P 1 - 76 SA Employment Relations: Theory and Practice 8th Ed.

Copyright © 2016. Van Schaik Publishers. All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or
applicable copyright law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 9/6/2018 10:31 AM via INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
AN: 1242992 ; Nel, P. S., Kirsten, Monica, Swanepoel, Ben, Erasmus, Barney, Jordaan, Barney.; South African
Employment Relations : Theory and Practice
Account: s6311349
Disclaimer
Copyright © 2016. Van Schaik Publishers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or
Intra-publication hyperlinks may not be available in the online version of this title. To navigate the text in
the online viewer, please use the electronic Table of Contents that appears alongside the eBook, the
previous and next arrow keys, and page number box that appear at the bottom of the online viewer.
applicable copyright law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 9/6/2018 10:31 AM via INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
AN: 1242992 ; Nel, P. S., Kirsten, Monica, Swanepoel, Ben, Erasmus, Barney, Jordaan, Barney.; South African Employment Relations :
Theory and Practice
Account: s6311349
Copyright © 2016. Van Schaik Publishers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under
U.S. or applicable copyright law.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
South African
employment
relations
Theory and practice
Eighth edition
PS Nel | M Kirsten | BJ Swanepoel
BJ Erasmus | B Jordaan
Van Schaik
PU B L I S HE R S
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Published by Van Schaik Publishers

A division of Media24 Books
1059 Francis Baard Street, Hatfield, Pretoria
All rights reserved
Copyright © 2016 Van Schaik Publishers
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means – electron ic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise –
without written permission from the publisher, except in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright Act 98 of 1978.
Please contact DALRO for information regarding copyright clearance for this publication.
Any unauthorised copying could lead to civil liability and/or criminal sanctions.
Tel: 086 12 DALRO (from within South Africa) or +27 (0)11 712 8000
Fax: +27 (0)11 403 9094
Postal address: PO Box 31627, Braamfontein, 2017, South Africa
http://www.dalro.co.za
First edition 1989

Second revised edition 1993
Third edition 1997
Fourth edition 2002
Fifth edition 2005
Sixth edition 2008
Seventh edition 2012
Eighth edition 2016
ISBN 978 0 627 03393 3

eISBN 978 0 627 03394 0
Commissioning editor Claire Thornton

Production manager Werner von Gruenewaldt
Editorial coordinator Nangamso Phakathi
Copy editor Marion Marchand
Proofreaders Wendy Priilaid and Chrisna Nel
Cover design by Gisela van Garderen
Cover image by iStockPhoto.com
Typeset in 10.65 on 12.5 pt Cronos Pro by Pace-Setting & Graphics, Pretoria
Printed and bound by Paarl Media, a division of Novus Holdings
Every ef fort has been made to obtain copyright permission for material used in this book.
Please contact the publisher with any queries in this regard.
Please note that reference to one gender includes reference to the other.
Website addresses and links were correct at time of publication.
This book has been reviewed by independent peer reviewers.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Preface
In the current South African milieu, employment relations are more relevant than ever
before, constituting a vital component of all the activities of labour, employers and gov-
ernment. What more pointed reminder is there than the Marikana disaster that ER is
pivotal to South Africa’s social, political and economic destiny?
With this eighth edition, South African employment relations has now been published
for close on 30 years, and has continued to occupy a prominent position in this field in
South Africa throughout this time. This longevity is remarkable in view of the challenges
of keeping up to date with the ever-changing business, social and political issues, which
have included the transition from the old to the new South Africa. Regular updates have
been crucial for the book to be of value to students and practitioners who wish to hold
their own in the changeable South African environment. The eighth edition thus once
again reflects current theory and practice in South Africa in terms of the global markets
within which the business community and multinational organisations operate.
This edition provides a significantly refined integration between the various chapters,
providing a better transition from chapter to chapter, in order to enable readers to ex-
pand their overall perception of the current employment relations field and its applica-
tions. This edition also incorporates a raft of legislative changes which came into effect
between 2013 and 2015 and which will significantly impact on employment relations in
future. In particular, the amendments to various acts that are addressed include those
to the Basic Conditions of Employment, Employment Equity, and Labour Relations Acts.
The Employment Services Act, as a new act, is also addressed. Chapters 2 and 3 were also
significantly reconfigured, on the one hand to eliminate some overlapping, and on the
other hand to highlight the dovetailing between role-players and their historical inter-
dependence. Chapter 10 was also significantly amended to emphasise in a holistic way
the importance of labour relations and human resource management (i.e. employment
relations management).
This edition now includes short inserts entitled “ER in practice”, to highlight the chal-
lenges posed by industry and the business community and to empower readers and prac-
titioners to utilise the insights gained from these examples with confidence in their daily
business activities. The edition also continues to combine academic and practical skills in
new case studies and examples which appear at the end of each chapter.
It is appropriate to acknowledge the contributions made by Prof. Paul Poisat, who has
now stepped down as a co-author after a long association with various editions of the
book. On the other hand an exciting addition to the author team is Prof. Barney Jordaan
as a new co-author, taking charge of the legal aspects of this edition in particular. We wish
him a long and rewarding association with the book.
v
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Coordinating editors
Prof. Pieter Nel was formerly head of the Department of Business Management at the
University of Pretoria. He is currently a professor of human resource management at
Unitec Institute of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. He has published numerous
articles, books and research reports and has also consulted in employment relations, hu-
man resources and management development for more than 35 years in various coun-
tries. He is the co-editor of the Asia Pacific Journal of Business and Management and asso-
ciate editor of the International Review of Business Research Papers.
Ms Monica Kirsten is a senior lecturer in the Department of Human Resource Manage-

ment in the School of Management Sciences at UNISA and has been involved in various
research projects related to employment relations over the last 19 years. She has co-au-
thored a number of publications and has presented papers at national and international
conferences. She is currently the associate editor of the South African Journal of Labour
Relations and is conducting research on the relationship between organisational trust and
cynicism and relational attitudes and behaviour in South African organisations.
vi
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Authors
Prof. Ben Swanepoel, at the time of working on this publication, is an independent

‘prac-ademic’ (hybrid practitioner/academic) – doing research, writing and consulting
work in the fields of labour relations, human resource management and leadership and
management development for universities and other organisations, mainly in South Af-
rica. As a past-President of IRASA (Industrial Relations Association of South Africa), a
former part-time CCMA Commissioner and an active consultant with managerial and
academic experience in South Africa as well as in Australasia, he has more than 30 years
of experience. He is a former editor of the South African Journal of Labour Relations and
has published extensively, in South Africa and internationally.
Prof. Barney Erasmus is vice-principal of operations at the University of South Africa

(UNISA) and has 35 years’ experience in employment relations and human resource man-
agement. He worked for a number of years in a human resource management capacity
in both state and private-sector organisations. He is also currently the editor of the South
African Journal of Labour Relations.
Prof. Barney Jordaan, a former professor of law at Stellenbosch University, is current-

ly professor at Vlerick Business School, Belgium, where he teaches negotiation, media-
tion and conflict resolution. He also holds appointments as professor extraordinaire at
the University of Stellenbosch Business School and visiting professor at UCT’s Graduate
School of Business and the European Faculty of Law, Slovenia. He has been involved in the
field of labour law, employment relations, negotiation and mediation for over 35 years.
vii
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Abridged contents
Chapter 1 Introducing some fundamentals of employment relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2 Actors, or role-players, and stakeholders in employment relations . . . . . . . 49
Chapter 3 The development of employment relations in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Chapter 4 Core labour legislation impacting on the employment relationship . . . . . 163
Chapter 5 Other labour legislation in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Chapter 6 Collective bargaining, conflict and negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Chapter 7 Industrial action and strike handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Chapter 8 Organisation-level perspectives: strategies, policies, procedures,
processes and practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Chapter 9 Employee involvement and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Chapter 10 Managing human resources: the broader ER management agenda . . . . . . 441
viii
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Contents
CHAPTER 1 Introducing some fundamentals of employment relations

Background and introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 From industrial relations to employment relations: an evolving field of study in
search of its identity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Ideological, theoretical perspectives on the conflict/common-ground dynamics
in employment relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.1 The pluralist perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.2 The unitarist perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.3 The radical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.4 Corporatism and concertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.5 Room for alternative perspectives or ideologies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 A contemporary South African perspective on employment relations as a
field of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.1 Societal embeddedness of the multidimensional employment
relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3.2 The actors, participants or role-players, and the stakeholders in
employment relations: a brief preview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4 Some key ingredients that make employment relations dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.1 The centrality of perceptions of justice in employment relations . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4.2 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4.3 Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.4.4 Converging and diverging interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 The interplay between employment relations and its broader environment:
implications for management and organisational success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.5.1 Macro-external factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.5.2 Organisation-related factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.6 Approach and structure of this book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
References and further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
CHAPTER 2 Actors, or role-players, and stakeholders in employment relations

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.1 The employer parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.1.1 General background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.1.2 Employer bodies and employers’ organisations: general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.1.3 Sectoral, industry and/or trade-based collective employer bodies and em-
ployers’ organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.1.4 General national and peak level organised employer bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 ix
2.2 The employee parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.2.1 Introductory perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.2.2 Trade unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.3 The State as role-player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
2.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.3.2 State governance and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.3.3 The role of the Department of Labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.4 State involvement in various labour-related bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.3.5 The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) . . . . 102
2.3.6 The State as an employer party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.4 Role-players, actors and stakeholders: further notes on alternative aspects, issues
and developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.4.1 Trade unions as employer parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.4.2 Global competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.4.3 Non-standard workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2.4.4 Other ER role-players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
References and further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
CHAPTER 3 The development of employment relations in South Africa

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.1 The period from 1652 to 1870 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.6 The first decade of democracy: 1994 to 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3.7 The second decade of democracy and beyond: 2004 onwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
CHAPTER 4 Core labour legislation impacting on the employment relationship

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.1 The employment relationship: legal perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.1.1 The contract of employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.2 Background to the development of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 . . . . . . . 167
4.3 Main elements of the South African system of employment relations . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.3.1 Labour relations in terms of the Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.4 Freedom of association and general protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.4.1 Protection of employees and persons seeking employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.4.2 Protection of employers’ rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.4.3 Rights of trade unions and employers’ organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

4.4.4 Procedure for disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.5 Trade unions and employers’ organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4.5.1 Registration of trade unions or employers’ organisations and records to
x be kept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.5.2 Functions of the registrar of labour relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.6 Organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
4.6.2 Threshold requirements for acquiring organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

4.6.3 The process of acquiring organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.6.4 Factors to be considered by the arbitrating commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.6.5 Awarding organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.6.6 Content of organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4.6.7 Certain organisational rights for trade unions party to a council . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.6.8 Organisational rights and collective bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.7 Bargaining councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.7.1 Powers and functions of a bargaining council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.7.2 Registration of a bargaining council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.7.3 Constitution of a bargaining council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.7.4 Dispute resolution in bargaining councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.7.5 Binding nature of collective agreements concluded in bargaining
councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.7.6 Appointment and powers of designated agents of bargaining councils . . . 188
4.8 Statutory councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.8.1 Application to establish a statutory council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.8.2 Establishment and registration of a statutory council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.8.3 Establishment and registration of statutory councils in the absence of
an agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.8.4 Powers and functions of statutory councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.8.5 Ministerial determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.8.6 Disputes about determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.9 Bargaining councils in the public service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.9.1 Bargaining councils in sectors in the public service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.9.2 Dispute resolution committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.10 Collective agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.10.1 Disputes about collective agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.10.2 Union security arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.10.3 Agency shop agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.10.4 Closed shop agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.10.5 The closed shop and balancing of interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4.11 Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4.11.1 Functions of the CCMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
4.11.2 Governing body of the CCMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.11.3 Accreditation of, and subsidy to, councils and private agencies . . . . . . . . . . 200
4.11.4 Resolution of disputes under the auspices of the CCMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
4.11.5 Resolution of disputes through conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

4.11.6 Arbitration of disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
4.11.7 Resolution of disputes by “con-arb” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
4.11.8 Powers of a CCMA commissioner when attempting to resolve disputes . 205
4.12 The Labour Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 xi
4.13 Labour Appeal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
CHAPTER 5 Other labour legislation in South Africa
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.1 The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.1.1 Purpose and application of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.1.2 Working time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.1.3 Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.1.4 Remuneration, deductions and notice of termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.1.5 Administrative obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.1.6 Prohibition on the employment of children and forced labour . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.1.7 Variation of basic conditions of employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.1.8 Sectoral determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.1.9 Monitoring, enforcement and legal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.2 Skills Development Act 97 of 1998 (SDA) and the Skills Development Levies
Act 9 of 1999 (SDLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.3 Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993
(COIDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.4 Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
5.4.1 Advisory Council for Occupational Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.4.2 Duties of employers regarding health and safety at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.4.3 Duties of employees regarding health and safety at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.4.4 Penalties for offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.4.5 Victimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.5 Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.5.1 Equality: background information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.5.2 Differences between formal and substantive equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.5.3 Purpose and application of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.5.4 Prohibition of unfair discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.5.5 Affirmative-action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
5.5.6 Commission for Employment Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.5.7 Monitoring, enforcement and legal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.6 The Unemployment Insurance Act 63 of 2001 (UIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.6.1 The scope of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.6.2 Duties of employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
5.6.3 Benefits and allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
5.7 Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) Act 53 of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . 247
5.7.1 Overview of the major requirements of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
5.7.2 Concluding remarks concerning BBBEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.8 Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (PDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
CHAPTER 6 Collective bargaining, conflict and negotiation

xii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
6.1 Collective bargaining, negotiation and employment relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
6.2 The nature of collective bargaining: different angles or perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
6.2.1 Collective bargaining: a communication process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
6.2.2 Collective bargaining: a market or economic process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

6.2.3 Collective bargaining: a negotiation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
6.2.4 Collective bargaining: a trade union activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
6.2.5 Collective bargaining: a management technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6.2.6 Collective bargaining: a conflict-management mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6.3 Collective bargaining approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
6.4 Collective bargaining structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.5 Conflict and collective bargaining dynamics: some perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6.5.1 The meaning of conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6.5.2 Characteristic features of conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.5.3 Causes of conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.6 Types of conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.6.1 Real conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.6.2 Perceived or felt conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.6.3 Constructive and destructive conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.6.4 Frictional and strategic conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.7 Stages of conflict in practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.7.1 Latent conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.7.2 Perceived conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.7.3 Felt conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.7.4 Manifest conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.7.5 Conflict aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.7.6 Conflict recuperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.8 Conflict resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.8.1 General principles of conflict resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.8.2 Conflict resolution by confrontation and direct communication . . . . . . . . . 281
6.8.3 Conflict resolution by mediation and/or arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6.9 Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
6.9.1 Rituals in negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
6.9.2 Preparing for negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
6.9.3 The actual negotiation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.9.4 Negotiation outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
6.10 Collective bargaining trends in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
CHAPTER 7 Industrial action and strike handling

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
7.1 Strikes as an expression of organised collective conflict in industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
7.1.1 Definition of a strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
7.1.2 Types of strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
7.1.3 Reasons for strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
xiii
7.2 The employer’s recourse to lockout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
7.3 Strikes and lockouts according to the Constitution and the Labour
Relations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
7.3.1 The right to strike and recourse to lockout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
7.3.2 Protected and unprotected strikes and lockouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

7.3.3 Consequences of protected strikes and lockouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
7.3.4 Consequences of unprotected strikes and lockouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
7.3.5 Dismissal of strikers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
7.4 Secondary strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
7.5 Essential and maintenance services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
7.5.1 Essential services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
7.5.2 Maintenance services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
7.6 Replacement labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
7.7 Picketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
7.8 Strike handling and contingency planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
7.8.1 Preventing strike action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
7.8.2 Preparing for the possibility of strike action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
7.8.3 Action during the strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
7.8.4 Action after a strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
CHAPTER 8 Organisation-level perspectives: strategies, policies, procedures,

processes and practices
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
8.1 Managing employment relations: some general perspectives, issues and
challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
8.1.1 What management entails: a brief and simplified synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
8.1.2 The management of employment relations at organisational level . . . . . . . . 334
8.2 Aspects of planning and organising the employment relations system of an
organisation: strategy and policy decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
8.2.1 Employment relations strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
8.2.2 Linking strategy to policy and procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
8.3 Some key employment relations procedures, processes and practices . . . . . . . . . . 345
8.3.1 Grievance procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
8.3.2 Discipline and dismissal: perspectives, approaches, procedures and
practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
8.3.3 Legal remedies for unfair dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
CHAPTER 9 Employee involvement and participation

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
9.1 The concept of democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
9.1.1 Political democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
9.1.2 Democracy in an economic context: industrial democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
xiv 9.2 The concepts of employee involvement and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
9.2.1 Elements of participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
9.2.2 Degrees of power sharing in participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
9.3 Participation from within or outside an organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
9.4 Direct involvement and indirect participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
9.4.1 Direct employee involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
9.4.2 Indirect employee participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

9.5 Different levels of involvement and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
9.6 Techniques of employee involvement and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
9.6.1 Briefing groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
9.6.2 Work teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
9.6.3 Suggestion schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
9.6.4 Quality circles and total quality management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
9.6.5 Financial participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
9.6.6 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
9.6.7 Codetermination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
9.6.8 Self-government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
9.7 Workplace forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
9.7.1 The role of workplace forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
9.7.2 How workplace forums are established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
9.7.3 Drafting the constitution of a workplace forum: requirements and
guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
9.7.4 Electing workplace forum representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
9.7.5 How workplace forums function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
9.7.6 How workplace forums are dissolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
9.7.7 Failure of workplace forums to promote effective employee
participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
CHAPTER 10 Managing human resources: the broader ER management agenda

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
10.1 HRM and aspects of labour relations: some interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
10.1.1 Aspects of HRM strategy, planning and design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
10.1.2 Acquiring people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
10.1.3 Utilising employees’ potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
10.1.4 Training and developing people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
10.1.5 Remunerating employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
10.2 General and broad-ranging contemporary issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
10.2.1 Employment equity and affirmative action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
10.2.2 Employment relations and diversity in organisations and society . . . . . . . . 460
10.2.3 Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
10.2.4 Employee wellness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
10.2.5 Corporate governance and social responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
10.2.6 Business ethics, culture and reputation management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

10.3 People in society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
xv
Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Acronyms and abbreviations
AATUF All-African Trade Union Federation

AHI Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
AMCU Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union
AMEO Automobile Manufacturers Employers Organisation
ANC African National Congress
APSA-UNISA Academic and Professional Staff Association of the University of South
Africa
ASAWU Academic Staff Association of Wits University
AsgiSA Accelerated, Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa
ATUC African Trade Union Confederation
AZACTU Azanian Confederation of Trade Unions
BBBEE Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment
BBC Black Business Council
BCEA Basic Conditions of Employment Act
BEE Black Economic Empowerment
BMR Bureau of Market Research
BoD Board of Directors
BSA Business South Africa
BUSA Business Unity South Africa
CAC Competition Appeal Court
CCMA Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
CEE Commission for Employment Equity
COFESA Confederation of Employers of Southern Africa
COIDA Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act
COMSA Chamber of Mines of South Africa
COPE Congress of the People
COSATU Congress of South African Trade Unions
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CUSA Council of Unions of South Africa
CWU Communication Workers Union

DA Democratic Alliance
DENOSA Democratic Nursing Organisation of SA
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
xvi EAMWUSA Electronic, Allied and Metal Workers Union of South Africa
EAP Employee assistance programme
ECA(SA) Electrical Contractors’ Association (South Africa)
ECC Employment Conditions Commission
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
EE Employment Equity
EEA Employment Equity Act
EFF Economic Freedom Fighters
ELRC Education Labour Relations Council
ER Employment Relations
ESA Employment Services Act
ESOP Employee Share Ownership Plan/Programme
ETI Employment Tax Incentive
ETUC European Trade Union Confederation
EU European Union
FABCOS Foundation for African Business and Consumer Services
FAWU Food and Allied Workers Union
FEDSAL Federation of South African Labour Unions (formerly Federation of
Salaried Staff Associations of South Africa)
FEDUSA Federation of Unions of South Africa
FORCE Federation of Organisations Representing Civil Employees
FOSATU Federation of South African Trade Unions
GEAR Growth, Employment and Redistribution
GEPF Government Employees Pension Fund
GNU Government of National Unity
GPSSBC General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council
GUF Global Union Federation
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HOSPERSA Hospital Personnel Trade Union of South Africa
HPCSA Health Professions Council of South Africa
HRM Human Resource Management
IFA International Framework Agreement
IFP Inkatha Freedom Party
IILS International Institute for Labour Studies
ILO International Labour Organization
IMATU Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union (formerly the South
African Association of Municipal Employees)
IMSSA Independent Mediation Service of South Africa
IOP Industrial and Organisational Psychology
IPM Institute of People Management
IR Industrial Relations
IRASA Industrial Relations Association of South Africa
IRR Income Replacement Rate
ITUC International Trade Union Confederation
JIPSA Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition xvii
LAC Labour Appeal Court
LASA Locksmiths’ Association of South Africa
LIFO Last in, first out
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
LRA Labour Relations Act

LRM Labour Relations Management
MBO Management by Objectives
MHSA Mine Health and Safety Act
MNC Multinational Corporation/Company
NAAMSA National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa
NACTU National Council of Trade Unions
NAFCOC National African Federated Chamber of Commerce
NAGEWU National General Workers’ Union
NAPTOSA National Professional Teachers’ Association of South Africa
NDP National Development Plan
NEASA National Employers’ Association of South Africa
NEDLAC National Economic Development and Labour Council
NEHAWU National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union
NGO Nongovernmental organisation
NGP New Growth Path
NPC National Planning Commission
NQF National Qualifications Framework
NUFWBSAW National Union of Food, Beverage, Wine, Spirits and Allied Workers
NULAW National Union of Leather and Allied Workers
NUM National Union of Mineworkers
NUMSA National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa
OATUU Organisation of African Trade Union Unity
OC Occupational Community
OHSA Occupational Health and Safety Act
PAC Pan Africanist Congress
PDA Protected Disclosures Act
PEU Professional Educators Union
PHSDSBC Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council
POPI Protection of Personal Information
PSA Public Service Act
PSCBC Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council
QC Quality circle
RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme
RMI Retail Motor Industry
SAAF South African Air Force

SABPP SA Board for People Practices
SACCAWU SA Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union
SACCI South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry
xviii SACCOLA South African Coordinating Council on Labour Affairs
SACOB South African Chamber of Business
SACP South African Communist Party
SACTWU South African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
SACU South African Communications Union

SACWU South African Chemical Workers’ Union
SADTU South African Democratic Teachers’ Union
SAFCEC South African Forum of Civil Engineering Contractors
SAFPU SA Football Players Union
SALGA South African Local Government Association
SALGBC South African Local Government Bargaining Council
SAMWU South African Municipal Workers Union
SANDF South African National Defence Force
SAPFU South African Pelagic Fisherman’s Union
SAPS Act South African Police Service Act
SAPS South African Police Service
SAPTU South African Parastatal and Tertiary Institutions Union
SAQA South African Qualifications Authority
SARS South African Revenue Service
SASAWU SA State and Allied Workers Union
SATAWU South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union
SDA Skills Development Act
SDLA Skills Development Levies Act
SEIFSA Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa
SETA Sector Education and Training Authority
SEWA Self-Employed Women’s Association
SIOPSA Society for Industrial & Organisational Psychology of SA
SMME Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises
SOE State-owned Enterprise
SSSBC Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council
TALFU Trawler and Line Fisherman’s Union
TAWU Transport and Allied Workers Union
TES Temporary Employment Service
TQM Total Quality Management
TUCSA Trade Union Council of South Africa
UCTAU The University of Cape Town Academics’ Union
UDF United Democratic Front
UIA Unemployment Insurance Act
UICA Unemployment Insurance Contributions Act
UIF Unemployment Insurance Fund

UK United Kingdom
UNISA University of South Africa
US United States
VAP Voting-age Population xix
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Acknowledgements
It is appropriate for us to sincerely acknowledge all the contributing authors for their
continued participation and outstanding contributions in propelling this book towards
the next milestone as the longest-running textbook in its field in South Africa. It has now
been close to 30 years in the market place in South Africa, albeit in different guises.
All the authors are also deeply indebted to the staff of Van Schaik Publishers, who suc-
cessfully put up with a multitude of challenges in a variety of unexpected ways to pro-
duce this edition. The staff include Leanne Martini in particular, who has been involved in
most of the editions, and also Claire Thornton and Nangamso Phakathi. They all played a
prominent role in giving the book a new look to reflect the modern challenges brought
on by the digital age in particular. It must also be acknowledged that without the un-
failing support and invaluable contributions from colleagues in the field, students and
tutors, this milestone could not have been reached.
Mrs Monica Kirsten and Prof. Pieter S. Nel

Coordinating editors
September 2015
xx
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Author acknowledgements
Pieter Nel
I wish to acknowledge my wife Elize and our four children, Elmarie, Pieter, Liza and Schalk
and their families, who have endured my absence during the writing of this edition of the
book. The sacrifice was high, particularly when I was not able to spend storytelling time
with my three small grandsons, Pieter, Leo and Evan.
Monica Kirsten
I wish to thank my colleagues at the University of South Africa and others I have liaised
with in my capacity as associate editor of the South African Journal of Labour Relations.
Your support and inputs are invaluable in a project such as this. Also to my co-authors: As
always it is a privilege to work with people held in such high regard. I have tremendous re-
spect for you – at both a personal and professional level. To my husband, Johann, and my
children, Janine and Bianca: Thanks for your unwavering love and support throughout.
Barney Erasmus
Having been part of this project and an excellent team for more than 25 years, I would like
to acknowledge my employer, the University of South Africa, for encouraging and sup-
porting such scholarly work. I also thank the key role-players in this project, namely Piet
Nel for his leadership and for creating the opportunity to participate in this publication,
and Ben Swanepoel and Monica Kirsten for their valuable contributions and collegiality
in supporting me and the team. Last but not least, my thanks go to my wife and family
for their support and love.
Barney Jordaan
I am grateful to Pieter Nel and Monica Kirsten for inviting me to contribute to this publi-
cation and thank them for their patience, professionalism and support.
xxi
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Note to the reader
Definition
Definitions in the text are marked with a definition icon in the margin.
xxii
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
1
Introducing some fundamentals

of employment relations
CHAPTER
Specified outcomes
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to
» demonstrate an understanding of the concept and nature of “employ-
ment relations” and the way it has evolved from traditionally known
“industrial relations”
» identify, explain and illustrate the implications of different ideological,
theoretical perspectives on the conflict/common-ground dynamics in
employment relations
» describe the multidimensional nature and societal embeddedness of
the contemporary employment relationship, and show its relevance for
everyday practice in employment relations
» differentiate between a tripartite and multipartite perspective of employ-
ment relations systems and very briefly explain who the role-players
and stakeholders are, and why they are important
» cursorily describe at least four “key ingredients” that make employ-
ment relations dynamic
» demonstrate the implications of the nature and importance of percep-
tions of justice for the theory and practice of employment relations

» illustrate how the dynamics of employment relations at organisational
level may interact/interplay with other environmental variables or fac-
tors.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCING SOME FUNDAMENTALS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
It may be safely asserted that issues and challenges related to income-earning work, and
fairness and justice aspects thereof, are uniquely central to humankind. As we move deep-
er into the 21st century, income-earning work, justice and fairness issues and challeng-
es increasingly pose major challenges the world over. Swanepoel, Erasmus, Schenk and
Tshilongamulenzhe (2014: 34), referring to a 2012 publication (The ultimate 21st century
challenge: good jobs), show that one “of the most pressing global challenges” is to create
decent work (that includes decent pay). In numerous countries and regions – including
South Africa in particular – these issues and challenges are so huge that they pose threats
to the stability of societies. The field of study of Employment Relations (ER) has at its core
income-earning work, and related issues and challenges of fairness and justice. As such,
this field of theory and practice is of immense importance in present-day South Africa.
ER IN PRACTICE 1.1

S outh Africa’s National Development Plan

2030: Our Future – Make it Work (NDP in
short) was published by the National Planning
The following critical actions are identified
(NDP 2012: 24):
1. A social compact to reduce poverty and ine-
Commission in 2012. The following extracts il- quality, and raise employment and investment.
lustrate the importance of and focus on employ- 2. A strategy to address poverty and its im-
ment relations in achieving national objectives: pacts by broadening access to employment,
“The National Development Plan aims to strengthening the social wage, improving
eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030. public transport and raising rural incomes.
South African can realise these goals by drawing 3. Steps by the state to professionalise the public
on the energies of its people, growing an inclu- service, strengthen accountability, improve
sive economy, building capabilities, enhancing coordination and prosecute corruption.
the capacity of the state and promoting leader-
4. Boost private investment in labour-intensive
ship and partnerships throughout society”(NDP areas, competitiveness and exports, with ad-
2012: 14). justments to lower the risk of hiring younger
The following high-level objectives must be workers.
achieved by 2030 (NDP 2012: 24):

5. An education accountability chain, with lines
1. Eliminate income poverty by reducing the of responsibility from state to classroom.
proportion of households with a monthly in- 6. Phase in national health insurance, with a
come below R419 per person (at 2009 prices) focus on upgrading public health facilities,
from 39 per cent to zero. producing more health professionals and
2. Reduce inequality, as measured by the Gini reducing the relative cost of private health
coefficient, from 0.69 to 0.6. care.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
INTRODUCING SOME FUNDAMENTALS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ONE
7. Public infrastructure investment at 10 per 9. New spatial norms and standards – densify-
cent of gross domestic product (GDP), fi- ing cities, improving transport, locating jobs
nanced through tariffs, public-private part- where people live, upgrading informal settle-
nerships, taxes and loans and focused on ments and fixing housing market gaps.
transport, energy and water. 10. Reduce crime by strengthening criminal
8. Interventions to ensure environmental sus- justice and improving community environ-
tainability and resilience to future shocks. ments.
Source: National Planning Commission. 2012. National Development Plan 2030. Our Future – Make it Work. Execu-
tive summary. Available at http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Executive%20Summary-NDP%202030%20
-%20Our%20future%20-%20make%20it%20work.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2015)
As you progress in your reading of this book, it will become increasingly clear how rele-
vant ER is to the matters mentioned in South Africa’s National Development Plan (see ER
in practice 1.1), and how central good ER theory and good ER practice will be to achiev-
ing what needs to be achieved in our country – to make it a better place for all. In this
first chapter, you are merely introduced to some basics that underpin the field of study,
nowadays commonly titled Employment Relations (ER) – a field dealing with theories and
practices related to employment relations (i.e. relations in the world of work).
The field of ER is evolving from what, traditionally, used to be more commonly referred
to as “industrial relations”. Even though the roots of the field of study traditionally known
as Industrial Relations (IR) are found in the perceived injustices or unfairness brought
about especially by developments following the Industrial Revolution, the seeds were
sown long before that period. In a way, the roots of this field cannot be detached from
the development of the world and societies, generally, over time. Since ancient times,
much or most of the world’s civilisation as we know it today was built and developed
around slave labour, and throughout the Middle Ages (with its feudal systems of lords
who owned the land of their manors, and the concomitant social stratum known as “serf-
dom”), the work abilities (the labour potential) of people were at the roots of wealth
creation and maintenance, as clearly articulated by Heilbroner and Milberg (2012).
In tracking the evolution of the world of work and society, one can distinguish differ-
ent phases, such as the very early world of nomadic hunting and gathering societies, the
agricultural period, the classic civilisations period, periods of the feudal system and later
the merchant capitalist system, followed by the industrial period. Sernau (2009: 19), for
example, explains how in the “slave societies of the ancient world, such as Greece and
Rome, wealthy citizen landowners depended on the work of slaves as well as foreign sub-
jects to produce the wealth that made their cities and rural estates so fabulous”. Similarly, 3
Heilbroner and Milberg (2012: 17) explain that slave labour “on a massive scale was a
fundamental pillar of nearly every ancient economic society”. The same authors further
explain, though, that slaves did not serve as the only source of labour that helped to fur-
ther enrich the already wealthy during times of antiquity (Heilbroner & Milberg 2012: 17):
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
“Groups of free artisans and workmen, often banded together in collegia or fraternal bod-
ies, also serviced the Roman city, as did similar free workmen in Greece and elsewhere.”
They add that in “especially latter-day Rome, a mass of unemployed (but not enslaved)
laborers provided a source of casual work. Yet, without the motive power of the slave,
it is doubtful if the brilliant city economies of the past could have been sustained”. In
somewhat the same vein, Heilbroner and Milberg (2012: 21–22) explain that later, during
the times of the feudal systems of the Middle Ages, the “lord of the land” who essentially
owned the manorial estate was, “within the confines of his own manor … also the undis-
puted owner and master of many people who lived on the land, for the serfs of a manor,
although not slaves, were in many respects as much the property of the lord as were his
(or their) houses, flocks, or crops”.
The work abilities and potential of people have hence been central to wealth accumu-
lation over the many different developmental phases of the world and its societies. The
same has held true throughout the development of the merchant-capitalist period to the
industrial-capitalist society, up to the present day. Swanepoel and Slabbert (2012: 220)
explain that one can trace over these long periods of time “how trade, and later ‘industry’,
became the means to wealth and power, through the exploitation of man’s superior abil-
ities to work”. The industrial period that followed the merchant era, however, accelerated
and accentuated these issues and challenges.
The industrial period was born of the Industrial Revolution that began in the United
Kingdom (UK) during the mid-18th century. This period’s development accentuated class
distinction in society: a distinction between the owners (of the means of mass produc-
tion – also known as the industrial capitalists) and the workers (those who “sold” their
labour to the “owners of wealth”). The workers or working class gradually perceived the
relations between the parties as being inequitable or unfair.
Today’s more or less capitalist societies, and the world as a whole, face great challenges
that revolve around the unequal distribution of wealth and income. The same holds true
for South Africa in particular. Labour is central to the basic problem related to fairness
of wealth distribution because it is at the core of the wealth-generation process. Those
with capital strive for a better return on their investments, which generally means that
the “owners of the means of production and wealth” must ensure that labour is as pro-
ductive as possible. Generally speaking, the owners of organisations want those whom
they employ to work there to produce as much as possible through their work. Because
labour has a price attached to it (people need an income from their work), it is generally
better for those owners who want to accumulate wealth to pay the working people less
rather than more. Workers, therefore, seldom feel that they receive a “fair share” of their
contribution to the value-adding process that accrues from their work. They often per-
ceive power imbalances in their work contexts, specifically regarding the owners’ returns
on their investments as being out of step compared with what they as workers gain out
of their work relationships with the organisations of these owners. As a result, workers
often want more equitable remuneration, including pay, benefits and improved working
conditions. A certain amount of tension and conflict is thus naturally built into the em-
4 ployer/employee relationship.
Perceptions of fairness are integral to this relationship, as are the dynamics related to
power and control. Workers often feel that too much control stems from the power of
those who control the financial resources. At the same time, though, the owners of the
productive assets (like factories) often argue that there would not have been any work
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
opportunities had it not been for the shared interests between the “owners” who are
typically the “employers”, and the workers, who are mainly categorised as “employees”. It
is often argued that the owners need workers, and the workers need those with the cap-
ital to set up businesses that in turn create work opportunities. There is, therefore, also
interdependency in the employer/employee relationship.
The field of ER centres, to a large degree, on balancing the simultaneously convergent
and divergent interests of the parties in just and equitable ways. This field is about rela-
tionships that involve human beings, and as such is complex and dynamic and is evolving;
all of these contribute to the challenge of demarcating its domain and defining it clearly.
A number of disciplines contribute to the subject matter of this field, adding further
to its complexity. Different principles and methods of the various fields of study or dis-
ciplines have been applied in order to develop theoretical perspectives or explanations
for, and practical solutions to, the problems and challenges arising from relationships be-
tween employer parties and employee parties. Those who own and control the financial
and most other means of production (such as natural resources like land and the tech-
nological resources) are generally considered the employer parties. Those who have only
their work potential to offer and “let out” as they are employed by the “employer party”
form part of the “employee party”.
The disciplines or fields of scholarship that have an interest in aspects of the relations
between these parties include politics, law, psychology, sociology and economics. As a
subset of economics that focuses on micro-economic units such as business enterpris-
es, the field known as business management also takes a keen interest in aspects of ER.
The field of public administration, nowadays also referred to as “public management” or
“managing in the public sector”, also stakes its claim. In fact, management as an area of
scholarship has been studying aspects of the relations between employer and employee
parties for quite some time. These diverse perspectives contribute to the challenge of
defining this field and demarcating its scope. The brief summary that follows in section
1.1 should help to illustrate this point.
1.1 FROM INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS:

AN EVOLVING FIELD OF STUDY IN SEARCH OF ITS IDENTITY?
According to Kaufman (2008), the academic (or intellectual) roots of the field of industri-
al relations can be traced back to the late 1800s and the early 1900s in Britain: The works
of intellectuals like Beatrice and Sidney Webb and Max Weber are mentioned as exam-
ples. It is shown, however, that “the actual institutionalization of the field in British univer-
sities occurred later than in the USA”. It is explained that whereas industrial relations as a
field of study only became institutionalised in British universities during the mid-1930s,
in the United States (US) the “first free-standing [industrial relations] academic unit was
created in 1922” at Princeton University.
Dunlop (1958) made relatively early attempts at demarcating the nature and scope of 5
industrial relations as a field. He did so from a systems perspective, based on the work of
various sociologists. Dunlop (1958: 5) regarded the “full range of rulemaking governing
the workplace” as central to an industrial relations system. He defined an industrial rela-
tions system as follows (Dunlop 1958: 7):
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
[It is] comprised of certain actors [managers, workers and specialised governmental
agencies], certain contexts [technological characteristics, the market and the dis-
tribution of power in the society], an ideology which binds the industrial relations
system together, and a body of rules created to govern the actors at the workplace
and work community.
According to Dunlop, the “actors” establish the rules for the workplace and work com-
munity. These rules are essentially aimed at governing the relations and interaction be-
tween the actors, and therefore include the establishment of justice in the work environ-
ment. Dunlop emphasised that the environment surrounding the workplace influences
the actors and, as such, the industrial relations system of any country exists alongside
other systems, such as the political and economic systems, and the technological system.
In addition, any industrial relations system was said to be held together by some shared
ideas and the commonalities between the actors regarding their roles.
Another scholar, Flanders (1965), defined industrial relations as a study of the insti-
tutions of job regulation. Hyman (1975) preferred to focus on the processes of industrial
relations, describing the field as the study of processes of control over work relations,
which includes job regulation. Bain and Clegg (1974) criticised the emphasis placed on
the “shared ideology” by Dunlop (1958), claiming that it was too conservative and put
too much focus on the maintenance of stability in industrial relations systems. They as-
serted that, from a sociological perspective, the sources of conflict and cooperation and
the notions of instability and order had to be emphasised equally. They also suggested a
broadening of the systems perspective to include behavioural and informal dynamics and
variables.
As far back as 1974, Bain and Clegg (1974: 95) argued that “the subject of industrial
relations may be defined as all aspects of job regulation – the making and administering
of rules which regulate employment relationships – regardless of whether these are seen
as being formal or informal, structured or unstructured”.
From these early, primarily sociological perspectives, it is clear that traditionally the
focus has been on the conflict regulatory dimensions and the institutions involved in the
rule-making and work-control processes in an employment context. Gradually, however,
different perspectives have developed, and since the 1980s, the definition and scope of
this field have attracted renewed interest and debate. During the 1990s the debate was
taken a step further when attempts at rechristening the field as employment relations
became increasingly prominent.
The essence of these developments has been some form of broadening the scope of
this field. Walker (1979) made it quite clear that, although trade unions as institutions,
and collective bargaining and industrial action as processes, were important focus areas in
industrial relations, the focus had to become much broader. Walker (1979: 11) explained
that industrial relations is “essentially concerned with the accommodation between the
various interests that are involved in the process of getting work done”. In a similar vein,
a very prominent American scholar, Kochan (1980: 1), argued that “industrial relations
6 is an interdisciplinary field that encompasses the study of all aspects of people at work”.
Poole (1986: 4–6) likewise advanced this broadened perspective, stating that “industrial
relations is a discipline concerned with the systematic study of all aspects of the employ-
ment relationship”. Poole (1986) also referred specifically to the field’s focus on how the
parties go about reconciling their partly shared and partly divergent interests in both
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
the productive processes (doing the work) and the distributive processes (the economic
rewards that accrue from the labour process).
There has thus been an increasing acknowledgement that the focus should not be
limited to the more negative (conflict-driven), legalistic (rule-oriented) or regulatory and
collective aspects. Arguments were increasingly put forward that there was a need to
shift back to the initial focus of Industrial Relations when it was formally born as field of
study in the US – hence also focusing on the convergent interests of the parties and the
cooperative elements (Kaufman 2008).
In various South African publications since 1990, Swanepoel (1991; 1994; 1996) has
convincingly argued for the need to reconsider what the focal point and scope of this
field of study, practice and theory is or should be. It has been demonstrated through em-
pirical research and the pragmatics of this field that a broader, more inclusive, approach
to defining and demarcating this field is preferable. In doing so, the cornerstone of this
field has been shown to be the employment relationship.
At an international level and by the dawn of the new millennium, this same approach
has come to be emphasised by Australian scholars Deery, Plowman, Walsh and Brown
(2001: 5–6), who add that most “commentators agree that the field of industrial relations
should expand to take account of the wider aspects of the employment relationship”.
Other scholars such as Lewis, Thornhill and Saunders (2003) from the UK and also Bly-
ton and Turnbull (2004), later followed suit and placed the employment relationship at
the core of this field. Similarly, Bray, Deery, Walsh and Waring (2005: 8) asserted that the
definition they adopted in their book on a “contemporary approach to industrial rela-
tions” is that it “concerns the study of the employment relationship”. Other and more
recent examples of scholars adopting this approach include the works of Balnave, Brown,
Maconachie and Stone (2007) and Rose (2008). The latest edition of the Bray, Waring,
Cooper and MacNeil (2014) publication also uses the concept of employment relations
rather than “industrial relations”, which is the concept that was used in the first edition of
Bray et al. (2005) referred to above.
The broadening of the field’s scope includes a firm acknowledgement of the need to
bring together aspects of two study areas that have for quite a long time developed their
separate ways to quite an extent. These study areas are human resource management
(traditionally also known as personnel management) and industrial relations. While
some scholars have changed from using the concept “industrial relations” to “labour rela-
tions” (see Bendix 2010 and Bendix 2015), numerous others have moved from “industrial
relations”, to “employment relations” (see, for example, Bray et al. 2005 and Bray et al.
2014). Because it is realised that human resource management (HRM), just like industrial
relations (IR), has the employment relationship at its foundations, the interconnections
between HRM and IR must be acknowledged. The concept now quite commonly used to
reflect the close relationship between IR and HRM, and the need to acknowledge their
interplay and interconnectedness, is employment relations.
As Balnave et al. (2007: 28–30) explain, “employment relations can provide the frame-
work” to facilitate an integration of aspects of HRM and IR and, although the boundaries
of the concept are still debatable, they argue that “it is generally regarded as a legitimate 7
bridging term that reflects the overlapping concerns of human resource management
and industrial relations”.
The need for such integration, identified by Swanepoel’s (1995) doctoral re-
search, was also the catalyst for changing Managing industrial relations in South Africa
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
(Slabbert, Prinsloo & Backer 1990) to Managing employment relations in South Afri-
ca (Slabbert, Prinsloo, Swanepoel & Backer 1998). In the latter work, a comprehen-
sive approach was used to establish a more integrative framework for collating and
trying to make sense of this broad field of theory and practice, particularly from a mana-
gerial perspective.
Traditionally, however, personnel or human resource management scholars focused
more on the common ground and cooperative elements. Books on human resource man-
agement, typically and traditionally, devote only about 20 per cent (or even less) of their
content to industrial or labour relations themes that relate to aspects such as conflict,
trade unions, collective bargaining, strikes, labour disputes, and so forth. On the other
hand, industrial or labour relations scholars, books and practitioners have traditionally
focused more on the divergent interests of the parties, the conflict and legal elements,
and the collective aspects such as trade unions, collective bargaining and industrial ac-
tion such as strikes.
In this book, however, a careful analysis of these fields of study, theory and practice
will reveal that both human resource management and industrial or labour relations have
as their cornerstone people who perform income-earning work, mainly through the ar-
rangement of some form of employment relationship.
From our perspective, employment relations as a field is broad in scope, spanning the
boundaries of various disciplines that are often taught separately at universities and other
educational institutions. It includes aspects of political and legal studies, social sciences
(such as sociology and psychology), and notably HRM as part of management studies –
and it goes even wider. Some of these aspects are specifically covered in the last chapter
of this book. Even though we do not have a number of separate chapters devoted to
broader-ranging themes that are usually rather treated as falling within the ambits of
HRM, such as remuneration management and performance management (as some oth-
ers do, such as Slabbert et al. (1998), Balnave et al. (2007) and Allan, McPhail and Wilkin-
son (2008)), we explicitly acknowledge that these themes are closely intertwined with
other themes in ER. That is why there is a need to approach whatever themes we cover
in this book from a more integrated and holistic perspective. The appropriate quality of
employment relations theory and practice can only be achieved by following such an
approach.
It must also be acknowledged that a diverse range of disciplines contribute to, and
have an interest in, aspects of ER. These fields have diverse and yet often overlapping
interests in researching and teaching aspects of employment relations. As a result, it can
be expected that different perspectives abound in and about this field of theory and
practice. Over the years there has been, for example, serious debate over the perspective
to be taken regarding partly conflicting and partly shared interests in the employment
and broader societal context. Different ideologies have thus developed in this regard. In
particular, three prominent perspectives or ideologies have been documented, together
with some variations that later emerged. We will now take a closer look at some of these.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
1.2 IDEOLOGICAL, THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE

CONFLICT/COMMON-GROUND DYNAMICS IN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS
There are different world views – or views on how we think the world works. We all look
at things in this world through our own “lenses”. In this way we develop different theories
about how things work. The same holds true for how we view aspects of employment re-
lations. There are different lenses through which we can analyse and try to make sense of
the dynamics of this field. We therefore agree with Teicher, Holland and Gough (2006: 30)
that any “analysis of the employment relationship also needs to be understood in the
context of broader theories about society”. Our ever-changing and highly complex soci-
ety requires us to study phenomena such as employment relations with an open mind.
We should take note of the role and nature of different ideologies or world views, and
how these may impact on the way we perceive, analyse, think about and even practise
employment relations. However, we should not be constrained by these ideologies, as it is
likely that, over time, new or alternative perspectives or ideologies may develop.
1.2.1 The pluralist perspective
Definition
The pluralist perspective or ideology views the employing organisation as a coalition of
individuals and groups with diverse objectives, values and interests.
The underlying assumption of this perspective is that individuals in an organisation
combine into a variety of distinct sectional groups, each with its own interests, objectives
and leadership (either formal or informal). The different groups in the organisation are
competitive in terms of leadership, authority and loyalty. This conflict puts the organisa-
tion in a permanent state of dynamic tension.
The different roles of managerial employees and worker groups are the primary source
of some form of competitive behaviour, or even conflict, between management and la-
bour. Management is responsible for the efficiency, productivity and profitability of the
organisation. The concerns of the individual worker are, however, wider than this and
include personal aspects such as higher pay, better working conditions, job security and
more meaningful work. The competitive conflict between management and labour is
seen as rational and inevitable. It results from industrial and organisational factors rather
than from individual personal factors (e.g. a personality clash between a supervisor and
his or her subordinates).
However, the pluralist perspective also recognises the mutual dependence of these
groups. It is assumed that the conflict between management and labour is not so funda-
mental and unbridgeable that the parties will fail to cooperate. To the pluralists, the key
lies in the regulation of the employment relationship and, hence ways to institutionalise
conflict in order to contain and control its impact on the parties and their relationships.
The role of rules in regulation and control is thus prominent, and the State is viewed as
the guardian of public interest and the provider of the machinery to regulate and institu-
9
tionalise the conflict.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
1.2.2 The unitarist perspective

The unitarist perspective or ideology views the organisation as an integrated group of

Definition
people having a unified authority structure with common values, interests and purpose.
Management is seen as having the legitimate authority and right to manage, and is there-
fore expected to provide appropriate leadership. Conflict is generally regarded as rather
unnecessary, as employees are expected to be loyal to management and “their” organi-
sations.
The underlying assumption is that the people working in an organisation are in basic
harmony, and that conflict is undesirable and mainly a result of miscommunication. This
perspective denies the notion of inherent, built-in conflict due to the nature of the em-
ployment relationship.
Trade unions are therefore regarded as unnecessary and dysfunctional. Many manag-
ers who share this perspective see labour unions as a relic of the 19th century, when un-
ions played an important role in addressing the malpractices of the time. In the enlight-
ened management of the 21st century, management takes full account of the interest of
employees in decision making. The view is thus taken that there is no need for an outside
body (e.g. a trade union) to intrude on the employment relationship.
1.2.3 The radical perspective

Definition
The radical perspective or ideology draws on intellectual traditions related to Marxist

thinking and it therefore essentially reflects a class conflict world view. Exponents of this
approach concentrate more on the nature of the society in which the organisation finds
itself. It is assumed that workers are oppressed for the sake of capitalist interests and
hence there is emphasis on the class struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots” so
typically claimed to be part of capitalist society. Deery et al. (2001: 16) explain the differ-
ence between the radical and pluralist perspectives as follows:
To say, as the pluralists do, that industrial conflict is inherent in the structure of
employment relations is to stop short of a full explanation. Radicals argue that this
evades the question of the extent to which an antagonism of interests is generated
at the societal level and is embedded in the mode of production within which the
employment relationship occurs ... Radical writers have paid much greater atten-
tion to the notion of power than the pluralists have ... Radicals see the imbalance
of power both within society and at the workplace as central ... those who own the
means of production have a power superiority over those who sell their labour ...
This reflects itself in a substantial inequality in the distribution of rewards.
It follows that, from a radical perspective, conflict is always rooted at a macro level and is
sociopolitical and economic, since it reflects the inherent nature of the capitalist society.
Trade unions are viewed as an unavoidable response to capitalism. They enhance the
industrial power of the working class and focus its political activities. They also form part
10 of a political process aimed at changing the nature of the socioeconomic and political
systems of society.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
1.2.4 Corporatism and concertation

Cawson’s works (1985; 1986) broadly cover corporatism. The works of Finnemore (such
as Finnemore and Van Rensburg 2002, and Finnemore and Joubert 2013), and the works
of Slabbert and Swanepoel (1998), and Swanepoel and Slabbert (2012) also highlight two
potential variations on the three traditional perspectives discussed above, namely soci-
etal corporatism and state corporatism.
Definition
Societal corporatism may be said to be an extension of pluralism and is sometimes
also referred to as tripartite coordination or cooperation. It incorporates aspects of plu-
ralism and democratic principles through processes of social dialogue between the two
main parties in employment relations. It hinges on the principle that the two main active
parties (employer representatives and the representatives of labour) are no longer viewed
as interacting on mainly a competitive basis (as is the case with pluralism). Interdepend-
ence is acknowledged between all three parties (including the State), each of whom val-
ues social dialogue and consensus-building interaction rather than adversarial relations.
Conflict and common ground are thus blended, and a mutually gainful, long-term view is
favoured above short-term, win/lose modes of interaction.
Definition
Societal corporatism can be described as a democratic social order where the State
allows the other key interest groups to be full participants in the process of formulating
certain State policies and in making certain key governance decisions. Hague and Harrop
(1987) state that public policy supportive of societal corporatist institutions and pro-
cedures results from negotiation between the government and a few powerful interest
groups with which the government chooses to, or has to, deal. These groups normally
include ‘peak’ associations representing industry and trade unions.
There is another side to corporatism, however, which boils down to the State imposing
its will on the labour movement, as in the cases of fascist Italy and certain parts of Asia
Definition
(Baskin 2000). In such cases of State corporatism, the emphasis shifts from tripartite
coordination and cooperation to a situation where the State moves into a paternalis-
tic or authoritarian mode to demobilise and coopt organised labour (trade unions) into
government structures. Finnemore and Joubert (2013) cite Zimbabwe as an example of
a country where authoritarian State corporatism has driven trade union oppression, and
Namibia as a case of paternalistic State corporatism. This ideological perspective is, in
a sense, closer to unitarism than to pluralism, because conflict between business and
labour is viewed as undesirable, and in a certain sense the legitimacy of the role of trade
unions is abandoned.
Baskin (2000) explains that in South Africa the notion of corporatism is not in general
Definition
viewed favourably in trade union circles. He proposes that the notion of concertation be
used instead, as it “suggests the major social partners acting in concert, and finding each oth-
er ... [C]oncertation means an institutional role for interest organizations (mainly economic)
in the formulation and implementation/regulation of state policy” (Baskin 2000: 48).
1.2.5 Room for alternative perspectives or ideologies?

From section 1.2.4 it should be clear that the field of employment relations must have
close linkages to broader studies that focus on society at large and hence also fields like
11
sociology, politics and economics. Society, government, business, labour, organisations,
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
people, individual human beings, and so forth, are all interwoven, which leads to a com-
plex web of phenomena. From such a complex perspective, it may perhaps be asked
whether there can be any single ideology that can claim to objectively capture “the truth”
about this field.
Those who support postmodernist perspectives (Robbins & Barnwell 2006; Teicher
et al. 2006) would, for example, challenge the idea that there can be any objective “truth”
and that it is not possible to “know” how and why the world (and therefore organisations,
employment relations, and so forth) operates in certain ways. Any specific perspective or
ideology may be rejected. In this regard, a postmodernist view may help us to be open
minded enough not to accept any particular ideology or perspective as covered above as
being complete or absolutely correct or relevant in all or any particular situation/s, and
hence to shy away from “stereotyping”.
On the other hand, it may be worth noting that postmodernism stems from the work
of a number of philosophers who lived in an era characterised by power abuse that fol-
lowed devastating wars in Europe, which had left traces of unimaginable human suffering.
Much of this can also be linked back to the tensions between capitalist and communist
socioeconomic-political manifestos, and the radical perspective can be linked directly to
the capitalist/communist ideological debate. Robbins and Barnwell (2006), and Teicher
et al. (2006) explain that from a postmodernist perspective, it could be argued that a
situation has been created whereby the societal elites (e.g. owners of capital, and man-
agers as their representatives) exert dominance over marginalised groups like workers,
and knowledge purported to be objective (e.g. “scientifically” researched human resource
management) can be viewed as a “dominant discourse with which to control the work-
force” (Teicher et al. 2006: 38). In a similar sense, it can be argued that other traditionally
marginalised groups related to ethnicity or gender have come to be somewhat ignored
in this situation.
Teicher et al. (2006) refer to feminism as yet another potential contemporary view
of the world that may guide our thinking about employment relations. It is argued that
in the pre-industrial era, men, women and children worked in tandem as households,
whereas in post-industrial society, work and the economic value and status of work and
even trade unionism took on male-dominated characteristics.
According to this perspective, society at large, as well as organisations and the capi-
tal accrued from wealth-making processes, came to be male dominated – with females
subjected to the power and control of males. This perspective contains merit, at least as
far as we know that issues related to gender equity are rife in the world of work and in
societies in general. However, whether or not feminism can be regarded as a fully-fledged
ideology to guide investigating, understanding and/or explaining the dynamics related to
the simultaneous existence of conflict and interdependence in employment relations, is
another matter altogether.
1.3 A CONTEMPORARY SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AS A FIELD OF STUDY
12
Against this background, it is important that we, as the authors of this book, be clear and
open about our approach to, and understanding of, this area of practice and academic
field of study. As mentioned, employment relations, or aspects thereof, can be viewed
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
from the angle of many disciplines (which is why reference can be made to it as being a
multidisciplinary topic (Swanepoel & Slabbert 2012)). These include behavioural disci-
plines like sociology and psychology, law and economics.
Our approach is mainly from an economic angle, and to be more precise, from a
micro-economic perspective – because we are mainly concerned with how to develop
better-quality employment relations to enhance social justice and thereby help organisa-
tions perform better and be more competitive. We follow an interdisciplinary approach
(Swanepoel & Slabbert 2012) as we endeavour to integrate views from a number of dis-
ciplines (such as legal studies, psychology and sociology). Our main concern is how to
enhance the quality of employment relations through improving the lives of the people
doing the work in, of and for all kinds of organisations, thereby helping to make organisa-
tions more successful, and adding value to society and its peoples. While we have to draw
on perspectives of sociological, psychological, legal and other disciplines, our primary
angle is how organisations can manage employment relations to ensure greater fairness
as well as organisational and social justice.
We also subscribe to an open-systems approach to employment relations, and we
view the scope of this field as being broad rather than narrow. From our experience, a
holistic approach which accentuates the interplay between various aspects of employ-
ment relations, organisations and other societal systems offers better chances of devel-
oping good-quality employment relations that can support aspects such as competitive-
ness, social justice and sustainability. We are generally also of the view that pluralist and
societal corporatist perspectives offer more appropriate frameworks for analysing and
explaining the complex and ever-changing nature and dynamics of conflict and cooper-
ation in employment relations, especially in the South African context. However, we also
acknowledge that it is more important to be inclusive and to work towards a compre-
hensive understanding of the field than to become bogged down in any single ideology,
framework or perspective.
Definition
In this book, we wish to describe the concept of employment relations as referring
to the following:
A complex and dynamic open system of formal, informal, individual and collective
relationships and interactions between a range of role-players and stakeholders,
including the two most direct and actively involved parties of employers and their
representatives on the one side, and workers and their representatives on the
other side, but with the State, and its representatives and relevant institutions
also being a key party. These parties interact concerning aspects that relate primar-
ily to work and the people doing the work in and for organisations, mainly, though
not exclusively, through various forms of employment relationship arrangements.
These organisations of various kinds function in a broader societal context, where
the satisfaction of the needs of all members of society is of paramount concern.

The employment relationship is regarded as multidimensional, complex and having
built-in potential for common ground as well as conflict, requiring a careful balanc-
ing act in terms of power and regulation. A central feature of this field of theory and
practice is the notion of justice or fairness in balancing, integrating, reconciling and 13
regulating the partly common and partly divergent interests of the role-players. It
is acknowledged that the roles and interests of many parties or stakeholders need
to be considered and incorporated, and that there are multiple “actors” that are
important role-players and stakeholders.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Although income-earning work is also often performed outside of standard employment

relationships, we take a mainly managerial and organisational perspective in this book.
As such we regard employment relations as revolving mainly around work that is per-
formed in and through various forms of employment relationships. It is acknowledged
though, that management needs to take a multiple-stakeholder and holistic approach so
that organisations not only strive for competitiveness, but also balance that with broad-
er societal needs as “responsible corporate citizens”. South Africa is experiencing huge
challenges pertaining to poverty, inequality and the dire need of people to engage in
income-earning work. As such, management and organisations must seek and find ways
of creating income-earning work through various avenues, beyond standard and perhaps
even traditional formal employment relationships, as well. Ways must be sought to en-
hance social justice.
The above description and added argument, as well as our understanding of employ-
ment relations, is explained in more detail in sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.
1.3.1 Societal embeddedness of the multidimensional employment

relationship
The roots of employment relations are embedded in the relationships between employ-
ers and employees, and these parties are integral to modern society.
The definition provided in section 1.3 mentions the importance attached to the sat-
isfaction of the needs of all members of society. People have a vast range of needs, and
organisations of different types and forms exist to serve these needs. These organisations
are made up of people and other resources, such as capital (financial resources), natural
resources (e.g. land), technological resources (e.g. machinery and electronics) and other
tangible and intangible resources (e.g. raw materials and energy).
Of all these resources, it is the human element that gives life and meaning to the oth-
ers. People have to use and combine their mental and physical labour with the other re-
sources and inputs from outside and inside the organisation in order to deliver the need-
satisfying goods. This is why people work and spend their energy productively. Some people
take the initiative and risk personal resources, such as time, energy and money, to set up
these organisations. These people are called the entrepreneurs of society. Others choose
not to take these risks and rather work for and in these organisations as employees.
Some organisations – such as the so-called public service enterprises – are set up by
the State. Others, the business organisations, are owned by private people, who usually
seek profit from their ventures as a return on their investment and also for their risk
taking. There are also organisations that are non-profit-seeking, such as charity and other
non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In addition to these there are the parastatal
organisations and a host of other types – all of which ultimately exist for the delivery of
need-satisfying products and/or services to society, and all of which in turn need some
human element to do the work that is required to deliver products and services. This is
where the individual dimension of the employment relationship between an employer
14 and an employee comes into play.
An employee is employed by an employer and the latter employs the former to get
work done to deliver need-satisfying products and/or services. People are thus employed
by organisations of different types. Employment relationships make up an integral part
of our modern society, where organisations exist to deliver need-satisfying products and
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
services to the members of that society, who are also the very same people who set up
and work in those organisations. These employment relationships take on a variety of
different forms and types today.
Some employment relationships are ongoing or typified as “permanent” and full time,
while others are short term, temporary and/or for a fixed period only. Some relationships
entail working at the premises of the employer, while others entail working from home or
elsewhere. Some have fixed hours of work, while others are flexible in this regard. Some
are clear cut and pure employer/employee relationships, while others are less traditional
with elements of subcontracting and semi-independent arrangements. And so one may
go on to list a multitude of different permutations of how today’s employment relation-
ships may be structured.
Irrespective of these variations, however, the theory and practice of employment re-
lations revolve around how the parties arrange their relationships to get work done in
exchange for monetary (and other) rewards, how work is organised and executed, and
how the “fruits” (or added value) that accrue from the productive work processes are
distributed.
Employment relations is concerned with the fairness and justice of these arrange-
ments, with the ways in which the parties integrate, regulate, balance and institution-
alise their partly divergent and partly convergent interests and objectives, and with the
formal and informal dynamics that go along with this. The assumption is made that, in
any and all forms of employment relationship, these ingredients are present and have to
be blended into a “recipe” that will result in an equitable share of the “cake” for all. Key
“ingredients” are the simultaneous conflict and common-ground elements that are built
into any employment relationship.
The heart of the conflict is built around the economic dimension of any employment
relationship – that is, the exchange of labour for pay. The employer party seeks the most
effective and efficient operation of its organisation in order to be competitive in deliv-
ering appropriate quantities and quality products and services (in relation to those de-
livered by others), and at prices that compare favourably with those of the services or
products delivered by others (the competitors). If this is not achieved, the employing or-
ganisation’s future survival is jeopardised, which will be to the detriment of both parties.
Part of the efficiency goal is to get employees to be as productive as possible, and to
keep labour costs, as part of the total production costs, as low as possible. The employee,
in turn, wants to get as much as possible out of his or her employment relationship.
An understanding of the conflict surrounding issues such as pay, conditions of service
and employment security thus helps to explain the importance of power in the relation-
ship between employers and employees. The party with the most power is in the best
position to get the other party to agree on its definition of a fair exchange of wages and
conditions of service for the work done in the context of the employment relationship. In
general, however, the employer party has the most power because it controls most of the
resources. It typically owns the other resources, or at least has control over them.
The reality of a traditional power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship
has led to the workers joining forces and forming representative bodies to negotiate with 15
employers’ representatives on their behalf. These “organised labour” bodies, commonly
referred to as labour or trade unions, act on behalf of the workers collectively when
they bargain with employers’ representatives. This is where the collective dimension of
employment relations comes into play and impacts on the individual dimension of the
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
employment relationship (between the individual employee and the individual employer,
or between the employee and his superior as the one representing the interests of the
employer in that particular relationship).
Apart from the individual dimension of any employment relationship, it should be
clear that intergroup relationships develop, and interaction takes place between the rep-
resentatives of labour as a group and management and other employer representatives.
In employment relations, this collective dimension has always been a key theme.
The primary process of interaction between these groups or collectivities is collective
bargaining. In collective bargaining, the parties, through their respective representatives,
negotiate issues related to, or impacting on, the employment relationship in its organisa-
tional and broader societal context, and through the use of power and communication
processes they conclude collective agreements to regulate their relationships and bal-
ance their partly individual and partly common interests and objectives. Other processes
that are becoming increasingly prominent in employment relations relate to consensus-
seeking interaction, such as joint consultation, union/management cooperation, inte-
grative negotiation and joint problem solving. Whereas traditional distributive collec-
tive bargaining revolves more around the conflict ingredient in employment relations,
consensus-seeking processes, such as integrative styles of negotiation, centre more on the
shared interests and common-ground ingredients.
The centrifugal forces of the conflict between the employer and employee parties are
thus balanced by the existence of shared interests. Both collectively and as individuals,
the parties interact and make use of informal (behavioural or social) dynamics, such as
communication and power, as well as formal dynamics, such as courts, legal processes
(e.g. judicial rule making through adjudication), and quasi-legal processes (e.g. arbitra-
tion), in order to regulate and maintain their relationships.
All parties have a real interest in the long-term survival of companies or other employ-
ing organisations: employers to make a profit (in the private business sector) or surplus
(in non-profit-seeking sectors) through delivering the required products/services and
achieving relevant goals, and employees (workers and managerial employees) to earn an
income through their work. This highlights the interdependent nature of their relation-
ships. Employers are dependent on employees for their labour or work capabilities, em-
ployees need to work to earn money in order to make a living, and the State wants people
to work so that society can function better, while all parties need certain products and
services that can only be delivered by organisations.
As a result of this coexistence of conflict and interdependence, employment relations
dynamics are complex and formal, but informal aspects also come into play. Whereas the
formal dimension of employment relations refers to the legal and formal rule-making and
application aspects, the informal dimension relates to the behavioural dynamics involved
in employment relations.
In short, Employment Relations as a field of study, and theory and employment rela-
tions as an area of practice, are built mainly around the various forms of the employment
relationship. This relationship is, in turn, a key feature of our modern society, where or-
16 ganisations that consist of people (and other resources) deliver the products and services
that are required by the people of any particular society. Employment relations is thus
multidimensional, with an economic dimension at its core, and further entailing both
individual and collective dimensions, as well as formal and informal dimensions and dy-
namics.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
A golden thread that runs through this field is the notion of fairness and justice in
the context of work as a socioeconomic activity (income-earning work), both at organ-
isational and the broader societal level. The art of balancing the partly conflicting (or
diverging) interests (or objectives), and the partly converging (or shared) interests (and
objectives) of the main parties, and also integrating these with the interests of multiple
other stakeholders, makes this field a particularly dynamic one.
1.3.2 The actors, participants or role-players, and the stakeholders in

employment relations: a brief preview
Traditionally, industrial relations systems have been regarded as basically involving three
parties: “actors” or role-players, broadly known as “the employers” (and their representa-
tives); the employees (or “labour” – with trade unions as their representatives, also known
as “organised labour”), and the State (the government and its specialised agencies). This
view emanated from the seminal work of John T. Dunlop (1958) as mentioned earlier.
Many authors, scholars and textbooks today still subscribe to this “tripartite relationship”
(such as Venter, Levy, Bendeman & Dworzanowski-Venter 2014: 10). Bendix (2015: 10)
does the same, saying that the labour relationship “is traditionally described as a tripartite
relationship”, which she explains as follows (Bendix 2015: 31):
Employers, employees and the State are, in all labour relations systems, the major
participants in the relationship, but one system will differ from the other in terms
of the importance attached to, and the role of, each participant.
While we do not deny that there are three parties that are most actively and directly
involved in employment relations systems, we believe that a strictly “tripartite” perspec-
tive has become too narrow. In the previous edition of this book, we proposed, rather, a
pentagonal perspective. Such a perspective opened up room to include other important
role-players, actors or participants, such as “customers” and “competitors”. We made it
clear that perspectives of employment relations systems that do not factor in the inter-
ests and roles played by parties such as these would be incomplete. We still propagate a
broader approach rather than a narrow perspective.
Other role-players and stakeholders should also be factored into our considerations
and analyses of employment relations. In particular, we should realise that things are not
always that simple, straightforward or clear cut – as the world of work and societies more
generally can be much more complex. It is, for instance, not always appropriate or easy to
identify who the various parties, role-players or stakeholders really are. For instance, trade
unions and the State also employ people to work for them. As such, the trade unions and
the State are then regarded as being “employer parties”. It is not always easy to determine
who “the employer” is. Managers are, for instance, also employees – even though many
scholars have followed the Dunlop tradition of almost equating managers with employ-
ers. The owners of the organisations that employ people also have their own interests,
17
and sometimes these can be quite distinct from those of managers. For instance, it can be
rather important, in the private or business sector in particular, to distinguish between
the interests and roles of the “owners” (such as shareholders), and those of the managers
and of the members of the boards of directors.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Today it is increasingly realised that things are more complex than might have been
the case at the time when “tripartite industrial relations systems” became the dominant
perspective or paradigm. Ilesanmi, Ishola and Yusuf (2013: 104), for instance, reckon that
due to the complex “network of relationships, interactions and interfaces it is perhaps no
longer admissible to talk of a three-actor industrial relations system”.
The fact of the matter is that employment relations systems in any country do not ex-
ist, develop or function in isolation. They are more broadly embedded in society. Employ-
ment relations systems are in dynamic interaction with other subsystems of society, in-
cluding the political, economic, social, technological and ecological subsystems. Likewise,
the organisations that employ people to do the work required to deliver needs-satisfying
products and services to members of society (the customers or clients) do not function
in isolation. The operating or market environments in which organisations function in-
clude competitor organisations as well as the actual people and/or organisations being
the customers, clients or users of the products/services delivered.
Organisations operate as part of networks that include interactions with various other
organisations – such as supplier and intermediary organisations (like banks). Organisa-
tions and their employment relations are therefore in dynamic interaction with the en-
vironments in which they operate, including their market and broader economic, social,
technological, political, ecological and social environments. The employment relations
dynamics in these organisations are thus also in dynamic interaction with other organisa-
tional systems, processes, and so on, as well as with the broader environmental variables.
All of these environments have role-players and stakeholders, are dynamic and undergo
change.
There is change all over the world, all the time. The world of work has therefore also
been undergoing a great deal of change, especially over the last few decades – along
with changes internationally, including South Africa, in terms of political, economic, so-
cial, technological and ecological developments. We take a somewhat closer look at how
some of these environmental variables interplay with ER in section 1.5. For now, we would
just like to stress that we have to look beyond the traditional tripartite perspective of
industrial relations, and include other role-players and stakeholders.
Following on from the previous edition of this book and the work of Swanepoel and
Slabbert (2012), it seems as though Finnemore and Joubert (2013: 1) have also now start-
ed to make this shift to a more holistic and inclusive perspective than a tripartite one. In
their definition of labour relations, reference is made to the “parties which may include”
the State, employers and employees and their representative organisations. The usage of
the term “may include” now seems to open up space for including other role-players. This
is confirmed in the qualifying paragraph immediately following their definition of labour
relations (Finnemore & Joubert 2013: 1):
There are other important stakeholders and role-players, such as customers and
competitors, who have in recent times, especially as globalisation has intensified,
played a more influential role in shaping labour relations processes and outcomes
in the workplace.
18
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Our view is that a holistic perspective shows that ER systems are complex and involve
role-players, actors and stakeholders way beyond the three “main actors”, together with
customers and competitors. We believe that a “multipartite” perspective will be more
appropriate. It is, for instance, essential to bring in the interests and role of owners, as dis-
tinct from employers and managers. We must therefore acknowledge that when we refer
to the three traditional main role-players, these are generally not unified actors. On the
employer side there are the employing entity (like the company), the owner/s thereof and
boards of directors. On the employee side there are the employees (various types), their
trade unions and also, for example, the trade union officials employed by these trade un-
ions. In the case of the State, there are political parties, various “organs of State” (such as
the Department of Labour) and other State-instituted bodies such as the Labour Court.
Moreover, the State is a major employer in most countries. There are hence many aspects
to keep in mind and clarify regarding the parties, role-players and actors in employment
relations. We believe that a stakeholder approach will be better.
In addition, we should recognise that the interests and roles of those people who are
not employed (unemployed people), or perhaps employed in different ways, should also
be factored in. This is particularly true because we must acknowledge that one of the
greatest challenges faced globally, and in South Africa in particular, is the dire need of
millions of people for decent, income-earning work. Unemployed and under-employed
people are important stakeholders in any employment relations system.
We should also shift our focus beyond what has become termed “standard work” and
“standard employment relationships”. Vast numbers of people engage in non-standard
work – also referred to as “atypical employment”. This is especially so in developing coun-
tries – most notably in Africa (including South Africa). Such people and their work rela-
tionships are usually far more vulnerable than people working in standard employment
relationships (being permanent and full time). These people usually do not enjoy full-
time work or its concomitant pay or benefits, and they are often much more insecure,
experiencing less protection. Those people who are not engaged in full-time, permanent
work but are in need of it can therefore not be left out of the ER equation. The unem-
ployed people may not be active participants in the employment relations system (yet)
– but they certainly must be regarded as very important stakeholders. The same can be
said of those people who work and try to earn a living in the “informal economy” or in-
formal sectors of an economy. These are often referred to as informal workers, or people
working in informal employment. These workers can make up a substantial proportion of
the workforces of countries – and all parties should work towards a situation where more
people can have decent work with decent pay.
In addition we should keep in mind that, especially in smaller organisations, the em-
ployees often do not belong to trade unions, so we get what has been termed a “rep-
resentational gap”. Various other parties therefore get involved in representing such em-
ployees and also the smaller enterprises. These include parties such as labour lawyers and
labour relations and human resource consultants.
Clearly, then, there are multiple stakeholders involved in employment relations sys-
tems. We return to the multipartite view of employment relations systems in Chapter 2.
19
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
ER IN PRACTICE 1.2

S outh Africa’s NDP (National Development Plan) reflects pertinently how important the labour
arena of the country is and what is required in terms of which areas are to be targeted (NDP
2012: 28–29): “Transforming the economy and creating sustainable expansion for job creation means
that the rate of economic growth needs to exceed 5 per cent a year on average. To bring this about we
propose:
A labour market that is more responsive to icies and labour matching; and enabling skilled
economic opportunity. This requires lifelong immigration.”
learning and career advancement; stabilising the It should be remembered that the NDP was
labour environment; strengthening dispute res- drafted by the National Planning Commission,
olution institutions; reviewing regulations and which was formed by the government. The pro-
standards for small and medium enterprises; ad- cesses that were involved in developing the diag-
dressing public sector labour relations; strength- nostic reports (which informed the drafting of
ening the application of minimum standards the NDP) as well as the NDP as such, included
among employers, recruitment agencies and a very wide-ranging engagement of multiple
brokers; strengthening active labour market pol- role-players and stakeholders across society.
Source: National Planning Commission. 2012. National Development Plan 2030. Our future – make it work. Executive
summary. Available at http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Executive%20Summary-NDP%202030%20-%20
Our%20future%20-%20make%20it%20work.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2015)
1.4 SOME KEY INGREDIENTS THAT MAKE EMPLOYMENT

RELATIONS DYNAMIC
There has traditionally been an emphasis on the legal or “formal” dimension of employ-
ment relations, both by practitioners and in textbooks. While we acknowledge the im-
portance of these aspects (relevant legal aspects are dispersed throughout the book and
we devote chapters 4 and 5 to relevant legislation), we believe that the quality of employ-
ment relations is more a function of “informal”, social or behavioural aspects. We believe
that the key lies in the relations aspect.
It is essential, as part of this introductory chapter, to focus briefly on certain key be-
20 havioural dynamics that underpin employment relations. We will first introduce you to
the notion of perceptions of fairness and justice, and then focus on some of the dynamics
relating to conflict, power and cooperation in employment relations. It should be noted
that there is an almost constant interplay between the formal and informal dimensions
of employment relations.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
1.4.1 The centrality of perceptions of justice in employment relations

From the outset of this book, we have emphasised the centrality of perceptions of justice
or fairness to the field of employment relations. The importance of justice has, in fact,
been widely recognised and accepted by academics and practitioners in many disciplines
around the world. In 1990, Greenberg (1990: vii) made this claim: “Few concepts are as
fundamental to human social interaction as justice.” This is partly because justice con-
cerns itself with the distribution of resources (i.e. goods and conditions) to individuals
and groups. Kelly (1998: 126) argued that “it is the perception of, and response to, injus-
tice that should form the core intellectual agenda for industrial relations”. As you know,
we regard social (and organisational) justice to be at the core of employment relations.
Even though Van Staden (2012: 93) states that “social justice is not just a South Afri-
can but a shared concern”, it is equally true that social justice “occupies a central place
within South African jurisprudence in general and labour law in particular” (Van Sta-
den 2012: 91). In fact, just as the very notion of social justice (as the same author points
out) lies at the foundation of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and its labour
standards, it is explicitly stated as a central goal of South Africa’s Labour Relations Act
66 of 1995 (LRA) (see Chapter 4). Even though social justice is so central to fields such as
law and employment relations, as a concept it is still evolving (Van Staden 2012). Broadly
speaking, justice deals with notions of whether people feel that they have received their
fair due in life. Work-related justice perceptions are particularly important, as one’s sense
of justice at work is likely to extend to many other facets of one’s life.
This is partly due to the economic dimension of any employment relationship, but also
because work is a social activity. Where we work and whom we work with and what we
do as employees have an impact on our lives beyond the workplace. This influences our
status in society, and our emotions and feelings of self-worth. Feelings of being treated
fairly or unfairly at work are likely to impact on our general feeling of wellbeing.
Definition
The notions of organisational justice or workplace justice are often used to refer to
organisational activities relating to the distribution of the organisation’s resources and re-
wards. These can include goods such as wages and salaries, jobs and promotions, and in-
centives and bonuses, while conditions can include favourable/unfavourable treatment,
training opportunities and status. Perceptions of justice play an important role in shaping
the interaction between the parties in employment relations.
We can better understand these justice concerns if we look at some of the ways in
which people make evaluations about fairness. These perceptions are referred to as jus-
tice judgements, and considerable research has been directed at trying to establish the
criteria that people use to come to conclusions about just treatment. In this research,
justice has been explored in relation to three dimensions or aspects, namely distributive,
procedural and interpersonal or interactional justice. We now briefly examine each of

these in the context of employment relations.
» DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
21
Distributive justice refers to “the distribution of the conditions and goods which affect
individual (psychological, social and economic) well-being” (Deutsch 1975: 137). Distrib-
utive justice in the employment relations context therefore concerns itself with “employ-
ees’ perceived fairness of organizational outcomes that they receive” (Kim, Lin & Leung
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
2015: 163). In the context of the employment relationship, with its economic exchange
foundation, the effort/pay (input/outcome) is thus central.
Since work is usually conducted in a social context where different employees work
alongside each other, social comparison lies at the heart of equity theory and distributive
Definition
justice. Distributive justice, in the organisational and employment relational context,

therefore refers to the individual employee’s preference for a situation of perceived fair-
ness insofar as it relates to the employee’s input/outcome ratio compared with the input/
outcome ratio or equation of other employees. Distributive justice is seen to be upheld
when an employee perceives his or her contribution/reward ratio to be equal to that of
others in a similar position.
Should an employee (or group of employees) perceive unequal ratios to exist, feelings
of inequity and unfairness (inequity tension) will follow, which may in turn lead to (or
motivate) behaviour aimed at equalising the equation. Katz and Miller (1999) point out
that research evidence clearly shows that perceptions of negative distributive justice can
result in poor work performance and deviant workplace behaviour, such as absenteeism,
and therefore high staff turnover.
Perceptions of distributive injustice can generate collective action as an effort to reme-
dy such situations (Baron & Pfeffer 1994). As far back as 1999, for example, local empirical
research conducted by Katz and Miller (1999: 78) involving black South African teach-
ers clearly indicated that “the lower the perceptions of organisational justice the higher
the likelihood of participation in industrial action”. Reward distribution is therefore a key
theme, not only in organisational justice research but also in distributive justice work. It
includes the nature and level of reward as distributed across organisational hierarchies.
The extremely skewed wealth distribution in South Africa makes this topic of the “haves”
and “have-nots” extremely relevant.
Swanepoel and Slabbert (2012), drawing on the works of Terreblanche (2007), Van
der Westhuizen (2007) and Triegaardt (2008), show that the growing gap between the
“haves” and “have-nots” in South Africa is posing a serious threat to the stability of so-
ciety. As explained earlier, the “haves” include those people who have decent income-
earning work, while those who do not have such work can be said to form part of the
“have-not” group. Van der Berg (2014: 197) makes it very clear that “[i]ncome inequality
is a matter of great concern in South Africa”. The following conclusion is, however, also
very important (Van der Berg 2014: 215):
Inequality has shifted in nature to becoming less race based than in the past. Within-
group inequality has become by far the larger share of overall inequality. This is
caused both by the increase in within-group inequality and the reduction of
between-group inequality …
Whereas the between-group inequalities remain a challenge (redistribution towards

black, rather than white South Africans), the country’s greater challenge now seems to
be within-group inequalities (most notably, the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”
within the black population group of the country is the fastest-growing). As these per-
22 ceptions of and negative feelings towards a growing lack of social justice develop more
among members of especially the South African black sector, we can probably expect
more protest actions and other forms of collective mobilisation (such as strikes – see ER
in practice 1.3). These dynamics are what some refer to as South Africa’s “ticking time-
bomb”.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
ER IN PRACTICE 1.3

O ne notable case that vividly illustrates the serious role played by perceptions of lack of distributive
justice, and how these can lead to severe conflict episodes – even the death of some people – is the
“Marikana massacre”on 16 August 2012. (See also the discussion of this event under section 3.7.)
South Africa: the present as history, by Saul ry, and an approach to labour-management rela-
and Bond (2014) contains some relevant infor- tions that had seen line managers simply refer is-
mation pertaining to the Marikana case, and we sues to HR and NUM”. Dissatisfied workers thus
use some of that, together with other sources of started to join a different trade union, AMCU
information, to help serve as illustration here. (Association of Mining Workers and Construc-
Saul and Bond (2014: 215) explain that tion Union) – leading to the inter-union rivalry
“South Africa’s share of world platinum reserves and waves of industrial action.
is more than 80 per cent. … the nine main min- Saul and Bond (2014: 218) also explain:
ing firms operating mainly in this region record- “AMCU’s members had participated in various
ed $4.5 billion in 2011 profits from their South forms of labour and community-based pro-
African operations”. Two of these nine mining tests over the prior [to Marikana] few years, as
companies are Impala Platinum (Implats) and the 350 per cent price increase … left the main
Lonmin. Lonmin is “the third largest producer companies, AngloPlats (Anglo American Plat-
of platinum in the world”, employing “28 000 inum), Implats and Lonmin – extremely pros-
workers directly and another 10 000 through perous, without evidence of trickle-down to the
third parties”, with its mining operations “cen- semi-proletarianized workforce.”
tered in Marikana, which accounts for over 80 Chinguno (2013: 641) likewise explains:
per cent of its output”(Chinguno 2013: 641). “The 2012 Lonmin strike was part of a wave
Over time, perceptions developed in the in- that started at Impala Platinum in January
dustry that the workers were not getting a fair 2012. The strike broke out after rock drill oper-
share of these huge profit levels that followed on ators (RDOs) embarked on a strike challenging
from rising platinum prices over the boom period management’s decision to award an 18 per cent
from about 2002. Apparently some perceptions retention allowance to mine blasters. The mobi-
also developed that NUM (National Union of lisation spread across the platinum belt and be-
Mineworkers) was not bargaining well enough yond. The strikes had similarities in the claims,
on behalf of the workers to get them a fairer violence, repertoires and the actors. The RDOs,
share of the very high profits that were being later joined by other unskilled workers, were un-
made by the companies that employed them. An- compromising. They demanded a wage award of
stey (2013: 138) says that early in 2012 “workers over 200 per cent outside the collective bargain-
at Impala Platinum mine went on strike – the ing system, and exhibited unprecedented levels
consequence of several factors, including chang- of militancy.”
es in the social conditions of mine workers that Ultimately, as Saul and Bond (2014: 215) ex-
attenuated the value of their wages, a loss of plain, “34 workers were killed and 78 others suf-
faith in NUM as the representative union among fered bullet-wound injuries, all at the hands of
certain groups of key workers, inter-union rival- police weapons, leaving some crippled for life”.
˜
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
All of this directly interplays with, and relates to, distributive justice perceptions and
problems in South Africa.
Although distributive justice is often taken to refer to the economic (i.e. remunera-
tion) dimension of the employment relationship, Baron and Pfeffer (1994: 193) point out
that such social comparison processes “are much more general and apply to virtually all
aspects of work life”. This broader view of distributive justice is consistent with that of
Deutsch (1975: 137), as quoted earlier.
The importance of distributive justice becomes more apparent if we appreciate that
employees generally want fairness in all aspects of their employment relationships. This
applies to factors such as how organisations are designed, how work is organised (the job
characteristics) and distributed, career prospects and development (including promo-
tion and growth opportunities), how people are treated (superiors being more friendly
or kind to some than to others, for instance), and also, of course, the reward structures
that apply.
The role of trade unions therefore clearly includes ensuring that distributive justice
prevails in organisations as employing entities. The workers, as union members, can ex-
pect their unions to ensure that fair human resource decisions are made, for example that
no unfair discrimination takes place and that there is “equal pay for work of equal value”.
Distribution decisions can be based mainly on criteria such as the following:
• Equality, where everyone gets exactly the same distribution (e.g. in a family that
has four children, the parents are likely to share sweets, presents, chores, etc. equally
among the children)
• Need, where allocations are based on who needs the goods most (e.g. in a hospital, a
person having a heart attack will receive medical attention more urgently than some-
one who comes in with a broken toe)
• Equity, where outcomes or rewards are based on how much the person contributes
or invests (e.g. a bank gives more money in interest to people who have invested larger
amounts with them)
It has been argued that in organisations where economic productivity and profit making
are primary goals, equity will be the basis for the distribution of resources. If we look at
the formal dimension of employment relations, in particular the labour legislation that
impacts on the employment relationship, we can identify elements of the equity princi-
ple. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA), for example, states that
people can take leave based on how much time they have accumulated working in the
organisation, or can have a lunch break after working a certain number of hours. In other
words, based on one’s investments or inputs into the organisation, one can claim certain
rewards.
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), on the other hand, stipulates that one
cannot refuse to reward somebody based on inputs that the employer may consider un-
desirable. For example, an employer may see someone’s sexual orientation as an unde-
24 sirable input into the employment relationship and on those grounds refuse to promote
the person or to give an annual increase to him or her. The EEA attempts to regulate such
unjust behaviour.
In addition to the role that legislation plays in upholding principles of equity, there is
the practice in many organisations of promoting and rewarding people who bring valued
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
inputs into the workplace. Such inputs include skills, expertise, training and technologi-
cal know-how, as well as good managerial and interpersonal skills. The more such valued
inputs one can offer, the higher one’s allocations and rewards are likely to be.
This principle of distribution on the basis of equity may raise concerns with regard to
the perceptions of justice of the parties to the employment relationship in the following
two respects:
• The first concern relates to whether all parties agree that equity is the fairest basis upon
which to make reward allocations. Trade unions in South Africa, for example, have of-
ten argued that equality should be the grounds for making resource distributions in
an organisation. When bargaining collectively for wage/salary increases, unions insist
that all members should receive the same percentage. Very often, mechanisms that
differentiate one employee from the next in terms of inputs such as performance (e.g.
performance appraisals) are rejected by unions as going against their principle of “all
for one, one for all”.
• The second concern that may emerge relates to what inputs and outputs each of the
parties considers as valuable. Under the apartheid system, for example, many organ-
isations placed a value on an employee’s being white and male. In attempting to re-
dress this past imbalance, the EEA calls for affirmative-action measures to be adopt-
ed, whereby being black, coloured, Indian or female becomes a more valued input to
the job selection process. In addition to this, it may be argued that managerial and
non-managerial employees may place a different emphasis on the value of certain
outcomes. While managers may feel that verbal recognition or an employee-of-the-
month award, for example, is a valued outcome for a job well done, non-managerial
wage-earning employees may perceive such rewards as being worthless, and may value
a bonus or wage increase much more highly.
Given such concerns and differences in perception regarding the distribution of resourc-
es and rewards in organisations, it becomes clear why different stakeholders in employ-
ment relations may have different views regarding what is fair in any given organisational
or work context. Naturally, these different views and perceptions have a major impact
on the conflict potential in employment relations. In fact, the concern about fairness in
the distribution process in the employment relations context leads, in turn, to a concern
about the procedures involved in reaching distribution decisions. This brings us to the
second dimension of justice, namely procedural justice.
» PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
Definition
Whereas distributive justice relates to the perceived fairness of the substance of decisions
and/or outcomes, procedural justice, in the employment relations context, refers to the
“employees’ perceived fairness of the processes by which outcomes are allocated” (Kim
et al. 2015: 163).
Welbourne (1998: 328) explains that, although the original research on the topic of 25
procedural justice was done from a legal sciences perspective, this was later extended to
many different areas, the results of which “supported the original finding that procedural
justice was an important factor for understanding individual attitudes, and it is inde-
pendent of outcome (or distributive) fairness”.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Most of the theoretical work and research undertaken in this field focuses on the
characteristics of the procedures, or different types of procedure, that impact on justice
judgements. There is also a focus on the influence that procedures have on our justice
judgements about distribution. Leventhal (1980) put forward the following six criteria as
being central to a fair procedure – and these are still relevant today:
• Consistency. The equal application of rules and procedures to all concerned over time
• Bias suppression. The prevention of self-interest in the decision-making process
• Accuracy. The making of decisions on the basis of accurate information
• Correctability. The modification or correction of the decision, if appropriate
• Representativeness. The representation of all stakeholders or parties concerned in
the process
• Ethicality. The reflection of current ethical and moral principles in the process
Criteria such as these have been proposed by a number of authors from several disci-
plines as being important for procedural fairness. An example of this is the work of Thiba-
ut and Walker (1975), who developed a psychological model of procedural fairness based
on their work as lawyers and their experience with court cases. They proposed that there
are two types of control that occur during any procedure, namely process control and
decision control. Process control refers to the individual’s control over the presentation of
facts, information and evidence, while decision control refers to the participant’s control
over the actual decision made. It is clear that these criteria relate to the notions of distrib-
utive and procedural justice discussed above. A critical element of Thibaut and Walker’s
theory is that the perceived fairness of the procedure can result in satisfaction with the
outcome, regardless of whether the outcome itself is favourable or not.
Theorists have noted the relationship between procedural and distributive justice
(Randall & Mueller 1995), and there is broad agreement that there is a mutual influence
or codetermination between these two aspects of fairness that affect our overall percep-
tions of justice (Folger 1977).
Concerns about procedural justice as part of the informal dimension of employment
relations overlap with the formal dimension as reflected in labour legislation. The Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) stipulates, for example, that to dismiss a worker fairly
there must be due cause (i.e. a fair reason for the dismissal) and also due process (a fair
procedure to judge the merits of the case). These two elements relate to the notions or
dimensions of distributive and procedural justice, and there is recognition that in order
to ensure that fair decisions are made, fair procedures must be used.
An important role of trade unions and their representatives is, accordingly, to continu-
ously endeavour to promote processes and procedures in employment-related decisions

that are fair and therefore lead to fair decisions being taken. The underlying rationale is
that while fairness in human resource-related decisions is necessary, it is not sufficient
for organisational justice to prevail. For it is, in addition, important that employees per-
ceive these decisions to be fair – and the implementation, application and utilisation of
26
fair procedures and processes in making such decisions can play a significant role in this
regard.
Furthermore, it has been argued that the manner in which a decision outcome is com-
municated to an employee will influence the perceived fairness of the outcome itself
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
(Nunns 1995). The interpersonal treatment of employees thus becomes a concern, and
here the third dimension of justice becomes important, namely interpersonal or interac-
tional justice.
» INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE
Definition
Interpersonal or interactional justice refers, inter alia, to the manner in which out-
comes are communicated to employees at an interpersonal level. In employment rela-
tions it relates to the “employees’ perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment they
receive from authority figures” (Kim et al. 2015: 163). It also concerns itself with the sym-
bolic and intangible outcomes of procedures such as status, trust and respect (Folger &
Konovsky 1989). Lilly (2015: 31) explains that interpersonal justice refers to “the extent to
which individuals are treated with respect and dignity”. While this aspect of justice under-
pins mainly perceptions of procedural justice, it can also be very relevant to perceptions
pertaining to distributive justice.
Greenberg (1990) also described the following two aspects of interpersonal justice:
• Interpersonal treatment. The treatment received from decision makers, for example
respect, courtesy and friendliness
• Adequate causal accounts. The use of adequate explanations for the outcome or
decision reached
If employees are treated with respect, courtesy and dignity in terms of processes of deci-
sion making, as well as the actual allocation outcomes, and there are mechanisms in place
to allow for the explanation or justification of decisions taken by the decision makers,
then the employees concerned will be more likely to accept the decisions as being just.
This is because they will perceive themselves as having been fairly treated by the decision
makers.
Tyler (1989) proposes the following three elements as being central to perceptions of
interpersonal justice:
• Neutrality. This is a function of the decision maker. It refers to the elimination of bias
through the use of facts and accurate information (thus linking with procedural jus-
tice concerns). Neutrality also implies openness and honesty.
• Trust. This pertains to the degree to which people believe the decision maker will be
fair, and thus refers to the perceived intentions of this person. Trust in the decision
maker involves the belief that he or she wishes to treat people in a fair and compas-
sionate manner.
• Standing. This refers to individuals’ concern with their status in a group. If they are
treated rudely or with disrespect they will be aware that the authority they are deal-
ing with views them as having low standing in the group. However, if they are treated
with respect and courtesy by the decision maker, they will know that their rights are
respected by those in authority. 27
Interpersonal interaction and relations therefore play an all-important role in employ-
ment relations. This is where knowledge of behavioural sciences becomes so important.
Conflict is one such behavioural aspect that is central to employment relations.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
1.4.2 Conflict
Conflict is well known to most people and it is very common in modern society. Howev-
er, it is often not a fully grasped concept. It is usually associated with something negative
and it is the sensational aspects that are mostly covered by the mass media. It is thus quite
a common perception that conflict is destructive and undesirable.
Yet conflict may be potentially healthy and even beneficial. It is often a prerequisite
for change, growth and development, and without it employment relations systems, and
even societies, may stagnate. Conflict is actually a force underlying change and transfor-
mation. The challenge is how conflict is approached, managed and resolved.
Essentially, conflict involves some form of competition, differences or tension. Al-
though in the context of employment relations conflict may occur within an individual
(i.e. intra-personal conflict, such as when an individual does not know which trade union
to belong to, or whether to be loyal to the company or to go on strike), conflict in the
context of employment relations will always be of a relational nature. It is thus also a form
of social conflict. Anstey (2006: 6) says that social conflict
... exists in a relationship when parties believe that their aspirations cannot be
achieved simultaneously, or perceive a divergence in their values, needs or inter-
ests (latent conflict) and purposefully employ their power in an effort to eliminate,
defeat, neutralise, or change each other to protect or further their interests in the
interaction (manifest conflict).
Conflict in employment relations may be regarded as an inherent part of the interaction

between the parties. It has to do with the competitive forces in employment relations
and is a dynamic process. Conflict interplays with other dynamics and it often leads to
some changes in employment relations.
Conflict dynamics usually include some negative emotional elements, and aspects
such as antagonism, aggression, threats, hostility and lack of cooperation are often pres-
ent. Importantly, conflict always has a cause.
A number of issues have been identified that may be regarded as causes of conflict,
including the following:
• Different values, attitudes or perceptions
• Different objectives or methods of achieving them
• Differences in information or communication blockages
• Lack of resources (scarcity)
• Skew distribution of resources (structural imbalances)
• Personality differences
These and other causes of conflict are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The chal-
lenge is to identify these causes and to deal with them constructively.
Different types of conflict may also be identified, such as perceived, real and mani-
28 fest conflict, as well as constructive (functional) and destructive (dysfunctional) conflict.
A distinction should be made between frictional and strategic or orchestrated conflict.
Frictional conflict is the spontaneous result of interaction within the formal structure of
an enterprise. It is inherent in and results from interaction between different people with
different personalities who occupy different positions within an organisation. Strategic or
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
orchestrated conflict is that which is consciously generated by persons in order to manip-

ulate the allocation of resources, status, authority and power. A strike is a typical example
of the latter.
Because conflict is central to employment relations, it is important to have knowl-
edge about it and how to manage it constructively and to prevent and avoid destructive
conflict episodes, such as the Marikana massacre referred to earlier. There are numerous
ways of managing conflict constructively, including through processes such as collective
bargaining, negotiation and third-party intervention. These and other conflict-manage-
ment-related dynamics are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.
1.4.3 Power
Power is a further central component of the dynamics underlying the interaction be-
tween the role-players in employment relations. Trade unions, the government and the
employer parties draw on differential power bases in their interactions with one another.
Power, in this case, can be seen as a medium through which divergent aims and interests
are mediated and resolved. Power is thus closely linked to the processes of addressing and
resolving conflict.
Definition
Power may be defined at both an interpersonal and a social unit level. Interpersonal
power may be understood as “[o]ne person’s ability to influence another person’s behav-
iour or thinking, so that they do something they otherwise would not have done” (Rob-
bins 1998: 407). This definition focuses on the relationships between individual people.
Like conflict, power is relational in the employment context in that it is employed in a
situation involving two or more parties.
Social unit power is defined as “the realistic capacity of a system unit to actualise its
Definition
interests within the context of system-interaction and in this sense exert influence on
processes in the system” (Parsons 1960: 23). Such a definition focuses on the relationship
between groups rather than individuals, and the ability of groups to influence the pro-
cesses of the larger system of which they form part.
It is clear that while power refers to the relationships between individuals in the con-
text of employment relations, the focus is more often on the power of social units, such as
organisations and different groups within or outside of them. Employment relations may
be seen as comprising three main role-players, namely employers, employees and the
State. Thus, in exploring power in this context, much of our attention will focus on the
interactions between the various units that represent these stakeholders or role-players.
How does each of these parties gain power? Drawing on early research, French and
Raven (1959) identify the following bases of power:
Definition
• Legitimate power. This is power that emerges from the right to issue directives. Such
power is accepted as part of the social (organisational) structure and is obeyed be-
cause of organisational rank. Management tends to have more legitimate power be-
cause it assumes higher positions in the organisational hierarchy. Labour may have
legitimate power through legislation (e.g. in the form of the right to strike).
Definition
• Reward power. This refers to power that emanates from the capacity of the group or
individual to confer or withhold rewards. Management holds such power through its
capacity to reward employees by means of pay increases, incentives, bonuses, promo-
tions or any other commodity that employees value. The reward power of unions re-
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
sides in their capacity to induce workers to increase productivity, improve the quality
of their work or work longer hours, or anything else that employers may value.
Definition
• Coercive power. This refers to the capacity of an individual or group to use force or
coercion through the use of sanctions or by withholding desired commodities. Man-
agers can refuse, for example, to pay performance bonuses or threaten retrenchment if
productivity does not increase. Unions can threaten to withhold labour through strike
action or engage in some other form of industrial action.
Definition
• Knowledge power. This power is based on the possession of specialised knowledge

or skills. Management may, for example, have more knowledge than workers about
finance, marketing, technology and the general running of the company. This often
provides it with a greater opportunity to influence unions on such matters. Workers,
on the other hand, could have detailed knowledge about the operation of machinery,
while shop stewards may have expert knowledge of the law that their superiors may
lack. In modern society, often referred to as post-industrial, it is increasingly recognised
how important a role is played by knowledge. It is frequently said and heard that we
are living in the “knowledge age or era”. This therefore holds some serious implications
for the power dynamics in modern employment relations.
Definition
• Referent power. This power arises out of the force of an individual’s personality. Char-
ismatic people can influence other people to want to be more like them or to identify
with them. A particularly charismatic shop steward could wield power in a negotiation
setting or when trying to recruit members. A charismatic manager could encourage
support for organisational goals or initiatives.
From the description of these five bases of power, we can see how employees and em-
ployers, as different interest groups, acquire and use power dynamics in order to influence
the processes in the employment relations system. However, the environmental forces
and variables that interact with this system add an additional dimension to the conflict
and power dynamics of employment relations. Before we focus on these environmental
variables and forces, we will briefly examine the common-ground and shared-interest
dynamics involved in employment relations.
1.4.4 Converging and diverging interests

Employment Relations as a field is not solely concerned with the divergent interests and
conflict in employment relationships. Aspects such as interdependence, shared interests
and common ground are equally important.
The fundamental common ground is that human needs have to be satisfied. People
need products and services, and these have to be delivered. This is a basic shared interest
and explains why the parties come together. People need to work to earn money to live,
and organisations need people to do the work to deliver the products and services that
are needed by the society. This is why it is in the interests of all parties to try to ensure the
30 long-term survival and continued existence of organisations.
Employees willingly enter into employment relationships, thereby participating in the
productive processes of the organisation. They give their energy in the form of the mental
and physical labour that is needed by organisations and hence there is a need for some
form of cooperation.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Likewise, trade unions exist because there are employees. If there were no employing
organisations, there would be no employees and hence no trade union members. Trade
unions therefore also have an interest in the continued existence of the employing or-
ganisation, and because the employees in organisations often belong to trade unions and
trust their union leadership, it is in the interests of employers not to ignore or “wish away”
trade unions – and so there is some common ground that lays the foundation for union/
management cooperation.
1.5 THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AND ITS

BROADER ENVIRONMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
AND ORGANISATIONAL SUCCESS
The approach in this book to take an open-systems perspective on employment relations

implies that employment relations dynamics are heavily influenced by, and in turn have
an influence on, other subsystems of society. The nature of employment relations is that
it is contextually bound, therefore an analysis of any phenomenon related to employment
relations has to take account of the fact that employment relations dynamics are in con-
stant interaction with other factors or variables in the environment.
A key thrust of this book is to analyse employment relations from the perspective of
managing organisations and to consider relevant implications for management practi-
tioners and scholars – but with the emphasis on making better use of principles related
to social justice. Organisations and management are, however, phenomena that are in
interaction with a myriad of other environmental factors or variables – at organisational
level, as well as at industry/sectorial, national and international levels, therefore a brief
discussion follows on how the dynamics of employment relations interplay with other
factors or variables that surround the typical organisational or workplace environment.
1.5.1 Macro-external factors
The macro-external environment that contextualises employment relations has to take
as its point of departure that South Africa is not an isolated island. The country forms
part of the “global village” into which the world has largely developed. There are changes
sweeping all across the globe, and South Africa is not immune or hidden away from them.
South Africa as a country is also still undergoing transformation – and this cannot be
disconnected from international developments. Many of these changes spill over into the
country’s general arena of employment relations, and also in particular into organisations
and workplaces all over the country.
One has to be mindful of how factors in the macro-external environment could have
consequences for the quality of employment relations within an organisation, and vice
versa, so that decisions made can be aligned with the environmental forces impacting
on the success of the organisation and, ultimately, the country. Some of the most basic
macro-external factors or variables relate to the demographics of the country – including 31
aspects such as the size, growth and composition of its population. This is exactly where
South Africa’s massive triple-challenge related to poverty, unemployment and inequality
comes in. Masses of people are unemployed, poor, poorly educated and underskilled –
and unable to lift themselves out of misery. At the same time a relatively small proportion
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
of the population is affluent, with some extremely wealthy people forming the upper
stratum of society. All of these factors spill over into the world of work, economics and
politics. Social aspects related to health, education, and so forth, are intertwined with
demographic and other political and economic developments. Examples of how these
factors interplay are numerous, and only some are illustrated below.
1.5.1.1 Socioeconomic factors
Factors such as the country’s economic growth rate, inflation, taxation and interest rates
may all have an effect on employment relations. For example, if the economy is sluggish,
this may cause a drop in the demand for products and/or services. This may lead to in-
creased unemployment because too few job opportunities are created in relation to the
number of new job-seekers entering the market from school, college or university. People
who are unemployed and have no money are often jealous of those who do have jobs,
earn money and make a decent living. They are often also desperate to obtain resources
to enable them to make a living. This may lead to envy, conflict, crime and ultimately even
perhaps to violence in the community.
In this way, workers’ lives (or those of their families) may sometimes be threatened.
Such a situation may cause employees to have feelings of uncertainty, anxiety and stress,
as well as to develop health problems. These problems may in turn lead to absenteeism
and other negative behaviours that may negatively affect the performance and outputs
of the rest of the workforce, which may have a detrimental effect on productivity and
the manner in which employees are managed at work. Employees may, for example, be
warned about poor work performance or frequent absenteeism, or ultimately be dis-
missed. These dynamics can detract from the performance and competitiveness of the
organisation. It may be necessary to restructure business processes to cut costs (in order
to be more competitive) and even to downsize and dismiss (retrench) employees. Lack of
labour productivity also works very much against the competitiveness and performance
of organisations – and of the country as a whole. When there are episodes of industrial
action (such as strikes), these may not only impact negatively on the labour productivity
and performance of those organisations affected by them, but can have a much wider
impact (see the ER in practice 1.4).
If such circumstances prevail among various organisations and sectors, economic
growth of the country can hence be adversely affected as illustrated above. Poor econom-
ic growth can lead managers to be reluctant to increase wages. Industrial action, such as
strikes, may follow as a result, possibly having serious consequences for attracting poten-
tial foreign investors. This may hamper the creation of jobs. Industrial action, although
perhaps aimed at reaching economic goals, is a social process. Intimidation and violence
sometimes go hand in hand with social processes such as strikes, and this may have nega-
tive implications for the economy. Owing to intimidation and violence, workers are often
forced to stay at home during organised mass “stay-away” or protest actions. This may
cause conflict between management and workers, as appropriate disciplinary measures
32 are often considered when such protest actions are not protected by the LRA. Employers
can follow the “no work, no pay” practice, which may influence demand to stimulate
growth (if such protest actions and strikes take on extreme measures). It should be clear
that a vicious circle could develop with a downward spiral of socioeconomic conditions,
eventually having a tremendous effect on the standard of living in the country.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
ER IN PRACTICE 1.4

S&P downgrades SA credit rating
T he downgrade takes South Africa’s credit rating to just one level above ‘junk’ status.
Craig Wynn, June 2014
JOHANNESBURG – Ratings agency Standard ment by another agency, Fitch, that it had also
& Poor’s (S&P) has downgraded South Africa’s lowered its forecast for South Africa’s economic
credit rating from BBB to BBB-. It cites the near- growth, though it didn’t downgrade its credit
ly five-month strike in the platinum sector, high rating.
account deficits and weak demand among its rea- A short while ago, 567 CapeTalk/Talk Radio
sons for the decision. 702’s Bruce Whitfield asked director at S&P, Ravi
The agency has also lowered its rating for the Bhatia, what the reasons for the downgrade were.
rand from A– to BBB+. “It’s primarily low growth,” he said. “We’ve
At the same time, it has lowered its 2014 GDP had persistent low growth for quite a few years
growth forecast for the country to 1.9 per cent. now, which has been tied partially to strike ac-
The news follows this morning’s announce- tion.”
Source: http://ewn.co.za/2014/06/13/SP-downgrades-SA-credit-rating (accessed on 9 March 2015)
The country’s socioeconomic dynamics are also intertwined with developments on

the global front. For example, the global financial crisis, which commenced in the US and
developed momentum especially from 2008 onwards, spilled over into South Africa as
well, and it naturally had serious socioeconomic implications.
In a press statement released by the then national spokesperson of the Congress of
South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Patrick Craven is quoted as responding to the
release of The Framework for South Africa’s response to the international economic crisis
early in 2009 as follows: “COSATU welcomes the framework plan ... This is a most signif-
icant example ... of social partners coming together jointly to produce a strategy to deal
with the impact of the crisis and protect jobs and livelihoods ... We warmly welcome
the undertaking from organised business and its affiliates to urge and encourage CEOs
of companies to do everything in their power to avoid retrenchments as a result of the
global economic crisis ...” (Craven 2009, in Swanepoel & Slabbert 2012: 98–99).
1.5.1.2 Sociopolitical dynamics 33
The sociopolitical environment is also extremely important, and there is usually much
interplay between employment relations and sociopolitical variables or factors. The po-
litical environment as such is crucial, as government promulgates and enforces all the
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
relevant legislation that impacts directly on employment relations. However, politics and
the general social environment are hard to dissect at times. Social movements such as
COSATU, for example, are directly involved in politics, because of the formal tripartite
alliance between the ruling political party, the African National Congress (ANC), and
COSATU and the South African Communist Party (SACP). Organised labour and organ-
ised business are also directly engaged to take part in the processes of drafting and/or
amending labour-related legislation (as are other social movements). The primary struc-
ture through which this is facilitated is the National Economic Development and Labour
Council (NEDLAC) (which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2).
Over the decades, as governments of the day changed in South Africa, so too did
legislation that related to aspects of employment relations. Since the transformation to
a democracy in 1994, various new laws have been promulgated and put into effect to
transform South African society, including its labour market and employment relations
dynamics. These include the LRA, the BCEA and the EEA mentioned in section 1.4.1, as
well as the Skills Development Act 97 of 1998 (SDA), the Skills Development Levies Act 9
of 1999 (SDLA), the Unemployment Insurance Act 63 of 2001 (UIA) and the Broad-Based
Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 (BBBEE Act). All of these, as well as other
laws, are elaborated on in chapters 4 and 5.
All the role-players and stakeholders have thus been affected by such legislative chang-
es and, in fact, the three most direct and actively involved role-players are usually en-
gaged through NEDLAC in moulding the country’s legislative framework and the laws
that impact most directly on the country’s labour dynamics.
As mentioned, organised labour, in particular COSATU as a federation of trade unions,
takes part directly in the general political processes of the country, as a formal party in
the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance. The alliance has been showing strain for a rather long
time, and tensions between and within the three parties are widely acknowledged.
The exact nature of the role of trade unions in the workplace and in the broader socie-
ty will, however, also depend largely on other developments in the broader sociopolitical
dispensation of the country. Examples of the following issues and trends may be relevant
and illustrative in this regard:
• As political democracy has become more of a reality, workers may tend to strive to
be more involved in management decisions. This issue is also catered for in the labour
legislation, namely to promote greater industrial democracy, and workers hence want
to be more informed about organisational issues and developments that may affect
their lives.
• Coupled with this is the growing level of expectations among workers and even the
unemployed and the population more generally. During election processes expecta-
tions are normally created among the voters – including the workers. In more recent
years especially, pressure has been mounting, with claims that the time for “delivery”
has come. There have been numerous protest actions and media reports about de-
ficiencies in the government’s services delivery. Workers are not only looking to the
34 government for better services but they are also increasingly expecting their employ-
ers (as represented in the workplace by the managers) to deliver in terms of various
transformation issues, for example job creation, workforce diversification, human re-
source development (including assistance with education) and numerous other social
responsibility contributions.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
• Increasing pressure is thus being exerted on the private sector to make considerable
contributions towards combating poverty and raising living standards, for example by
financing social services. This could encourage increased community involvement, es-
pecially by larger South African organisations, as well as more cooperation between the
social partners and so-called “social contracts” between organised labour and employers
at various levels and on various issues. For a long time, many people in South Africa have
been deprived of having a house to live in – a basic necessity of life. Many workers still
live in extremely poor circumstances. This often leads to tardiness, which in turn lowers
the performance and productivity levels of such employees. A link can be established
between the management of employees in respect of aspects such as performance man-
agement, the maintenance of discipline and the handling of employee complaints, and
grievances relating to housing and accommodation problems. Employers may therefore
have to ensure that not only should all employees, irrespective of race, gender, and so on
share in the same housing assistance benefits, but even that those who have tradition-
ally been deprived of such benefits should be treated more favourably. This workplace
challenge has to be viewed in the context of the social welfare question of inadequate
housing in South Africa and the social responsibility role of employers.
• Crime, frequently exacerbated by acts of intimidation and violence in the communi-
ty, naturally spills over into the workplace. Banks, and retailers such as shops selling
electronics (e.g. computers and mobile phones) in South Africa are often exposed to
robbery, and the safety and security of their staff have become areas of prime concern.
These require special measures to be instituted. Relevant agreements and codes of
conduct therefore become essential for order, peace and stability.
• The media also play an important role in society in general, and particularly in em-
ployment relations matters. It is quite common, for example, for trade unions (and
the management of companies) to issue press statements or media releases about
relevant matters from time to time. During episodes of industrial conflict (e.g. strikes),
the parties will normally try to use the media to their advantage and to paint pic-
tures of the other party that are negative in order to gain the upper hand in terms of
public sentiment. During the last few years, organised labour, including COSATU, has
complained many times about problems related to representativeness and control of
South Africa’s public broadcaster, the SABC. COSATU has also been very vocal about
proposals by the ANC government to intervene in media freedom in South Africa.
• Another very important aspect already mentioned relates to education and training.
Today’s youth is tomorrow’s workforce. South Africa has an oversupply of unskilled
workers and a shortage of certain types of skilled (educated and trained) employ-
ees. It would therefore be to the advantage of any businessperson to be active in the

education and development (e.g. literacy training) of his or her workforce and the
community in which it is located. Trade unions are becoming increasingly interested
in the extent to which employers invest money in the development of their members.
Management and labour have to work together more closely in this regard. Failure 35
to develop employees may not only lead to inferior productivity levels and capacity/
competency-related cases for the termination of their services, but may also threaten
the continued existence of the organisation, affecting job creation, which is so neces-
sary for socioeconomic growth and social stability in the country.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
• The change in value systems of societies is another factor that interplays with employ-
ment relations. For example, it is becoming increasingly necessary to involve women
in the business and professional world. Equal opportunities for women, thereby diver-
sifying the workforce, are therefore prerequisites. However, women may sometimes
have personal conflicting needs (e.g. pregnancy, giving birth and caring for a newborn
child) when it comes to work and family. Although these aspects are covered by the
formal dimension of employment relations – in other words by legislation – the qual-
ity of employment relations could be enhanced by proactive management decisions
to assist more generously with needs such as maternity and paternity leave, as well as
childcare (e.g. a subsidy, or even facilities at the workplace). Alternative work organisa-
tion (e.g. flexitime and flexiplace) could further help to accommodate changing values
and needs in this regard.
• Corruption and related ethical issues are also becoming extremely important and
COSATU has raised its concerns about corruption in government circles time and
again. Naturally it (and other role-players) also lashes out at corruption in the private
sector.
• Health issues are obviously also relevant. Working people need to be healthy, and care
for the health and wellbeing of the employees’ families has been an important issue for
many years. Owing to the high prevalence rates of HIV and AIDS, the role of employer
parties in combating this disease has also become prominent and will remain so for
many years to come.
Another important matter is the increasing value attributed to aspects like transparency
and democratic processes. All of these value shifts hold potential implications for the
ways in which employment relations evolve and are managed in organisations.
1.5.1.3 Technological and ecological factors

Especially since the Industrial Revolution, technology has become a key driving force be-
hind the reorganisation of the world of work. At the time, the major shifts were towards
mass production on assembly lines that were designed around highly repetitive work
and the delivery of large volumes of standardised products. Work became dehuman-
ised as “working man” evolved into “economic man”. The work abilities of people came
to be viewed as just another factor of production and an extension of the machine,
as workers had to toil in large factories in return for low levels of pay and under very
harsh circumstances and with poor working conditions generally. While the revolution-
ary technological developments of the time were central to new waves of growth and
wealth accumulation, it was the workers who had to add the value through their labour
and who did not share equitably in the wealth that accrued to the already wealthy cap-
italist-industrialists.
Today we again live in an era of rapid change, developing around another set of waves
36 of revolutionary technological developments. This time it is especially in the areas of
communication, information processing, and computer and micro-electronic technolo-
gies that tremendous changes have been sweeping across the globe, affecting how work
and industries are shaped and evolve. One only needs to think of examples such as how
secretarial work has changed, and the work of mechanics – all of which have become
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
much more electronics driven. Mechanics use advanced electronics to diagnose prob-
lems, and secretaries do most of their work electronically. Information and communi-
cation technologies (ICT) are hence reconfiguring how organisations operate and also
how people work and how they live. Things have become much more flexible and fast
changing – and the easy and relatively free flow of products and services, including brawn
and brain – across national boundaries is becoming the norm.
These technological advances in ICT and transport are revolutionising markets – in-
cluding labour markets – as the knowledge economy is increasingly driven more by ser-
vice than by products of manufacturing. This is facilitating a much more competitive
world, generally – and is a key driving force behind globalisation. Not only are today’s
workers much better educated generally, and increasingly working in different industries
and sectors, but access to information and communication is arguably shifting some of
the power dynamics of societies. So whereas technological changes have led to aspects
such as automation and labour substitution, they also now have the potential of promot-
ing the knowledge workers of today, the flow of communication and the mobilisation of
working classes. The ICT revolution is empowering not only business and other enter-
prises, but also trade unions and workers generally. Kerr and Waddington (2014: 658), for
instance, point out that “[t]he use by trade union representatives of smart phones is now
almost ubiquitous, as 24/7 contact and electronic media become prerequisite to trade
union operations”.
Another increasingly prominent aspect of societies across the world that interplays
with the dynamics of employment relations relates to the physical environment. Ecolog-
ical factors and sustainability issues are becoming very high on the agendas of govern-
ments and other stakeholders. A society’s value system regarding the physical environ-
ment is very important, as that is all we really have: our planet with its limited resources.
As globalisation has gained momentum and the world has become hyper-competitive,
the drives for wealth accumulation have for too long not factored in the harm that has
been (and is being) done to our natural environment. Not only are our limited natural
resources being stretched to the limits, but ever-escalating emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) such as carbon dioxide are causing irreparable harm to ecosystems. Aspects such
as global warming and climate change are thus moving higher up the agendas of govern-
ments, business organisations and trade unions across the globe. If business organisations
show the communities in which they operate that they care about the environment and
the impact of their operations on it, they are more likely to be perceived as being “respon-
sible corporate citizens”, having proved that they have society’s interests at heart over the
long run and are not just intent on maximising profits over the short term.
Thus far we have focused on the broader environment external to the organisation or
workplace, yet what about other factors that specifically form a part of the organisation?
Can managers of business organisations (as well as others) afford to make “business” de-
cisions without considering possible consequences for employment relations – and vice
versa? From an open-systems perspective the answer is a definite “no”.
1.5.2 Organisation-related factors 37
While section 1.5.1 emphasised the fact that the nature and quality of employment rela-
tions at organisational and workplace level can be influenced by and interplay with a host
of factors outside the organisation, this section focuses more on how variables and fac-
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
tors mainly from within the organisation can interact with the dynamics of employment
relations at the organisational and workplace level.
1.5.2.1 General management-related factors

Certain management decisions are traditionally regarded as being “managerial preroga-
tives”. These include decisions on matters such as planning how to grow the organisation
over the short, medium and long term, which may include entering new markets or ex-
panding the organisation by locating new operations in different regions, either locally
or in other countries. It may also, however, happen that, due to new competitors en-
tering the market, an organisation may have to plan how to regain market share. This
may include taking a serious look at business processes and improving aspects such as
productivity through better resource utilisation. One of the primary resources often cen-
tral to such improvement processes is the human one, thus it may be necessary for the
organisation to reduce labour costs and cut back on its activities, eliminating some of the
products or product lines. Such decisions clearly interplay with the dynamics of employ-
ment relations.
The same holds true for the interplay between decisions and dynamics related to other
subsystems of organisations and their employment-related subsystems. If aspects such as
product lines are at stake, the marketing subsystem of the organisation is relevant. Poor
marketing practices can lead to lower sales and turnover, which can lead to pressure to
bring down costs, including those related to employees (i.e. labour costs). The finances
of the organisation are obviously also central to all aspects of the organisation’s employ-
ment relations. If an organisation experiences financial difficulties, it will be much harder,
for example, for trade unions to negotiate good wage increases for the workers.
It is also in the interest of the workers that management ensures that the finances of
the organisation are as sound as possible at all times. Similar linkages exist with other sub-
systems, such as inbound logistics and operations. Operations and inbound logistics all
play a crucial role in the efficiencies and effectiveness of organisations – and often these
issues may require strategic as well as tactical interventions that may impact on, and in-
terplay with, employment relations. Strategic interventions obviously cut across various
subsystems and are typically aimed at enhancing prospects of organisational success. This
may include the goal of growing the business, but it may also include the need to cut back
or downsize the operations of an organisation.
If part of the business growth, recovery or turnaround plans or strategies is to amal-
gamate with another organisation, for example, important labour-related factors come
into play as well. Organisations cannot just blindly amalgamate without considering the
employment relations factor. After the amalgamation, two or more organisations will
function together and therefore “their” climate becomes “ours”. An important factor here
is the quality and nature of management and leadership styles in these organisations.
Moreover, the law lays down rules relating to the transfer of employees from one employ-
er to another, for example in a take-over of one organisation by another.
38 On the other hand, if part of the strategic and business planning is a decision to scale
down the organisation’s activities, this could lead to the dismissal of employees. In such
cases, fair staff retrenchment practices must be followed, such as consulting with the
representative bodies of the workers beforehand and using fair criteria when choosing
which employees to dismiss.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Decisions about changes to operational issues may also interplay with employment
relations. For example, new operational processes and technologies used in the process
of production or service delivery may also hold serious implications for work processes
and hence the way in which work is organised and jobs are designed. Such “structural” de-
cisions may influence employees and their relationships with their work and colleagues,
and are therefore issues directly interacting with employment relations dynamics, such as
consultation or negotiation with the workers and/or their representatives.
1.5.2.2 Structural factors
The way in which work is designed or organised is an area of direct interface with em-
ployment relations. A further factor relates to how an organisation is structured, which
also interplays with employment relations. For example, the wider the span of control
(i.e. number of subordinates per authorised supervisor), the more difficult the task of the
supervisor becomes. Too much emphasis on formal structures for communication and
control (i.e. too many forms, rules, regulations, and so on) can also interfere with the qual-
ity of employment relations. When employees are not well informed or when decisions
do not filter through to them quickly enough, uncertainties, rumours and dissatisfaction
may arise. This can lead to a lack of productivity and frustration in both parties and ulti-
mately to poorer employment relations.
An organisation with a highly centralised structure will have different employment re-
lations dynamics to one which operates along the lines of decentralisation. Collective bar-
gaining can, for example, also be centralised or decentralised, and these processes should
obviously be aligned with the general management processes of centralisation/decentral-
isation. It will be very hard to implement decentralised collective bargaining successfully
if the organisation follows a policy of strict centralised financial control and management.
1.5.2.3 The nature and context of the organisation

Contextual factors, such as the ownership, size, geographic distribution and location of
the organisation, also interplay with employment relations. The more employees an or-
ganisation has and the more widely diffused its operations and sites are, the more chal-
lenging it may be, for example, to establish effective communication between manage-
ment and workers.
A South African organisation that also has business interests and operations in Namib-
ia and Zimbabwe, for example, will have to manage its employees and interactions with
other role-players, such as worker representatives and trade unions, in those countries in
accordance with the laws and value systems applicable there.
The actual industry or sector in which an organisation exists and operates also natural-
ly plays an important role. Services organisations face different dynamics from, say, min-
ing organisations or factories. Not only will the kinds of labour needed vary according the
relevant sector/industry, but different trade unions also often operate in different sectors.
It is quite understandable, therefore, that organisations in the same industry are often
39
said to share a lot of common aspects in relation to organisational culture. Organisational
culture refers to the basic shared understanding and values of most people of and in the
same organisation about “how things work around here”.
Clearly, these cultural aspects of organisations also have a strong interconnection with
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
employment relations dynamics. If, for example, it is part of the established organisational
culture that deadlines are not really all that important but are rather flexible, then it will
be harder to take disciplinary action against an employee who, on occasion, does not
meet a deadline with some work. There are thus numerous factors that relate to the na-
ture and context of organisations that interplay with employment relations.
It should be clear that the dynamics of employment relations are largely intertwined
with numerous other factors and variables, both within and outside organisations,
stretching from local political and economic issues to developments and trends else-
where in the world. This makes employment relations a complex and dynamic field of
theory and practice, which forms the foundation of this book. It aims to help students,
practitioners, policy makers and any other person interested in the field grasp the intri-
cacies involved in making employment relations a positive contribution to South Africa’s
endeavour to be a nation where all people can enjoy good quality of life.
1.6 APPROACH AND STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK
An open-systems approach is followed in this book. Chapter 2 sheds a somewhat more

detailed light on aspects related to the major and most active and directly involved
role-players, namely employers and their employers’ associations and management, the
workers and organised labour (trade unions), and the State. It also deals with aspects re-
lated to the roles and interests of other important stakeholders as part of a multipleparty
perspective on employment relations systems. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the
historical developments that have helped shape the employment relations system that
we have today in South Africa. In Chapter 4, the focus shifts to the formal dimension; we
give an overview of the country’s labour relations system mainly as manifested in the LRA.
Chapter 5 builds on this and elaborates on the formal dimension and legal perspective
by covering some supportive labour legislation in South Africa: the BCEA, the EEA, the
SDA, and so on.
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the more traditional and conflict-driven processes that are
involved in union/management interaction. While collective bargaining is the focus of
Chapter 6, strikes – which in fact form part of the collective bargaining process – are dealt
with in Chapter 7. In both these chapters you will again encounter the interplay between
the formal (legal) and informal (behavioural) dimensions of employment relations.
In Chapter 8, the focus shifts towards the actual organisational, managerial and work-
place level issues. Aspects covered include employment relations strategies and policies
and also grievance and disciplinary procedures. In Chapter 9, the focus shifts to the more
cooperative and consensus-seeking modes of interaction to try to bring about better-

quality employment relations in organisations.
In the final chapter, Chapter 10, we again focus on broader aspects pertaining to
human resource management, and the interface between HRM and labour relations.
We conclude by reiterating and illustrating how ER interfaces with even broader-
40 ranging aspects (beyond HRM as such), such as corporate governance, ethics and social
responsibility.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
QUESTIONS
1. “There is no ‘field of study’ such as Employment Relations. The field of study is actually
Human Resource Management (HRM), and labour relations forms a small and almost
insignificant part of HRM as field of study, theory and practice.” Critically discuss this
statement.
2. What is meant by the individual and collective dimensions of employment relations?
Provide a concise explanation, with examples of how these dimensions manifest them-
selves in practice.
3. What does the “tripartite” nature of industrial relations systems refer to?
4. What is social justice, and how does it relate to employment relations? What is distrib-
utive justice, and how is it relevant to employment relations? Substantiate fully and give
examples to support your viewpoints.
5. Identify and explain at least five “sources” or “bases” of power, and explain how these
may have relevance to employment relations.
6. Which “macro-external” variables or factors interplay with employment relations? Can
these play a role in employment relations at the level of the organisation (micro-level)?
Explain and give examples.
CASE STUDY 1.1

Where does it all belong or fit in?
David Moala, Ryno Steyn and Steven Buhlungu were all full-time final-year students at the
“University of People for Excellence” (UPE). David was studying Law, Ryno was doing a BA,
majoring in Sociology and Political Studies, and Steven was completing a BCom, majoring in
Industrial and Organisational (I/0) Psychology (IOP). They were also all working at Pizza Nuts
People (PNP) – doing dine-in as well as takeaways of pizzas on campus at UPE. On this par-
ticular Friday night they were working on the same shift, from 20h00 till closing time (usually
about 02h00). They were once again engaging in one of their favourite conversations – or
some might say, debates. David was confiding the fact that Peter Sikwebu, owner-manager
of PNP, had asked his advice the previous evening over the phone about how to go about
dismissing one of the full-time, permanent staff members – as the said employee had been
making a habit of being late, absent from the workstation and often completely absent for a
day or sometimes two, claiming to have been ill – without any doctor’s certificate. Apparent-
ly Peter had said that he just did not want to “clash with the law”, and he knew the employee
belonged to a trade union.

“You see”, said David, “at the end of the day it is all about the law – labour relations is built
around labour law!”
“Well”, said Steven, “the law may be important when things break down, but had Peter
built a good relationship with the employee?” He added pompously: “If he had known the 41
principles of human behaviour that we get from studying Psychology – and better still, if
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
he had understood aspects of IOP – he would have known that the employee’s behaviour
was probably symptomatic of a lack of “employee satisfaction” – which can often lead to
deviant employee behaviour and conflict in the work environment. If he had detected that
early enough, he could have intervened and got the help of an IOP specialist to investigate
the behavioural issues that were harming their employment relationship. If they had done
that, the employee might well have felt better about her work situation, improved her poor
time-keeping behaviour and not have had to face possible dismissal problems. So, you see –
it is all about relationships and human behaviour!”
“No, no, no – guys – you are all getting this quite wrong!” intervened Ryno. “What you are
both missing here is that Labour Relations as a field is part and parcel of Industrial Sociology.
Sociology looks at society – and work and working people form a key area of study of Indus-
trial Sociology. The employee belongs to a trade union because she knows she has no power
to protect herself against ruthless capitalists like Peter. While behavioural knowledge is good,
and legal help often necessary, the key is to understand how societies work and why workers
are joining forces to form organised labour movements to put right the imbalances of power
in societies where capitalists rule.”
Overhearing the conversation, Peter jumped in: “Guys, you must leave your academic
debates out of PNP – I have to run a business here, and the most important thing is the
customers! While you are jabbering on about theory, what I need are committed and dedi-
cated staff to serve the customers – or else they leave and go to other places like Pizza Hut
or Debonairs. If staff members don’t perform, they must go – whether of their own will, or
by getting fired! I am a manager. I studied management – in fact, Business Management –
and I can engage whoever I like to give me advice and avoid clashing with the authorities or
parasites like trade unions. I learned about trade unions, unfair labour practices and discipline
and dismissal as part of my Business Management studies, so labour relations as a topic was
actually part of Management studies. It’s just that I am a little rusty on these things nowa-
days, and that is why I asked David for his viewpoint! Now get on with your work, serve the
customers, or expect to be fired too!”
Answer the following questions

1. “Employment Relations is a multidisciplinary topic as well as an interdisciplinary field of
study.” What are your views regarding this statement? Draw on the case to substantiate
your viewpoint.
2. What dimension/s of employment relations will be the main focus of Law, Sociology,
IOP and Management studies, respectively? Why do you say that?
3. What contribution can studies of Law, Sociology, IOP and Management make to em-
ployment relations? Substantiate your views.

4. “Money and customers are what drive business, and also employment relations.” Criti-
cally discuss this statement with reference to the case.
5. “Power is actually irrelevant to employment relations.” Do you agree or disagree? Why?
42 Substantiate with reference to the relevant dynamics in the case.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
CASE STUDY 1.2

Management of labour relations (or not) at Perfect Hair
Soon after completing Grade 12, Phindiwe Mpho (nicknamed Phindi) enrolled in a full-time
course to study hairdressing. During her years of full-time studies, Phindi worked over week-
ends, some week afternoons and also over all the holiday periods, to gain the required prac-
tical experience and hours that were necessary for registration. After successful completion
of the course and her registration as a qualified hairdresser, she started looking for work. She
looked at advertisements in newspapers and talked to people and asked them to help her
find a job. She applied for three jobs at different salons in Soweto and Benoni. For two of the
three interview appointments she arrived late due to transport problems. She was therefore
turned away in both instances. The other interview (in Benoni) went quite well, but she was
informed that she was not successful and that someone else, with more than a year’s experi-
ence in hairdressing, had been offered the job.
Finally she started working as an assistant hairdresser at a salon named Perfect Hair. A
friend of her boyfriend referred Phindi to Thandi, who lived quite close to her home and was
looking for someone to help her with hairdressing operations at Perfect Hair. Her employer,
Thandi Vilikazi, ran Perfect Hair from her home; there were four other hairdressing assistants
also working for Thandi. Thandi made it very clear from the outset that she was very proud
of her business, which she had started from scratch and which she had built up over a period
of almost five years. None of the other four assistants were qualified or registered hairdressers,
but they said they were all studying part time and that they were building up the required
hours to be able to qualify and register.
Thandi told Phindi that it would not immediately be a permanent appointment and that
they would develop their relationship casually and gradually. As Thandi’s home was close
to where Phindi lived in Tembisa, and she could easily walk between her own home (where
she still lived with her parents) and Thandi’s house, Phindi was happy with the arrangement.
After all, she thought, this was her first real job and it was a good opportunity to gain experi-
ence. They agreed that Thandi would start Phindi on a pay rate of R120 per day, paid in cash
at the end of each week.
At the end of the first week, on Saturday afternoon, Phindi was given R720. Thandi
commended Phindiwe for her good work during the first week. Phindi felt proud and very
pleased with the R720. While walking home, she wondered how much the other assistants
were earning – as they all worked five full days from 09h00 to 18h00 from Monday to Friday,
and from 07h00 till 13h30 on Saturday.
The weeks went by, and by the fourth week, on the Saturday afternoon, Thandi told Phin-
di that she had decided to make use of Phindi only three days per week. When asked why,
Thandi told her that it was purely for financial reasons. She told Phindi that some other hair
salons were poaching her clients, and that her profits were dropping as the cost of her stock
was also going up by the month. She also said that Phindi must realise that Perfect Hair had
many expenses.
Meanwhile Phindi had also found out about the other four assistant hairdressers. They all 43
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
received similar pay and they worked similar hours, and this actually made Phindi a little un-
happy. She felt she was fully qualified, while the others were not. She also noticed that Thandi
had to exercise much stricter supervision over three of the other four hairdresser assistants.
She also noticed that even though she was never late in the mornings herself, the others were
often late for work. When Thandi told her that she was henceforth going to work only three
days per week, she had mixed feelings. On the one hand, she felt that this was not very fair
and out of line with what she had expected. On the other hand she thought that at least that
would free up some time for her to pursue other opportunities. She also thought to herself
that Thandi seemed a little greedy; she could not understand this, as it was clear from her
house and cars that already she was a very rich woman.
After about three weeks of working only Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, Phindi de-
cided to use her spare time to enrol in further courses, studying related fields such as beauty
and skincare. She gained a few more qualifications – all by herself.
After about a year Phindi asked Thandi whether they could perhaps draw up a contract for
her part-time job. Thandi said that she did not operate that way: that all the people working for
her worked in this casual way for cash, which meant there were no taxes involved. Phindi asked
Thandi whether Perfect Hair was a registered business , to which Thandi replied, “No – I’ve been
running Perfect Hair in this casual fashion for almost six years now – and everything is working
just fine like that – no hassles or complicated matters or anything like that!”
Phindi thought to herself that she would also want to run her own business one day,
instead of working for someone else. She could see that Thandi was making a lot of money,
as she was booked out almost every day of each week. Thandi’s house was splendid and
stood out from the rest in the neighbourhood. However, Phindi thought she would like to
formalise things.
One day, an older lady called Mrs Ramphele, who had been chatting to Phindi over many
months as Phindi regularly did her hair each week, invited her for dinner. As things turned
out, at the dinner table there were two other girls who introduced themselves as working
for “UASA, the union”. When Phindi enquired further about UASA, she was told that it was
a trade union and that its name actually stood for “United Association of South Africa”. Over
dinner they chatted about many things, among others the working conditions she was expe-
riencing and the services and benefits that UASA offered. The two UASA girls were shocked
when they learned about how things were arranged at Perfect Hair. They mentioned to her
that it seemed as if things were not being handled in legally correct ways. They also talked
about certain “bargaining council” agreements and rules, and so forth, that were supposed to
be relevant and applied. Going home after dinner that night, Phindi thought she had enjoyed
the evening and learned quite a lot.
About two weeks later, all five of the workers at Perfect Hair were invited to lunch by two
other women, who then also introduced themselves as being officials or organisers working
for UASA. During that lunch, the five workers felt they should join UASA and so they signed
up to become members.
The following Monday, Thandi received a phone call from the UASA offices, calling for
a meeting that same week. After the UASA officials had met with Thandi for about half an
44
hour on that Thursday, Thandi stormed out of her little back office shouting at the UASA
officials, instructing them to leave. She shouted at Phindi and told her that she had a bad
influence on Perfect Hair and on her other workers, and that she was ruining her business.
The customers who were there having their hair done overheard the uproar. Mrs Ram-
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
phele was there as well. Thandi was very vocal after the UASA officials left – and said that
trade unions just meant trouble and that she did not want a trade union near her business,
as she knew how to deal with her workers and treated them well, and that was why they
had all been loyal “until Phindi started this nonsense”. Mrs Ramphele broke in, saying that
she actually thought trade unions were vital for democratic societies and served a very good
purpose. Another client agreed and said that she actually thought that trade unions should
take over the businesses of the country, and that they should become a very strong political
party that could oust the current government and take over. Thandi said that was ridiculous
– and asked that they cut short this discussion and that all her employees should just get on
with their work and do the hair of everybody there.
That evening when Phindi went home, she decided that she was going to resign the fol-
lowing day. She felt that things were not working out well for her any longer and that Thandi
now disliked her anyway. She did not know much about trade unions, but she did see a lot
of merit in the issues that the UASA officials had discussed with them. For one thing, she had
always disliked the idea that nothing was ever put into any form of written contract. In any
event, she thought that she was just about ready to start her own business.
The following morning she went to Thandi’s house and rang the bell. It was 06h10. Thandi
opened the door and said sternly: “This is Saturday morning, Phindi – and you don’t work on
Saturdays! In fact, I’m not sure whether I should keep you on any longer!”
Phindi politely asked whether they could have a brief chat, to which Thandi reluctantly
agreed. When Phindi told Thandi that she was no longer going to work for Perfect Hair and
that she was resigning, Thandi laughed loudly and said that she could not resign because she
had never really been employed. “And by the way, Phindi”, said Thandi, “you did not work for
Perfect Hair but for me, because Perfect Hair was just a name and not a registered business!”
With that, Thandi opened the door again and showed Phindi out – saying that she hoped
she would never bump into her again, as she and her organised labour ideologies had just
messed up Thandi’s business affairs.
Answer the following questions:

1. Identify which dimensions of the employment relationship (or employment relations)
are at play in this case.
2. Can you identify any relevant ideological, theoretical perspectives in this case? If so,
which? Why do you hold that viewpoint?
3. Which ER role-players and/or stakeholders are mentioned in this case? Identify and
write down which they are.
4. Can you identify any issues related to “key ingredients that make employment relations
dynamic”? If so, which? Jot these down and fully substantiate why these are relevant.
5. Do you know which bargaining council is relevant to the hairdressing industry in South
Africa? If not or if uncertain, do a search on the web to try to find out. Here are some
keywords you might find helpful: hairdressing, cosmetology, skincare, beauty.
45
6. Once you have located the relevant bargaining council, learn some more about the
council and what it does. Who are the parties to this bargaining council? Can you
locate any relevant collective bargaining agreements? Which would probably have been
relevant to ‘Perfect Hair’ in the case above? Why do you think so?
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
References and further reading

Allan, C.A., McPhail, R. & Wilkinson, A. 2008. Intro- Finnemore, M. & Van Rensburg, R. 2002. Contempo-
duction to employment relations. Frenchs Forest, rary labour relations, 2nd ed. Durban: Butter-
Australia: Pearson Education. worths.
Anstey, M. 2006. Managing change: negotiating con- Flanders, A. 1965. Industrial relations: what is wrong
flict, 3rd ed. Kenwyn: Juta. with the system? An essay on its theory and
Anstey, M. 2013. Marikana, and the push for a new future. London: Faber & Faber.
South African pact. South African Journal of Folger, R. 1977. Distributive and procedural justice:
Labour Relations, 37(2): 133–145. combined impact of voice and improvement on
Bain, G.S. & Clegg, H.A. 1974. A strategy for industrial experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and
relations research in Great Britain. British Journal Social Psychology, 35: 108–119.
of Industrial Relations, 12: 91–113. Folger, R. & Konovsky, M.A. 1989. Effects of proce-
Balnave, N., Brown, J., Maconachie, G. & Stone, R. dural and distributive justice on reactions to
2007. Employment relations in Australia. Milton pay-raise decisions. Academy of Management
Queensland: Wiley. Journal, 32: 115–130.
Baron, J.N. & Pfeffer, J. 1994. The social psychology of French, J.R.P. & Raven, B. 1959. Bases of social power.
organizations and inequality. Social Psychology In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in social power.
Quarterly, 57: 190–209. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Baskin, J. 2000. Labour in South Africa’s transition to Greenberg, J. 1990. Looking fair vs being fair: man-
democracy: concertation in a Third World set- aging impressions of organizational justice. US
ting. In Adler, G. & Webster, E. (Eds), Trade unions Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 111–157.
and democratization in South Africa, 1985–1997. Hague, R. & Harrop, M. 1987. Contemporary govern-
London: Macmillan. ment and politics. London: Macmillan.
Bendix, S. 2010. Industrial relations in South Africa, Heilbroner, R.L. & Milberg, W. 2012. The making of
5th ed. Cape Town: Juta. economic society, 13th ed. Upper Saddle River,
Bendix, S. 2015. Labour relations: a southern African NJ: Pearson.
perspective, 6th ed. Cape Town: Juta. Hyman, R. 1975. Industrial relations: a Marxist intro-
Blyton, P. & Turnbull, P. 2004. The dynamics of em- duction. London: Macmillan.
ployee relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ilesanmi, J.F., Ishola, A.O. & Yusuf, S.O. 2013. A
Bray, M., Deery, S., Walsh, J. & Waring, P. 2005. Indus- critique of the systems theory of J.T. Dunlop. In-
trial relations: a contemporary approach. North ternational Journal of Academic Research in Eco-
Ryde: McGraw-Hill. nomics and Management Sciences, 2(2): 97–106.
Bray, M., Waring, P., Cooper, R. & MacNeil, J. 2014. Katz, L. & Miller, K. 1999. Organisational justice
Employment relations: theory and practice, 3rd ed. perceptions and their impact on employee atti-
North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill Education. tudes. South African Journal of Labour Relations,
Cawson, A. (Ed.), 1985. Organised interests and the 23: 70–81.
state: studies in meso-corporatism. London: SAGE. Kaufman, B.E. 2008. Paradigms in industrial relations:
Cawson, A. 1986. Corporatism and political theory. original, modern and versions in-between. British
Oxford: Blackwell. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(2): 314–339.
Chinguno, C. 2013. Marikana massacre and strike Kelly, J. 1998. Rethinking industrial relations: mobi-
violence post-apartheid. Global Labour Journal, lization, collectivism and long waves. London:
4(2): 160–166. Routledge.
Deery, S., Plowman, D., Walsh, J. & Brown, M. 2001. Kerr, A. & Waddington, J. 2014. E-communications:
Industrial relations: a contemporary analysis, 2nd an aspect of union renewal or merely doing
ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill. things electronically? British Journal of Industrial

Deutsch, M. 1975. Equity, equality and need: what Relations, 52(4): 658–681.
determines which value will be used as the basis Kim, T., Lin, X. & Leung, K. 2015. A dynamic ap-
for distributive justice? US Journal of Social Issues, proach to fairness: effects of temporal changes
31: 137–149. of fairness perceptions on job attitudes. Journal
46 Dunlop, J.T. 1958. Industrial relations systems. New of Business Psychology, 30: 163–175.
York: Holt. Kochan, T.A. 1980. Collective bargaining and industri-
Finnemore, M. & Joubert, Y. 2013. Introduction to al relations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
labour relations in South Africa, 11th ed. Durban: Leventhal, G.S. 1980. What should be done with
LexisNexis. equity theory? New approaches to the study
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen, K., South Africa. Service Issue 2. Durban: Butter-
Greenberg, M. & Willis, R. (Eds), Social exchange: worths.
advances in theory and research. New York: Swanepoel, B.J. 1991. Makro-eksterne omgewingsin-
Plenum Press. vloede op arbeidsverhoudinge binne onderne-
Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. & Saunders, M. 2003. Em- mingsverband: enkele navorsingsbevindinge. SA
ployee relations: understanding the employment Journal of Labour Relations, 15(3).
relationship. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Swanepoel, B.J. 1992. Labour relations and variables
Lilly, J. 2015. The impact of justice type on organi- of organisation dynamics: research results high-
zational citizenship behaviour: do outcome fa- light the interplay. SA Journal of Labour Relations,
vorability and leader behaviour matter? Current 16(2).
Psychology, 34: 26–49. Swanepoel, B.J. 1994. Strategy and the management
National Planning Commission. 2012. National De- of employment relations: a problem of seman-
velopment Plan 2030. Our future – make it work. tics. SA Journal of Labour Relations, 18(2).
Executive summary. Available at: http://www. Swanepoel, B.J. 1995. ‘n Strategiese benadering tot die
gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Executive%20Sum- bestuur van die diensverhouding. Ongepubliseer-
mary-NDP%202030%20-%20Our%20future%20 de D.Com-proefskrif. Pretoria: Universiteit van
-%20make%20it%20work.pdf (accessed on 13 Suid-Afrika.
May 2015). Swanepoel, B.J. 1996. Managing employment rela-
Nunns, L. 1995. Perceptions of blue-collar workers tions in a strategic way. (1): formulating strategy.
of organisational justice. Unpublished DPhil SA Journal of Labour Relations, 20(3).
dissertation. Johannesburg: University of the Swanepoel, B.J. & Slabbert, J.A. 2012. Introducing
Witwatersrand. labour relations management in South Africa:
Parsons, T. 1960. Structure and process in modern adding value in Africa. Durban: LexisNexis/
societies. New York: Free Press. Butterworths.
Poole, M. 1986. Managerial strategies and “styles” Swanepoel, B.J. (Ed.), Erasmus, B.J., Schenk, H. &
in industrial relations: a comparative analysis. Tshilongamulenzhe, M.C. 2014. South African hu-
Journal of General Management, 12: 40–53. man resource management: theory and practice,
Randall, C.S. & Mueller, C.W. 1995. Extensions of jus- 5th ed. Cape Town: Juta.
tice theory: justice evaluations and employees’ Teicher, J., Holland, P. & Gough, R. (Eds), 2006.
reactions in a natural setting. Social Psychology Employee relations management: Australia in
Quarterly, 58: 178–194. a global context, 2nd ed. Frenchs Forest NSW:
Robbins, S.P. 1998. Organizational behaviour: Pearson.
concepts, controversies, applications, 8th ed. Terreblanche, S. 2007. Van mag tot rykdom. Beeld,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. November 2. Available at: http://www. news24.
Robbins, S.P. & Barnwell, N. 2006. Organisation the- com/Beeld/In-Diepte/03-67221396700. html
ory: concepts and cases, 5th ed. Frenchs Forest, (accessed on 9 February 2011).
NSW: Pearson. Thibaut, J.W. & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice:
a psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Rose, E. 2008. Employment relations, 3rd ed. London:
Erlbaum.
Pearson Education.
Triegaardt, J. 2008. South Africa: our biggest challenge
Saul, J.S. & Bond, P. 2014. South Africa: the present as
– income inequality, August 1. The South African
history. Johannesburg: Jacana Media; Wood-
Civil Society Information Service. Distributed by
bridge: James Currey. All Africa Global Media (http:// www.allafrica.
Sernau, S.R. 2009. Global problems: the search for com). Available at: http://allafrica.com/sto-
equity, peace and sustainability, 2nd ed. Boston: ries/200808010189.html (accessed on 9 February
Pearson. 2011).
Slabbert, J.A. & Swanepoel, B.J. 1998. Introduction Tyler, T.R. 1989. The psychology of procedural jus-
to employment relations management. Durban: tice: a test of the group value model. Journal of
Butterworths. Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 830–838.
Slabbert, J.A., Prinsloo, J.J. & Backer, W. 1990. Manag- Ultimate 21st century challenge: good jobs. 2012. 47
ing industrial relations in South Africa. Pretoria: Trends E-Magazine, April, 9(4): 1–6.
Digma. Van der Berg, S. 2014. Inequality, poverty and pros-
Slabbert, J.A., Prinsloo, J.J., Swanepoel, B.J. & Backer, pects for redistribution. Development Southern
W. 1998. Managing employment relations in Africa, 31(2): 197–218.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Van der Westhuizen, C. 2007. White power and the Walker, K.F. 1979. Psychology and industrial rela-
rise and fall of the National Party. Cape Town: tions: a general perspective. In Stephenson, G.M.
Zebra. & Brotherton, C.J. (Eds), Industrial relations: a
Van Staden, M. 2012. Towards a South African social psychological approach. Chichester: Wiley.
understanding of social justice: the International Welbourne, T.M. 1998. Untangling procedural
Labour Organization perspective. Tydskrif vir die and distributive justice: their relative effects on
Suid-Afrikanse Reg, 1: 91–105. gainsharing satisfaction. Group & Organization
Venter, R., Levy, A., Bendeman, H. & Management, 23: 325–346.
Dworzanowski-Venter, B. 2014. Labour relations
in South Africa, 5th ed. Cape Town: Oxford.
48
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Actors, or role-players,
2
and stakeholders in
employment relations
CHAPTER
Specified outcomes
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to
» explain what “tripartite” means and why it has become necessary to
shift from a tripartite to a “multipartite” perspective on and approach to
employment relations systems
» discuss why it is not always simple or straightforward to identify or
distinguish between the employer parties, the employee parties and the
State as actors in employment relations
» identify and explain the role and functions of various employers’
organisations and other employer party bodies in employment relations
in South Africa
» describe the nature, objectives and functioning of trade unions in
South Africa, and assess the effectiveness of trade unions in serving
the interests of their members, of other workers, the working class and
of the unemployed in South Africa
» explain the different roles the State plays in employment relations in
South Africa
» identify and explain, with examples, which parties form part of the
actors or role-players, and stakeholders in employment relations
systems, with particular reference to South Africa
» critically discuss the nature, role and functioning of NEDLAC in South
African employment relations, and assess whether adequate attention 49
is paid, via this structure, to people who work in situations such as the
informal sectors of the economy, other “precarious” workers and the
unemployed.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
CHAPTER 2 ACTORS, OR ROLE-PLAYERS, AND STAKEHOLDERS IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
INTRODUCTION
In the first chapter you were introduced to some of the basics that underpin employ-
ment relations. It has been stressed that a broad and more holistic, rather than a nar-
row, approach is increasingly preferred and propagated by scholars internationally. In line
herewith we have outlined, in Chapter 1, some of the dynamics related to the interplay
between employment relations and the broader context and environment within which
it is embedded and evolves.
We have indicated that the environment and contexts have been changing, and that
in consequence the idea of focusing only on three actors in a “tripartite IR-system” has
increasingly been questioned. Hayter (2015: 2) makes a very clear case for changing our
thinking in the field, as follows:
Significant changes have occurred in the world of work, calling into question the
effectiveness of the industrial relations toolkit of institutional “fixes”. Inequality and
insecurity are the most significant “labour problems” of our era. According to the
ILO’s (2015) estimates, 201 million workers were unemployed in 2014. Rapid ad-
vances in technology have changed the way in which work is organized. Working
arrangements are more diverse than in the past … Trade unions – a critical subject
for industrial relations – have seen their membership and influence wane in many
parts of the world … Meanwhile, in many developing countries, most work con-
tinues to be carried out in the informal economy, outside of the purview of formal
industrial relations institutions. … The challenge is to make sense of this changing
landscape and what it means for the actors and institutions aspiring to deliver de-
cent wages and working conditions.
The actors and institutions referred to in the quotation above include the three actors in
the traditional view (largely inspired by Dunlop) of tripartite industrial relations systems,
namely employers, employees and the State. As explained in section 1.3.2, this tripar-
tite perspective has become too narrow or limited. Webster (2015: 27) actually draws on
earlier works, including those of scholars doing work for the International Institute for
Labour Studies (IILS) of the International Labour Organization (ILO), which more than 40
years ago had already pointed to “the limits of tripartism”.
We agree that matters are far more complex, and that we should not stick to such
limited perspectives of tripartite relations. If we are now saying that we ought to cast the
net wider, who then are the actors or role-players? When can a party be regarded as an
actor or participant in an employment relations system? Who are the stakeholders of or
in employment relations?
Stakeholders are parties who have an interest in something – generally because they
may somehow be affected by it and/or if they might have some effect on it. It may be
argued, generally, that when any party or parties “play a part”, when what these parties
do (or do not do), and how they act or behave can influence other relevant parties or the
50 dynamics or direction of the employment relations situation or system – such parties can
then be regarded as participants, role-players or actors. Bellemare (2000: 386) has argued
that to “be a genuine actor, one must not only take action, but also have the capacity to
allow other actors to take one’s actions into consideration and to respond favourably to
some of one’s expectations or demands”. So, for example, traditionally in industrial rela-
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
ACTORS, OR ROLE-PLAYERS, AND STAKEHOLDERS IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TWO
tions, trade unions have been a key focus as they entered the scene to step up to the chal-
lenges that workers faced – as they mobilised them and engaged in collective bargaining
with representatives of the employer parties.
Trade unions have traditionally, however, served the interests of workers who have
predominantly been working in standard employment relationships (SERs) – in other
words those working on a full-time basis and in “permanent”, indefinite or ongoing em-
ployment relationships. At present, however, millions of people all across the globe do
actually not work in such SERs. They work in what are also known as “atypical” forms of
employment (such as part-time, fixed-term employment and independent contractor ar-
rangements). These work forms have developed from processes sometimes referred to by
employer parties as the “casualisation” of work, and through reorganising processes such
as the externalisation and informalisation of work. Externalisation refers to when work is
outsourced or subcontracted to other parties. Informalisation refers to when work is per-
formed in more informal (hence less regulated) ways. Generally, people working in such
relationships are also referred to as precarious workers. Trade unions have generally found
it much harder to organise these workers – and other role-players are therefore becoming
relevant and taking on roles in assisting and/or representing such workers.
Cooke and Wood (2014: 683) therefore explain that there has been a “growing inade-
quacy of the traditional institutional actors … in defending workers’ rights”, and this has
created “the space for ‘new’ actors to fill the gap”.
So if the traditional tripartite perspective of industrial relations systems is too narrow
and limiting, which other parties, role-players or actors, and stakeholders should form
part of our analyses? ER stakeholders are people or parties who have some interest or
stake in how employment relations develop. They may not be actively involved or vis-
ibly present in all the day-to-day employment relations dynamics, but their interest in
employment relations systems may make them important. Overall, the interests of and
the roles played by all the actors and stakeholders work together in shaping patterns of
and dynamics in employment relations. Opening up space to consider the interests and
roles played, or to be played, by a wider range of parties, actors or stakeholders has hence
become essential.
In this chapter, even though the main sections are to some extent organised around
the parties which have traditionally been regarded as the main actors in employment
relations systems, we do endeavour to shift the boundaries and move beyond a strictly
tripartite to a multipartite perspective. We show that things are more complex and that
many parties are involved and have interests in, and can play important roles in, employ-
ment relations. It is not even straightforward to identify the parties; the lines demarcating
these parties can be rather “fuzzy”. We therefore have to be open-minded and analytical
when considering who can be regarded as actors, role-players, participants, and stake-
holders in employment relations. Cooke and Wood (2011: 3) mention examples of “new
actors”, saying these include “NGOs, employment agencies, HR consultancy firms, coun-
sellors, chaplains, health advisors/trainers, citizens’ advice bureaus, global union federa-
51
tions, employment arbitrators, grassroots activists and social movements, and so forth”.
We will illustrate some of the complexities and varieties involved in the range of actors
or role-players, and stakeholders in employment relations systems in this chapter, starting
off with the employer party.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
2.1 THE EMPLOYER PARTIES
2.1.1 General background
Dunlop (1958) identified “managers, workers and specialised governmental agencies” as
the three “actors”. However, many scholars (like Bendix 2015 and Venter et al. 2014) refer
to these parties as “employers, employees and the State”. Who then is the “employer” – is
it the “manager”? Who are “employees” – the workers? It seems important to clarify who
the three “main parties” really are. It does seem as though views have become blurred or
even conflated. We believe that this is part of the challenge of making some kind of par-
adigm shift in this field. It is not all that easy, clear-cut or straightforward to identify and
demarcate the role-players or actors. Even to precisely identify the employer is not that
easy. We therefore rather refer to “the employer party” – because, as you will find, this
“party” encapsulates more than one single actor, role-player or stakeholder.
Some scholars use the terms “managers” and “employers” interchangeably – almost as
though these are one and the same. We do not agree with this approach, and in fact we
believe that it is important to challenge this notion, as well as others in terms of tripartite
IR/ER. We will do that as we progress through this chapter, but because, in this section we
are focusing on the employer party, we regard it as essential to point out straight away
that, generally, managers are not employers, but employees.
Identifying managers as employers, or using the concepts interchangeably, is not ap-
propriate in general and may be problematic. Only in some cases, when the owner of
an enterprise is also the manager, can that owner-manager perhaps be regarded as the
employer. In general, however, when organisations are larger with many employees, man-
agers cannot and should not be regarded as the employers. In such cases, managers are
appointed to play particular work roles – in broad terms, to “manage” the organisation.
Part of that is to engage in processes of employing other people as well. It is then more ap-
propriate, we believe, to distinguish between managerial and non-managerial employees.
Actually, the idea of managers being the employers comes from the notion that the
“agent” of the employer party in the organisation is “management”. Strictly speaking, this
is not really correct, as we explain more fully below. Managers are no more than a specif-
ic category of employees of the company (or other type of organisation) that employs
them. In terms of how “employee” is defined in South Africa’s labour legislation (e.g. the
Labour Relations Act or LRA), Du Toit et al. (2015: 90) make it clear that “[m]anagerial
employees are included in the definition of employee”. From this angle, at least, managers
are clearly not to be regarded as employers.
The concept of employer is unfortunately not clearly defined in South Africa’s labour
legislation, but employee is defined very clearly – as we explain in section 2.2 and Chapter
4. From the definition of employee we can deduce that a party becomes an employer
when it “receives service” (Grogan 2014: 25) (work as a form of service, that is) from a
person – hence when such a person is employed as an employee. As Grogan (2014: 25)
shows, the employers are actually mostly the “legal entities” such as “[i]ncorporated com-
52 panies, close corporations, trusts, partnerships or entities resembling partnerships” that
employ people to work there. In terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (as amended by
the Companies Amendment Act 3 of 2011), a company is a legal entity in its own right.
It hence has its own legal persona. If the employer is then actually the legal entity such as
a company, then one should ask: “What about the owners or shareholders of these com-
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
panies?” We therefore prefer to refer to “the employer party” – as things are not all that
simple, and more than one party or stakeholder is involved.
It is therefore important to take a closer look at the employer party and who the
role-players and stakeholders are on that side of the ER equation. As we have said, the
employer party is in fact an entity – in many cases a legal entity (referring to formally
established and legally regulated organisations). Importantly, it seems that the employer
party may not be regarded as a single or unified actor or role-player, especially not if one
makes a careful analysis of employers, owners, shareholders and managers, and so forth.
In order to try to grasp some of the complexities behind the employer party, one has
to go back a few steps to understand how societies function in order to address the age-
old economic problem of satisfying societal needs with limited resources. We therefore
have to locate our analyses of the actors, role-players or participants and stakeholders in
employment relations in the broader contextual settings in which employment relations
are embedded. In modern-day developed and developing societies across the globe, or-
ganisations are established and exist to address the needs of society. It is generally through
such organisations (often as legal entities) that we then find employers and employees
coming together to get the required work done in order to deliver needs-satisfying prod-
ucts and services.
As humans, we all have certain needs – and we have to satisfy some, or as many as
are viable of these needs. While human needs vary a lot and are almost unlimited, nat-
ural resources on our planet are limited, variously so in different societies. Resources are
required for, and transformed into, needs-satisfying services and products in society.
Whereas in some situations and societies the needs may be mainly simple and relatively
easy to satisfy, in others the needs can be almost infinite and it may not be easy to or-
chestrate the fulfilment of these. As an example: some of our most basic needs stem from
the fact that, generally speaking, we want to survive. We thus need things like food and
water to quench our hunger and thirst. In less-developed societies, living close to the
land, growing and picking vegetables and fruit, obtaining other staple food sources and
being assured of clean drinking water may be all that is needed. Millions of people all over
the world live such basic subsistence lives – making sure that they have some shelter and
enough to eat and drink for themselves and their families and loved ones. These are the
so-called less-developed societies of the world.
However, as societies develop, the needs typically become more, and often also more
advanced or sophisticated, so that they are more complex to address. In some societies,
for instance, a need might arise for fine food and delicacies, non-alcoholic and alcoholic
beverage, and so on. Take, for example, the case of a conference of government officials
and political leaders of a country like South Africa. There would be a need for servic-
es related to accommodation and good-quality catering. This would involve advanced
products and services, a hotel or conference venue that offers accommodation and has
its own licensed restaurants. The fine food and drinks have to be catered for. The accom-
modation, such as the hotel or conference centres, has had to be built and maintained,
and people are required to do all the work involved. Naturally, as societies and situations
develop, the actual role-players and stakeholders involved also become more of a com- 53
plex issue. This then calls for some form of organisation.
In developed and developing societies in particular, some form of organisation is re-
quired to help address the challenge of converting resources into needs-satisfying servic-
es and products. Swanepoel et al. (2014: 7) explain that an organisation “can be described
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
as people and other resources that are put together in coordinated ways for specific pur-
poses”. These purposes relate directly to the needs of society and its members. The same
authors mention that most of us were born with the aid of an organisation such as a hos-
pital, and that we get our education with the aid of organisations such as schools, colleges
and universities. It is in the context of these organisations, where work needs to be done
in order to convert resources into needs-satisfying products and services, that the roots
of challenges in employment relations are found. This is where employers and employees
meet, and this also lays the foundation for the roles of managers and workers as two of
the many different types of employees.
Organisations are brought into existence (by individuals, by groups, and even by the
State) to address the needs that exist in society. These may be the needs of people (in-
dividuals) as end-users of particular products or services, or the needs of other organi-
sations. As an example we can look at the value and supply chains in the automotive or
motor-car industry. The end-users may be the people who buy and use the motor cars.
New cars can be bought from the retail outlets, such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW or Toyota
dealerships. However, these cars are manufactured at the actual manufacturing plants
situated in areas such as East London, Rosslyn or Durban. The manufacturers, in turn,
source various component parts from the manufacturers that produce these compo-
nent parts – from seats and other interior upholstery to electronics and sound systems,
to wheels, tyres and exhaust systems. These organisations form networks and value and
supply chains of interconnected organisations, buying and selling from each other, adding
value in their various ways up to the point of delivering what the end-user (as customer)
needs or wants.
However, at this stage we want to issue a word of caution. It should be noted that even
though some organisations are formally established, others are not. It was the formally
established large factories, mines and other organisations of the industrial era (which
employed large numbers of employees) that formed the traditional focus of IR, as the
Industrial Revolution gave birth to IR as field. This view also is now increasingly regarded
as being too limited a perspective of the field. In total worldwide economic activity, the
shares of the manufacturing and mining industries have shrunk compared with other
sectors (such as the broad range of services sectors). A dominant industrial economy has
been making way for a knowledge economy.
Moreover, all over the world, there are numerous small and micro enterprises that are
not formalised. These informal enterprises are typically not really regulated, even though
they engage in activities geared towards delivering some form of needs-satisfying prod-
ucts or services in various value and supply chains. In many parts of the world we find
these: in agriculture and also in the textile, clothing, garment, leather and footwear sec-
tors. These informal enterprises also often employ other people, and as such they really
become informal employers, employing “informal employees” (referring mainly to not

being regulated in formal ways). These informal employer parties (and employee parties)
are also important role-players and stakeholders in employment relations systems.
On the other hand, formally established organisations all over the world also provide
54 employment to millions of people. These can be quite large organisations (in terms of
aspects like turnover, sales and capital employed, as well as in terms of numbers of people
employed), with many and a diverse range of owners (such as individual or institutional
shareholders). Obviously there are also numerous small, formally established organisa-
tions with the owner being the only one, or one of only a couple or few people, directly
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
involved in value-adding processes of converting certain resources and other inputs into
some needs-satisfying product or service. The types and sizes of organisations as employ-
ing entities (the actual “employers”) therefore vary – and any of our analyses of employ-
ment relations role-players or actors should incorporate this diversity.
Some very important employer party role-players and stakeholders in employment
relations systems have traditionally come from the realms of the “business world”. These
business enterprises play very important roles in most societies that are more or less mar-
ket driven. Even in centrally controlled economies, such as in modern-day China, there are
often also very large business sectors, with business organisations playing a large broader
role in those economies and societies. The business organisations engage in productive
and value-adding processes to provide needs-satisfying products or services – but they
do so in return for making profits.
Business enterprises can also range from small owner-managed organisations to very
large multinational corporations or companies (MNCs). So traditionally, organised labour
and IR scholars often used to refer collectively to these business organisations as “capital”.
This is because of the context in which IR as field was born – in that the owners of the
factories, mines and other organisations (those owning the means of production) were
juxtaposed against those who did not have the wealth or capital and who could offer only
their “labour” (ability to work) to the capitalist-industrialists.
Business organisations therefore engage in processes of converting resources into
needs-satisfying products and services to serve certain needs in society – with the mo-
tive of making profits out of these endeavours. These organisations buy all the resources
that are needed, and then these are transformed into the needs-satisfying products and
services, which are sold to those who need or want them. They sell at such prices and vol-
umes that can ensure they get in more money (from selling) than they spend (on buying
the resources they need). That is how they make profits and it is through profit-making
that they can grow. That is then how wealth is accumulated – through making these
organisations successful. These organisations (like other types) can logically only be suc-
cessful when they satisfy the needs of those who use and buy their products or services.
These profit-seeking organisations are owned by people (as individual shareholders, but
also institutional shareholders) who invest their money in such enterprises, at a risk, but
in exchange for the hope of a good return on the monies so invested.
In the business world, in more or less free-market economies, business enterprises
compete to win the “hearts and minds” (actually the wallets or money) of customers
– of those who want or need their products or services. That is what private enterprise
is all about. It is built around the freedom that people are given (either individually or
as collectives) to engage in entrepreneurial activities and also to buy the products or
services they need or want from whichever organisation or person might be providing
them. Entrepreneurial activity is basically the using of one’s resources (such as capital)
to establish a business enterprise, hoping to make money. Irrespective of whether there
are already, say, two or three pizza-providing businesses in a particular town, if a person
calculates he or she will do better and deliver better-quality and/or better-priced pizzas,
he or she is free to take the risk and set up such a business (in more or less market-based 55
societies). In this way we get competition in more or less market-based economies – such
as South Africa’s.
This is why competitor organisations are such important employer-party role-players
in employment relations. Generally they are also employing organisations that employ
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
employees to do their work. Through superior performance they may be able to put
other similar or competing organisations to the test and even force them to close down.
This can happen when the competing businesses are outperformed and hence lose their
customers to “the competition”. In the context of the employer party in the business
world, customers and competitors are therefore very important role-players or actors, and
stakeholders.
The highly competitive business environment stretches across national and continen-
tal boundaries. That is where MNCs become such important role-players in employment
relations. These MNCs enter markets in various countries and offer competing products
or services, sometimes across the globe. In fact, these MNCs often shift some of their
operations to other countries specifically because aspects such as labour costs and pro-
ductivity may offer them greater sources of what is known as competitive advantage over
rival organisations. The better-performing companies are generally the ones that deliver
superior products or services (better quality and/or better prices) – and as such they
typically draw more customers. As some competitor organisations outperform others,
the lower-performing organisations will find that demand for their own products or ser-
vices will generally drop and they will then lose customers, and sales and turnover will go
down. If sales and turnover of a business organisation go down due to competitors, all
other things being equal, that will mean that such an organisation will bring in less mon-
ey and therefore it will have to reduce costs. The wages and salaries paid to employees
can be a significant item in the cost structures of organisations, so cost-cutting usually
includes reducing labour costs – which naturally often includes staff retrenchments or
layoffs.
The organisations that compete in the business and profit-seeking sector are there-
fore key stakeholders and role-players on the side of the employer party of the ER equa-
tion – and numerous such business organisations take on the role of being an employer
party. However, it is not only profit-seeking business organisations that play such roles of
trying to serve customers through delivering needs-satisfying products or services. There
are many different kinds of organisations playing very important roles in satisfying the
almost infinite needs of modern-day society, and hence these also play a role as employer
parties.
There are, for instance, also numerous non-profit-seeking (not-for-profit) organisa-
tions – such as charity organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and even
religious organisations such as churches. These organisations also employ people to work
for them and as such they also become part of “the employer party”. In fact, as mentioned
already in section 1.3.2, trade unions that are formed by and for employees can also be-
come an “employer-party” organisation – from the perspective that they also employ
people to work for them (an aspect we again return to in sections 2.2 and 2.4).
Furthermore, the State also plays a major role in delivering a wide range of needs-
satisfying services. In order to do so, work needs to be done and as such the State also em-
ploys people to work in the “public sector”. People employed and working in the public
sector are often referred to as “public servants”. Some are public servants in managerial
56 work roles, while others are in non-managerial ones. As such, the State can also be regard-
ed a very important employer party. Again, however, things are not always all that simple
or straightforward. For instance, Grogan (2014: 27) argues that even though “public serv-
ants are in reality employed by the State…, they are for the purposes of litigation normally
considered to be employed by the departments to which they are attached”. For that
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
matter, all “organs of the State”, at national, provincial and municipal (or local) levels, can
be regarded as organisations that are important employer party role-players.
The State brings these organisational entities into existence in order to address certain
needs in societies. These organisations can hence include any of the departments of the
State or public administration (think of examples such as the Department of Health, the
Department of Labour, the Department of Trade and Industry and the South African
Police Service). Likewise, organisations such as public provincial hospitals, public schools
and universities, are important role-players in employment relations as employer parties.
Municipalities are, of course, also organisations having a very important role to play in
delivering certain services to local communities. As organisations they are also employ-
ers, and as such they employ all the municipal employees, both managerial and non-
managerial.
In addition, when we look at the State as employer party, we also find that it owns
certain “enterprises”; hence these are known as State-owned enterprises (SOEs). These
organisations are said to be non-profit-seeking enterprises. However, they are often re-
quired to be run almost along the lines of business enterprises because they have to try
to be as efficient and effective as possible, and surplus is always regarded to be better
than deficits in any organisation. Examples of such organisations in South Africa include
Eskom, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and South African Airways
(SAA). SOEs are usually registered companies, but wholly or mainly owned by the State.
As can be gathered, the State is quite a significant part of the employer party in employ-
ment relations in South Africa, employing millions of people through various kinds of
organisations.
Irrespective of the type of organisation involved, the fact of the matter is that all or-
ganisations, as soon as they get another person to help get the work done, ignite employ-
ment relations dynamics – because they become part of the employer party when they
employ people to do some of the work.
From the foregoing it should be clear that when we focus on the employer party in
ER, the customers or users must be absolutely crucial. That is because any organisation
essentially exists in order to deliver certain products or services that can serve to satisfy
the needs of customers or users. All the work that needs to be done in an organisation is
therefore supposed to be geared towards making sure that the products or services deliv-
ered meet (or perhaps rather even exceed) the expectations in terms of needs satisfaction
of the customers or users. Organisations become employers because they need people to
do the work towards that end. These organisations then employ the people who become
the employees – some as managerial employees and others as non-managerial employ-
ees. The ways in which all these employees work and behave must hence be channelled
towards delivering products or services that can lead to customer satisfaction. This holds
for privately owned business organisations, for NGOs and charitable institutions, as well
as for public-sector organisations, such as public hospitals and municipalities.
In the case of the latter, if the municipal employees do not perform well at their work,
the services rendered to the members of local communities (in these cases they are the
“customers” – the people in need of the services) will probably suffer. Poor service de- 57
livery thus generally translates into dissatisfied clients, customers or “users”. In the case
of public sector organisations, these users are such merely by being members of society.
Unlike the case of the private or business sector, with its many competitor organisations
and where the customers can therefore “vote with their feet” if dissatisfied (by going to
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
other organisations that deliver the same or similar products or services), in a case such
as a municipality there are generally not such options. Here the dissatisfied customers
(clients – the residents or members of the local community) will then have to show their
dissatisfaction and concerns about poor service delivery in different ways. For one thing,
in a democratic dispensation such as that of South Africa, this can ultimately even lead
to voting for new councillors and/or different political parties to take over municipal
governance, should members of the community not be satisfied with service delivery (see
ER in practice 2.1).
ER IN PRACTICE 2.1

User satisfaction in the public domain: local government dynamics and
satisfaction with service delivery
W hen we consider municipalities as organ-

isations involved in delivering services to
residents of local communities, these members
2000s, South Africa has experienced a growing
wave of localised community protests around
issues of apparent poor ‘service delivery’”(Paret
of society essentially become the “users”of these 2015: 107). As Von Holdt (2013: 598) explains,
services and as such they can be regarded the in South Africa many of these “prolonged
“customers”or clients. How do these people protest campaigns resulted in the national and
respond in practice in our country, when they provincial ANC leadership intervening and
are not satisfied with the services being rendered removing the leadership of the town council,
to them by the relevant municipalities? What opening the way for by-elections for new coun-
we do find is that “[s]ince the middle of the cillors”.
The role and power of users (or customers or clients) in employment relations systems
can hardly be overemphasised. In organisations such as hospitals, poor work and inferior
performance can lead to harm and even the death of patients (the customers or clients,
in other words)!
In retail organisations, for instance, how sales staff treat and serve customers face to
face will be very important. However, those organisations that produce the products sold
in retail outlets must also ensure that the quality of the products is such that the re-
tail outlets keep buying them. All of this requires dedicated effort and work of all kinds.
That is why organisations employ people, becoming employers – and that is why all em-
58 ployees (managerial as well as non-managerial) are expected to perform well at work.
Should there be no more customers or users, the need for organisations to be formed will
fall away, and hence the need to employ people to do the work required to deliver the
needs-satisfying products or services will vanish. Without customers or users, there will
therefore be no need for employers or employees.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
As can be seen, organisations, specifically as part of the employer party in employ-

ment relations, have a crucial role to play in delivering products or services needed by
society. Organisations are, however, complex societal entities, not least because they are
coordinated collections of human beings with diverse interests who have to bring to-
gether all other resources for productive purposes. In the context of the business world,
things are nevertheless also structured in ways to serve the interests of particular parties
– most notably those of the owners of these business organisations. The employer party
also structures the work of these organisations in certain ways so as to serve the interests
of the owners of such organisations, as mentioned. A key part of this structuring has been
the division of work between managerial and non-managerial employees. This has basi-
cally created some sense of Us and Them. In our view this is quite a false sense – because
even though the managerial employees are led to believe that they are “the employer”,
in the business sector they are not really regarded as that by the owners or shareholders.
Swanepoel and Slabbert (2012: 166–168) explain the so-called agency problem in this
context, noting that this is due to the “separation of ownership and control”. They explain
(2012: 166) as follows:
The argument goes that managers are supposed to act as the agents of the owners
of the corporations, but for reasons related to things such as opportunism and
self-interest, they might not always act in the best interests of these shareholders.
… Therefore, according to this argument, these managers have to be monitored and
controlled to ensure that they act and make decisions that are in the best interests
of the shareholders or owners of companies.
In this regard, Solomon (2010: 10) explains that this agency problem therefore “presents
shareholders with a need to control company management”. As Swanepoel and Slabbert
(2012) explain, this essentially means that due to vested interests that are not always
aligned within the employer party as such, and concomitant lack of trust, companies are
structured so that control can be exercised via company directors and, more specifically,
boards of directors (BoDs).
Managers can then really not be regarded as the agents of the principals (the share-
holders) of such organisations. Rather, “the Directors collectively become the agents of
a company’s owners” through its BoDs (Swanepoel & Slabbert 2012: 167). As such, the
work of BoDs and company directors collectively has become known as “governance”
(including control) on behalf of the owners or shareholders. Governance is then regarded
as “ownership, a step down lower”, rather than “managing, a step up higher” (Swane-
poel & Slabbert 2012). It should, however, also be added that there are increasing views
that governance should not be concerned in any event with the interests of sharehold-
ers. Stakeholder views of governance are becoming more popular – also partly because
of all the corporate scandals and widespread harm being done, even to the ecological
environment, all in the name of “profits”. So-called triple bottom line controls are hence
called for, so that businesses have to account not only for their economic performance,
but also ecological and social performance. Part of the social dimension relates to human 59
resources.
These issues actually make the role and work of managers extremely complex and
challenging, especially from an employment relations perspective. On the one hand, they
are often not trusted and are regarded as the agent of the employer by the workers and
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
their trade unions. On the other hand, they are being led to believe that they are basically
employers and told that they are the agents of the owners or shareholders – but they are
not trusted by the owners or shareholders either, which is why there is a need for corpo-
rate governance. Managers are thus employed and charged with the responsibility for
making organisations perform well, ensuring they are competitive and successful – but
they must do so in ways that balance the interests of multiple stakeholders. However,
other non-managerial employees are also basically expected to help make organisations
perform well and be successful. Managers are appointed to ensure the smooth running
of the organisation, and this includes optimal utilisation of all the resources required to
deliver needs-satisfying products or services. Most notably, the key resource is the human
resource – which is where employment relations come in. Managers are therefore also
charged with human resource and labour relations management (employment relations
management) responsibilities.
From the foregoing it should be quite clear that the employer party is not a straight-
forward and easy-to-determine or identify unified actor or role-player in employment
relations. As explained earlier, if someone is in an employment relationship with an in-
corporated company, for instance, that company as legal entity is the employer. This is
usually also reflected in employment contracts. As explained, such companies will have
owners, such as shareholders – sometimes thousands of them – who are mostly far re-
moved from the company as such. Things are then structured in certain ways, including
hierarchies of managers – and those who are employed as managers have traditionally
been made to believe that they are employers, while strictly speaking they are not. Man-
agers are employees, usually with employment contracts as well.
Sometimes these managers may also be owners or shareholders. This muddies the wa-
ter a little further – making them “co-owners” of the organisation or company. However,
even non-managerial employees (the workers) sometimes hold shares in the companies
that employ them (sometimes through what are known as employee share ownership
plans/programmes or ESOPs). As such, employees can also form part of the employer
party in a certain sense.
Who the employer is, and the roles and interests of various stakeholders as part of
the employer party, can hence be a complex matter. The employer party has therefore
become structured in certain ways that may from certain angles bring about complexities
and challenges, but from other angles also align interests. Another example of how things
can be structured relates to the fact that organisations as employer parties “can also join
types of networks, and align themselves to other organisations to enhance their compet-
itive capabilities” (Swanepoel & Slabbert 2012: 174).
Another important role-player and stakeholder on the side of the employer party is
therefore found in such organised employer groups or collectives. These can manifest
themselves as employer bodies that may be registered (in terms of the LRA) with the
Department of Labour as employers’ organisations for collective bargaining purposes, or
they may merely be general “employer bodies which involve themselves in labour rela-
tions (although they do not engage in collective bargaining per se)” (Bendix 2015: 178).
60 Some of these organised employer bodies or collectives do not have much to do with
employment relations matters. On the other hand, there are some registered employers’
organisations that specialise mainly in employment relations-related matters.
We now shift our focus to what are known as employers’ organisations and other such
employer groupings or bodies.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
2.1.2 Employer bodies and employers’ organisations: general

Individual employer parties do not automatically have formal collective representation in

the industries they operate in. It has therefore become quite a common practice to group
together and form certain associations or collective organisations that can represent the
shared interests of various employer parties. Such employer bodies can then represent
the various individual employer parties that form part of them (as members or affiliates),
in a collective manner, concerning relevant matters or issues of shared interest. Tradition-
ally such employer bodies or groupings did not have as their focus collective bargaining
or union and other employment relations related matters.
Various types of such business or employer groupings or associations exist in many
countries. In South Africa these include “chambers” of “business”, “industry” or “com-
merce” – but such groupings are also found in non-business circles. An example of the
latter is the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) – which is also a reg-
istered employers’ organisation with the Department of Labour. Many of these bodies
have existed for very long periods of time. The birth of the Chamber of Mines of South
Africa (COMSA), for instance, dates back to 7 December 1887 (see http://www.chamber-
ofmines.org.za).
Traditionally, most of these general “organised employer bodies” (as opposed to em-
ployers’ organisations formed specifically for employment relations-related reasons) had
as focus mainly some of the common general industry, commercial, business, trade or
sectoral interests of affiliated member organisations. These could include matters related
to aspects such as economic policy, regulation of trade, tax policies and product stand-
ardisation. According to Slabbert et al. (2006), such employer bodies may deal with a
very broad range of issues that are economically and socially focused in order to help
shape the relevant business environment, sectors or industries. They therefore mobilise
the relevant business community, industry or other sector or trade area to ensure that
their collective views and positions are presented at various forums and levels, including
lobbying of government. Usually, policy decisions of such employer bodies are taken by
a governing body, which is supported by a number of specialist committees to deal with
issues such as economic affairs, social policy, legislative matters, small-business and hu-
man-resource development, and other labour market issues. Some of the organisations
have provincial committees, which would enable various chambers at provincial levels to
use a common platform in the interests of members with regard to provincial legislation
and other matters.
Some of these organisations are organised and formed around particular industry,
trade or sectoral lines, as we have said. Others are more broad and general, and over-
arching. We discuss these in more detail, with more examples, in section 2.1.3. As can
already be gathered, however, today these kinds of bodies may also state their positions
and views, or otherwise entertain matters related to employment relations (and labour
markets), but they generally do not have it as their core business to represent member
organisations in matters pertaining to trade unions and collective bargaining. For this
purpose, in the main, we get what are termed employers’ organisations in South Africa.
An “employers’ organisation” is defined in section 213 of the LRA as “any number of
Definition
employers associated together for the purpose, whether by itself or with other purposes,
of regulating relations between employers and employees or trade unions”. According to
Finnemore and Joubert (2013: 151), an employers’ organisation may be regarded as “a
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
formal, voluntary grouping of employers set up to advise, defend, or represent the inter-
ests of affiliates, not only in their dealings with organised labour, but also to lobby and
influence the state or other relevant organisations”.
According to the Basic guide to employers’ organisations published by the Department
of Labour (2008), employers’ organisations do not have to register with the Department
of Labour, but they are advised to do so. The rights of employers’ organisations are regu-
lated by the LRA (see Chapter 4). There are numerous such registered employers’ organ-
isations in South Africa that are spread across various industries, sectors and trades or
other facets of the South African economy. These totalled 157 in April 2015 (Department
of Labour 2015a).
During South Africa’s pre-democracy era, employer parties had overwhelmingly more
power in the labour-relations arena – because workers were basically disempowered,
partly by not having been granted organising rights and by anti-union policies. During the
1980s and especially also post-1994, organised labour galvanised a lot of power through
standing together. Gradually, individual employer parties started to realise that the power
pendulum was swinging towards the workers and their trade unions.
The individual employer party thus realised that workers, through acting in collective
ways by means of trade unions, wielded more power than the individual employer par-
ty could muster. Furthermore, the workers were seen to be supported on a broad scale
and at higher (even national) levels by trade union federations such as COSATU. The or-
ganised employer bodies therefore also started to cater more for employment relations-
and labour market-related matters. In addition, employer parties started to increasingly
organise themselves specifically as employers’ organisations that would mainly, though
not necessarily exclusively, look after employment relations-related issues such as collec-
tive bargaining and dispute handling, on behalf of their affiliated member organisations.
While the pressures from employment relations dynamics played an important part in
boosting the growth in the formation of employers’ organisations in the country, keep
in mind that, as we have pointed out, many employers’ organisations have existed for a
very long time, and that the agendas of most of these organisations have not always been
driven mainly by employment relations challenges.
Owing to new policy directions by the State and increasingly more pro-labour legisla-
tive changes, more and more pressures were experienced by individual employer parties
from the early 1990s as the new South Africa unfolded. Also, trade unions became more
sophisticated and involved in more and more issues pertaining to the workers and the
working classes of society – at various levels from the shop floor to nationally (and even
internationally). Individual employer parties were thus increasingly under pressure to
deal with an ever-growing list of issues and demands that often called for very specialised
knowledge. These have come to include aspects such as Broad-Based Black Economic
Empowerment (BBBEE), affirmative-action, corporate social responsibility, local supplier

development initiatives, equal pay for work of equal value, legislation, and so forth.
Being aware of, and skilled in, areas such as these is important for the continued exist-
ence and success of organisations that are employers of working people and supposed to
62 be “responsible corporate citizens”. Not all organisations have the capacity to deal with
all such specialised issues. Over time it has thus become clear that dealing with numerous
such issues could perhaps be better achieved through the establishment and member-
ship of such employers’ organisations and other more general organised employer bodies.
A common factor among these employer bodies, including employers’ organisations, is
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
that they represent the collective interests of their member organisations. This may mean
that the views and decisions of individual employer parties may at times be subject to the
consensus views of the group of employer parties. This may be contentious, because not
all organisations share the same circumstances. Smaller organisations in particular usually
have circumstances vastly different from those of larger ones. Another related criticism
is that employer parties that form part of an employers’ organisation may sometimes
be direct competitors. As such there may at times be problems of trust, with parties not
sharing all relevant information or pushing their own agendas at the cost of those of oth-
er parties. This can happen especially when the larger employer parties dominate smaller
parties in the processes and practices of these employers’ organisations.
Do companies perceive employers’ organisations as reaching their stated objectives?
Grobler, Kirsten and Wärnich (2005: 45) point out that according to research, large com-
panies are extremely positive about the relationship between themselves and their rel-
evant employers’ organisation. However, lack of accessibility of information, reply time
and the professionalism of these organisations are identified by these large companies as
weaknesses. Medium-to-small and even micro companies also point out these weakness-
es, but add overall effectiveness of employers’ organisations, as well as their relationship
with these organisations, as possible areas where they could improve.
As mentioned, employers’ organisations are sometimes formed to operate accord-
ing to industry, sector or trade, or are sometimes more general, serving mostly gener-
al business or commercial interests of member organisations. There are also employers’
organisations that exist almost exclusively for the purposes of engaging in employment
relations matters, notably collective bargaining, on behalf of their member organisations.
2.1.3 Sectoral, industry and/or trade-based collective employer bodies and

employers’ organisations
Employer parties organise and form employer bodies and employers’ organisations
along various lines – including industry or sector and trade lines. Examples of sectoral
or trade-based employers’ organisations in South Africa registered with the Department
of Labour include the Electrical Contractors’ Association (South Africa) or ECA (SA), the
Locksmiths Association of South Africa (LASA), the Constructional Engineering Associa-
tion (South Africa) and the South African Forum of Civil Engineering Contractors (SAF-
CEC). As can be gathered, these are national organisations that are formed more or less
around particular trades or professions. Others are formed more on an industry basis. An
example of such a collective employer body is the National Association of Automobile
Manufacturers of South Africa (NAAMSA), which is also registered with the Department
of Labour as an employers’ organisation by the name of Automobile Manufacturers Em-
ployers Organisation (AMEO) (http://www.naamsa.co.za).

The Chamber of Mines (COMSA) is another very important employer body that is
formed on an industry basis. It is also registered with the Department of Labour as an
employers’ organisation. Although it plays a much broader role, it generally coordinates
collective bargaining in the South African mining industry (see ER in practice 2.2), and
63
represents interests cutting across mining sectors such as coal, gold and platinum. Mem-
ber organisations include Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Lonmin and Sasol, among others.
The chamber engages in centralised collective bargaining (including wage negotiations
and conditions of service) for member companies.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
ER IN PRACTICE 2.2

COMSA – the Chamber of Mines of South Africa
A ccording to the website of COMSA (http://

www.chamberofmines.org.za/about/histo-
ry), its predecessor was formed as “The Chamber
able as our transparency serves as a statement of
intent to our members. We put the mining indus-
try first through a variety of activities and pro-
of Mines”on 7 December 1887, one year after an grammes undertaken in areas where our members
Australian gold digger, George Harrison, discov- share common concerns and promote the coop-
ered gold on a farm called Langlaagte. It “was eration of specific industry-level policy responses
established to disseminate authoritative statisti- and joint initiatives.
cal information about the Transvaal Gold Fields We are powered by information and collabo-
Limited and to validate prospectuses”. It is fur- ration, seeing this as defining our role as an im-
ther stated that “other objectives included: the portant strategic partner to our member mines.
promotion and protection of mining interests; In recent years our functions have undergone
the promotion of public discussion on mining substantial changes in light of developments un-
industry issues; the promotion of favourable leg- folding in the industry.
islative measures; and the exchange of informa- We exist primarily to provide strategic sup-
tion with other public and private mining bodies port and advisory input to our members. We fa-
within and outside of South Africa”. cilitate interaction among mine employers, to ex-
The same website shows that throughout the amine policy issues and other matters of mutual
years COMSA evolved and underwent numerous concern to define desirable industry-level stances.
name changes. From 1889 to 1896 it was known Consultation and co-operation occur on a volun-
as the Witwatersrand Chamber of Mines; from tary basis and do not encroach on the managerial
1897 to 1901 it was the Chamber of Mines of controls or prerogatives of our individual mem-
the South African Republic; from 1902 to 1952 ber mines and mining groups.
it had the name of Transvaal Chamber of Mines; We offer representation of the formalised
from 1953 to 1967 it was called the Transvaal policy positions that our membership holds to
and Orange Free State Chamber of Mines. Since various organs of South Africa’s national and
1968 it has retained its present name: Chamber provincial governments and to other relevant
of Mines of South Africa. policy-making and opinion forming entities in-
The following extracts come from COMSA’s side the country, and internationally.
website and can serve to illustrate the role of this
prominent employers’ organisation in South Af- Member benefits

rica: • Representation to government and other
“We are a mining industry employers’organi- stakeholders carries more weight when ex-
sation which exists to serve our members and pro- pressed collectively and as such, we provide
mote their interests in South Africa. Also known a respected body of members more powerful
as COMSA, information about us is readily avail- than the sum of their parts.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
• Individual companies see their resources tied making community and who operate in the leg-
up and heavily invested in major issues to a islative and public administration corridors of
limiting degree, but collective action frees our Cape Town and Pretoria. Our effective team oper-
members from dedicating too many resources ates in areas that include mine health and safety,
to effective ends. sustainable development, skills development, le-
We are staffed by a group of professionals who gal issues, environmental management, econom-
enjoy the confidence and respect of the policy- ics, labour relations and communications.”
Source: http://www.chamberofmines.org.za, more particularly the last part from http://www.chamberofmines.org.

za/about/chief-operating-office (accessed on 20 May 2015)
Also registered with the Department of Labour are federations of employers’ organisa-
tions. These federations will then also have registered employers’ organisations as affili-
ated members. (This is therefore almost akin to what we find in organised labour circles
– where registered trade unions are affiliated members of registered trade union feder-
ations such as the Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA)). A very prominent
example of such a registered federation of employers’ organisations in our country is the
Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa (SEIFSA). It also operates na-
tionally and is the “umbrella body” for 27 independent employers’ organisations (http://
www.seifsa.co.za/about.html). These represent various sectors of the metal and engineer-
ing industry throughout South Africa.
As mentioned, there are also employers’ organisations that specialise in collective bar-
gaining, dispute resolution and other employment relations matters. An example of such
a registered employers’ organisation is the National Employers’ Association of South Africa
(NEASA). On its website it claims to be a “leading advocate of employers’ interests in South
Africa”, providing “top quality labour law legal representation and industrial relations ser-
vices” and being “one of South Africa’s leading collective bargaining role players”. It states
further that it “passionately defends the interests of SMMEs” (http://www.neasa.co.za/).
Another such an employers’ organisation, though registered as a federation with the De-
partment of Labour, is the Confederation of Employers of Southern Africa (COFESA).
It must be noted that employers’ organisations may form part of bargaining councils
(see Chapter 4, section 4.7 for a discussion on bargaining councils) through which collec-
tive agreements are published in the Government Gazette and which then become dele-
gated legislation. In this way, individual employer parties can have their interests looked
after as well, through being involved in such employers’ organisations that can then bar-
gain on their behalf.
65
2.1.4 General national and peak level organised employer bodies
As mentioned, some employer parties form and join collective employer bodies that are
rather general by nature, operating mainly at national level, representing the interests
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
of their member organisations. The South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(SACCI), which used to be known as the South African Chamber of Business (SACOB) be-
fore 2007, is an example of such an employer body. According to Venter et al. (2014: 30),
SACCI has “fifty constituent chambers” and they boast “a membership of some 20 000
small, medium and large businesses across all sectors spanning the whole country”.
The National African Federated Chamber of Commerce (NAFCOC) can also be re-
garded as such a body. As its name states, NAFCOC is a national chamber of commerce
– but as a collective employer body it organises and represents the interests of the black
business community (Venter et al. 2014: 30). It has various sectoral chambers, such as
one looking after the interests of farmers, one organised around mining and energy, and
another taking care of the interests of hawkers and informal business enterprises (the
African Co-operative for Hawkers and Informal Business – ACHIB). Another such rath-
er general collective employer body that, from its name, also seems to have been built
around some racial or ethnic lines, is the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut (AHI). Yet another
general employer collective or body that is apparently built around religious lines is the
Minara Chamber of Commerce, “established in 2000 to create unity amongst Muslim
businesses”, and which “in its workings adheres to an Islamic Code of Conduct and Ethics
as contained in the Holy Quran” (Venter et al. 2014: 31).
Just as in organised labour circles there have been efforts to create unity at the highest
levels of federations and confederations of trade unions, there have been efforts for many
years to also unify employers’ organisations at the uppermost levels.
A single integrated umbrella body for organised business was created on 11 October
2003, when the two main peak-level business federations in the country, Business South
Africa (BSA) and the Black Business Council (BBC), joined forces and formed Business
Unity South Africa, or BUSA (Finnemore & Joubert 2013). BUSA’s inaugural meeting was
held on 24 November 2003 (http://www. busa.org.za). It was hoped that these develop-
ments would lead to greater cooperation and consistency in the South African business
sector. However, this came to be a rather short-lived “marriage”, and at the end of 2011,
the relationship between BUSA and the members representing the former BBC broke
down. The breakdown came mainly over divergent views on principles of equality, trans-
formation and good governance, and the formal relaunch of the BBC followed in March
2012.
BUSA is, however, a registered company and on its website (http://busa.org.za/bu-
sas-purpose/) its objectives are stated as follows, namely to:
• enable organised business to play a constructive role within the context of South
Africa’s economic growth, development and transformation goals, in achieving
an environment in which businesses of all sizes and in all sectors can thrive, ex-
pand and be competitive both nationally and internationally to the benefit of
the South African economy as a whole, which object it may achieve inter alia by -
– promoting South Africa as a preferred business destination domestically and
internationally;
– promoting the development of an economic and social system based on the
principles of justice, a market oriented economy, individual entrepreneurship
66
and equal opportunities;
– enhancing, supporting and developing the role of small and medium business
enterprises in all sectors and to the development of linkages between large,
medium and small business to the benefit of the economy as a whole; and
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
– advancing and promoting initiatives aimed at job creation and the alleviation
of poverty;
• act as the principal representative of business in South Africa and represent its
members in its national, subcontinental, continental and international spheres
of activity, so as to ensure a primary and consistent representation of the views
of the South African business community;
• lobby and advocate agreed-upon positions, policies and legislation in the inter-
ests of Members and in accordance with the Objects of the Company; and
• advance and promote transformation in the context of business in South Africa
and to fulfil the Objects of the Company in a manner that promotes the full
spectrum of South African business and facilitates the role of business in ad-
dressing the socioeconomic challenges present in South Africa.
BUSA has a very broad membership base, including prominent individual employer-party
organisations such as ABSA, Capitec Bank, Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd, BMW South Africa
(Pty) Ltd, Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd, TATA Holdings (SA) (Pty) Ltd, SAPPI Ltd, SAB Ltd,
Unilever (Pty) Ltd, MTN (Pty) Ltd and Vodacom. Its members further include employers’
organisations such as the Banking Association (BA), South African Insurance Association,
NAAMSA and AMEO, SEIFSA, COMSA and SACCI (http://busa.org.za/member-informa-
tion/).
Although member organisations of the Black Business Council cannot be detected
from the website of the BBC, its purpose is stated as follows (http://www.blackbusiness-
council.org/index.php):
Our purpose is to lobby government on policy advocacy in order to accelerate the
participation of black South Africans in the mainstream economy. Furthermore, we
aim to unify black business and create a conducive environment in the process of
developing black industrialists in South Africa.
Although we have achieved political emancipation, South Africa is still faced with
the triple challenge of poverty, unemployment and inequality. As the Black Busi-
ness Council we aim to improve, advance, represent, protect and ensure the em-
powerment of our members as well as black people in all spheres of the econo-
my. We strive to facilitate, design and implement strategies and programs aimed
at achieving black economic empowerment by engaging civil society, government
and corporate South Africa.
It should be noted that BUSA and the BBC join forces when it comes to representing the
interests of business at NEDLAC (see ER in practice 2.3).
2.2 THE EMPLOYEE PARTIES

67
2.2.1 Introductory perspectives
Thus far we have already made reference to employees a number of times – in this chap-
ter and in Chapter 1. When we focus on “the employee party” in employment relations
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
ER IN PRACTICE 2.3

BUSA and BBC sign NEDLAC memo
September 7 2012 at 04:06pm
J ohannesburg – Business Unity SA (BUSA) and the Black Business Council (BBC) signed a memo-
randum of understanding on Friday for a single business caucus at NEDLAC’s annual summit.
BUSA CEO Nomaxabiso Majokweni said her hone in on those issues that drive economic trans-
organisation hoped to “broaden” its representa- formation.”
tion at the National Economic Development and The BBC was resurrected to represent the
Labour Council by working with the BBC. interests of black business after it amalgamated
“We have taken a view to be pragmatic and in- with Business SA in 2003. It was formally re-
clusive of matters that have to do with business,” launched in March.
she said. The two business bodies split because mem-
“It is in recognition of that need that we come bers of black business organisations felt BUSA
together with the Black Business Council.” was unable to represent their interests.
BBC chief executive Xolani Qubeka said the Qubeka said the memorandum allowed the
memorandum was like a “homecoming”. two organisations to differ on business matters.
“We are quite excited. We are looking forward “We have made provisions for any difference
to fully participate at NEDLAC. It is a very im- of opinion – where we feel strongly about an
portant institution in this country,”he said. issue and BUSA thinks differently, we will take
“In terms of business, we must ensure that note of that.”- Sapa
there is broad representivity so we are able to
Source: http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/busa-and-bbc-sign-nedlac-memo-1.1378345.VS-L8_nQpcY (accessed on
20 May 2015)
there is, again, more than one role-player or actor involved. In fact – as you already know
– there are many different kinds of employees and working people. Apart from distin-
guishing between “standard” employees (full-time, ongoing or permanently appointed)
and “non-standard” employees (e.g. part-time, fixed-term), we have already shown that a
distinction can be made between managerial and non-managerial employees.

Now managerial employees can further be subdivided in accordance with hierarchical
levels – such as “first-line” supervisory employees (they are put in charge of and given au-
thority over non-managerial workers reporting to them) and middle-level managerial em-
68 ployees (lower-level managerial employees, such as first-line supervisors, will report to them
and be subject to their authority). Then there are also senior management employees (who
will have middle-level managers reporting to them) and top-management employees (sen-
ior managers report to them and they can also be employed and known as “executives”).
Some top-management employees may also be appointed as directors of the companies
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
that employ them, and as such they are then typically referred to as executive directors, serv-
ing on the boards of directors of such companies (typically together with “non-executive
directors”). As Grogan (2014: 25) points out, even “[e]xecutive directors who perform work
other than that attached to the duties of directors are employees”.
The various managerial levels of employees thus fulfil different work roles – just as
non-managerial employees also, in turn, fulfil different work roles from those of man-
agerial employees generally. Non-managerial employees are often also just referred to
as “workers”. There are also others who fulfil yet again different work roles but who are
generally neither referred to as workers nor as managers. These are people who are cat-
egorised as professionals. Examples of people who may be fulfilling such employee roles
include engineers, lawyers, psychologists, medical doctors and nurses. It should be noted,
though, that not all workers or even professionals are necessarily performing their work
as employees. So, for example, an attorney or advocate may render professional legal ser-
vices to another party through “a contract of mandate” that can be concluded between
the parties, rather than a “contract of employment” (Du Plessis & Fouché 2014: 10).
So, then, when can one say that someone is an employee? Is it only when there is a
contract of employment? To try to clarify this, we can start by taking a look at how South
Africa’s labour legislation defines employee.
The definitions of employee in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) and
Definition
Employment Equity Act (EEA) are essentially the same as the definition given in the LRA
(Du Toit et al. 2015: 87). In section 213 of the LRA, an employee is defined as:
(a) any person, excluding an independent contractor, who works for another per-
son or for the State and who receives, or is entitled to receive, any remunera-
tion; and
(b) any other person who in any manner assists in carrying on or conducting the
business of an employer.
While sub-paragraph (a) is rather specific in that independent contractors are excluded
from the statutory definition of employee, sub-paragraph (b), in turn, seems to open up
things widely. It is nevertheless important to distinguish between an employee and an
independent contractor – in other words between the “employment contract proper”
(locatio conductio operarum) and what is known as a “contract of work” (locatio conductio
operis), which we illustrate in Table 2.1 in accordance with Grogan (2014: 20).
As you now know, over the last few decades or so it has become increasingly com-
mon for organisations to get their work done through independent contractors and oth-
er non-standard employment relationship arrangements, rather than through standard
employment relationships. Through making use of such “atypical employment” arrange-
ments, employer parties not only try to save costs related to benefits such as paid leave
and sick leave, and medical and retirement schemes, but they also try to evade or cir-
cumvent some comprehensive legal protections that employees are afforded in terms of
relevant labour legislation. Whereas working persons enjoy statutory protection (e.g. by
the BCEA, Unemployment Insurance Act 63 of 2001 (UIA) and Compensation for Occu- 69
pational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA) by virtue of being “employees”,
independent contractors generally do not enjoy the same protection.
Even though the switch to alternative work arrangements such as these has been
driven mainly by employer parties, the people who provide their work-related services
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
Table 2.1 Differentiating between an employee and an independent

contractor
Employee Independent contractor

Object is the rendering of personal work- Object is the provision of a specified work-
related services between employee party and related service or a certain specified work-re-
employer party lated result or outcome
The employee must render the work-related The independent contractor is not obliged
service at the behest of the employer party to perform the work related to the service or
result/outcome personally, unless otherwise
agreed
The employer party may decide whether The independent contractor is bound to
to have the particular employee render the perform specified work or deliver specified
work-related services results within a specified or reasonable time
The employee is obliged to obey lawful, The independent contractor is not obliged
reasonable instructions regarding the work to obey any instructions in terms of how the
to be done and the manner in which it is to work is to be done or result to be attained
be done
Relationship terminated by the death of the Relationship not terminated by the death of
employee the contractor
Relationship terminates on completion of the Relationship terminates on completion of
agreed period specified work or delivery/attainment of
specified outcome/result
Source: Slightly adapted from Grogan (2014: 20)
sometimes also prefer to do so as independent contractors, through close corporations

or companies that they establish – sometimes to try to draw on tax and related finan-
cial benefits. However, should disputes arise about whether there was a proper employ-
ment relationship of employee/employer, the courts will “pierce the corporate veil” to
determine the true nature of the relationship (Grogan 2014: 24). Should it be determined
through what is known as the “dominant impression test”, for instance that the relation-
ship is more akin to a proper employment relationship, the courts will deal with it ac-
cordingly.
Various factors can be taken into consideration to determine the true nature of the
relationship and whether in fact a person is an employee in an employment relation-
ship, rather than in a commercial independent contractor relationship. These include
whether the employer party exercises a right of supervision and control over the other
(working) party, whether the working person forms an integral part of the organisation
of the employing party, and the extent to which the working person “was economically
dependent” upon the party receiving the work-related services (Du Toit et al. 2015: 92).
Determining what the relationship really is can therefore be rather complex, yet it is im-
70 portant because employees have certain rights and are statutorily protected – and so we
again return to this in Chapter 4. Note, however, that a Code of Good Practice: Who is an
employee? has been issued in terms of the LRA, and this can also be used as a guideline. It
is therefore not always all that simple to identify whether there is indeed an employment
relationship or an “employee” involved.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
As mentioned, a common way to reorganise the way the work of organisations is done
has been for employer parties to outsource or subcontract work, including securing
work-related services from labour-broker firms (providers of temporary employment ser-
vices or TES) that act as independent contractors. These TES organisations are therefore
service providers (i.e. they provide other persons who perform work) for their client or-
ganisations (the “principals” in such commercial arrangements). Du Toit et al. (2015: 94)
explain as follows:
Workplaces and working relationships have been transformed as employers seek
greater flexibility, inter alia by reducing their “core activities” and employment
commitments to a minimum. Indefinite, full-time and regular (or “standard”)
employment has increasingly given way to new varieties of work, referred to … as
“non-standard” work. … [t]o avoid the costs associated with “employment”, there
has been a tendency to “contract out” work formerly done by employees, “convert-
ing” employees to independent contractors or making use of temporary employ-
ment services (TES, commonly known as “labour brokers”).
It should be noted that because it has become so common to rearrange working relation-
ships to non-standard forms such as fixed-term, part-time and independent contractor
agreements, and because these often amount to abuse or exploitation of the working
people, South Africa’s labour legislation has been amended to cater for this. As Grogan
(2014: 22) explains (see also Chapter 4), since the 2014 amendments, employer parties
“may now, subject to some exceptions, utilise the services of TES employees and employ
workers on fixed-term contracts for no longer than three months”, and should that peri-
od be exceeded, such working persons will for all intent and purposes become regarded
as “permanent employees” (hence employed for an indefinite period) of that employer
party. However, as Du Toit et al. (2015: 96) point out, the amended LRA also “provides
an extensive and open-ended list of justifiable reasons for fixed-term contracts in excess
of three months”, but “an employee on a fixed-term contract of more than three months
must not be treated less favourably than an employee employed on an indefinite basis
performing the same or similar work, unless there is a justifiable reason for the differential
treatment”.
Apart from TES employees performing work for client organisations through inde-
pendent contractor arrangements, the employee party may also include people working
on fixed-term contracts of employment, as well as part-time workers. The amended legis-
lative regime now, however, extends the protection to these kinds of working parties, in-
cluding their right to have access to statutorily provided dispute-resolution mechanisms,
and makes it more conducive for these employees to be recruited, organised and repre-
sented by trade unions. This brings us to another, traditionally very important, actor or
role-player on the employee party’s side of the ER equation – trade unions.
2.2.2 Trade unions
71
At its simplest, a trade union may be seen as a voluntary organisation of workers. There
are different views concerning the definition and role of trade unions. According to Uys
(2011: 95), the ILO “defines a trade union as an organisation based on membership of
employees in various trades, occupations and professions, of which the main focus is the
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
representation of its members at the workplace and in the wider society”. We would like
to elaborate a little and describe a trade union as follows:
A trade union is a voluntary but deliberately formed organisation, created for and
Definition
by employees to enhance organisational and social justice through serving the in-
terests of the working classes in society and of the employees at their workplaces,
in their employing organisations and industries or sectors, so as to improve the
terms and conditions of their employment, their working circumstances and their
total work-related experiences, by making use of methods such as representation,
advocacy and collective bargaining, and to seek to enhance the quality of their lives,
among others through providing a means of expression of the views of the working
classes on matters of society.
From this definition it should be clear that trade unions exist because of their members
and as such, trade unionists act on behalf of their members, even beyond the limits of the
enterprise, organisation (or other employing entity) within the wider society. Trade un-
ions are therefore membership organisations. They exist because of their members, they
are made up of members, they are geared to serve their members’ interests and they are
governed by the members themselves. Trade unions are founded on the sociocultural val-
ue of collectivism: “Together we are stronger – we are stronger when we stand together”.
This is often also referred to as solidarity. A common slogan in organised labour circles is:
United we stand – divided we fall! By standing together, workers increase their power base
and improve their chances of promoting greater organisational and social justice. They
help to ensure greater distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice in organisations
(see section 1.4.1) as the employing entities, as well as in society at large.
Trade unions serve and protect the interests of their members through bargaining
with employer representatives, through challenging (seemingly) unfair managerial deci-
sions by means of various processes, and through generally representing workers in inter-
active processes about employment relations and broader sociopolitical, economic and
other matters. It may be said that trade unions are concerned with the rightful place of
workers in society, particularly in their role as employees who contribute to their employ-
ing organisations and society as a whole. These are, however, generalised and somewhat
idealised statements. There are many factors that come into play, as trade unions are
formed and operate on a daily basis.
Barker (2015) points to a number of trends that impact on the union movement inter-
nationally, which we draw on below, but with additional perspectives drawn from other
sources as well. These trends include the following:
• Increased pace and magnitude of globalisation. This leads to intense competitive
pressures in products and services and also labour markets, accelerating the mobility
of capital as well as labour and hence adding to the challenges of trade unionism.
Cotton and Royle (2014), for instance, report on a case of relatively successful efforts
of “transnational” organising of workers.
72
• Growth in forms and use of more insecure types of employment. As explained in
section 2.2.1, flexible labour market policies have gained greater legitimacy and po-
litical support over the years. Practices such as subcontracting, outsourcing and the
hiring of temporary and part-time workers have become common. That is also why
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
South Africa’s labour laws have now been adapted as explained in section 2.2.1 (and
again in Chapter 4). The case of successful “transnational” organising referred to by
Cotton and Royle (2014) was precisely trade union efforts to organise contract work-
ers in the mining industry in Colombia.
• Growth of small businesses rather than larger organisations. Technological chang-
es make it possible to reshape production through new forms of industrial organisa-
tion. This has led to more small companies engaging in the production and service-
delivery processes. The larger number of smaller production units can make it more
difficult for unions to organise workers, to bargaining collectively and to otherwise
represent workers in their places of work. Purcell and Hall (2012) and Webster and
Bischoff (2011) refer to the “representational gap” that is found in small to medium
enterprises (SMEs).
• Technological change presenting challenges and opportunities. The result of tech-
nological changes has also been that it is becoming easier for production or service-
delivery units to become geographically more dispersed outside some urban labour
markets and even, as explained above, across national boundaries. All of these can
make it more challenging for unions to gain access to these geographically dispersed
workplaces. Again, however, as can be seen from the case of the Colombian contract
mine workers (Cotton & Royle 2014), it is not impossible, but it requires renewal and
creative efforts on the part of trade unions. For one thing, as shown by Kerr and Wad-
dington (2014: 658), electronic technologies can and are being used to the advantage
of trade union activities, contributing “to aspects of union renewal including organiza-
tion, participation, union democracy and industrial disputes”.
• Changes in skills composition of the workforce, partly related to sectoral shifts in
economies. The shift away from a heavy industrial-driven economy to a more knowl-
edge-based economy means that there is also a changing skills composition of the
workforce (e.g. workers on the one end of the scale tending to be more skilled, better
educated and less motivated by class interests and solidarity). These shifts may also
pose challenges in respect of growing trade-union membership numbers and solidar-
ity. Again, these may require new ways of thinking and acting, and yet may also bring
opportunities, especially if we recognise that there are other important role-players as
well.
Campbell (2014), for instance, reports on the role of professional regulatory bodies and
the occupational community (OC) in respect of a particular category of professional
“knowledge workers”. In this case the focus is on professional lawyers who practise law
as employees in state-prosecutor roles in large public-sector organisations. Campbell
(2014: 179) says that “knowledge work is at the heart of professions”, and adds that such
“professionals are organizing in new forms”. In South Africa “it had previously been held
that magistrates are not employees”, but recently, in 2014, “the Supreme Court of Appeal
has ruled that magistrates are employed … and, as employees, may acquire remedies
under the LRA” (Du Toit et al. 2015: 90). Trade unions may hence have to consider collab- 73
orating or networking with such other role-players as may be involved in various types of
knowledge work. It is, in any event, also common knowledge that COSATU’s member-
ship has been boosted, mainly in the public sector, by public-sector trade-union affiliates
representing people working in what might well be considered knowledge sectors (such
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
as the National Educational Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) and the South
African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU)).
• Changes in demographics of workforces: an increase in proportions of women
workers. The entry of women into the labour market changes the priorities and agen-
das of unions, as women often have a need for more flexible working arrangements,
and because of their responsibilities after hours tend to be less interested in union
activities in general. However, there are also trends pointing in opposite directions –
such as that affirmative-action and employment-equity drives in South Africa’s pub-
lic sector have meant a growth not only in female public servant numbers, but also
in the proportions of female members of the trade unions operating in the public
sector. According to Tshoaedi (2012), almost half of COSATU’s membership (through
affiliated trade unions) comprises women. It is generally accepted that occupations
such as teaching and nursing, for instance, can be somewhat female dominated. De-
velopments such as these therefore may present trade union movements with oppor-
tunities or threats – depending on how these are viewed, approached and handled.
Webster (2015: 28) explains, for instance, how Ela Bhatt has persisted in trying, since
1972, to organise and empower marginalised female workers in India through forming
the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), and he reports that she eventually
“won this battle when first the Indian trade union movement in 2007, and then the
international trade union movement, accepted SEWA as a legitimate voice of labour”.
• Changes in demographics of workforces: younger generations with an increase in
younger working people. It has been argued that the change in generations of people
entering the workforce brings with it people with different sets of values, interests and
viewpoints or mindsets. The younger generations of employees seem to attach less
value to collectivist leanings. Having done research in South Africa involving the views
of trade union leaders on challenges faced by trade unions, Uys (2011: 100) reports as
follows in this regard:
The first major concern was the challenge to attract young employees. There are
two reasons for this, one being that the individuals who are absorbed into the la-
bour market enter the workforce or sectors where trade unions are not tradition-
ally organised. The second reason for the difficulty experienced by trade unions to
enlist young employees is that they are apparently less interested in the trade union
movement than older employees and seem to be less inclined to join a trade union
directly after entering the labour market.
• Lack of employment in the formal economy, with growth in informal-sector work
and employment. The supply of work seekers increasingly outstrips the demand for
standard (full-time, indefinite) employees in the formal economy. This is especial-

ly the case in developing countries, including South Africa. As Williams and Lansky
(2013: 357) say, “the informal sector plays a major role in employment and income
generation” in developing countries. As explained from the outset in Chapter 1, find-
74 ing decent work with decent pay has become a major problem internationally, and is
an extreme problem in South Africa. People therefore increasingly turn to informal
work, or work in the informal sectors of the economy. The unemployed may be so
anxious to find work that they will be prepared to rather take up work opportunities
in such informal arrangements, with poor terms and conditions of employment (such
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
as low pay and long hours of work), loosely arranged, and generally without any real
form of protection, than to be without any form of work or income. Such situations
may also undermine solidarity of the “working classes” of societies. These precarious
and more vulnerable workers are not so much interested in becoming trade union
members; they rather channel their energies towards finding almost any kind of work
which can provide some, albeit poor, form of an income.
The research by Uys (2011), among other publications, points out a number of other
factors and developments regarding trends in trade unionism in South Africa specifically.
We will refer to some of these in section 2.2.2.10.
We now first turn to taking a more general look at trade unions as organisations, start-
ing off by identifying different types of trade unions, before discussing the role and func-
tions of trade unions.
2.2.2.1 Types of trade union

Trade unions can be grouped into different types according to their nature and character.
According to Bendix (2015), trade unions can be broadly classified into three catego-
ries, namely occupational unions, industrial unions and general unions. Swanepoel and
Slabbert (2012) add what they refer to as company or enterprise unions.
» OCCUPATIONAL UNIONS
Occupational unions organise and recruit their members from employees in certain
occupations – thus in accordance with their skills. Members of these trade unions can
therefore work in a variety of industries or sectors, or they may be from a particular sector
or industry.
Different types of occupational unions can be identified, such as craft unions, pro-
motion unions, unions representing unskilled and semi-skilled blue-collar workers, and
white-collar unions.
Traditionally, there were craft unions, and their thrust or focus was on specific, mostly
formally acquired skills. The focus of craft unions is therefore on their members’ specific
skills, and they generally used to restrict entrance to the occupation that they represent-
ed. In most cases, traditionally, appropriate skills could only be obtained by completing
formal training such as apprenticeships. Some traditional craft unions were built around
trades such as carpenters, plumbers or electricians. Membership was gained by practising
a specific craft, sometimes irrespective of the industry in which a member worked. Later,
trade unions also developed around skills which did not necessarily require formal training
and certification, such as the skills of tradesmen qualifying through apprenticeships. Others
developed around combining certain blue-collar crafts in a particular sector. An example of

the latter was the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers of South Africa.
Some of these are also referred to as “promotion” unions, which target relatively low-
skilled and semi-skilled, mostly blue-collar workers. Because these unions often recruit
workers in certain occupations in a particular industry, they are similar in some respects 75
to industrial unions. Examples of such existing registered trade unions in South Africa
could be the South African Pelagic Fisherman’s Union (SAPFU) and the Trawler and Line
Fisherman’s Union (TALFU). The strength of craft and promotion unions lies in the stra-
tegic importance and skill of the workers they represent.
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349
According to Bendix (2015), the dilution of skills, for example by the introduction of
technology, has had the result that very few pure craft unions still exist. In South Africa,
none such registered trade unions could be identified from the 2015 list of registered
trade unions published by the Department of Labour. Most craft unions now also recruit
among “allied occupations”, such as the National Union of Leather and Allied Workers
(NULAW), and some have amalgamated with other unions to form industrial unions.
In order to fill the void left by craft and promotion unions, trade unions have increas-
ingly been formed to represent unskilled and semi-skilled blue-collar workers within
or across certain related industries. These unions develop their strategic power around
the numbers of workers they can organise and mobilise. When these unions organise
across industries they tend to become somewhat similar to general unions. Examples
of such registered trade unions in South Africa may be the Electronic, Allied and Metal
Workers Union of South Africa (EAMWUSA) and the Meat and Allied Workers Union.
The last type of occupational union represents the interests of white-collar employ-
ees. Most of these unions will organise only employees in a particular industry, such as
the Professional Educators Union (PEU) and the National Professional Teachers’ Associa-
tion of South Africa (NAPTOSA).
» INDUSTRIAL UNIONS
Secondly, industrial unions define their domain in terms of specific industries or groups
of industries, and members typically work in that industry, irrespective of trade or pro-
fession. Some of the best-known examples of industrial trade unions are those of mine-
workers (NUM and AMCU), autoworkers (South African Transport and Allied Workers’
Union (SATAWU) and steelworkers (the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa
(NUMSA)).
Naturally, in practice there are several exceptions to these basic definitions. Industrial
unions do not necessarily include all the employees of a particular industry. For example,
an industrial union may include only the production workers of an industry and make
no attempt to organise the professional or administrative workers, or it may be a multi-
industry union (such as NUMSA). Today, there are many general unions cutting across
different industries, and occupations.
» GENERAL UNIONS
General unions do not restrict membership in terms of skills or industry (e.g. Solidarity
or the National General Workers’ Union (NAGEWU)). Their restrictions on membership
are determined in their constitutions. Whereas craft and promotion unions function on
the principal of common skills, and industrial unions on the principle of communality
of workers’ circumstances in a specific industry, general trade unions function on the

principle of communality of worker interests. They argue that production work is so sim-
plified and uniform that there is no motivation for functioning on the principle of skill or
nature of the industry. These trade unions strive to absorb all workers (the working class
76 in general), thus the working class stands united against the owners’ class – labour against
capital (Swanepoel & Slabbert 2012).
Enterprise or company trade unions essentially develop their membership base
around a particular employer party’s organisation. It is often not a company or enterprise
as per the business sector organisations. They are also referred to as “in-house” trade
EDUCATION
Account: s6311349

P 1 - 76 SA Employment Relations: Theory and Practice 8th Ed.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P 1 - 76 SA Employment Relations: Theory and Practice 8th Ed.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © 2016. Van Schaik Publishers. All rights reserved.

Published by Van Schaik Publishers

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

First edition 1989

ISBN 978 0 627 03393 3

Commissioning editor Claire Thornton

Website addresses and links were correct at time of publication.

This book has been reviewed by independent peer reviewers.

Ms Monica Kirsten is a senior lecturer in the Department of Human Resource Manage-

Prof. Ben Swanepoel, at the time of working on this publication, is an independent

Prof. Barney Erasmus is vice-principal of operations at the University of South Africa

Prof. Barney Jordaan, a former professor of law at Stellenbosch University, is current-

Chapter 1  Introducing some fundamentals of employment relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 1 Introducing some fundamentals of employment relations

CHAPTER 2 Actors, or role-players, and stakeholders in employment relations

CHAPTER 3 The development of employment relations in South Africa

CHAPTER 4 Core labour legislation impacting on the employment relationship

4.4.3 Rights of trade unions and employers’ organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

4.6.2 Threshold requirements for acquiring organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

4.11.5 Resolution of disputes through conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

5.8  Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (PDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

CHAPTER 6 Collective bargaining, conflict and negotiation

6.2.2 Collective bargaining: a market or economic process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

CHAPTER 7 Industrial action and strike handling

7.3.2 Protected and unprotected strikes and lockouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

CHAPTER 8 Organisation-level perspectives: strategies, policies, procedures,

CHAPTER 9 Employee involvement and participation

9.4.2 Indirect employee participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

CHAPTER 10 Managing human resources: the broader ER management agenda

10.2.6 Business ethics, culture and reputation management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

AATUF All-African Trade Union Federation

CWU Communication Workers Union

LRA Labour Relations Act

SAAF South African Air Force

SACU South African Communications Union

UIF Unemployment Insurance Fund

Mrs Monica Kirsten and Prof. Pieter S. Nel

Note to the reader

Introducing some fundamentals

tions of justice for the theory and practice of employment relations

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

S outh Africa’s National Development Plan

achieved by 2030 (NDP 2012: 24):

1.1 FROM INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS:

1.2 IDEOLOGICAL, THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE

1.2.1 The pluralist perspective

1.2.2 The unitarist perspective

The unitarist perspective or ideology views the organisation as an integrated group of

1.2.3 The radical perspective

The radical perspective or ideology draws on intellectual traditions related to Marxist

1.2.4 Corporatism and concertation

in the formulation and implementation/regulation of state policy” (Baskin 2000: 48).

1.2.5 Room for alternative perspectives or ideologies?

another matter altogether.

1.3 A CONTEMPORARY SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON

the satisfaction of the needs of all members of society is of paramount concern.

Although income-earning work is also often performed outside of standard employment

1.3.1 Societal embeddedness of the multidimensional employment

1.3.2 The actors, participants or role-players, and the stakeholders in

1.4 SOME KEY INGREDIENTS THAT MAKE EMPLOYMENT

1.4.1 The centrality of perceptions of justice in employment relations

procedural and interpersonal or interactional justice. We now briefly examine each of

justice. Distributive justice, in the organisational and employment relational context,

Whereas the between-group inequalities remain a challenge (redistribution towards

Chapter 1 Introducing some fundamentals of employment relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.4.3 Rights of trade unions and employers’ organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

4.6.2 Threshold requirements for acquiring organisational rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

4.11.5 Resolution of disputes through conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

5.8 Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 (PDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

6.2.2 Collective bargaining: a market or economic process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

7.3.2 Protected and unprotected strikes and lockouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

CHAPTER 8 Organisation-level perspectives: strategies, policies, procedures,

9.4.2 Indirect employee participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

10.2.6 Business ethics, culture and reputation management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

1.1 FROM INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS:

1.2 IDEOLOGICAL, THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE

1.2.1 The pluralist perspective

1.2.2 The unitarist perspective

1.2.3 The radical perspective

1.2.4 Corporatism and concertation

1.2.5 Room for alternative perspectives or ideologies?

1.3 A CONTEMPORARY SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON

1.3.1 Societal embeddedness of the multidimensional employment

1.3.2 The actors, participants or role-players, and the stakeholders in

1.4 SOME KEY INGREDIENTS THAT MAKE EMPLOYMENT

1.4.1 The centrality of perceptions of justice in employment relations

1.4.4 Converging and diverging interests

1.5 THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AND ITS

1.5.1.3 Technological and ecological factors

1.5.2.1 General management-related factors

1.5.2.3 The nature and context of the organisation

1.6 APPROACH AND STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

2.1 THE EMPLOYER PARTIES

2.1.2 Employer bodies and employers’ organisations: general

2.1.3 Sectoral, industry and/or trade-based collective employer bodies and

2.2 THE EMPLOYEE PARTIES

Table 2.1 Differentiating between an employee and an independent

2.2.2.1 Types of trade union