UASA on behalf of its members and Others v Western Platinum Limited and Others

AMCU, as the majority union at Lonmin’s Marikana Operations, concluded an agency shop agreement with Western Platinum Limited and Eastern Platinum Limited on 24 April 2019. The agreement required the employer to deduct an agency fee from employees in the bargaining unit who were not AMCU members. UASA, Solidarity and NUM, whose members fell within the same bargaining unit, challenged the agreement urgently. On the same day the agreement was concluded, the Registrar of Labour Relations issued a notice of intention to cancel AMCU’s registration. The applicants argued that the agency shop agreement was invalid because it did not comply with the formal requirements of section 25(3) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), particularly the requirement that it expressly provide that employees who are not members of the representative union are not compelled to become members. AMCU opposed the application, disputing urgency, jurisdiction, and the alleged invalidity.

The agency shop agreement concluded on 24 April 2019 was declared invalid and unenforceable. Western Platinum Limited and Eastern Platinum Limited were interdicted from deducting any agency fees from the applicants’ members and ordered to refund all agency fees already deducted. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment reinforces the principle that agency shop agreements must strictly comply with the formal requirements of section 25(3) of the LRA. It confirms that substantial compliance or implied terms are insufficient where employees’ constitutional rights to freedom of association are limited. The case strengthens protection for members of minority unions and clarifies the Labour Court’s jurisdiction to determine the validity of collective agreements.