Summary of the Document
This document is an arbitration award issued under case number RFBC 79841.
The matter was heard at the office of the NBCRFRLI in Tshwane on several days and was finalised on 18 June 2026.
The arbitration award was issued on 19 June 2026.
Parties:
Applicant: RETUSA obo Members
Respondent: Nepomuceno Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Others
Panellist: W Kruger
Background
The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of Schedule 2 of the Main Collective Agreement of the National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry.
The dispute specifically dealt with the definition of the term “drive” and the job categories applicable to drivers and general workers.
RETUSA contended that the Main Collective Agreement distinguishes between the duties of a driver and those of a general worker.
RETUSA argued that a driver’s duties are limited to activities associated with driving a motor vehicle and responsibilities connected to the vehicle and its load.
RETUSA further argued that the Main Collective Agreement does not permit employers to require drivers to perform loading or offloading duties, as those duties fall within the definition of a general worker.
The Respondents disputed this interpretation.
The Respondents contended that the Main Collective Agreement contains no express prohibition preventing drivers from assisting with loading or offloading activities.
The Respondents further argued that the definition of “drive”, which includes “any time spent by the driver in connection with the vehicle or its load”, is broad enough to include ancillary duties associated with the transportation of cargo.
Issues To Be Decided
The Commissioner was required to determine the proper interpretation and application of Schedule 2 of the Main Collective Agreement.
More specifically, the Commissioner had to determine:
Whether the Main Collective Agreement prohibits drivers from performing loading and/or offloading duties.
Whether, with specific reference to the definition of “drive” contained in Schedule 2 of the Main Collective Agreement, the duties associated with loading and offloading fall within the scope of a driver’s functions.
Whether a driver may perform duties that fall within the definition of a “general worker” as contained in Schedule 2 of the Main Collective Agreement, or whether the performance of such duties is prohibited by the Agreement.
The Main Collective Agreement
Schedule 2 of the Main Collective Agreement defines a driver as an employee who engages in driving a motor vehicle.
The definition of “drive” includes:
All periods of driving.
All periods during driving when the driver of a motor vehicle is obliged to remain at his or her post in readiness to drive.
Any time spent by the driver in connection with the vehicle or its load.
Applicant’s Position
RETUSA submitted that a driver is defined in the Main Collective Agreement as an employee who engages in driving a motor vehicle.
RETUSA argued that although the definition of “drive” includes time spent in connection with the vehicle or its load, this does not extend to the physical loading or offloading of freight.
RETUSA further submitted that Schedule 2 specifically defines a general worker as an employee engaged in duties such as carrying, lifting, packing, unpacking, loading and unloading goods.
RETUSA argued that since loading and offloading are included within the definition of a general worker, these duties do not form part of the functions of a driver.
RETUSA sought an interpretation confirming that drivers may not be required to perform loading or offloading duties and that those duties fall exclusively within the scope of work performed by general workers.
Respondents’ Position
The First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents opposed the interpretation advanced by RETUSA.
They submitted that the Main Collective Agreement does not contain any provision expressly prohibiting a driver from assisting with loading or offloading cargo.
They argued that Schedule 2 defines job categories and provides a framework for grading and minimum wages, but does not create rigid divisions between categories or prevent employees from performing ancillary duties associated with their employment.
The Respondents further argued that the definition of “drive” includes “any time spent by the driver in connection with the vehicle or its load”.
They submitted that this wording is broad enough to include duties associated with the handling of the load.
They also argued that the duties performed by drivers are largely regulated by individual contracts of employment and operational requirements.
The Fifth Respondent’s Position
The Fifth Respondent, the Road Freight Association, also opposed the interpretation advanced by RETUSA.
The Fifth Respondent submitted that the Main Collective Agreement does not prohibit drivers from performing loading or offloading duties.
The Fifth Respondent argued that the distinction between a driver and a general worker does not mean that a driver is prohibited from performing duties that may also be performed by a general worker.
The Fifth Respondent further submitted that the definition of a driver in Schedule 2 identifies the primary function of the position, namely driving a motor vehicle, but does not provide an exhaustive list of all duties that may be performed by a driver.
Facts That Were Common Cause
It was common cause that the dispute concerned the interpretation and application of Schedule 2 of the Main Collective Agreement.
The parties agreed that Schedule 2 defines a driver as an employee who engages in driving a motor vehicle.
The parties also agreed that the term “drive” includes all periods of driving, all periods during which a driver is required to remain at his or her post in readiness to drive, and any time spent by the driver in connection with the vehicle or its load.
It was also common cause that Schedule 2 contains a separate definition of a general worker, which includes duties such as carrying, packing, unpacking, loading and unloading goods.
The parties further agreed that the Main Collective Agreement does not contain any express provision prohibiting drivers from loading or offloading freight.
The parties also agreed that there is no express provision requiring drivers to perform such duties.
Findings
The Commissioner found that the Main Collective Agreement contains no express provision stating that drivers may not load or offload freight.
The Commissioner stated that the purpose of interpretation is to determine what the parties agreed, not what one of the parties believes they should have agreed.
The Commissioner found that RETUSA’s argument would require the Commissioner to imply a term into the Main Collective Agreement to the effect that drivers are prohibited from loading and offloading goods.
The Commissioner found that there was no basis upon which such a prohibition could be implied.
The Commissioner further found that the definition of “drive” expressly includes “any time spent by the driver in connection with the vehicle or its load”.
The Commissioner stated that while this provision does not expressly say that drivers must load or offload goods, it demonstrates that the parties contemplated responsibilities extending beyond the mere physical act of driving.
The Commissioner was not persuaded that the existence of a separate category for general workers necessarily excludes drivers from performing duties that may also fall within the scope of a general worker’s functions.
The Commissioner found that the purpose of Schedule 2 appears to be the classification of employees for grading and remuneration purposes.
Ruling
The interpretation and application dispute referred by RETUSA was dismissed.
The Commissioner found that the Main Collective Agreement does not prohibit drivers from performing loading and offloading duties, with specific reference to the definition of “drive” as contained in the Main Collective Agreement.
The Commissioner further found that a driver is not prohibited from performing duties associated with loading and offloading, regardless of whether those duties are listed in the definition of a general worker.
Key Takeaway
This award confirms that, on the wording of the Main Collective Agreement, there is no express prohibition preventing drivers from performing loading or offloading duties.
The award also confirms that the existence of a separate general worker category does not, on its own, mean that drivers are prohibited from performing duties associated with loading and offloading.
The Commissioner dismissed the interpretation and application dispute referred by RETUSA.