Hazely Piggeries Workers v Hazely Piggeries (C374/98) [1999] ZALC 149 (23 September 1999)

Hazely Piggeries Workers v Hazely Piggeries (C374/98) [1999] ZALC 149 (23 September 1999)

The court found that the strike was unprotected because the substantive demands of the workers were not properly referred to the CCMA. The referral concerned procedural issues, not the substantive grievances that led to the strike. The dismissals were held to be fair, as management acted reasonably and with restraint in the face of urgent operational needs and intimidation of replacement workers. The workers were aware of the consequences of their actions and failed to take steps to reassure management or comply with ultimatums. The application for reinstatement or compensation was dismissed. Costs were awarded against the trade union for the period it was a party and provisionally...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 149
Parties
Applicant: Hazely Piggeries Workers; Respondent: Hazely Piggeries
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 1999
Case Number
C374/98
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; dismissals upheld as fair.
Judges
Brassey
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Dismissal for Strike Action, Collective Bargaining, Procedural Fairness, Costs Order, Trade Union Status
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Dismissal for Strike Action Collective Bargaining Procedural Fairness Costs Order Trade Union Status

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hazely Piggeries Workers

Applicant

Hazely Piggeries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the strike protected under the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 If unprotected, were the dismissals of the workers nevertheless unfair?
  3. 3 Are the applicants entitled to reinstatement or compensation?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the strike was unprotected because the substantive demands of the workers were not properly referred to the CCMA. The referral concerned procedural issues, not the substantive grievances that led to the strike. The dismissals were held to be fair, as management acted reasonably and with restraint in the face of urgent operational needs and intimidation of replacement workers. The workers were aware of the consequences of their actions and failed to take steps to reassure management or comply with ultimatums. The application for reinstatement or compensation was dismissed. Costs were awarded against the trade union for the period it was a party and provisionally...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; dismissals upheld as fair.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The trade union shall pay the respondent's costs incurred while it was a party to the litigation.