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
The role of the Sheriff in the South African legal system
In the current economic climate, with rising interest rates and soaring inflation, many consumers are struggling to meet their debt [...]
Interest factor
and Lwazi-Lwandile Simelane, Candidate Attorney In circumstances where a debt arises and the interest rate is not specified, either by [...]
Company amalgamations and a lender’s security under a mortgage bond
Given the language of Sections 116(7)(a) and 116(8) of the Companies Act any registered mortgage bond in favour of a [...]
Proceed with caution: Transacting with Trusts and Trustees
Our courts have once again sounded the alarm to all trustees and parties transacting with trusts to have regard to [...]
Filling the gaps: examining the procedure to amend a Mining Right under the Mineral and Petroleum, Resources Development Act 28 of 2002.
A significant portion of the transactions that land on the desks of commercial mining attorneys in the Republic of South [...]
Who owns the tailings generated from previous mining activities?
and Mmatshepo Papo, Candidate Attorney In the decision of Mpilo and Zen Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Centurion Mining Company (Pty) [...]
