Mon séjour en Afrique du Sud (Cape Town)

Soldiers cannot be stripped of their constitutional rights just because they are part of a structured military force, the Supreme Court of Appeal heard on Monday.

The court was hearing argument in three appeal cases between the military trade union Sandu (SA National Defence Union), and the SA National Defence Force about the labour rights of soldiers.

Council for Sandu, Gilbert Marcus, submitted that the difference between the defence force and the rest of the civil service should not be over emphasised.

"There are many aspects that are similar to other government departments. In the defence force some do combat duties, but not all and we accept the fact that it is a critical important duty."

Earlier, council for the defence force argued that soldiers live and work in a culture of their own, different from the normal private sector employer and employee relationship.

"The South African National Defence Force is an all-voluntary force and if (one is) accepted, all are subject to the provisions of the (military) regulations," Pieter Pauw said. "They submit to the regime of the South African National Defence Force."

The appeal cases are about three applications brought before the Pretoria High Court by Sandu. The SANDF, as the respondent, was successful in one case, but not the other two.

Pauw submitted that soldiers were in essence workers who had a right to join a union, but it had to be accepted that they functioned in a different culture.

"Collective bargaining is very difficult in the defence force," he told the court.

He submitted that unions could have some power, depending on the matters in dispute.

"You cannot have consensus on all aspects, as you cannot bargain collectively on matters like training programmes and staffing policy. You (the defence force) cannot be obliged to reach consensus."

Pauw submitted that if there was a duty on the defence force to bargain, this would have a huge negative effect on the proper running and discipline of the military.'

He submitted that although the Constitution recognised the rights of workers, "the Constitution does not impose a duty to bargain".

Any country moved onto dangerous ground when it allowed its soldiers to take part in public protest.

"You cannot have an organised defence force where members protest."

Marius Oosthuizen, also for the defence force, submitted that within a military force relationships were based on sub ordinance.

"When it commands, it commands soldiers -- at every level."

Arguing the lawfulness of the defence force's refusal to go back to the Military Bargaining Council (MBC) in one of the matters before the court, Oosthuizen said it was justifiable in the context of threatening labour action.

"People who are trained have access to military weapons," he said.

He submitted the Minister of Defence was correct in "walking away" from the MBC as the Constitution also demanded a structured, manageable and disciplined military force.

Marcus, for Sandu, was expected to continue with the union's case on Tuesday.

The court has set aside three days for the appeals.

Soldiers live and work in a culture of their own, different from the normal private sector employer and employee relationship, the Supreme Court of Appeal heard on Monday.

The court was hearing argument in three appeal cases between the military trade union Sandu (SA National Defence Union), and the SA National Defence Force about the labour rights of soldiers.

"The South African Defence Force is an all-voluntary force and if (one is) accepted, all are subject to the provisions of the (military) regulations," said Pieter Pauw, counsel for the defence force.

"They submit to the regime of the South African National Defence Force."

The appeal cases are about three applications brought before the Pretoria High Court by Sandu. The SANDF, as the respondent, was successful in one case, but not the other two.

Pauw submitted that soldiers were in essence workers who have a right to join a union, but it must be accepted that they function in a different culture.

"Collective bargaining is very difficult in the defence force," he told the court.

He submitted that unions could have some power subject, depending on the matters in dispute.

"You cannot have consensus on all aspects, as you cannot bargain collectively on matters like training programs and staffing policy. You (the defence force) cannot be obliged to reach consensus."

Pauw submitted that if there was a duty on the defence force to bargain, this would have a huge negative effect on the proper running and discipline of the military.

He submitted that although the Constitution recognises the rights of workers, "the Constitution does not impose a duty to bargain."

He said that any country moved onto dangerous ground when it allowed its soldiers to take part in public protest.

"You cannot have an organised defence force where members protest."

The Bloemfontein court has set aside three days for the appeals.