With regard to the above abstract identify the type of collection agreement Metcash Trading entered into with the union.

Practical Management Science
6th Edition
ISBN:9781337406659
Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Chapter2: Introduction To Spreadsheet Modeling
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 20P: Julie James is opening a lemonade stand. She believes the fixed cost per week of running the stand...
icon
Related questions
Question

With regard to the above abstract identify the type of collection agreement Metcash Trading entered into with the union.

Greathead, Brlan Courtney Appellant and South African Commercial Catering & Allied Workers
Union
The respondent is a trade union duly registered in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the
Act"), and hereinafter called "the union". On 2 July 1997 the union and Metcash Trading Limited
("Metcash") had an agreement provided for in 25 of the Act. Since the agreement was a "collective
agreement" it had to be in writing. The agreement required Metcash as the employer to deduct an
agreed monthly agency fee from the wages of those of its employees who were not members of the
union and to remit the agency fees so deducted to the union. (I shall assume that the parties to the
agreement intended that all those employees who were non-union members should fall within the
obscure definition of "affected 3 employees" contained in the agreement).
The appellant is employed by Metcash as a retail adviser. He is one of the affected employees who is
strongly opposed to the union and its policies and affiliations. He objects to the imposition upon him
of the agreement on the grounds that it contravenes his constitutional right to: 1. freedom of
association in terms of s 18 ("Bill of Rights") of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of
1996; and 2. Freedom of political choice in terms of s 19(1) of the Bill of Rights. In this agency shop
agreement there was no part in this agreement which stated that employees to whom the agreement
had extended were not compelled to join majority union.
The appellant launched an application in the Witwatersrand Local Division for an order against
Metcash as first respondent and the union as second respondent: "1. Declaring that the agreement
entered into between the first respondent and the second respondent on 2 July 1997 infringes upon
the applicant's rights to:
1. Freedom of association
2. Freedom to make political choices
3. Freedom from servitude or forced labour.
Transcribed Image Text:Greathead, Brlan Courtney Appellant and South African Commercial Catering & Allied Workers Union The respondent is a trade union duly registered in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the Act"), and hereinafter called "the union". On 2 July 1997 the union and Metcash Trading Limited ("Metcash") had an agreement provided for in 25 of the Act. Since the agreement was a "collective agreement" it had to be in writing. The agreement required Metcash as the employer to deduct an agreed monthly agency fee from the wages of those of its employees who were not members of the union and to remit the agency fees so deducted to the union. (I shall assume that the parties to the agreement intended that all those employees who were non-union members should fall within the obscure definition of "affected 3 employees" contained in the agreement). The appellant is employed by Metcash as a retail adviser. He is one of the affected employees who is strongly opposed to the union and its policies and affiliations. He objects to the imposition upon him of the agreement on the grounds that it contravenes his constitutional right to: 1. freedom of association in terms of s 18 ("Bill of Rights") of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996; and 2. Freedom of political choice in terms of s 19(1) of the Bill of Rights. In this agency shop agreement there was no part in this agreement which stated that employees to whom the agreement had extended were not compelled to join majority union. The appellant launched an application in the Witwatersrand Local Division for an order against Metcash as first respondent and the union as second respondent: "1. Declaring that the agreement entered into between the first respondent and the second respondent on 2 July 1997 infringes upon the applicant's rights to: 1. Freedom of association 2. Freedom to make political choices 3. Freedom from servitude or forced labour.
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

Blurred answer
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Practical Management Science
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
Operations Management
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259666100
Author:
F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B Chase
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Business in Action
Business in Action
Operations Management
ISBN:
9780135198100
Author:
BOVEE
Publisher:
PEARSON CO
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781285869681
Author:
Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781478623069
Author:
Steven Nahmias, Tava Lennon Olsen
Publisher:
Waveland Press, Inc.