Collective Agreement 8 Of 2003

(a) consider the issue it has identified as part of an essential service agreement between the employer and the negotiator; and this remark was based on his evidence of the harsh effect of transmission on their personal circumstances. The referee expressed sympathy for Chokoe`s situation. He stressed, however, that his jurisdiction did not extend to determining the fairness of the application of the agreement and that he was limited to determining whether the procedures described in the resolution had been followed. Even if a party had referred a dispute of interpretation and application to a bargaining board, it was up to the arbitrator to decide the dispute itself. In the Minister of Security and Security case against SSSBC and others, the employee requested a transfer to the South African police services (“SAPS”). It was rejected. He referred a dispute over the interpretation and application of a collective agreement on SAPS`s transfer policies and procedures to the Security Branch Bargaining Board (“SSSBC”). He challenged SAPS` decision to reject his transfer request. Prior to the LAC, the issue was whether the SSSBC had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. And this question had to be decided by the court`s response to the question of whether the arbitrator had properly considered the pending dispute to be the interpretation and application of a collective agreement. Both parties agreed that if this was a dispute over the interpretation or application of a collective agreement, the SSSBC was competent in the litigation.

but when it came to the fairness of transmission, the SSSBC was not competent. (3) Upon consideration of the application, the House may find that the employer and the negotiator did not agree that they could be included in an essential service agreement and proceed with an order [7] Chokoe complained that she was a mother and mother and that she had just purchased a house in Polokwane and that such an approach would be very unseemly. The department`s response was that the alternative was to move to a school in Bochum, 60 km from Polokwane. Reluctantly, she agreed to go to Taxila. Because of the distance she has to travel, she has to get up in the wee hours of the morning, and the situation has affected her life as a lone parent, which has caused her psychological distress. It deplored that the process in which it was identified as overstaffing was flawed and that the Department had not complied with the agreement that it would be transferred to Taxila and had also rejected the obligation to transfer it to Greenside. 123 (1) If the employer and negotiator are unable to enter into an essential service agreement, one of them may ask the House to determine all unresolved issues that may be included in an essential service agreement. The application can be submitted at any time and no later than 19.1. 115 A collective agreement has reasons for a bargaining unit from [24] to object to the applicant not being properly consulted throughout the trial and that the service should have informed her that Taxila SGB had not accepted her transfer because of the perceived discrepancy. However, these would be issues that are a matter of fairness in the process and not respect for collective agreements and, unfortunately, these issues were not within his jurisdiction, as the arbitrator himself rightly pointed out in referring to the authority of the Labour Appeals Tribunal in the case of the Minister of Security and Security (SSSBC, etc.). [3] He alluded to the possibility of questioning the chokoe, although limited, on the administrative fairness of the decision not to place it in Taxila.

Comments are closed.