Browsed by
Month: November 2013

ENTERTAINMENT AT YOUR LOCAL RESTAURANT OR NURSERY: WHO BEARS LIABILITY FOR YOUR CHILD’S INJURY?

ENTERTAINMENT AT YOUR LOCAL RESTAURANT OR NURSERY: WHO BEARS LIABILITY FOR YOUR CHILD’S INJURY?

article3bl-NovemberWe often hear of accidents in which a child or toddler is injured. Has this become something which society accepts as the norm… that accidents do happen?

Who bears liability in this case and who is responsible for safety in these situations?

Accidents happen so quickly, the kind which turns a day of excitement into a nightmare filled with horror. These types of freak accidents can happen in the blink of an eye if the necessary steps are not taken to prevent them.

Take your local restaurant as an example. Nowadays every restaurant has some sort of playroom or entertainment area, which is available for the use of children and toddlers. These entertainment areas have now also become popular at nurseries and even at functions such as weddings or parties, in order to keep the youngsters entertained.

The question remains – who is to be held responsible for ensuring the safety of all at these entertainment places? What is the legal position today in South Africa?

In order to determine the legal position we have to relate to some practical examples, thus we will make use of the example where entertainment is offered at local nurseries or restaurants, as well as at functions. The Children’s Act will find application hereto.

Section 140 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 finds application if:

  1. the place of entertainment is accessible through the use of doors, stairs or even lifts and this includes entrance by mechanical means;
  2. the majority of the people entering the area are children; and
  3. the number of people, including children, entering the premises, is more than 50 at a time.

In the abovementioned case the person providing the entertainment must take notice of the measures to be applied as set out in the Commentary on the Children’s Act, with specific reference to Section 140 thereof.

The person providing entertainment in an area qualifying in terms of the above, is also required to know how many people, including children, can be accommodated on the premises, and must also ensure that there is a sufficient number of attendants available to assist in ensuring that too many children do not enter the area of entertainment, alternatively ensure, upon admittance, that it is completely safe for them to do so.

Should the number of people (including children), exceed 50 in total, it remains the responsibility of the person providing the entertainment to ensure that all the reasonable steps and precautionary measures are taken to ensure the safety of the children and other people at such a place of entertainment, in order to ensure the safety of all at all times.

I refer again to the example of the restaurant or function. These places of entertainment sometimes accommodate large numbers of children at a time, even toddlers. This would require strict adherence to the safety measures set out.

A children’s party, where a jumping castle is available, is another example. For instance, it is the birthday party of Mr X’s daughter, and Mrs Y has offered to set up her jumping castle at the party for the entertainment of the children. In this case it would remain the responsibility of Mrs Y to ensure that all safety measures are complied with and she, as host of the entertainment, will be held liable to ensure the safety of the children. Should Mrs Y not be held liable for some reason, the liability to ensure the safety of the children will fall upon Mrs Y’s principal, as the “agent of the entertainment”.

It remains of utmost importance for the presenter or agent of the entertainment to take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure the safety of the children and even the toddlers, insofar as it is possible. In situations such as these, where large numbers of children are accommodated, stricter measures of safekeeping will be demanded.

This brings us to another requirement. The requirement that the movement of all participants to the specific entertainment must also be monitored at all times.

The overall requirements to qualify in terms of Section 140 create the impression that the section and the measures to be taken only find application in situations where entertainment is presented indoors. This is in fact not the case. Outdoor entertainment areas, where access is controlled, also fall under these criteria.

Outdoor areas such as beaches and open fields will obviously not form part of or fall under the criteria, seeing that there is no regulation of access to such places.

In summary we can thus conclude that the responsibility to ensure the safety and protection of the children making use of the entertainment areas will be that of the “entertainment organiser “or “entertainment manager”, and that this person should take the following steps:

  1. determine the maximum safe accommodation space for the number of children or people who are expected to be entertained;
  2. ensure that extra children do not enter such premises unless it is safe;
  3. control the movement of all children within the area; and
  4. ensure that overall safety is upheld within the vicinity of the entertainment area and the specific area at all times.

The problem is that things can still go wrong and this brings us to the steps that can be taken against the offender.

Even though there are currently no criminal sanctions envisaged or determined, measures can still be implemented against the offender.

A person who is duly authorised by the municipal authority of the area may enter an enclosure at any given time in order to ensure that all the safety measures are complied with. If they are found not to be compliant, such duly authorised person may withdraw any licence that was granted/issued to permit the entertainment that is offered.

Other measures include municipal health and safety by-laws which may be invoked in order to disallow the entertainment until the necessary safety measures are taken.

And finally, there is always the option of instituting a delictual claim against the offender in the event of injury or damages suffered as a result of negligence on the part of the offender.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

VERMAAK BY JOU GUNSTELING PLAASLIKE RESTAURANT OF KWEKERY: WIE IS AANSPREEKLIK VIR JOU KIND SE SEERKRY?

VERMAAK BY JOU GUNSTELING PLAASLIKE RESTAURANT OF KWEKERY: WIE IS AANSPREEKLIK VIR JOU KIND SE SEERKRY?

article3bl-NovemberOns hoor dikwels van fratsongelukke waarin ‘n kind of ‘n kleuter beseer is. Het hierdie iets geword wat die samelewing as vanselfsprekend aanvaar?

Wie is aanspreeklik en wie  is  verantwoordelik vir veiligheid in hierdie situasies?

Ongelukke gebeur so vinnig, die soort ongelukke wat ‘n dag van opwinding en vreugde in ‘n nagmerrie gevul met afgryse verander. Hierdie tipe fratsongelukke kan binne ‘n oogwink gebeur indien die nodige stappe nie geneem word om hulle te verhoed nie.

Neem jou plaaslike restaurant as ‘n voorbeeld. Deesdae het amper elke restaurant ‘n speelkamer of vermaaklikheidsarea wat tot die beskikking van kinders of kleuters gestel word. Hierdie tipe vermaaklikheidsarea het selfs begin populêr word in kwekerye en by funksies soos troues of partytjies, ten einde die jongelinge besig te hou.

Die vraag bly egter – wie word verantwoordelik gehou vir die versekering van veiligheid by hierdie vermaaklikheidsareas? Wat is die regsposisie vandag in Suid-Afrika?

Om die regsposisie te bepaal moet daar na praktiese voorbeelde gekyk word, dus kyk ons na die voorbeeld van die vermaak aangebied by plaaslike restaurante en kwekerye en ook by funksies. Die Kinderwet sal hier van toepassing wees.

Artikel 140 van die Kinderwet 38 van 2005 is van toepassing indien:

  1. die plek waar die vermaak aangebied word toeganklik is met deure, trappe, hysers of ‘n ander tipe meganiese toegang;
  2. die meerderheid mense wat toegang verkry, kinders is; en
  3. die persone, kinders ingesluit, wat die perseel binnegaan, meer as 50 is.

In die bogemelde geval moet die persoon wat die vermaak aanbied kennis neem van die maatreëls wat vervat word in die Kommentaar op die Kinderwet, spesifiek wat betref Artikel 140.

Die persoon wat vermaak aanbied in ‘n area wat kragtens die bogenoemde vereistes kwalifiseer, moet ingelig wees oor die getal mense, insluitend kinders, wat op die perseel gehuisves kan word en moet ook verseker dat daar ‘n voldoende getal helpers beskikbaar is om toe te sien dat nie te veel kinders die area binnegaan nie. Alternatiewelik moet daar ten tye van toegang verseker word dat dit volkome veilig is om so te doen.

Sou die getal mense (insluitend kinders) wél die getal van 50 oorskry, bly dit die verantwoordelikheid van die aanbieder van die vermaak om alle redelike stappe te doen en voorsorgmaatreëls te tref om die veiligheid van die kinders en ander mense in die vermaaklikheidsarea, deurentyd te verseker.

Ek verwys weer na die voorbeeld van ‘n restaurant of funksie. Hierdie vermaaklikheidsplekke huisves soms groot getalle kinders en selfs kleuters, en dit vereis streng nakoming van die veiligheidsmaatreëls.

Nog ‘n voorbeeld is ‘n kinderpartytjie waar ‘n springkasteel beskikbaar gestel word.  Gestel mnr. X se dogter verjaar en mev. Y bied aan om haar springkasteel by die partytjie op te rig vir die vermaak van die kinders. In hierdie geval is dit mev. Y se verantwoordelikheid om toe te sien dat daar aan alle veiligheidsvereistes voldoen word en sy, as aanbieder van die vermaak, sal  aanspreeklik wees vir die veiligheid van die kinders. Sou mev. Y om die een of ander rede nie aanspreeklik gehou word nie sal die verantwoordelikheid om die veiligheid van die kinders te verseker neerkom op haar volmaggewer as die “agent van die vermaak”.

Dit bly uiters belangrik dat die aanbieder of agent van die vermaak alle redelike stappe moet doen om na die veiligheid van die kinders en selfs die kleuters om te sien en sover moontlik hul veiligheid te verseker. In situasies soos hierdie, waar groot getalle kinders betrokke is, sal strenger veiligheidsmaatreëls vereis word.

Dit bring ons by nog ‘n vereiste, naamlik dat die beweging van deelnemers aan die spesifieke vermaak, deurentyd gemonitor moet word.

Die vereistes om kragtens Artikel 140 te kwalifiseer skep die indruk dat die artikel en sy vereistes slegs van toepassing is op situasies waar vermaak binnenshuis aangebied word maar dit is nie die geval nie. Buitelug-vermaaklikheidsareas waar toegang beheer word is ook aan hierdie kriteria onderhewig.

Buitelugareas soos strande en oop veld word vanselfsprekend uitgesluit aangesien toegang hiertoe nie beheer of beperk word nie.

Opsommend kan ons dus tot die gevolgtrekking kom dat die verpligting om die veiligheid en beskerming van die kinders wat gebruik maak van die vermaaklikheidsareas te verseker, dié is van die “vermaakorganiseerder” of die ”vermaakbestuurder” en dat hierdie persoon die volgende maatreëls moet tref:

  1. bepaal die maksimum veilige ruimte wat nodig is om die getal kinders en ander mense wat na verwagting die geleentheid sal bywoon, te huisves;
  2. verseker dat ekstra kinders nie toegelaat word tensy dit veilig is nie;
  3. beheer die beweging van die kinders in die area;
  4. verseker dat algehele veiligheid deurentyd gehandhaaf word in die omgewing van die vermaaklikheidsarea en binne die area self.

Daar is egter steeds die gevaar dat iets kan skeefloop en dit bring ons by die stappe wat teen die oortreder gedoen kan word, hoewel daar tans geen kriminele sanksies vasgestel is of in die vooruitsig gestel word nie.

Enige persoon wat behoorlik daartoe gemagtig is deur die munisipale owerheid van die betrokke gebied mag te enige tyd ‘n omheining binnegaan om te verseker dat daar aan alle veiligheidsmaatreëls voldoen word. Sou dit blyk dat daar nie aan die maatreëls voldoen word nie mag die persoon enige lisensie wat uitgereik is om die vermaak te magtig, terugtrek.

Ander maatreëls sluit in munisipale veiligheids- en gesondheidsverordeninge wat toegepas kan word om die aanbied van die geleentheid te verbied totdat die nodige veiligheidsmaatreëls getref is.

Laastens mag, in die geval van besering of skade wat gely word as gevolg van nalatigheid, ‘n deliktuele eis teen die oortreder ingestel word.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

BULLIES BEWARE

BULLIES BEWARE

article2bl-NovemberSipho Swart is continually being called gay and other related names by a group of people at the local taxi rank. He was recently pushed to the floor by one of these members of the group.

Roelien van der Merwe was distraught when she found out there is a website containing terrible comments about her. It was talking about her weight and said things along the lines that she was dirty. The website invited others to become actively be involved with bashing her.

For a long time, victims of harassment (harassment includes abusive electronic communication, stalking and bullying), have battled with behaviour that violated their rights but that was not considered criminal and therefore could not be punished by law.

The long awaited Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011 came into operation on 27 April 2013. Under the Act, harassment is not limited to physical and verbal abuse. People who receive threats or unwanted attention via social media and text messages may also apply for a protection order.

Who is protected?

The Act makes it possible for anyone who feels harassed to approach the court without a legal representative and apply for a protection order.

A child under the age of 18, without the assistance of his/her parents, or a person on behalf of a child, may apply for a protection order.

If a person is not able to apply for a protection order for himself, another person who has a real interest in stopping the harassment can apply for a protection order on the harassed person’s behalf.

What protection is offered?

The Act allows for a special process by which an initial court order is made without the immediate knowledge of the person who is harassing the complainant. The order is based on the complainant’s side of the matter only. The Court will immediately grant the order where it is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that the complainant is being or may be harassed and that harm is or may be suffered if the protection order isn’t granted immediately.

A future date is then arranged for the person against whom the protection order is sought to oppose the interim protection order being made a final order of court.

In addition, a protection order can be tailored to the needs of the complainant in his/her specific situation. This means that the court has the power to prohibit a person from engaging in harassment or committing any act specified in the protection order.

A warrant of arrest may be issued at the same time that the protection order is granted. If the person contravenes the protection order by continuing to harass the complainant, that person may be immediately arrested.

Failure to comply with the final protection order is a criminal offence and the transgressor may be liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.

How do I apply for a protection order?

The complainant must apply for a protection order by completing an application form at any magistrate`s court where he/she lives or works or any magistrate’s court where the instigator of the harassment lives or works.

The complainant is required to set out the reasons why a protection from harassment order is sought and to provide detailed descriptions of all incidents of harassment he/she has experienced.

The complainant is also able to request that the specific acts committed by the person causing the harassment be listed in the protection order, as well as to request the court to impose any additional conditions necessary to protect the complainant and provide for his/her safety and well-being.

In order to protect the complainant, the physical home or work address of the complainant will be omitted from the protection order provided to the perpetrator.

Bullies will now think twice before sending sexually offensive and other abusive material, as the long arm of the law will be effective in dealing with those who hide behind anonymity.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

BOELIES WEES GEWAARSKU

BOELIES WEES GEWAARSKU

article2bl-NovemberSipho Swart word voortdurend `n moffie en ander verwante name genoem  deur ‘n groep mense  by die plaaslike taxi-staanplek en is boonop onlangs deur een van die lede van hierdie groep teen die grond gestamp.

Roelien van der Merwe was ernstig verontrus toe sy uitvind daar is ‘n webwerf wat verskriklike kommentaar oor haar kwytraak. Aanmerkings is oor haar gewig gemaak en dinge gesê wat impliseer dat sy vuil is.  Die webwerf het selfs andere genooi om aktief betrokke te raak en haar te beledig.

Die slagoffers van teistering (teistering sluit beledigende elektroniese kommunikasie, agtervolging en afknouery in) worstel al lank met gedrag wat neerkom op skending van hul regte maar wat nooit as `n kriminele oortreding beskou is nie en gevolglik nie wetlik strafbaar was nie.

Die langverwagte Wet op Beskerming teen Teistering 17 van 2011  het op 27 April 2013 in werking getree. Kragtens die Wet is teistering nie beperk tot  fisiese- en mondelinge mishandeling nie, maar sluit dit dreigemente of ongewenste aandag deur sosiale media en SMS-boodskappe in en kan persone wat hieraan blootgestel word ook om ‘n beskermingsbevel aansoek doen.

Wie geniet beskerming?

Die Wet maak dit moontlik vir enigiemand wat meen dat hy/sy geteister word om sonder regsverteenwoordiging die hof te nader vir `n beskermingsbevel.

`n Kind onder die ouderdom van 18 mag sonder die bystand van sy/haar ouers, of deur `n persoon wat namens die kind optree, aansoek doen om `n beskermingsbevel.

Verder, indien `n persoon nie in staat is om self  aansoek te doen om `n beskermingsbevel nie kan `n ander persoon wat `n wesenlike belang het om die teistering stop te sit, namens die geteisterde persoon aansoek doen om `n beskermingsbevel.

Watter beskerming word deur die Wet gebied?

Die Wet maak voorsiening vir ‘n spesiale prosedure waardeur `n aanvanklike hofbevel toegestaan word sonder onmiddellike kennis van die persoon wat die klaer teister. Die bevel word gebaseer slegs op die klaer se sy van die saak. Die hof sal onmiddellik die bevel toestaan indien hy tevrede is dat daar prima facie getuienis is dat die klaer geteister word, of moontlik geteister mag word, en dat skade gely word of gely mag word as die bevel nie toegestaan word nie.

Daar word dan `n datum bepaal waarop die persoon teen wie die bevel bekom is, redes kan aanvoer waarom die tussentydse bevel nie finaal gemaak moet word nie.

`n Beskermingsbevel kan aangepas word om voorsiening te maak vir die behoeftes van die klaer in sy/haar besondere situasie.  Dit beteken dat die hof die mag het om ‘n persoon te verbied om te teister of om ‘n handeling te pleeg wat in die beskermingsbevel gespesifiseer word.

`n Lasbrief vir arres kan tegelyk met die beskermingsbevel uitgereik word. Indien die persoon die bepalings van die beskermingsbevel oortree en voortgaan om die klaer te teister, kan die persoon dadelik gearresteer word.

Versuim om te voldoen aan die finale beskermingsbevel is `n kriminele oortreding en die oortreder kan ‘n boete of gevangenisstraf van nie langer nie as vyf jaar, opgelê word.

Hoe doen ek aansoek om `n beskermingsbevel?

Die klaer kan aansoek doen om ‘n beskermingsbevel deur `n aansoekvorm te voltooi by `n landdroshof waar hy/sy woon of werk, of by ‘n landdroshof waar die aanhitser van die teistering woon of werk.

Die klaer moet die redes uiteensit hoekom die beskermingsbevel benodig word en moet in besonderhede beskrywings verskaf van al die voorvalle van teistering wat hy/sy ervaar het.

Die klaer mag versoek dat die spesifieke handelinge van die teisteraar in die beskermingsbevel gelys word  en ook die hof  versoek om enige addisionele voorwaardes te stel wat nodig is om die klaer te beskerm en sy/haar veiligheid en welstand te verseker.

Om die klaer te beskerm sal  die fisiese huis- of werksadres van die klaer nie vermeld word in die beskermingsbevel wat aan die teisteraar voorsien word nie.

Boelies sal nou twee keer moet dink voordat hulle seksueel aanstootlike en ander beledigende materiaal stuur aangesien die lang arm van die gereg dit nie meer gaan duld nie.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien

A TEACHER`S RIGHT TO STRIKE

A TEACHER`S RIGHT TO STRIKE

article1bl-NovemberThe Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA) has been in the spotlight recently following communications from government that it is considering designating the education sector as an essential service. This has created a source of tension between government and the education sector unions regarding teachers’ right to strike.

The right to strike is a right afforded to all employees in terms of section 23(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996. However, the LRA does contemplate restrictions on the right to strike in respect of those employees who are engaged in essential services.

A service or industry or any part thereof may be designated as an essential service by the Essential Services Committee (ESC), established in terms of section 70 of the LRA. The ESC is tasked with designating a service, or any part of a service as an essential service, after conducting an investigation into whether or not such a designation should be made. It is critical to note that any parties who may be affected by the designation of a service as an essential service by the ESC, has the right in terms of section 71 of the LRA (which sets out the procedure in terms of which the ESC will designate a service as an essential service), to make representations to the ESC in regard to whether or not a service should be so designated.

Unions have argued that the designation of a sector or service as an essential service is unconstitutional in that such a designation takes away the rights of employees working in a particular industry to strike. However, while this is correct in that section 74(1) of the LRA provides that employees working in a designated essential service may not strike, these provisions are not one-sided, and the LRA provides for additional mechanisms, which ameliorate what seems to be a blanket restriction against striking.

Firstly, the employer in the essential service is similarly restricted from utilising its own bargaining power to lock employees out of the workplace to compel them to accept the employer’s terms and conditions. The LRA goes on to provide for a mechanism in terms of which essential service workers can legally and lawfully embark on strike action, provided that certain agreements are first put in place.

Section 72 of the LRA provides for parties in designated essential services to enter into a collective agreement, which can regulate the minimum services to be provided by workers in that essential service in the event of a strike. If such a minimum service collective agreement is reached, it will have the effect that:

  • the minimum service levels agreed to will become the essential service; and
  • section 74 of the LRA – which prevents essential services workers from striking – will no longer apply.

This will mean that the only employees who will be prevented from striking are that number of employees, or percentage of the workforce that is required to continue providing the minimum services. All other employees who are not required to provide the minimum service, even though they are employed in a sector or industry designated as an essential service, will be allowed to strike.

The minimum service agreement must contain the following detail:

  • whether the service is essential in its entirety or only partially essential;
  • whether the service is essential at reduced service levels;
  • the minimum number of employees required to continue working during a strike, expressed either as a number or as a percentage of the current workforce;
  • the type of services that must be continued during strike action;
  • minimum service levels associated with various functions and duties to be performed during strike action; and
  • waiver of a right to engage replacement labour to provide services in excess of the minimum services.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above it is clear that, even though the LRA provides for a mechanism in terms of which sectors can be classified as an essential service, to the extent that this does not take place the mechanism of concluding minimum service agreements through the collective bargaining process may be an alternative means of ensuring continued minimum service levels.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Click here to view full disclaimer

‘N ONDERWYSER SE REG OM TE STAAK

‘N ONDERWYSER SE REG OM TE STAAK

article1bl-NovemberDie Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge, 66 van 1995, (WAV ) was onlangs  in die kollig na kommunikasies van die regering dat hy oorweeg om die onderwyssektor as ‘n noodsaaklike diens te verklaar. Dit het ‘n bron van spanning veroorsaak tussen die regering en die onderwyssektor se vakbonde met betrekking tot onderwysers se reg om te staak.

Die reg om te staak is ‘n grondwetlike reg wat verleen word aan alle werknemers kragtens artikel 23 (2)(c) van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 108 van 1996. Die WAV plaas egter sekere beperkings op die reg om te staak ten opsigte van werknemers wat noodsaaklike dienste lewer.

‘n Diens of bedryf, of enige deel daarvan, kan as ‘n noodsaaklike diens verklaar word deur die Komitee vir Noodsaaklike Dienste wat kragtens artikel 70 van die WAV ingestel is. Die Komitee se taak is om ‘n diens, of enige deel van ‘n diens, as ‘n noodsaaklike diens te verklaar nadat daar behoorlik ondersoek is of so ‘n verklaring gemaak moet word al dan nie. Dit is van kritieke belang om daarop te let dat enige partye wat geraak word deur die verklaring van ‘n diens as ‘n noodsaaklike diens deur die Komitee, die reg het om kragtens  artikel 71 van die WAV (waarin die prosedure waarvolgens die Komitee `n diens sal verklaar as ‘n noodsaaklike diens, uiteengesit word) vertoë te rig tot die Komitee met betrekking tot of ‘n diens verklaar moet word as `n noodsaaklike diens al dan nie.

Vakbonde het aangevoer dat die verklaring van ‘n sektor of diens as ‘n noodsaaklike diens ongrondwetlik is in die mate dat so ‘n verklaring die regte van werknemers in ‘n bepaalde nywerheid om te staak, wegneem. Terwyl dit egter korrek is dat artikel 74(1) van die WAV bepaal dat werknemers in ‘n verklaarde noodsaaklike diens nie mag staak nie, is hierdie bepalings nie eensydig nie en maak die WAV wél voorsiening vir bykomende meganismes wat die oënskynlik omvattende beperking op staking, teenwerk.

Eerstens word die werkgewer in die noodsaaklikedienssektor ook  beperk in die gebruik van sy eie bedingingsmag om werknemers uit die werkplek te sluit en hul sodoende  te dwing om die werkgewer se terme en voorwaardes te aanvaar. Die WAV gaan voort en maak voorsiening vir ‘n meganisme waarvolgens noodsaaklikedienswerkers wettig en regtens mag staak mits daar eers sekere ooreenkomste in gereedheid gebring is.

Artikel 72 van die WAV maak voorsiening vir partye in verklaarde noodsaaklike dienste om ‘n kollektiewe ooreenkoms te sluit, wat die minimumdienste wat deur werkers verskaf moet word in die geval van ‘n staking in daardie noodsaaklike diens, kan reguleer. Indien so ‘n minimumdiens kollektiewe ooreenkoms bereik is, sal dit die effek hê dat:

  • die minimumdiensvlakke waarop ooreengekom is, die noodsaaklike diens word; en
  • artikel 74 van die WAV wat verhoed dat noodsaaklikedienswerkers mag staak, nie meer van toepassing sal wees nie.

Dit sal beteken dat die enigste werknemers wat verhoed sal word om te staak daardie getal werknemers of persentasie van die arbeidsmag is wat benodig word om die noodsaaklike minimumdienste te lewer. Alle ander werknemers wat nie die minimumdienste hoef te lewer nie, selfs al is hulle in diens van ‘n sektor of bedryf wat as ‘n noodsaaklike diens verklaar is, sal toegelaat word om te staak.

Die minimumdiensooreenkoms moet die volgende besonderhede bevat:

  • of die diens in sy geheel of net ten dele noodsaaklik is;
  • of die diens steeds noodsaaklik is teen verlaagde diensvlakke;
  • die minimum getal werknemers wat nodig is om voort te gaan met die werk tydens ‘n staking, hetsy uitgedruk as ‘n syfer of as ‘n persentasie van die huidige arbeidsmag;
  • die aard van die dienste wat gedurende ‘n staking voortgesit moet  word;
  • minimumdiensvlakke wat verband hou met onderskeie funksies en pligte wat tydens ‘n staking uitgevoer moet word; en
  • kwytskelding van die reg om tydelike vervangende arbeid aan te stel om dienste te lewer wat meer is as die minimumdienste.

GEVOLGTREKKING

In die lig van die voorgaande is dit duidelik dat, hoewel die WAV voorsiening maak vir ‘n meganisme waarvolgens sektore as ‘n noodsaaklike diens verklaar kan word,  daar in die mate dat dit nie gedoen word nie, meganismes daargestel is vir die sluiting van minimumdiensooreenkomste deur die proses van kollektiewe bedinging as ‘n alternatiewe manier om volgehoue ​​minimumdiensvlakke te verseker.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien