Chemical Workers Industrial Union and Others v Sasol Fibres (Pty) Ltd (D66/99) [1999] ZALC 10 (1 February 1999)

Chemical Workers Industrial Union and Others v Sasol Fibres (Pty) Ltd (D66/99) [1999] ZALC 10 (1 February 1999)

The court found that the respondent implemented a change to working hours, constituting a change to terms and conditions of employment, without the consent of the majority of union members. While section 64(4) and (5) of the Labour Relations Act provides mechanisms to prevent unilateral changes, the applicants failed to act with sufficient urgency when the initial changes were introduced in June 1998. The latest changes were part of an ongoing process, and the applicants did not demonstrate that the matter was sufficiently urgent or that irreparable harm would result from the continued implementation of the short time programme. Bald allegations of harm were insufficient. As a result, the...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 10
Parties
Applicant: Chemical Workers Industrial Union; Applicant: D. D'SA & Others; Respondent: Sasol Fibres (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 1999
Case Number
D66/99
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Unilateral Change to Terms, Urgent Interdict, Collective Bargaining, Section 64 Lra, Consent in Employment, Irreparable Harm
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unilateral Change to Terms Urgent Interdict Collective Bargaining Section 64 Lra Consent in Employment Irreparable Harm

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chemical Workers Industrial Union

Applicant

D. D'SA & Others

Applicant

Sasol Fibres (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment without consent.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for an urgent interim interdict have been met under section 64(4) and (5) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to relief suspending the implementation of the short time programme.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent implemented a change to working hours, constituting a change to terms and conditions of employment, without the consent of the majority of union members. While section 64(4) and (5) of the Labour Relations Act provides mechanisms to prevent unilateral changes, the applicants failed to act with sufficient urgency when the initial changes were introduced in June 1998. The latest changes were part of an ongoing process, and the applicants did not demonstrate that the matter was sufficiently urgent or that irreparable harm would result from the continued implementation of the short time programme. Bald allegations of harm were insufficient. As a result, the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.