Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Factory Workers Union (Applicant) sought orders compelling Sun Textiles (Respondent) to enter into a collective agreement and to declare the refusal to recognize the union as an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court of Lesotho raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue, determined it lacked authority to grant the requested relief, and dismissed the application. The court emphasized that collective agreements must be entered into freely without compulsion and that refusing to recognize a union is not statutorily defined as an unfair labour practice under the Labour Code.
Issues
- The Labour Court of Lesotho was asked to determine whether it has jurisdiction under the Labour Code to compel the respondent, Sun Textiles, to enter into a collective agreement with the applicant, Factory Workers Union. The applicant cited sections 24 and 198A, while the respondent argued that no such compulsion is legally permissible under section 29 of the Codes of Good Practice.
- The court also addressed whether the respondent's refusal to recognize the applicant union and to enter into a collective agreement constitutes an unfair labour practice under sections 198A and 225 of the Labour Code. The ruling concluded that such refusal does not fall under the defined unfair labour practices as there is no legal obligation to recognize a union unless it is representative.
Holdings
- The application is dismissed due to the court's determination that it has no jurisdiction to address the Applicant's requests under the Labour Code provisions cited.
- The court declines jurisdiction over the Applicant's claims, as it lacks the legal authority to compel the Respondent to enter into a collective agreement or to declare the refusal to recognize the union as an unfair labour practice.
- No order is made regarding costs, as the Applicant's prayer for costs was contingent on the court having jurisdiction, which it does not.
Remedies
- There is no order as to costs in this case.
- The application is dismissed due to the court's lack of jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
- The court declines jurisdiction over the Applicant's claims regarding the refusal to enter into a collective agreement and recognize the union.
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized the duty to bargain in good faith under section 198A(2)-(4) of the Labour Code, noting that this obligation exists only where a trade union is recognized. It clarified that refusal to recognize a union is not itself an unfair labour practice.
- The court raised the issue of its own jurisdiction mero motu, citing the principle that courts must address apparent legal errors to avoid decisions based on incorrect law. It concluded it had no power to compel a collective agreement or declare refusal to negotiate as an unfair labour practice.
- The court applied a purposive interpretation to section 3's definition of 'collective agreement,' emphasizing that agreements must be freely entered into. This reinforced the view that compulsion is incompatible with the statutory framework for collective agreements.
Precedent Name
Thabo Mohlobo and Others vs. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority
Cited Statute
- Labour Code Order 24 of 1992
- Labour Code (Codes of Good Practice) of 2003
Judge Name
- T. C. R. Ramoseme
- L. Ramashamole
- P. Lebita
Passage Text
- There is no duty to recognise a trade union. The obligation is only to bargain with a representative one.
- a breach of the provisions of this section shall be an unfair labour practice.
- a) That this Court declines jurisdiction over Applicant's claims; b) That this application is therefore dismissed; and c) That there is no order as to costs.