Daybreak Farms CC v SAMDAWU and Others (J976/99) [1999] ZALC 54 (9 April 1999)

Daybreak Farms CC v SAMDAWU and Others (J976/99) [1999] ZALC 54 (9 April 1999)

The court found that the second and further respondents engaged in unprotected strike action by refusing to work overtime, which constitutes a strike under section 213 of the Labour Relations Act. The respondents failed to comply with the requirements for a protected strike, such as issuing a proper strike notice. The evidence of intimidation and threats was sparse and lacked proper identification of the individuals involved. The first respondent (the union) was not shown to have encouraged or instigated unlawful acts, except for a single incident involving a union official not cited as a party. The court confirmed the interdict against the second and further respondents but declined to...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 54
Parties
Applicant: Daybreak Farms CC; Respondent: SAMDAWU & Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 1999
Case Number
J976/99
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Interdict confirmed against second and further respondents; no costs order made.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Interdict, Intimidation, Overtime Dispute, Costs Order
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Interdict Intimidation Overtime Dispute Costs Order

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daybreak Farms CC

Applicant

SAMDAWU & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in unprotected strike action by refusing to work overtime.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents intimidated, assaulted, or threatened employees or replacement labour.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent (union) encouraged, incited, or instigated unlawful acts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second and further respondents engaged in unprotected strike action by refusing to work overtime, which constitutes a strike under section 213 of the Labour Relations Act. The respondents failed to comply with the requirements for a protected strike, such as issuing a proper strike notice. The evidence of intimidation and threats was sparse and lacked proper identification of the individuals involved. The first respondent (the union) was not shown to have encouraged or instigated unlawful acts, except for a single incident involving a union official not cited as a party. The court confirmed the interdict against the second and further respondents but declined to...

Court Disposition

Interdict confirmed against second and further respondents; no costs order made.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 10 March 1999 is confirmed in respect of the second and further respondents, who are interdicted and restrained from engaging in unprotected strike action by refusing to work overtime in accordance with the operational requirements of the applicant.
  • The second and further respondents are restrained and interdicted from intimidating, assaulting, or threatening any employee of the applicant or replacement labour employed by the applicant.