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
Salary made up of commission: What rules apply?
Although South African labour law has a lot to say about minimum terms and conditions of employment, and pieces [...]
Sustainable housing: Navigating the legal landscape for a green and resilient future
One of the first principles recognised in the Paris Agreement[1] is the importance of "sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns [...]
ESG in Private Equity Funds: Insights from the Super Return Conference 2023
The integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors has become a crucial consideration for investors across various asset [...]
Powers of the Information Regulator and how the Department of Justice could have avoided a R5 million fine
There has been great anxiety amongst organisations since the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA) came [...]
The extent of an arbitrator’s jurisdiction
In the recent decision of Dis-Chem Pharmacies Limited v Dainfern Square (Pty) Ltd & Others[1] the Supreme Court of [...]
Exercising due caution with regard to open source software in private equity transactions
Private equity investors play a role in supporting the growth and development of companies in South Africa. When a [...]
