Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA (D1575/2001) [2001] ZALC 193; [2002] 1 BLLR 38 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2434 (LC) (29 October 2001)

Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA (D1575/2001) [2001] ZALC 193; [2002] 1 BLLR 38 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2434 (LC) (29 October 2001)

The court held that section 66(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act requires that the nature and extent of a secondary strike be reasonable in relation to the possible direct or indirect effect on the business of the primary employer. The applicant and the primary employer were sufficiently connected through their common ownership by BHP Billiton, and the inter-connected structure and market vulnerability established a possible indirect effect on the primary employer. The proportionality test does not apply to the effect on the secondary employer, and any limitation on the right to strike must be explicit and unambiguous. The court found that the secondary strike was reasonably possible to...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 193
Parties
Applicant: Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of SA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2001
Case Number
D1575/2001
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Subsequent Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for interdict dismissed; leave to appeal granted with interim relief.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Secondary Strike, Collective Bargaining, Right to Strike, Interdict, Reasonableness Test
Labour Law Secondary Strike Collective Bargaining Right to Strike Interdict Reasonableness Test

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd

Applicant

National Union of Metalworkers of SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Subsequent Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may lawfully embark on a secondary strike under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the nature and extent of the secondary strike is reasonable in relation to the possible effect on the business of the primary employer.
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality test applies to the effect of the secondary strike on the secondary employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 66(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act requires that the nature and extent of a secondary strike be reasonable in relation to the possible direct or indirect effect on the business of the primary employer. The applicant and the primary employer were sufficiently connected through their common ownership by BHP Billiton, and the inter-connected structure and market vulnerability established a possible indirect effect on the primary employer. The proportionality test does not apply to the effect on the secondary employer, and any limitation on the right to strike must be explicit and unambiguous. The court found that the secondary strike was reasonably possible to...

Court Disposition

Application for interdict dismissed; leave to appeal granted with interim relief.

Orders

  • The application for the interdict is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Leave to appeal is granted against the judgment given in Case No D1575/2001 on 29 October 2001.