AMCU v Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd and Another; In re: Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd v Magagula and Others (82258/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 991; (2016) 37 ILJ 1325 (GP) (4 December 2015)

AMCU v Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd and Another; In re: Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd v Magagula and Others (82258/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 991; (2016) 37 ILJ 1325 (GP) (4 December 2015)

The court found that AMCU has a direct and substantial interest in the main application and granted it leave to intervene as second respondent. The central issue was whether the conduct of the respondents amounted to a strike as defined in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act. The court held that dismissed employees may still be regarded as employees for the purposes of the Act and may continue to participate in a strike. The facts showed that the respondents were engaged in a protected strike, and the dispute that led to the strike remained unresolved. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court. The application was...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 991
Parties
Applicant: AMCU; Respondent: Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Samuel December Magagula & 158 Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2015
Case Number
82258/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Intervention and Argument
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and urgency; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Strike Definition, Jurisdiction of High Court, Intervention in Proceedings, Protected Strike, Urgency, Alternative Remedies
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Definition Jurisdiction of High Court Intervention in Proceedings Protected Strike Urgency Alternative Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMCU

Applicant

Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Samuel December Magagula & 158 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Intervention and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AMCU has a direct and substantial interest to intervene in the main application.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the respondents constitutes a strike as defined in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the main application if the conduct amounts to a strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that AMCU has a direct and substantial interest in the main application and granted it leave to intervene as second respondent. The central issue was whether the conduct of the respondents amounted to a strike as defined in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act. The court held that dismissed employees may still be regarded as employees for the purposes of the Act and may continue to participate in a strike. The facts showed that the respondents were engaged in a protected strike, and the dispute that led to the strike remained unresolved. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and urgency; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The main application is dismissed.
  • Applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including the reserved costs of 27 October 2015.