z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
A PERSPECTIVE ON CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS THROUGH CORRELATIVE RIGHTS
Author(s) -
Jan Adriaan Norval
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
pretoria student law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1998-0280
DOI - 10.29053/pslr.v3i.2190
Subject(s) - freedom of association , law and economics , trade union , politics , payment , labour law , industrial relations , labor relations , law , collective agreement , political science , business , economics , labour economics , collective bargaining , finance
Section 26 of the Labour Relations Act gives employers and employers’ organisations the power to conclude closed shop agreements through collective agreements with representative trade unions. The closed shop agreement is known as a union security agreement which has been defined as: [a] generic term for an agreement between an employer and a union or unions in terms of which union membership or, alternatively, payment of union subscription is a condition of employment for all employees. Therefore employees are forced to join the representative trade union subject to the conditions being met in section 26(3) of the Labour Relations Act. This has resulted in a lot of debate on whether closed shop agreements are violating the right to freedom of association, or simply limiting it. This article takes the debate further by not only looking at the right to associate, but also looking at this right as a correlative right because ‘freedom of association buttresses and makes good the promise of a variety of other rights.’ Rights such as labour relations rights and political rights rely on the right to associate. Their dependence on the right to associate means that they have to be looked at when determining if closed shop agreements violate or limit the right to associate.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here