Salgbc Wage Curve Collective Agreement

[20] Shortly before 2:00 p.m., Molope (SAMWU) arrived at the signing ceremony, with the hardcopys of the contracts to be signed by Forbes had given him the day before. Yawa gave him two documents and informed him that these were the documents to be signed. When Yawa was asked to amend the agreements, he said no. That`s what he said, even though he knew he had made significant changes to the documents That Forbes emailed him the day before. Before the amendments, the “agreement” was as follows: 2. See the improvement to 7.2.3, where we tried to eliminate indeterminacy in the wage curve, the higher encoding being applicable using the applicable task class. [37] The editorial team`s decision is not a decision of the negotiating committee. The reason why two-thirds of the majority of employer representatives, on the one hand, and two thirds of the simultaneous majority of union representatives, on the other hand, are necessary to make a decision is very important. The union representatives on the Council are there with a mandate, but as individuals. You have individual voices. If, for example, three samWU members, who had six votes, decided to approve with IMATU a proposal in which seven union representatives would vote in favour of a proposal, and all employer representatives voted in favour; this decision would constitute a legal decision of the negotiating committee, regardless of the mandate of the SAMWU delegation.

The so-called agreement is therefore not a binding agreement within the meaning of the Third Respondent`s Constitution. If the provisions of the Third Respondent`s Constitution are clear and unequivocal, considerations of fairness may not influence your interpretation. [3] SAMWU applied to the Tribunal on the basis of an order that quashed the alleged agreement signed on 21 April 2010. The decision was sought to prevent the third respondent (South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) from implementing the so-called agreement on the wage curve recovery agreement signed on April 21, 2010 until the dispute over this “agreement” can be resolved. Due to inconsistent factual disputes that could not be resolved on the documents, the case was the subject of oral proceedings. After a lengthy trial, the court took the following order: [21] According to the amendments, the “agreement” signed is as follows: [35] First, the practice itself is not properly established.