Golden Arrow Bus Services v SATAWU (C588/2009) [2009] ZALC 258 (13 August 2009)

Golden Arrow Bus Services v SATAWU (C588/2009) [2009] ZALC 258 (13 August 2009)

The court found that the union had not done enough to distance itself from the strike or to persuade its members to desist from unlawful conduct. The union's actions amounted to insidious support of the illicit strike. However, the court exercised its discretion not to impose a costs order on the union due to its evident capacity problems, which hindered its ability to intervene effectively. The individual employees who participated in the illegal strike were ordered to pay the costs of the application, as their conduct was unlawful and must carry consequences. The court urged both parties to resolve the underlying dispute to prevent further disruption.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 258
Parties
Applicant: Golden Arrow Bus Services; Respondent: SATAWU
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2009
Case Number
C588/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Rule Nisi Interdicting Unprocedural Strike
Outcome
Rule Nisi confirmed; costs order granted against individual employees, not the union.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Unprocedural Strike, Interdict, Costs Order, Union Liability
Labour Law Unprocedural Strike Interdict Costs Order Union Liability

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Golden Arrow Bus Services

Applicant

SATAWU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Rule Nisi Interdicting Unprocedural Strike

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unprocedural strike by bus drivers should be interdicted.
  2. 2 Whether the union sufficiently distanced itself from the strike and informed its members of the consequences.
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be imposed on the union.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the union had not done enough to distance itself from the strike or to persuade its members to desist from unlawful conduct. The union's actions amounted to insidious support of the illicit strike. However, the court exercised its discretion not to impose a costs order on the union due to its evident capacity problems, which hindered its ability to intervene effectively. The individual employees who participated in the illegal strike were ordered to pay the costs of the application, as their conduct was unlawful and must carry consequences. The court urged both parties to resolve the underlying dispute to prevent further disruption.

Court Disposition

Rule Nisi confirmed; costs order granted against individual employees, not the union.

Orders

  • The Rule Nisi is confirmed.
  • The individual employees are to pay the costs of the application.