Constantia Mining Services v NUM (J4485/01) [2001] ZALC 170 (12 October 2001)

Constantia Mining Services v NUM (J4485/01) [2001] ZALC 170 (12 October 2001)

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to an interdict as the statutory requirements for a protected strike had been met. The Union had referred the dispute to the CCMA, and although it did not attend the conciliation, the period of 30 days had elapsed, entitling the Union to issue a strike notice. The applicant failed to comply with section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act by not giving proper notice to the Union. Furthermore, the applicant did not have a case on the merits, and the application would not have succeeded. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to costs.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 170
Parties
Applicant: Constantia Mining Services (Pty) Limited; Respondent: National Union of Mine-workers
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2001
Case Number
J4485/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict Before Strike Commencement
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Strike Interdict, Conciliation Procedure, Section 64 Lra, Section 68 Lra
Labour Law Strike Interdict Conciliation Procedure Section 64 Lra Section 68 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constantia Mining Services (Pty) Limited

Applicant

National Union of Mine-workers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict Before Strike Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict preventing the strike scheduled for 12 October 2001.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs against the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the failure of the Union to attend the CCMA conciliation invalidated the referral and the right to strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to an interdict as the statutory requirements for a protected strike had been met. The Union had referred the dispute to the CCMA, and although it did not attend the conciliation, the period of 30 days had elapsed, entitling the Union to issue a strike notice. The applicant failed to comply with section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act by not giving proper notice to the Union. Furthermore, the applicant did not have a case on the merits, and the application would not have succeeded. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for an interdict is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.