On the other hand, they do have virtues. That is why we have recently seen a kind of revival of the store agreements concluded on the ground. Why are you wondering that? It is precisely for this reason that closed shop agreements are so rare in South Africa and elsewhere. Such agreements attract attention for a wide range of reasons and are considered in some quarters to be a violation of the LRA`s freedom of association provisions and Section 18 of the Constitution, which deals with the right to join or leave groups of their own choosing. For example, a closure agreement can only be concluded with a majority union. In addition, workers who are not members of the union at the time the agreement is signed must not become unionized, although all new workers must then join the union to secure employment with the employer. Closed shop agreements were not included in the current LRA`s initial draft in the early 1990s. However, they were later met under pressure from trade union organizations, although they were banned in many other Western democracies. A two-thirds majority of existing union members to support the deal agreement is needed. The only reason, and to some extent imperative, why an employer can accept and perhaps welcome a closed trade agreement is to limit the rivalry between local unions, given that the established union essentially monopolizes the employer`s union membership through the closed shop agreement. Closed shop agreements are provided for in Section 26 of the Employment Relations Act (LRA) and are perhaps one of the most sensitive provisions of the ARS and the most controversial with regard to the constitutionality of such agreements. However, the LRA`s transaction provisions provide, at best, for certain safeguards when an employer and a majority union are considering entering into a trade agreement. Membership of the union with which they signed the closed shop agreement.
It is quite clear why an employer would choose not to enter into such an agreement. Most employers consider, perhaps rightly, that in-store agreements are reprehensible. Why give a union the right to have all our employees become members who ask for it? Also, why should we agree with what is becoming more of a condition of employment? In short, a company agreement concluded is a collective agreement in which a majority union and an employer agree that it is a condition of employment that all workers must be members of the majority union. Some established unions, which fear the entry and influence of more recent unions, have attempted to strike business agreements to thwart the entry of new unions, think AMCU and LAMUSA, into their strengthened historical positions. Well, it`s related to our growing union rivalry. In other words, the employer agrees to recruit only union members. .