LRM4801
Assignment 2 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 7 July 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, INTRODUCTION
The case of Ubuntu AutoTech South Africa (UASA) provides a clear example of how
labour relations, technological transformation, and organisational strategy are deeply
connected in today’s changing world of work. As UASA embraces automation and
digital innovation to stay globally competitive, it must also manage the impact of
these changes on its employees, trade unions, and workplace dynamics. This
assignment explores UASA’s labour relations strategy through multiple theoretical
and practical lenses. It critically compares different labour relations perspectives,
examines the roles of key stakeholders, and analyses the external environment
affecting the automotive sector. Furthermore, it considers how legislative changes,
particularly the Employment Equity Amendment Act of 2022, shape UASA’s
obligations and strategic decisions. Finally, it proposes ways to align UASA’s labour
relations policies with the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Understanding these interactions is essential to ensure that transformation is both
technologically progressive and socially just.
LABOUR RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE
1.1. Pluralist and a radical frame of reference
From a pluralist perspective, UASA’s actions reflect a disregard for the reality that
the workplace includes multiple interest groups with different goals and values
(Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:27). In pluralism, conflict is seen as normal and
inevitable due to these differing interests. Trade unions are viewed as legitimate and
essential actors who represent the views of employees and help balance power
between employers and workers. In the case of UASA, however, the preference for
consultation over formal collective bargaining limits meaningful union involvement.
For instance, the “Joint Labour-Management Transformation Forum” seems to exist
more for appearances than for real negotiation. From a pluralist point of view, this
undermines effective conflict resolution and can weaken trust between the parties
involved (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:28).
In terms of goals and values, the pluralist lens would interpret UASA's focus on unity
and shared slogans like “One Team, One Future” as overly simplistic. Pluralism
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
, acknowledges that employees and employers may not always share the same
interests and that fair representation through trade unions helps manage these
differences (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:27). The executive team's insistence that
transformation is a “strategic business imperative, not a negotiation,” disregards
workers' voices and undermines democratic workplace participation. Under
pluralism, this creates room for legitimate industrial action, as conflict must be
managed, not avoided (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:30).
From a radical perspective, UASA’s behaviour would be seen as an example of
deep-rooted class conflict and power imbalance in capitalist societies. Radical
theory, influenced by Marxist thinking, believes that labour relations are shaped by
the unequal power between capital (employers) and labour (employees), where
employers use their authority to maintain control and protect profit margins
(Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:29). UASA’s top-down decision-making, favouring
unilateral control over restructuring, reskilling, and automation, supports this view.
Even though UASA claims to be transparent, their limited inclusion of unions in
strategic decisions shows an intention to suppress labour resistance.
According to radical theorists, trade unions are crucial tools of resistance, but under
capitalism, they are often side-lined to prevent real challenges to managerial
authority (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:29). UASA’s reluctance to negotiate
meaningfully, along with the increasing number of referrals to the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), would be seen as the result of
workers trying to push back against unfair treatment and lack of power. Radical
theory would argue that UASA’s actions maintain an unequal status quo that benefits
capital at the expense of labour.
Strikes, from the radical viewpoint, are not just disruptions—they are necessary tools
for workers to express their dissatisfaction and demand systemic change. UASA’s
preference for informal grievance resolution and minimising conflict would be seen
as a way to weaken collective resistance (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:31). Thus,
radical theorists would view UASA’s labour relations strategy as reinforcing employer
dominance and exploiting workers under the disguise of transformation and
innovation.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 2 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 7 July 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, INTRODUCTION
The case of Ubuntu AutoTech South Africa (UASA) provides a clear example of how
labour relations, technological transformation, and organisational strategy are deeply
connected in today’s changing world of work. As UASA embraces automation and
digital innovation to stay globally competitive, it must also manage the impact of
these changes on its employees, trade unions, and workplace dynamics. This
assignment explores UASA’s labour relations strategy through multiple theoretical
and practical lenses. It critically compares different labour relations perspectives,
examines the roles of key stakeholders, and analyses the external environment
affecting the automotive sector. Furthermore, it considers how legislative changes,
particularly the Employment Equity Amendment Act of 2022, shape UASA’s
obligations and strategic decisions. Finally, it proposes ways to align UASA’s labour
relations policies with the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Understanding these interactions is essential to ensure that transformation is both
technologically progressive and socially just.
LABOUR RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE
1.1. Pluralist and a radical frame of reference
From a pluralist perspective, UASA’s actions reflect a disregard for the reality that
the workplace includes multiple interest groups with different goals and values
(Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:27). In pluralism, conflict is seen as normal and
inevitable due to these differing interests. Trade unions are viewed as legitimate and
essential actors who represent the views of employees and help balance power
between employers and workers. In the case of UASA, however, the preference for
consultation over formal collective bargaining limits meaningful union involvement.
For instance, the “Joint Labour-Management Transformation Forum” seems to exist
more for appearances than for real negotiation. From a pluralist point of view, this
undermines effective conflict resolution and can weaken trust between the parties
involved (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:28).
In terms of goals and values, the pluralist lens would interpret UASA's focus on unity
and shared slogans like “One Team, One Future” as overly simplistic. Pluralism
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
, acknowledges that employees and employers may not always share the same
interests and that fair representation through trade unions helps manage these
differences (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:27). The executive team's insistence that
transformation is a “strategic business imperative, not a negotiation,” disregards
workers' voices and undermines democratic workplace participation. Under
pluralism, this creates room for legitimate industrial action, as conflict must be
managed, not avoided (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:30).
From a radical perspective, UASA’s behaviour would be seen as an example of
deep-rooted class conflict and power imbalance in capitalist societies. Radical
theory, influenced by Marxist thinking, believes that labour relations are shaped by
the unequal power between capital (employers) and labour (employees), where
employers use their authority to maintain control and protect profit margins
(Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:29). UASA’s top-down decision-making, favouring
unilateral control over restructuring, reskilling, and automation, supports this view.
Even though UASA claims to be transparent, their limited inclusion of unions in
strategic decisions shows an intention to suppress labour resistance.
According to radical theorists, trade unions are crucial tools of resistance, but under
capitalism, they are often side-lined to prevent real challenges to managerial
authority (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:29). UASA’s reluctance to negotiate
meaningfully, along with the increasing number of referrals to the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), would be seen as the result of
workers trying to push back against unfair treatment and lack of power. Radical
theory would argue that UASA’s actions maintain an unequal status quo that benefits
capital at the expense of labour.
Strikes, from the radical viewpoint, are not just disruptions—they are necessary tools
for workers to express their dissatisfaction and demand systemic change. UASA’s
preference for informal grievance resolution and minimising conflict would be seen
as a way to weaken collective resistance (Swanepoel & Slabbert, 2012:31). Thus,
radical theorists would view UASA’s labour relations strategy as reinforcing employer
dominance and exploiting workers under the disguise of transformation and
innovation.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
