abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

5 May 2013

Author:
René Vollgraaff, Business Day Live (So. Africa)

Legal eagles snipe at Walmart ruling [So. Africa]

T[he] competition authorities went beyond their mandate when granting protection to the South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union (Saccawu) in the merger of Walmart and Massmart, according to a new case note in a South African law journal…The court confirmed the decision of the Competition Tribunal to approve….Walmart[‘s] acqui[sition]…of Massmart…The court also confirmed the tribunal’s ruling that the merger be subjected to conditions after concerns around employment and procurement were raised… This…is problematic, according to the case note…“By imposing a condition that extends beyond their public interest mandate the competition authorities have created the potential for a number of negative consequences to arise from the Walmart condition.” These include opposing the basic principles of competition as Saccawu is granted a monopoly position… [which] could also harm the interests of employees, who should be entitled to freely select the union they feel will best protect their interests in the workplace...