In the matter of AFGRI ANIMAL FEEDS (A DIVISION OF PHILAFRICA FOODS (PTY) LIMITED) V NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS SOUTH AFRICA AND OTHERS (CCT 188/22) [2024] ZACC 13 (21 JUNE 2024) the case centred on whether NUMSA had legal standing to represent employees in the animal feed industry before the Labour Court (LC), when NUMSA's constitution limits its membership to workers in the metal and related industries.

The dispute arose when AFGRI Animal Feeds dismissed several employees who had joined NUMSA. NUMSA, initiated unfair dismissal proceedings against AFGRI in the LC. AFGRI challenged NUMSA's legal standing, arguing that since the employees worked outside NUMSA's constitutional scope, they could not be valid union members and thus NUMSA lacked authority to represent them. The LC upheld AFGRI's objection.

However, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) overturned this decision, drawing a distinction between a union's ability to exercise organisational rights and its ability to represent workers in individual disputes. The LAC held that NUMSA could represent the workers in the unfair dismissal case even if they were not eligible for membership under its constitution.

The Constitutional Court (CC) granted leave to appeal and ultimately ruled in favour of AFGRI, finding that NUMSA lacked legal standing to represent the dismissed employees. Its key findings were:

• A trade union is bound by its constitution and NUMSA's constitution clearly limits membership to workers in the metal and related industries.
• The admission of members from outside a union's constitutionally defined scope, therefore, the dismissed animal feed workers could not be valid members of NUMSA.
• There is no legal basis to distinguish between a union's ability to exercise organisational rights and its ability to represent workers in individual disputes. A worker is either a valid member for all purposes or not a member.
• Section 200 of the Labour Relations Act, only allows a union to act on behalf of or in the interests of its members. Since the dismissed workers could not be valid NUMSA members, the union lacked standing under this provision.
• The right to freedom of association was not implicated, as the workers remained free to join unions that covered their industry and pursue their cases individually.
• The approach to interpreting union constitutions advocated by the LAC was rejected in favour of giving effect to the plain language of NUMSA's constitution

This judgment is a reminder that unions ought to adhere to their constitutional scope when admitting members. Any members admitted outside this scope will be considered invalid. Also, unions with members outside their constitutional scope may need to amend their constitutions in order to represent them in legal proceedings.

The judgment reinforces the importance of clearly defined industry scopes in union constitutions and the legal weight given to these documents.

For assistance on Labour Law matters or arbitration, feel free to contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..