Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others v Modern Concrete Works (J2236/99) [1999] ZALC 92 (8 June 1999)

Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others v Modern Concrete Works (J2236/99) [1999] ZALC 92 (8 June 1999)

The court found that the respondent's lockout was not protected under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act. The lockout was in response to a go slow rather than the wage dispute referred to the CCMA, and the notice of lockout failed to specify the commencement date, rendering it defective. The requirements for a protected lockout were not met, as the statutory procedures for referral and notice were not properly followed. The applicants established a basis for interdictory relief, but their claim for payment of wages was abandoned due to lack of evidence regarding the duration of the lockout and wages lost.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 92
Parties
Applicant: Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others; Respondent: Modern Concrete Works
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 1999
Case Number
J2236/99
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicants; interdict restraining the respondent from locking out the second and further applicants; costs awarded to the applicants.
Judges
Marcus
Legal Topics
Protected Lockout, Section 64 Requirements, Notice of Lockout, Ccma Referral
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Lockout Section 64 Requirements Notice of Lockout Ccma Referral

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others

Applicant

Modern Concrete Works

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's lockout was protected under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the statutory requirements for a lockout, including referral to the CCMA and proper notice.
  3. 3 Whether the lockout notice was defective for failing to specify the commencement date.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's lockout was not protected under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act. The lockout was in response to a go slow rather than the wage dispute referred to the CCMA, and the notice of lockout failed to specify the commencement date, rendering it defective. The requirements for a protected lockout were not met, as the statutory procedures for referral and notice were not properly followed. The applicants established a basis for interdictory relief, but their claim for payment of wages was abandoned due to lack of evidence regarding the duration of the lockout and wages lost.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicants; interdict restraining the respondent from locking out the second and further applicants; costs awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from locking out the second and further applicants.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.