Note to editors: The following statement accompanies a press conference held in Parliament this morning.

The Democratic Alliance will today submit a Private Members Legislative Proposal to Parliament, which will seek to protect non-striking workers and the general public from violence and intimidation, and to protect public and private property from malicious destruction during strike action. The legislation would make unions liable for, amongst others, penalties and damages for the illegal and undisciplined behaviour of individual members. Such penalties would be imposed upon unions, or indeed any party to a strike, if prescribed good practice is not followed during legitimate strike actions. This proposal comes in the wake of SADTU's announcement that the union would not sign the government's final wage offer. Some members of SADTU were responsible for damages to public property during the most recent public sector strike, especially to schools in Gauteng.
 
A copy of the bill is available online.
 
The right to strike is enshrined in our constitution and is an essential component of our labour legislation that allows disenfranchised workers to take legitimate industrial action as a means of both voicing their concerns and bargaining with employers. Equally important is the right of those people who wish to work being free to do so, without fear of intimidation, or violence. Likewise, neither the state nor the private sector should have to fork out for damage to property resulting from union action.

However, South Africa has been rocked by serious strike action, which has resulted in deaths, acts of violence and intimidation against fellow workers and members of the general public, and widespread destruction of property. In many instances we have also seen union members involved in obstructing the provision of vital public services, particularly those in the public health sector.

For these reasons, I will be submitting a Private Members' Legislative Proposal to the Office of the Speaker of Parliament, in terms of Section 73 (2) read with section 76 (1) of the Constitution. The Bill seeks to amend the Labour Relations Act of 1995, by making unions partly responsible for the illegal actions during strikes.
 
The key points of the proposal are as follows:
 
* Registered unions shall be expected to take steps to prevent, repair or remedy injury to a person and loss or damage to property caused by strike action.
* Unions will be made responsible for any damage, loss or injury as a result of strike action that that union either expressly or tacitly endorsed or facilitated in any way.
* Union responsibility is presumed in all cases where there is loss, damage or injury arising from strike action, if it has been proven that a member committed an offence or caused damage during a strike action.
* Courts would be given the power to issue orders, award damages, declare if and when a strike is no longer protected and to refer a dispute to arbitration, as though it were a dispute in an essential service.

While we are cognisant of the fact that the law has adequate provisions in place to charge individual members of the public - including striking union members - with crimes such as damage to property or acts of aggression or assault, we believe that extending the law to hold unions accountable for the behaviour of their members would advance the interests of justice, and carry with it an array of practical benefits.

Firstly, it is a matter of principle that an organisation or body, when breaching the law while carrying out one of its regular functions, should be regarded as a juristic person, and held liable for its actions. Just as a petroleum company should be liable to pay damages for an oil spill, a union should be held responsible for breaches of the law during strike action.

In other words, an amendment of this nature to the Labour Relations Act would advance the principle of accountability.
 
Secondly, this proposal would, I believe, have a profound net effect. The fact is that both union bosses and members know that acts of violence during mass action are difficult for the police to investigate, and pinpoint to specific members. The upshot is that there is little existing disincentive against acts of violence. A law of this kind would incentivise unions and union office bearers to take all reasonable steps to avoid such lawlessness.

During the recent public sector strike, Cosatu called its actions "peaceful, lawful and orderly". They claimed that they would not "tolerate or condone any violent or threatening behaviour", and that the organisation "prided itself on its members' high levels of discipline in strikes and demonstrations."

Though all the evidence suggested otherwise, the salient point is this: if union bosses agree that strikers must be orderly and peaceful, then they should have no problem signing onto legislation that seeks to further this aim.

Statement issued by Ian Ollis MP, Democratic Alliance Shadow Minister of Labour, October 5 2010

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter