The process leading to the acceptance of the new Labour Relations Bill is more important than the outcome, argues Andrew Levy
In terms of a long-running show, with episodes regularly ending with the parties close to the edge of the cliff, the negotiations over the draft Labour Relations Bill seem to have (for the time being at least) come to the end of their run. Egoli can breathe freely again.
The outcome, certainly in terms of content, probably holds few surprises — the range of possible settlement was really quite limited. There seemed, on any rational analysis, little or no chance that the unions would obtain compulsory centralised bargaining, or that employers would be able to avoid the certainty of workplace forums in some form or other.
Although there are many details yet to be worked out, or communicated, and undoubtedly a few more slips ‘twixt the cup and the lip, the most important comment that I can make, is that the process itself seems to have been infinitely more important, and a greater triumph for all parties, than the outcome.
On the ground, as we are wont to say these days, change will probably be slow and evolutionary, rather than a radical revolution in the way that we do our labour relating. It will be at least two years before we see the new system coming into its own, and whether this will usher in a messianic era of industrial peace has yet to be seen. I, for one, have short-term doubts. However, the parties have learned a lot about each other in the process, and this bodes well for the
Star of the show, it seems to me, is Labour Minister Tito Mboweni, who managed the process of consensus- building in a particularly slick way. While making it quite clear that the Bill would go through, he managed to bring the parties together, without alienating, at least as far as the public is aware, either of them. My guess is, however, that he would have had to do a fair amount of headbanging behind the scenes. The fact that there has been no public rift in the alliance is testimony to his political agility.
Much of the Bill is technical, and much of it is sophisticated and competent. In revising the manner in which we handle our dismissals, Halton Cheadle has done much that will bring sanity to a branch of our employment practice that was suffering serious abuse. The real contentious stuff lies in the area of collective relationships. Reality here, at least in the medium term, will probably fall a little short of Cheadle’s vision.
Centralised collective bargaining of wages would have been an unmitigated economic disaster at this stage of our development but, nevertheless, the principle of voluntarism (as understood and applied by strong unions to reluctant employers), is an acceptable democratic solution and, indeed, those issues that have been set down for centralised debate, such as training, provident funds and the like, are suitable for regulation at this level.
While there is no doubt solid ground to employer fears that they have been sold nothing other than a Trojan Horse, it seems equally probable that the smallest employers and the informal sector will be excused. This is as it should be, for it is here that job growth occurs, and jobs, it seems to me, have a greater national importance at this stage than Cosatu’s living wage. Exemption, should this come about, should not be seen as a charter for wholesale exploitation, for those who are employed in the corporate productive sector of our economy are, to a large extent, already covered by wage negotiating arrangements at a centralised level — as mining, automotive and metals testify.
Workplace Forums too, in Cheadle’s mind, were a bold attempt to catapult us into the industrial relations equivalent of the Age of Aquarius — all peace, light and love. Once again, the Mboweni option seems to focus on letting the players sort it out for themselves — a pretty good option for a society that values free, collective bargaining — although there does appear to be a position reserved for unions on these bodies, which does not accord with the original drafter’s
Of course, things are not entirely balanced, and many blue-blooded employers are still apoplectic about the protection of strikers in certain circumstances. However, given that this right is conferred in our Bill of Rights and, in fact, had been well-established by some 10 years of industrial court decisions, what did they really expect? By the same argument, Sam Shilowa could not, in a lucid moment, have believed that we would have unfettered protection — especially for workers who take the law into their own hands and break every procedural rule in the book. While the detail has yet to be clarified, the principles appear sound.
We will undoubtedly find ways of defining areas of information sharing, consultation and participation, and the issue of scab labour, but these will all come out in the wash. To me, the important issue is still the process.
For the Bill to have been delayed or defeated would have been a major slap in the face for Mboweni, as well as the RDP. This has been avoided, despite the threats from die-hards on both sides. Mboweni has his agreement, both parties appear to be reasonably happy/unhappy, and are still talking. Nedlac, too, has delivered and, while there is still a huge programme of labour reform in the pipeline (undoubtedly with measures of candy and castor-oil for both sides), the way ahead is clear. Thus, for the time being at least, it appears to be a case of all’s well that ends well.
Levy is senior partner at labour consultants Andrew Levy and Associates