerations were found to apply to the requirement in section
95(5)(k) to (n), insofar as they relate to a procedure for the
nomination, appointment and removal from office of the persons
appointed to the offices referred to in paragraph (j).
[45]
The difficulty with this finding is that even if not
established, no provision is made in the constitution for other
office-bearers
or officials. In fact, the constitution expressly
disavows the need for such positions, with clause 23 providing that
SWF does
not employ officials and that all organisational work is
done by members, with it possible to co-opt any person with special
skills
to fulfil functions required, provided such persons are not
remunerated.
[46]
In these circumstances, it would amount to an unduly expansive
interpretation of section 95(5)(j) to find that the constitution
makes the provision for the subsection when it has expressly and
intentionally does not do so. Given as much, it follows that the
constitution has not prescribed a procedure for nominating or
electing office-bearers as required by section 95(5)(k), or for
appointing, or nominating and electing officials in terms of section
95(5)(l). Clauses 31 to 36 of the SWF constitution provide
for trade
union representatives, defined as ‘a member of a trade union
who [are] elected to represent employees in a workplace’,
who
work in a workplace and may be elected as one or more workplace
representatives at a meeting attended by at least half of the
members
of that workplace.
[47]
However, the constitution provides that
any meeting may add to, recall or replace members of the standing
committee by majority
vote in terms of clause 29, with clause 30
making it clear that no appeal against recall or replacement is
provided since members
of the standing committee have no material
interest in the office, which is purely an office of service. The
result is that on
no construction can the constitution be interpreted
to have established the circumstances and manner in which
office-bearers, officials and, in the case of a trade union,
trade union representatives, may be removed from office, as required
by section 95(5)(m), or provide for appeals against their removal in
the manner set out in section 95(5)(n).
[48]
While the express intent of the SWF constitution, as set out
in its preamble is ‘
to keep decision-making power in the
hands of those Members affected by the decision in question
’,
with all work done by members and no person remunerated for any work
done, it fails to comply with the requirements for
registration set
out in section 95(5).
Genuine
and independent?
[49]
The LRA was amended in 2002 to introduce subsections 95(7) and
(8), which require the Registrar to determine whether a trade union
(or employers’ organisation) seeking registration is genuine.
The notion of independence in section 95(2) is concerned with
whether
a trade union is ‘
(a) … under the direct or indirect
control of any employer or employers’ organisation; and (b) it
is free of any interference
or influence of any kind from any
employer or employers’ organisation’
.
While
the Registrar in refusing SWF registration took the view that it was
dependent on the CWAO, particularly in regard to its
infrastructural
needs, there is no dispute that the CWAO is not an employer or an
employer’s organisation for purposes of
section 95(2) and there
is no suggestion that SWF is under the control of or influenced by
any employer or employer’s organisation.
[50]
In
Vosloo
NO and Another v SA Medical
Association
NPC and Another,
[49]
it was found that a trade union must not only be free from control by
employers or employers’ organisations, but it must
be
independent in the sense of being free from direct or indirect
control of any entity and any interference or influence.
Our
courts have recognised that
many
South African trade unions grew out of advice offices, or were
brought into existence in collaboration with social activists,
academics or politically motivated individuals.
[50]
While i
ndependence
is narrowly defined in section 95(2), this Court accepts that it is
unlikely that an organisation that is under the
direct or indirect
control of another entity will be found to meet the requirements for
registration as a genuine trade union or
employers’
organisation.
[51]
In
determining whether a trade union or employers’ organisation is
genuine, the Registrar ‘
must
take into account all relevant factors
’
set out in the Guidelines in order to determine whether such
organisation is genuine.
[51]
The Guidelines are not peremptory but are, as their name suggests,
guidelines. They detail some of the issues the Registrar will
consider in having regard to whether a trade union or employers’
organisation is genuine.
As
such, they do not override the requirements of section 95(5) LRA and
are not a checklist, with genuineness to be considered in
light of
the mischief which it was apparent from the explanatory memorandum to
the amendment was sought to be prevented, namely
that unions or
employer organisations are not registered when these are disguised
labour consultancies which seek to gain rights
of appearance at the
CCMA.
[52]
Given the finding that the SWF
constitution does not comply with the prescripts for registration set
out in section 95(5), the appeal
must succeed, and the orders of the
Labour Court set aside. It is premature to consider whether SWF meets
the threshold for genuineness
or independence, and it is unnecessary
to determine whether it failed to provide the required information or
sought to mislead
the Registrar in its application. It would not be
appropriate for this Court to determine such issues on a piecemeal
basis. SWF
must be permitted to revisit and amend its constitution so
as to ensure that its members are properly and adequately protected
and represented and that it reflects a due regard for the principles
of accountability and transparency. This will limit disputes
in the
future and provide appropriate legal protections for workers who are
already recognised as vulnerable. Thereafter, the union
may apply
again to the Registrar for registration.
[53]
Having regard to considerations of law
and fairness, we are not persuaded that a costs order is warranted in
this matter. SWF has
as its members the most vulnerable of workers,
whereas the Registrar performs a regulatory function in terms of the
LRA, resourced
by the State. There is no reason to saddle SWF with
costs, more so given the nature of the issues which required
consideration
in this matter.
[54]
In the result, the following order is
made:
Order
1.
The appeal is upheld with no order as to
costs.
2.
The orders of the Labour Court are set
aside.
SAVAGE
ADJP
Nkutha-Nkontwana
JA and Mooki AJA concur.
APPEARANCES:
FOR
THE APPELLANT:
M S Mphahlele SC and EB Ndebele
Instructed by the State
Attorney
FOR
RESPONDENT: M Bishop SC and S Harvey
Instructed by the Legal
Resources Centre
[1]
Reported as
Simunye
Workers Forum v Registrar of Labour Relations
(2023) 44 ILJ 2021 (LC).
[2]
Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
[3]
Section 23(2) of the Constitution reads:
‘
(2)
Every worker has the right –
(a)
to form and join a trade union;
(b)
to participate in the activities and programmes of trade union; and
(c)
to strike…’
[4]
Section
23(4) states:
‘
(4)
Every trade union and every employers’ organisation has the
right –
(a)
to determine its own administration, programs and activities;
(b)
to organise; and
(c)
to form and join a federation.’
[5]
National
Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Bader Bop (Pty)
Ltd and Another
[2002] ZACC 30
;
2003
(3) SA 513
(CC)
(
Bader
Bop)
at
para 28. See also
South
African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence
[1999] ZACC 7
;
1999
(4) SA 469
(CC)
at para 25.
[6]
C087
- Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87) ratified by South Africa.
[7]
Section 3.
[8]
Section 8.
## [9]National
Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Lufil Packaging (Isithebe)
(A Division of Bidvest Paperplus) (Pty) Ltd andOthers
(Lufil)
[2020] 7 BLLR 645 (CC) at para 32.
[9]
National
Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Lufil Packaging (Isithebe)
(A Division of Bidvest Paperplus) (Pty) Ltd and
Others
(
Lufil
)
[2020] 7 BLLR 645 (CC) at para 32.
[10]
Ibid at para 33.
[11]
Defined
as such in section 213 of the LRA.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Supra.
[14]
Woolman
“Freedom of Association” in Woolman et al
(eds)
Constitutional
Law of South Africa
Service
6 (2014) at 44-2-3.
[15]
Turner
v Jockey Club of SA
1974
(3) SA 633
(A) at 644G – 645C.
## [16]Saunders
v Johannesburg Stock Exchange1914 WLD 112 at 117;Ex
parte UnitedParty
Club1930
WLD 277;Medupe
and Others v African National Congress and Others[2025]
ZASCA 22 at para 24 -25.
[16]
Saunders
v Johannesburg Stock Exchange
1914 WLD 112 at 117;
Ex
parte United
Party
Club
1930
WLD 277;
Me
dupe
and Others v African National Congress and Others
[2025]
ZASCA 22 at para 24 -25.
## [17]Registrar
of Labour Relations and Another v Justice for All Workers of SA(2025) 46 ILJ 351 (LAC) (JAWSA)
at para 3.
[17]
Registrar
of Labour Relations and Another v Justice for All Workers of SA
(2025) 46 ILJ 351 (LAC) (
JAWSA
)
at para 3.
[18]
A similar provision is found in section 95(3) in relation to
employers’ organisations.
[19]
JAWSA
supra at para 8.
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
See
JAWSA
at para 8, fn 3 in which reference is made to
Trencon
Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South
Africa
2015
(5) SA 245
(CC) at paras 82 to 92 and the distinction
between a true discretion and a loose discretion. In particular:
‘
[86]
… where a court has a discretion in the loose sense, it does
not necessarily have a
choice between equally permissible options.
Instead, as described in
Knox
, a discretion in the loose
sense –
“
mean[s]
no more than that the court is entitled to have regard to a number
of disparate and incommensurable features in coming
to a decision”.’
[22]
Section 213 defines a ‘trade union’ as ‘
an
association of employees whose principal purpose is to regulate
relations between employees and employers, including any employers’
organisations
’.
[23]
Section 95(1) of the LRA provides that:
‘
Any
trade union may apply to the registrar for registration if –
(a)
it has adopted a name that meets the requirements of subsection
(4).’
Section
95(4) provides that:
‘
Any
trade union or employers’ organisation that intends to
register may not have a name or shortened form of the name that
so
closely resembles the name or shortened form of the name of another
trade union or employers’ organisation that it is
likely to
mislead or cause confusion.’
[24]
GNR 1446 of 10 October 2003. The 2003 guidelines were subsequently
withdrawn, and in 2018, new guidelines were promulgated in
GNR 1395
of 19 December 2018.
[25]
Ibid at para 4.
[26]
At para 3.
[27]
At para 9.
[28]
At para 10.
[29]
At
para 11.
[30]
At para 12.
[31]
At para 13.
[32]
At para 15.
[33]
At para 16.
[34]
At para 17.
[35]
At paras 18 and 21.
[36]
See:
Bader
Bop
supra
.
[37]
See: section 39(2) of the Constitution.
Wary
Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Stalwo (Pty) Ltd and Another
[2008] ZACC 12
;
2009 (1) SA 337
(CC) at para 45.
[38]
Cool
Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another
2014
(8) BCLR 869
(
Cool
Ideas
)
at para 28 with reference
inter
alia
to
SATAWU
and Another v Garvas and Others
2013 (1) SA 83
(CC) at para 37;
S
v Zuma and Others
1
995
(2) SA 642
(CC)
at paras 13 -14;
Dengetenge
Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company
Ltd and Others
2014
(3) BCLR 265
(CC) at paras 84 -86;
Department
of Land Affairs and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) Ltd
[2007] ZACC 12
;
2007
(6) SA 199
(CC) at para 5;
North
East Finance (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd
2013
(5) SA 1
(SCA)
at para 24;
KPMG
Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd and Another
2009
(4) SA 399
(SCA)
at para 39; and
Jaga
v Dőnges NO and Another;
Bhana
v Dőnges NO and Another
1950
(4) SA 653
(A)
at 664E-H.
[39]
Bader
Bop supra.
[40]
Section
95(5)(i).
[41]
Section 95(5)(j).
[42]
ILO Convention 87.
[43]
National
Education Health and Allied Workers Union v Minister of Public
Service and Administration and Others; South African Democratic
Teachers Union and Others v Department of Public Service and
Administration and Others; Public Servants Association and Others
v
Minister of Public Service and Administration and Others; National
Union of Public Service and Allied Workers Union v Minister
of
Public Service and Administration and Others
(2022) 43 ILJ 1032 (CC) (
NEHAWU
)
at para 71.
[44]
Cool
Ideas
supa
at para 28. See: NEHAWU at para 72.
[45]
See:
Maharaj
and Others v Rampersad
1964
(4) SA 638
(A)
at 643G.
[46]
African
Christian Democratic Party v Electoral Commission & others
[2006] ZACC 1
;
2006 (3) SA 305
(CC)
.
See also
Allpay
Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief
Executive Officer, South African Social Security Agency and
Others
2014
(1) SA 604
(CC) at para 30.
[47]
See:
Lufil
supra
at
para 64
.
## [48]Natal
Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality[2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA) at para 18.
[48]
Natal
Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality
[2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA) at para 18.
[49]
(2020) 41 ILJ 2482 (LC) at para 8.
[50]
Workers
Union of SA v Crouse NO & another
(2005) 26 ILJ 1723 (LC) at para 36.
[51]
Para 3.
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Registrar of Labour Relations and Another v Justice for All Workers of South Africa (JA36/2024) [2024] ZALAC 64; [2025] 2 BLLR 169 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 351 (LAC) (29 November 2024)
[2024] ZALAC 64Labour Appeal Court of South Africa98% similar
Sadan and Another v Workforce Staffing (Pty) Ltd - Appeal (JA38/23; JA88/23) [2023] ZALAC 18 (17 August 2023)
[2023] ZALAC 18Labour Appeal Court of South Africa97% similar
NUMSA obo Mokase v Nissan South Africa Ltd and Others (JA46/23) [2024] ZALAC 16; [2024] 9 BLLR 967 (LAC) (23 April 2024)
[2024] ZALAC 16Labour Appeal Court of South Africa97% similar
Sadan and Another v Workforce Staffing (Pty) Ltd (JA38/23 ; JA88/23) [2023] ZALAC 14 (17 August 2023)
[2023] ZALAC 14Labour Appeal Court of South Africa97% similar
Tshabalala v Moqhaka Local Municipality and Another (JA88/2024) [2024] ZALAC 60; [2025] 2 BLLR 189 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 590 (LAC) (21 November 2024)
[2024] ZALAC 60Labour Appeal Court of South Africa97% similar