South Africa Judgment

Labour Court Johannesburg

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (GIWUSA) and Others v Document Warehouse (Pty) Ltd (J1524/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 138 (15 July 2013)

Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Lockout Protected Action Urgent Application

Citation: [2013] ZALCJHB 138
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: South Africa
Court: Labour Court Johannesburg
Panel: R Lagrange
Case number: J1524/13

More details

Court: Labour Court Johannesburg
Panel: R Lagrange
Case number: J1524/13

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

The court found that the lockout imposed by the respondent on 1 July 2013 did not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act, and was therefore unprotected. The applicants established a prima facie right to return to work and demonstrated urgency justifying interim relief. The respondent was ordered to allow the second to further applicants to return to work with immediate effect, and to pay the applicants’ costs. The interim order will operate pending the return day, when the respondent may show cause why the order should not be made final.

Court disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicants; lockout declared unprotected; applicants to return to work; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

The lockout imposed by the respondent against the second to further applicants on 1 July 2013 did not comply with Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995.
The respondent must allow the second to further applicants to return to work with immediate effect.
The respondent must pay the applicants’ costs.
The orders above shall operate as an interim order pending the return day on 30 August 2013 when the respondent is called upon to show good cause why the order should not be made final.

Material facts

Parties

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (‘GIWUSA’)

Applicant Counsel: L Hlatswayo

The persons listed in Annexure “A”

Applicant Counsel: L Hlatswayo

The Document Warehouse (Pty) Ltd

Respondent Counsel: W Bank

Procedural history

Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Before Return Day

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether the lockout imposed by the respondent on 1 July 2013 was protected under Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act.
02
Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict allowing them to return to work pending the return day.
03
Whether costs should be awarded to the applicants.

Party arguments

Applicant: The applicants argued that the lockout imposed by the respondent on 1 July 2013 did not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act, rendering it unprotected. They sought an urgent interim interdict to allow the affected employees to return to work immediately and requested costs against the respondent.
Respondent: The respondent contended that the lockout was lawful and complied with the Labour Relations Act. They opposed the interim relief, arguing that the lockout was protected and that the applicants were not entitled to return to work pending further proceedings.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995

A lockout that does not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act is unprotected and may be interdicted by the court.
02
National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd [2003] 2 BLLR 103 (CC)

Interim relief may be granted where there is urgency and a prima facie right to protection pending final determination.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the lockout imposed by the respondent on 1 July 2013 did not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act, and was therefore unprotected. The applicants established a prima facie right to return to work and demonstrated urgency justifying interim relief. The respondent was ordered to allow the second to further applicants to return to work with immediate effect, and to pay the applicants’ costs. The interim order will operate pending the return day, when the respondent may show cause why the order should not be made final.

Obiter and limits

The court noted that compliance with statutory procedures is essential for the protection of industrial action under the Labour Relations Act.
The urgency of the matter justified the granting of interim relief to prevent ongoing prejudice to the applicants.

Court disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicants; lockout declared unprotected; applicants to return to work; costs awarded to applicants.

The lockout imposed by the respondent against the second to further applicants on 1 July 2013 did not comply with Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995.
The respondent must allow the second to further applicants to return to work with immediate effect.
The respondent must pay the applicants’ costs.
The orders above shall operate as an interim order pending the return day on 30 August 2013 when the respondent is called upon to show good cause why the order should not be made final.

Source and reliance status

Labour Court Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document Download judgment PDF

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court Johannesburg

Judgment

[2013] ZALCJHB 138

Not reportable

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,

IN PORT ELIZABETH

JUDGMENT

Case no: J 1524/13

In the matter between:

GENERAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (‘GIWUSA’) First Applicant

THE PERSONS LISTED IN ANNEXURE “A” Second to Further Applicants and

THE DOCUMENT WAREHOUSE (PTY) LTD Respondent

Heard: 12 July 2013

Delivered: 15 July 2013

Summary: (urgent application- interim interdict of a lockout – first lockout unprotected – second lockout protected).

LAGRANGE, J

Having heard both parties’ representatives and having considered the matter, the following order is made:

Order

The lock out imposed by the respondent against the second to further applicants on 1st July 2013 did not comply with Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995

The respondent must allow the second to further applicants to return to work with immediate effect.

The respondent must pay the applicants’ costs.

The order in paragraphs [2] and [3] above shall operate as an interim order pending the return day on 30 August 2013 when the

respondent is called upon to show good cause why the order should not be made final.

_______

R LAGRANGE, J

Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

APPEARANCES

APPLICANT: L Hlatswayo of Phungula Inc.

FIRST RESPONDENT: W Bank instructed by Singhs Attorneys

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd [2003] 2 BLLR 103 (CC)

Case cited

Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.