Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (J111/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 113 (30 March 2016)

Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (J111/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 113 (30 March 2016)

The court found that the central dispute regarding Sunday pay is one of interpretation and application of the collective agreement, which must be resolved through the procedures set out in section 24 of the LRA, namely conciliation and arbitration, and not by strike action. The issue of permanent employment of ad hoc contract workers was previously settled and is subject to an ongoing process as per the settlement agreement; therefore, there is no live dispute justifying strike action. The rule nisi previously granted was confirmed, and the contemplated strike action was declared unprotected. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs, considering the ongoing collective...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 113
Parties
Applicant: Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd; Respondent: SATAWU; Respondent: Persons listed in Annexure “A” and “B”
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2016
Case Number
J111/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict; Opposed Hearing
Outcome
The rule nisi is confirmed; the strike action is declared unprotected; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Collective Agreement Interpretation, Protected Strike Action, Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Section 65 Lra, Section 24 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreement Interpretation Protected Strike Action Settlement Agreement Enforcement Section 65 Lra Section 24 Lra

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd

Applicant

SATAWU

Respondent

Persons listed in Annexure “A” and “B”

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict; Opposed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contemplated strike action by SATAWU and others is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute regarding Sunday pay constitutes a dispute of interpretation and application of a collective agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the issue of permanent employment of ad hoc contract workers is subject to strike action or settlement agreement enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the central dispute regarding Sunday pay is one of interpretation and application of the collective agreement, which must be resolved through the procedures set out in section 24 of the LRA, namely conciliation and arbitration, and not by strike action. The issue of permanent employment of ad hoc contract workers was previously settled and is subject to an ongoing process as per the settlement agreement; therefore, there is no live dispute justifying strike action. The rule nisi previously granted was confirmed, and the contemplated strike action was declared unprotected. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs, considering the ongoing collective...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi is confirmed; the strike action is declared unprotected; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 27 January 2016 is confirmed.
  • There is no order as to costs.