Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Mondial | Publication | November 11, 2016
A trade union whose constitution does not allow it to organise in the sector in which it seeks organisational rights on behalf of its members, has no legal standing to refer a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) where an employer refuses to grant the union organisational rights in terms of section 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Labour Relations Act.
In a matter between NUMSA and G4S (Pty) Ltd & POPCRU, the CCMA found that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the disputed organisational rights referred to it by NUMSA because NUMSA’s constitution did not allow it to organise in the correctional services sector in which G4S operated. The G4S legal entity in this matter is responsible for the operation of the Private Maximum Security prison in Bloemfontein. The commissioner rejected NUMSA’s argument that the security industry, which was covered in NUMSA’s constitution, also covered the correctional services sector. According to the commissioner, there is a clear distinction between the private security industry regulated by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority of which G4S is not required to register as a member, and the correctional services sector which is governed by the Correctional Services Act.
In another decision of the CCMA in August 2016 involving NUMSA and Freshmark (Pty) Ltd, the CCMA found that NUMSA’s constitution did not cover the retail industry, which is the industry in which Freshmark operates. In the circumstances, NUMSA lacked the necessary legal standing to refer an organisational rights dispute to the CCMA in terms of which NUMSA was demanding organisational rights. The referral of NUMSA’s dispute to the CCMA was dismissed on the basis that the referral was invalid and the CCMA lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the retail industry dispute. Both these jurisdictional rulings are in line with the Labour Court decision of AFGRI Operations Limited v MacGregor N.O & others (2013 34 ILJ 2847 (LC) which is authority for the same legal principle.
Employers may thus refuse to grant unions organisational rights where the union’s constitution does not cover the sector in which the particular employer operates.
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023