Western Cape Conditions Of Service Collective Agreement


Collective agreements and individual agreements must follow the law. [28] However, after being classified as employees under section 213 of the LRA, the Labour Tribunal then considered whether the respondents were part of the public service under apprenticeship contracts. In its decision, it found that the respondents were workers working in the permanent institution and that the specific contractual provisions left no doubt that the primary and primary services were “organizations created to meet the normal and regular needs” of the respective hospital services. The respondents were therefore part of the stable institution within the meaning of Section 1 of the EPI. [16] He also noted that these positions were essential to the operation of a teaching hospital and involved clinical responsibilities for existing companies. [17] In dismissing the plaintiff`s appeal, the Labour Tribunal found that the respondents were therefore both employees of the universities and the public service and fell within the scope of the bargaining council. [18] (b) apply to terms of use applicable to two or more sectors; or This law suspends all agreements or contracts that you may have signed with your employer or employee, and it is important that you have the following important points. [9] Article 1 of the agreement contains the following objectives: [56] In order to succeed in the labour tribunal, the applicant had to show that the Commissioner`s alleged error of law was an error that no reasonable commissioner would have made. The applicant submitted that the Commissioner`s arbitration award was based on a substantial error of law that misinterpreted sections 28, 33, 35, 37 and 43 of the LRA. The award does not take into account the fact that: (a) respondents are not public servants; (b) the respondents are not within the scope of the bargaining council; and (c) that the arbitrator`s sentence imposes a liability or obligation that does not exist legally. She invoked the decision of the Vermooten Labour Court. [38] In Vermooten, a person had entered into a consulting agreement with the government and was considered an independent contractor and not an employee of the government department. [39] The facts in Vermooten are very different from those before the Tribunal and the plaintiff`s appeal on this matter is clearly misplaced.

   Send article as PDF