During the 2001 negotiations, the parties were unable to agree on the percentage increase in wages. It was also not possible to reach agreement on other conditions of employment. On 29 June 2001, the opponent of the first appeal expressed a dispute over issues that could not be agreed upon. I will call this quarrel "the main dispute." The main point of contention was referred to conciliation. A consultation meeting was held on 12 July 2001. The dispute was not resolved and on 18 July the Ombudsman issued a certificate to that effect. [9] Eskom argues that (i) the requirement is incompetent under current collective agreements; and (ii) the claim is illegal. [10] Eskom argues that:- i) the recognition agreement reached by the parties in May 2000, which applies to T.A.S.K. T04 to T13 class workers; and (ii) the terms of service for the "T.A.S.K. T04 to T13/P13" grades are opposed to the unions` request for the following reasons - (i) the limits of the rate unit are prescribed by the collective agreement and, therefore, do not fall within the scope of the issues that can be negotiated; and (ii) the requirement is illegal, as it wants to compel third parties to participate and negotiate within a bargaining unit and is an unacceptable infringement of workers` right to association. The National Union of Mineworkers (NUMSA) expressed concern about the decision of Eskom`s new board of directors to unilaterally suspend the recognition agreement with trade unions in preparation for privatization.

The opponent of the first appeal, a union, represents the other respondents who are workers of the complainant. The recognition agreement between the complainant and the opponent of the first appeal provides for annual wage negotiations between the parties. In order to appease lenders and investors, the Board of Directors has decided to suspend all agreements with NUMSA and other unions. [11] The collective agreement specifies the conditions governing the renegotiation or modification of the contract. There is no restriction that a party cannot require a change in the definition of the bargaining unit or that a party requesting an amendment must first terminate the agreement (which, in my view, would be inconsistent with the amendment clause). As a result, the collective agreement does not exclude, on its terms, the negotiation of the amendment to the bargaining unit, provided that the renegotiation requirement is formulated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Eskom did not argue that the unions had not followed the prescribed procedure. For more information, visit our website eskom.co.za section 64 (4) and (5) of the law: The two main unions in Eskom say they still need to be called upon to discuss with the government and Eskom to discuss the future of the company. 3 The opponent of the first appeal is ordered to pay costs. When Eskom changed the current criteria for benefit supplements, workers were not consulted and unions are now calling for a reversal. Unions want outsourced services to be provided by workers who work directly under Eskom`s conditions of service, as this ensures job security and ends precarious working conditions. (b) If the employer has already implemented the amendment unilaterally, you are asking the employer to reinstate the conditions of employment in effect prior to the amendment.