Bargaining council

[Dave A]

Hi Gerald,

Good on you, mate. I'll get to making a more structured post soon, but in the meantime:

We don’t accept that the Bargaining Council has achieved its 50% membership within the scope of the Labour relations Act.

The relevant section of the LRA reads:

32. (3) A collective agreement may not be extended in terms of subsection (2) unless the Minister is satisfied that-

(b) the majority of all the employees who, upon extension of the collective agreement, will fall within the scope of the agreement, are members of the trade unions that are parties to the bargaining council;

(c) the members of the employers' organisations that are parties to the bargaining council will, upon the extension of the collective agreement, be found to employ the majority of all the employees who fall within the scope of the collective agreement;

Now it is quite possible that the 50%+1 requirement is not met, either on the union or the employer side, or perhaps even both. But have you thought how to collect the hard evidence that will be needed to prove this?

[murdock]

one way would be to get the ECA to surrender information...problem is they also get their little cut from the bargaining council.

[Dave A]

I wouldn't rely on the ECA or the bargaining council to be particularly transparent with the numbers. You see, it's not just a breakdown of the numbers they've got - what you might have to look at is the numbers they don't have too.

It gets worse - even if you can prove that there are no longer sufficient numbers to justify extension of the collective agreement to non-parties, you still have to rely on the whim of the minister to have the extension withdrawn.

32. (5) Despite subsection (3)(b) and (c), the Minister may extend a collective agreement in terms of subsection (2) if –

(a) the parties to the bargaining council are sufficiently representative within the registered scope of the bargaining council; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that failure to extend the agreement may undermine collective bargaining at sectoral level or in the public service as a whole

Now given the fondness our Minister of Labour has for collective bargaining, I don't like the chances if we have to rely on his interpretation of the merits. Those chances might have improved slightly of late, though.

[Dave A]

The quick, simple solution

Ultimately it is unified action that stands a reasonable chance of quick, relatively painless results. Individual action is going to be worn down with threats and BS just as it has been all along so far.

If we rely on the LRA as it currently stands, (admittedly anecdotal) evidence suggests that organised labour doesn't have the numbers it needs, but the ECA does. So it is the presence of the ECA that is keeping this alive.

Hence the easiest way to see the demise of the extension to non-parties (and perhaps the collective agreement itself) is for:

• the members of the ECA to pass a resolution instructing the ECA to withdraw as a party to collective bargaining and the collective agreement, or
• for sufficient members of the ECA to resign from the ECA to severely reduce the ECA % representation of the industry.

I don't know about the prospects of a resolution. The top leadership certainly seems more pro the bargaining council than against it, even if I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any of them as to why it should be maintained. But I suspect the start of a mass resignation based on dissatisfaction with the bargaining council might nudge this in the right direction

(If anyone would like to put down these supposed benefits to employers in writing, I'll be quite happy to put a counter view.)

Of course organised labour is likely to respond with industrial action, but apparently there was an organised labour strike during the negotiation process last year. I haven't met a person yet who particularly noticed.

Maybe the companies with majority unionised staff need to stay in the system. But why the majority of companies should accept being dictated to like this is beyond me.

[murdock]

at least my visit to the bargaiining council today was a huge success for past fees and future payments

[Dave A]

at least my visit to the bargaiining council today was a huge success for past fees and future payments

Have they decided they don't want you anymore?

[murdock]

i have to revise all my past payments and seperate electrical work my staff do from the power quality work i do...and days i didnt put staff on short time etc etc then deduct all the time from my payments made in the past...then keep a log book for future when they work doing electrical work and when we are doing other work which is not related to "electrical contracting"

look like i am in for a refund...best thing i did visiting them yestertday other wise i would have just kept on paying for things i dont have to

[Dave A]

That's the irony in all this. The central agreement has become so complicated they start tripping themselves up with all the rules. Trouble is most people just roll over.

I'm waiting to see how my current scrap resolves before I post any details, but it's getting interesting.

[Gerald]

BC under seige

Well done Murdock, an old tactic before the smart bombs was to cut off supply to weaken the enemy before launching an attack.

That having been said in our company we do many facits of works and electrical only accounts for 60% of our revenue, the bargaining council gets a return on 100%.

Please keep us informed as to whether you actually get this right. Luckily we have just purchased software to run the service and installation side that can track each individual task and can group those tasks into catagories like, electrical, mechanical, civil.

I can't wait to tackle the BC on this.

Dave, we had actually joined the ECA last year so I re-routed my woes through them. I questioned the 50+% registration and the between the line reply was that this achieved through ECA membership alone (there is definately strength in numbers). I was asked to stand off till after the next council meeting where the ECA would appeal the council decision.

I'll keep the forum updated on new developments...

[murdock]

i resigned fro mthe eca and have since started saving even more money...because if you are a member of the eca the bargaining council take their portion on top of the bargaining councils...so at the end of the day the less people/organisations you belong to the less you get shafted.

just to let you know i was a member of the eca for more than 10 years...and to date as a small company have never gained anything from it other than a couple free drinks at the meetings...non of my claims for outstanding money were ever collected etc etc...

[Alan]

A thought crossed my mind. It is a known fact that Plumbers charge more than Electricians do and therefore have better margines.
Why have i never heard from any of the plumbers that they have the same gripes??
Second question. Is there a Plumbers Association?

[Dave A]

I'm now very curious as to how Murdock and Gerald get on with this pro-rata business. Here's my current scrap, which I may as well post now because it's starting to go around in circles.

When you register with the bargaining council, you indicate the number of hours in your standard work week - in my case 8 hours per day, 5 day week - equals 40 hours per week.

Now you'd assume this is used in calculating their bill - wrong!

I've been trying to figure out why my pension fund deductions don't add up to what I'm being billed. It turns out the BC has been billing me based on a 44 hour week. So I send this email message:

Having examined the returns, it seems these figures are based on a 44 hour working week. Could you please confirm that?
This is an issue as our company works a 40 hour week and we have made all our calculations to date accordingly i.r.o. pension contributions.

The response:

All deductions are calculated on a 44 hour working week we cannot bill contractors on a 40 hour week.
If need be you could recover the difference of the employee contributions from the employees we have
an acknowledgement letter which we could provide you with. ( in respect of the four hour diffrence)

So I ask for this acknowledgement letter and an explanation as to how this is covered in terms of the central agreement. No response. Just a summons to arbitration - eventually.

Arbitrator agrees I'm entitled to an explanation of this state of affairs and we agree to meet again to thrash this out later in the week. At the meeting it is agreed that I will be sent this letter and the pension fund agreement. No sign of the pension fund agreement yet, but I've been sent an Acknowledgement of Debt letter yesterday, out of which this little paragraph has relevance:

The employer is therefore entitled to make deductions from the employees remuneration only for the employees portion which includes the Council levies (0.35% per week), pension fund (5.6% per week), and if applicable, sick pay fund levies (0.25% per week), party union subscriptions, and agency shop fees.

That's what I've been doing - at least for the pension fund. I didn't know I could deduct 0.35% from my employees for Council levies. I'm sure they're going to love that news

Let's just run over the maths here so that everyone can follow.

• Pension contribution is supposed to be 14%
• 40% of contribution is for the employee.
• 60% of contribution is for the employer.
• 14% x 40% = 5.6% - the employee's contribution.
• 14% x 60% = 8.4% - the employer's contribution.
• The employee is being paid (and deductions calculated) based on 40 hours per week).
• The employer is being billed by the BC at 14% based on 44 hours per week.
• This is 10% more hours than are actually being worked.
• Effectively the employer is being billed at 15.4% by the BC.
• This means the employer is actually paying 9.8%.

Or put another way - the employer is paying 10% too much based on the total pension bill, or 16.67% too much based on what the employer should be paying.

Essentially I'm being told their systems don't allow for billing according to my actual work hours, hence my curiosity about how Gerald and Murdock end up getting on.

My argument is their admin system handicap should not become my problem. Perhaps I'm headed for yet another round of arbitration.

I also can't help but wonder how many other electrical contractors are being overbilled like this.

[murdock]

dave you must ask them what the R48 levy they charge you because you are the director...i am yet to get reply...when i spoke to them about it they said it was a "standard fee" just because my company is registered with them that they had to charge me...it must be something like the sundries fee you pay when you have your car serviced...whether they use the rags or not is not important you just pay for it regardless...you dont like it take your car somewhere else...problem with the BG is you cant go somewhere else.

[Dave A]

Murdock, when I asked (my point - directors/partners don't fall under the BC) I got much the same answer - essentially it's a company registration fee.

Still haven't got the pension agreement yet, BTW.

[murdock]

Murdock, when I asked (my point - directors/partners don't fall under the BC) I got much the same answer - essentially it's a company registration fee.

Still haven't got the pension agreement yet, BTW.

then why do you pau it every month? that was my question still no answer.

i operated as a pirate contractor for years and boy did i save money...my advise to anyone starting out stay out of the loop as long as you can...unfortunately as the company grows you have to register to otherwise the bigger companies will not give you work...but if you plan on staying small and just working in the domestic market or another way is to sub contract to bigger companies...you will save a lot of money.

it like a tv license if you buy one with your tv and dont pay it they will hunt you down and have the sheriff take other things even if you havent had a tv for the period they are nailing you for rather put the tv into someone elses name who already has one.