The Labour Court declined to assist a trade union which relied on alleged breaches of s 189A(13) of the LRA and s 52 of the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA). There is a distinction between an employer which conducts mining operations and the holder of the mineral rights. The Labour Court held that s 200B of the LRA, which concerns co-employers, only came into force on 15 January 2015 and did not apply retrospectively. But in any event it did not include the holder of mineral rights and there was no attempt to defeat the purposes of the LRA or any labour laws. So the mineral rights holder was not a co-employer. The application was dismissed with costs because the employer had not breached the MPRDA, had followed a fair procedure and its reason for dismissal was based on legitimate operational requirements.
Amcu v Buffalo Coal Dundee (Pty) Ltd (J593/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 134 (24 April 2015) per Connie Prinsloo AJ.
Upheld on appeal to LAC
Mining rights holder: Consultation ito s 189 of the LRA
The Labour Appeal Court disallowed the appeal and confirmed the order of Prinsloo AJ in the Labour Court which refused to grant a declaratory order and other relief concerning an alleged failure by the employer to comply with a fair procedure in terms of section 189A(13) of the LRA and with section 52 of the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA).
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) v Buffalo Coal Dundee (Pty) Ltd (JA42/2015) [2016] ZALAC 18 (11 May 2016) per CJ Musi JA [Coppin JA and Makgoka AJA concurring]