Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Update: The National Textile Bargaining Council
by Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; Jacques van Wyk, Director, Bradley Workman-Davies, Director; and Thabisa Yantolo , Candidate Attorney
The National Textile Bargaining Council (“Bargaining Council”) concluded a ‘COVID-19 lock-down collective agreement’ in response to the Covid-19 pandemic (“Agreement”). The Agreement has been extended to non-parties in terms of section 32(2) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). This means that every party within the scope covered by the Bargaining Council, regardless of whether they are a party to the Agreement or not, will be bound by the Agreement. The extension of the Agreement is effective from 7 April 2020 until 28 February 2022. The Agreement has previously been binding on members of the Bargaining Council since 26 March 2020 as well as certain additional stipulated parties. This is the second bargaining council that has concluded such an agreement, following suit of the Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry.
The Agreement provides that should funds be received from the UIF for purposes of the Agreement it shall constitute workers’ funds and shall be used towards funding the shortfall of any income during the lock-down period. The UIF Funds are “solely and exclusively intended to provide a wage subsidy for qualifying employees during a lock-down period declared by government and during which no wage payments from the execution of work is due and/or receivable.
The Agreement guarantees employees who qualify (which employees shall include monthly paid employees in the bargaining unit, provided that payments be effected during the week of April 2020) for a wage subsidy as follows:
(a) Week 1 (ending Sunday 29 March 2020): (i) deferred wages payable by the employer, for work performed during the week preceding the lock-down with (ii) the balance made up from worker funds received from the UIF, for that portion of the lock-down week for which no wage is due;
(b) Week 2: (ending Sunday 5 April 2020): a full week’s wage, payable by the employer;
(c) Week 3 (ending Sunday 12 April 2020): a full week’s wage, payable from worker funds received from the UIF;
(d) Week 4 (ending Sunday 19 April 2020): (i) payable from worker funds received from the UIF for that part of this week when the lock-down is still in effect as declared by the President on 23 March 2020 plus (ii) payable by the employer for that part of the week for work performed and which does not form part of the lock-down period;
(e) The employers agree to pay the public holiday payments due to workers for 10 April 2020 and 13 April 2020 respectively. Payment will be made during the applicable pay week.
The payments mentioned in (a) to (e) currently does not address the payments for salaried staff. This matter is being referred to a rapid response team for resolution.
Normal statutory deductions, deductions prescribed by the Bargaining Council’s main agreement and employer contributions shall remain applicable for all payments mention in (a) to (e) above. Similarly, employer contributions to statutory obligations and those prescribed by the Bargaining Council’s main agreement shall continue to be executed.
A full copy of the Agreement can be accessed here. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any further queries.
Latest News
When can losses on shareholders’ loans be claimed as a tax deduction
by Ernest Mazansky, Head of Tax Practice Introduction It is an inevitable consequence when operating in a distress economy, such [...]
Constitutional Court weakens a key defence for respondents in historical competition cases
by Pieter Steyn, Director The recent decision by the Constitutional Court in the case involving the Competition Commission and Pickfords [...]
South African Airways in Business Rescue – No retrenchments until the business rescue plan requires it
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Neo Sewela, Candidate Attorney On 9 July 2020, the Labour Appeal Court ("Labour Appeal Court") [...]
Collection costs under the National Credit Act, 2005
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director and Juliet Siwela, Candidate Attorney Collection costs In accordance with the judgment handed down [...]
BOOKING.COM and public perception
by Donvay Wegierski, Director The United States Supreme Court of Appeal has held that the US trade mark applications pending [...]
Constitutional Court clarifies when a contract and its enforcement will be invalid for being contrary to public policy
by Pieter Steyn, Director In a recent judgement involving Beadica 231 CC and others and the Oregon Trust, Sale’s Hire [...]
