Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
8 March 2016

Con Court on collective bargaining

This Court has previously recognised that the right to “collective bargaining between the employer and . . . [employees] is key to a fair industrial relations environment”. The LRA is concerned with the power imbalance between the employer and employees. It sanctions the use of power by employers and employees, but only as a last resort, and only after the issue in dispute between the parties has been referred for conciliation. Collective bargaining therefore implies that each employer-party and employee-party has the right to exercise economic power against the other once the issue in dispute has been referred for conciliation, and only if that process fails in one of the manners described above.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest