Golden Arrow Bus Services v STAWU (C588/2009) [2009] ZALCCT 7 (12 August 2009)

Golden Arrow Bus Services v STAWU (C588/2009) [2009] ZALCCT 7 (12 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. However, imposing a costs order on the union would further damage its organisational capacity, which was already compromised. The individual employees who participated in the illegal strike must bear the costs of the application, as their conduct was unlawful and must have consequences. The court urged both parties to resolve the underlying dispute to prevent recurring industrial action, which is detrimental to the company, workers, and the regional economy.

Citation
[2009] ZALCCT 7
Parties
Applicant: Golden Arrow Bus Services; Respondent: SATAWU
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2009
Case Number
C588/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Rule Nisi Interdicting Unprocedural Strike
Outcome
Rule Nisi confirmed; costs awarded against individual employees.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Unprocedural Strike, Interdict, Costs Order, Union Liability
Labour Law Civil Procedure 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 1 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 Rule Nisi interdicting the unprocedural strike should be confirmed.
  2. 2 Whether the union should be held liable for costs.
  3. 3 Whether individual employees should bear the costs of the application.

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. However, imposing a costs order on the union would further damage its organisational capacity, which was already compromised. The individual employees who participated in the illegal strike must bear the costs of the application, as their conduct was unlawful and must have consequences. The court urged both parties to resolve the underlying dispute to prevent recurring industrial action, which is detrimental to the company, workers, and the regional economy.

Court Disposition

Rule Nisi confirmed; costs awarded against individual employees.

Orders

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