Neasa appeals Labour Court ruling

Johannesburg - The National Employers' Association of SA (Neasa) has filed an urgent notice to appeal the Labour Court ruling allowing the extension of the metal sector wage agreement, the employer body said on Wednesday.

Spokesperson Sya van der Walt-Potgieter said the notice was filed on Tuesday.

Neasa lost a court application on Monday, which formed part of its bid to stop the extension of a wage agreement to other unions.

Neasa wanted the Labour Court to prevent the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC) from asking the labour minister to extend an agreement reached between the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of SA (Seifsa) and trade unions in July to those who were not party to that agreement.

Seifsa signed the agreement on July 29 on behalf of the 24 federated associations and two associations that were still involved in internal mandating processes.

In terms of the three-year agreement workers would get increases of between eight and 10% in the first year, 7.5% to 10% in the second year, and 7% to 10% in the third year.

Neasa members wanted a standardised entry-level wage and a revamped exemptions policy. It offered an 8% across-the-board salary

Neasa said the urgent appeal was based on multiple grounds, among others, that the court erred in finding that organisations or persons other than constitutionally elected representatives could vote at meetings of the management committee or other structures of the MEIBC.

It said the court also erred in finding that the MEIBC's constitution was of no relevance when a decision was taken to request the minister to extend an agreement to non-parties.

Neasa CEO Gerhard Papenfus said the labour minister was informed of the fact that Neasa disagreed with many of the labour court's findings on issues of law and fact and that Neasa had been advised that there were overwhelming prospects that a higher court would reach a different conclusion.

"We have requested the minister to hold any extension decision in abeyance until the urgent appeal before the Labour Appeal Court is finalised.

"The approach we suggest could avoid unnecessary future litigation in which precisely the same issues, which form the subject matter of the urgent appeal, would be raised," he said.