根据1995年第66号《劳动关系法》,在集体谈判的背景下重新构想雇员代表权:实质性平等和体面工作的必要性

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
E. Fergus
{"title":"根据1995年第66号《劳动关系法》,在集体谈判的背景下重新构想雇员代表权:实质性平等和体面工作的必要性","authors":"E. Fergus","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2035805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite what is often said to be progressive constitutional and labour legislation in South Africa, inequality between employees who are affiliated with trade unions (especially registered and representative unions) and those who are not remains. While trade union density (particularly in the private sector) and collective bargaining coverage have declined in South Africa and many countries worldwide, this form of inequality continues to be passed over by the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. This article considers this form of inequality, with specific reference to the LRA’s approach to employees’ representation in the context of collective bargaining. If the imperatives of decent work and substantive equality are to be achieved, reform is desperately needed. In support of these arguments and in search of an apposite approach to reform premised on equality, the meaning of substantive equality in South Africa is considered. While dignity is found to be paramount in South African equality jurisprudence and judicial decisions, a more holistic and encompassing approach to substantive equality than dignity alone is needed to respond to the exigencies of employee representation in the context of collective bargaining. Catherine Albertyn and Sandra Fredman’s multidimensional framework for substantive equality is proposed as the most fitting model for this context, and it is applied to bargaining representation under the Labour Relations Act. Broad recommendations for change are then suggested. In conclusion, it is contended that the elements of substantive equality as outlined by Albertyn and Fredman provide a useful framework from which to recast and align the Act’s model of employee bargaining representation with both the pillars of decent work and its transformative role.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"37 1","pages":"313 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reimagining employee representation in the context of collective bargaining under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995: The imperative of substantive equality and decent work\",\"authors\":\"E. Fergus\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02587203.2022.2035805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Despite what is often said to be progressive constitutional and labour legislation in South Africa, inequality between employees who are affiliated with trade unions (especially registered and representative unions) and those who are not remains. While trade union density (particularly in the private sector) and collective bargaining coverage have declined in South Africa and many countries worldwide, this form of inequality continues to be passed over by the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. This article considers this form of inequality, with specific reference to the LRA’s approach to employees’ representation in the context of collective bargaining. If the imperatives of decent work and substantive equality are to be achieved, reform is desperately needed. In support of these arguments and in search of an apposite approach to reform premised on equality, the meaning of substantive equality in South Africa is considered. While dignity is found to be paramount in South African equality jurisprudence and judicial decisions, a more holistic and encompassing approach to substantive equality than dignity alone is needed to respond to the exigencies of employee representation in the context of collective bargaining. Catherine Albertyn and Sandra Fredman’s multidimensional framework for substantive equality is proposed as the most fitting model for this context, and it is applied to bargaining representation under the Labour Relations Act. Broad recommendations for change are then suggested. In conclusion, it is contended that the elements of substantive equality as outlined by Albertyn and Fredman provide a useful framework from which to recast and align the Act’s model of employee bargaining representation with both the pillars of decent work and its transformative role.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"313 - 333\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2035805\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2035805","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管南非的宪法和劳工立法经常被认为是进步的,但与工会(特别是注册工会和代表工会)有关联的雇员与那些没有工会的雇员之间的不平等仍然存在。虽然南非和世界上许多国家的工会密度(特别是在私营部门)和集体谈判的范围有所下降,但1995年第66号《劳工关系法》继续忽略了这种形式的不平等。本文考虑了这种形式的不平等,具体提到了LRA在集体谈判背景下员工代表的方法。如果要实现体面工作和实质性平等的必要性,就迫切需要改革。为了支持这些论点和寻求以平等为前提的改革的适当办法,考虑了南非实质平等的意义。虽然尊严在南非平等的法理和司法决定中被认为是最重要的,但为了在集体谈判的情况下对雇员代表的紧急情况作出反应,需要对实质性平等采取比尊严更全面和更全面的办法。凯瑟琳·艾伯丁和桑德拉·弗雷德曼提出的实质平等的多维框架是最适合这种情况的模型,并将其应用于《劳动关系法》下的谈判代表。然后提出广泛的改革建议。总之,作者认为,Albertyn和Fredman所概述的实质性平等的要素提供了一个有用的框架,从中可以重新塑造和调整法案的雇员谈判代表模型,使其与体面工作的支柱及其变革作用保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reimagining employee representation in the context of collective bargaining under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995: The imperative of substantive equality and decent work
Abstract Despite what is often said to be progressive constitutional and labour legislation in South Africa, inequality between employees who are affiliated with trade unions (especially registered and representative unions) and those who are not remains. While trade union density (particularly in the private sector) and collective bargaining coverage have declined in South Africa and many countries worldwide, this form of inequality continues to be passed over by the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. This article considers this form of inequality, with specific reference to the LRA’s approach to employees’ representation in the context of collective bargaining. If the imperatives of decent work and substantive equality are to be achieved, reform is desperately needed. In support of these arguments and in search of an apposite approach to reform premised on equality, the meaning of substantive equality in South Africa is considered. While dignity is found to be paramount in South African equality jurisprudence and judicial decisions, a more holistic and encompassing approach to substantive equality than dignity alone is needed to respond to the exigencies of employee representation in the context of collective bargaining. Catherine Albertyn and Sandra Fredman’s multidimensional framework for substantive equality is proposed as the most fitting model for this context, and it is applied to bargaining representation under the Labour Relations Act. Broad recommendations for change are then suggested. In conclusion, it is contended that the elements of substantive equality as outlined by Albertyn and Fredman provide a useful framework from which to recast and align the Act’s model of employee bargaining representation with both the pillars of decent work and its transformative role.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信