Platinum Belt Fact Sheet Update 4: Developments at Lonmin with regard to
disputes around recognition
25 July 2013
This brief has been prepared by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) to assist
journalists and the public in understanding the developments which are unfolding on the platinum belt. The
information in this briefing note can be quoted and attributed directly to CCMA director Nerine Kahn.
The CCMA is at present dealing with two separate but concurrent disputes referred by the
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and the National Union of Mineworkers
(NUM) against Lonmin in respect of recognition at the workplace.
Dispute between AMCU and Lonmin
AMCU and Lonmin entered into negotiations May around a recognition agreement which would
govern the relationship between them. This process is provided for in terms of the Labour Relations
Act of 1996 (LRA), if a union can demonstrate sufficient membership at the workplace.
The company-union negotiations were not successful, and on the 10th May 2013 AMCU referred a
dispute to the CCMA in terms of section 21(4) of LRA, which provides a mechanism for dealing with a
failure to conclude a collective agreement.
The parties met at the CCMA on four occasions during May in an attempt to resolve the matter and
achieve conciliation. However, a certificate of non-resolution was issued at the last conciliation
hearing on 23 May 2013.
The next day, Lonmin referred the dispute to the next stage in the dispute process -- arbitration –
and an arbitration process commenced on the on 26th June 2013.
At this time two other unions with a presence at Lonmin – NUM, and the United Association of
South Africa (UASA), which represents workers in the diamond, motor, manufacturing, transport,
mining and engineering industries -were joined as interested parties to the dispute.
The matter did not proceed further as it was postponed to 29th July 2013.
The arbitration is expected to proceed next week. However, it is important to note that Section 21 of
the LRA has been interpreted to allow a trade union to elect between participating in an arbitration
process or embarking on protected industrial action in order to resolve the dispute.
Dispute between NUM and Lonmin
As AMCU’s membership has grown at Lonmin, it has been allegedly accompanied by a decline in
NUM’s membership. NUM’s membership has allegedly dropped below the threshold of 50% +1 that
is required for recognition.
As a result, in April 2013, Lonmin gave the NUM three months’ notice of its intention to withdraw
from their existing recognition agreement if the union was unable to increase its membership to the
required 50% +1.
On 28 May 2013, NUM approached the Labour Court seeking an order interdicting Lonmin from
terminating the recognition agreement before the required timeline of 16 July. The Court confirmed
that NUM had until that date to increase its membership to the required threshold so as to ensure
the recognition agreement remained in place.
On 2 July 2013, NUM referred a dispute under Section 24(2) of the LRA to the CCMA regarding the
interpretation and application of the recognition agreement between itself and Lonmin. NUM
alleged that Lonmin had acted in contravention of the recognition agreement in transferring its
members to AMCU. It argued that this was the reason why NUM’s membership had fallen below the
threshold.
On 11 July 2013, NUM launched an urgent application in the Labour Court to prevent Lonmin from
terminating the recognition agreement. The matter was dismissed on the grounds of no urgency.
The dispute referred to the CCMA was set down for 17 July 2013 for conciliation. However, it has
subsequently been postponed until 30 July 2013, after Lonmin raised a jurisdictional challenge as to
whether the CCMA could hear the matter. Lonmin maintained that there was no dispute because of
the earlier ruling from the Labour Court to the effect that the union’s application for an interdict was
not urgent, and the fact that NUM had been afforded more time to prepare to argue the point.
The parties will be convening next week where a Commissioner will hear submissions and deliberate
on whether or not the CCMA has jurisdiction to hear the matter. If the Commissioner finds that the
CCMA has jurisdiction to hear the matter, the matter will be set down for conciliation. If parties are
not able to reach agreement in conciliation, the matter may proceed to arbitration where a
Commissioner will hear evidence and issue an arbitration award. The arbitration award will give
direction to the collective agreement to the parties – in other words it will determine NUM’s status
and whether or not Lonmin has acted in breach of the recognition agreement.
Way forward
The two cases will proceed as outlined next week, and will determine the way forward in the
relationship for the parties.
The CCMA is committed to and has been allocated responsibilities in Government’s Framework
Agreement for a Sustainable Mining Industry that sets out key steps and processes that will see all
parties working together to ensure the stability and sustainability of the mining industry.
Some of the key actions that the CCMA will be responsible for include;
1. Fast tracking the resolution of disputes in the mining sector including individual disputes and
more especially disputes over membership status, verification of membership and
recognition agreements.
2. Developing a protocol for the verification of union membership especially in conflict ridden
situations.
3. To accelerate capacity building initiatives in the mining sector.
NOTIFICATION TO EMPLOYER
MEETING

 Employer meets union
Attempt to conclude collective agreement
Collective Agreement
No Agreement
REFERRAL TO CCMA [s21(4)]



By union or employer
BC’s do not have jurisdiction to conciliate, only CCMA
CCMA has no jurisdiction unless union show that it complied with s21(1) to
(7)
 Referral may be made even before 30 days for meeting expires if employer
refuses to meet union.
Conciliation
Settlement
Agreement
Failure to Resolve
Labour Court
The Labour Court does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate, since the
dispute may be resolved through
arbitration. S21(7) & s57(5). But see
NEWU/LMK Manufacturing, above,
Labour Court may grant interim relief.
Strike or Lock-Out [s64(1),
65(2)
If union gives notice of
commencement of strike, it
may not refer the dispute to
arbitration ito s21 for a period
of 12 months from the date of
the notice.
Request for Arbitration
[s21(7)] by union or employer.
Jurisdictional
preconditions must be
satisfied
ARBITRATION
 May determine representativeness
 Commissioner may conduct verification exercise to ascertain union
membership
 May determine manner in which rights are to be exercised
 May consider application for withdrawal of rights
 May consider relevance or confidentiality of information