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

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

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...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 138
Parties
Applicant: General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (‘GIWUSA’); Applicant: The persons listed in Annexure “A”; Respondent: The Document Warehouse (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
J1524/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Before Return Day
Outcome
Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicants; lockout declared unprotected; applicants to return to work; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Lockout, Protected Action, Urgent Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Lockout Protected Action Urgent Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Applicant

The persons listed in Annexure “A”

Applicant

The Document Warehouse (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Before Return Day

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lockout imposed by the respondent on 1 July 2013 was protected under Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict allowing them to return to work pending the return day.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicants.

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.

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.