Bam and Others v BME (a member of Omnia Group (Pty) Ltd) (JS1181/2013) [2021] ZALCJHB 419 (17 November 2021)

Bam and Others v BME (a member of Omnia Group (Pty) Ltd) (JS1181/2013) [2021] ZALCJHB 419 (17 November 2021)

The court found that the strike was unprotected, as established by prior court orders and the collective agreement prohibiting industrial action on wages and substantive conditions during its term. The employer issued multiple ultimatums and provided opportunities for engagement, but the applicants remained inflexible and did not unconditionally tender their services. The wage demands were opportunistic and unreasonable, and the applicants failed to communicate any intention to return to work. The employer's actions complied with statutory requirements for dismissal in the context of mass industrial action. Procedural fairness was satisfied as the applicants were given opportunities to...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 419
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Bam & 194 Others; Respondent: BME (a member of Omnia Group (Pty) Ltd)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2021
Case Number
JS1181/2013
Procedural Posture
Trial / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Dismissal of the applicants for participating in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair. One applicant found liable for property damage.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Strike Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Collective Bargaining, Compensation for Damages
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unprotected Strike Strike Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Collective Bargaining Compensation for Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Bam & 194 Others

Applicant

BME (a member of Omnia Group (Pty) Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of 195 employees for participation in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether certain applicants did not participate in the strike and were unfairly dismissed.
  3. 3 Whether the employer complied with statutory requirements for dismissal during unprotected industrial action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the strike was unprotected, as established by prior court orders and the collective agreement prohibiting industrial action on wages and substantive conditions during its term. The employer issued multiple ultimatums and provided opportunities for engagement, but the applicants remained inflexible and did not unconditionally tender their services. The wage demands were opportunistic and unreasonable, and the applicants failed to communicate any intention to return to work. The employer's actions complied with statutory requirements for dismissal in the context of mass industrial action. Procedural fairness was satisfied as the applicants were given opportunities to...

Court Disposition

Dismissal of the applicants for participating in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair. One applicant found liable for property damage.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicants for participating in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair.
  • Mr S Mpofu is liable to the respondent for the damage caused to the boom gate at the main entrance to the respondent’s premises on 11 September 2013. The respondent may enroll the matter for determination of just and equitable compensation under s 68(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995.