Labour Court Determination

Decorus

Hi,
I just wonder if a company obliged to follow Labour Court determination signed by the Court in Jan 2008 but subsequently terms of employment being changed "due to economic crisis"?
Thanx!

Decorus

Anybody knows? Really important issue.

Decorus

???

dats_right

It depends under what legislative provision the Labour Court was hearing the matter. Generally speaking the Labour Court's industrial relation processes are not enforceable at law but most employers will nonetheless comply as failure to do so can creat headaches with trade unions and employees generally. That said, there are a number of statutory provisions whereby the Labour Court can issue legally binding Determinations.

FreudianSlippers

It's hard to tell from the OP, but that still wouldn't prevent the company from changing the terms of employment in certain valid situations - redundancy, for example, is one of the issues with employment that the economic state of the company can be the/a ground for a change in employment.

Decorus

Thanks guys for replies!
Dispute was under INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
Would determination be legally binding under this provision?

FreudianSlippers

Decorus wrote: »

Thanks guys for replies!
Dispute was under INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
Would determination be legally binding under this provision?

Is it related to union making a decision to change the employment contract?

Decorus

Yeah, it does. And a court made detrmination what new terms of the employment contract should be.

Decorus

Does it have a legal force in this situation or employer is not obliged to follow it?

FreudianSlippers

It's very hard to say based on the information. The court may have ruled that a certain term could not be used, or that a redundancy (etc.) was not genuine, or many other things. That doesn't necessarily preclude the union from acting unilaterally to change the terms (should the terms of the union membership make it clear that the union can negotiate and change terms of employment) and it certainly doesn't preclude employers from making genuine redundancies due to "current economic situation".

Honestly not trying to just scoff at the question, but it's almost impossible to give you a straightforward answer as there are many different factors to take into account.
Essentally the court may have said that one aspect of the terms of employment was not pursuant to rights afforded by statute, may have decided on one aspect of the contract but not specifically on another, may have decided a specific redundancy was not genuine or was a sham, that a matrix was not properly administered, not to use LIFO (epecially in cases where multiple employees were hired on the same date, or questionably where immigrants are disproportionately hit by LIFO)... the list could go on for ages.

Perhaps, without getting into seeking advice, you could be a little more specific regarding the decision of the Labour Court (ie "the court decided [blank], what are the effects of that type of decision?") then I could generally answer the question. But I think the mods are pretty good about drawing the line between seeking advice and asking a genuine question, so if you get too specific they'll let you know!

Decorus

Thanks a lot, OstinT!
I genuinely not seeking legal advice as this matter is not concerning me or any member of my family.
I used to work for this Company X and recently found on the Labour Court website determination made couple years ago stating terms and conditions which were pretty good for workers and subsequently refused to follow by the Company due to "financial crisis".
Determination concerned an hourly rates, overtime rates, Sunday rates with implementation “all these rates should attract the first phase of "Towards 2016" with effect from the same date”.
So I just wonder if determination made by Labour Court in such a case has legal force or it is just similar to recommendation?