City of Cape Town v South African Municipal Workers Union (C 429/2007) [2008] ZALC 30; [2008] 7 BLLR 618 (LC) ; (2008) 29 ILJ 1886 (LC) (19 March 2008)

City of Cape Town v South African Municipal Workers Union (C 429/2007) [2008] ZALC 30; [2008] 7 BLLR 618 (LC) ; (2008) 29 ILJ 1886 (LC) (19 March 2008)

The Labour Court, exercising its discretion under section 162 of the LRA, must consider both law and fairness in awarding costs. While the applicant was successful and the general rule would support a costs award, fairness to both parties is paramount in labour disputes, especially where there is an ongoing employment relationship and the respondent's opposition was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith. The respondent believed it was entitled to call the strike based on the certificate issued, and the matter was of significant importance to both parties. The respondent did not oppose the final order and called off the strike after the interim interdict. In light of these factors and...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 30
Parties
Applicant: City of Cape Town; Respondent: South African Municipal Workers Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Case Number
C 429/2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Confirmation of Interim Interdict
Outcome
No order as to costs is made.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Unprotected Strike, Interim Interdict, Law and Fairness, Ongoing Employment Relationship
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Unprotected Strike Interim Interdict Law and Fairness Ongoing Employment Relationship

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Cape Town

Applicant

South African Municipal Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Confirmation of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Labour Court award costs against the respondent following an urgent application to interdict an unprotected strike?
  2. 2 Does the depth of the pocket or size of the purse influence a costs order in labour matters?
  3. 3 When is it appropriate to award costs in labour disputes involving ongoing relationships?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court, exercising its discretion under section 162 of the LRA, must consider both law and fairness in awarding costs. While the applicant was successful and the general rule would support a costs award, fairness to both parties is paramount in labour disputes, especially where there is an ongoing employment relationship and the respondent's opposition was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith. The respondent believed it was entitled to call the strike based on the certificate issued, and the matter was of significant importance to both parties. The respondent did not oppose the final order and called off the strike after the interim interdict. In light of these factors and...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs is made.

Orders

  • There is no order as to costs.