Impala Platinum (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers and Others (J504/97) [1997] ZALC 5 (8 August 1997)
The court found that the respondents, while participating in a protected strike, failed to comply with picketing rules established by the CCMA. Their conduct included intimidation and obstruction, which disrupted mine operations and posed a significant risk of a chemical leak, endangering human life. The urgency and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] ZALC 5
- Parties
- Applicant: Impala Platinum (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: J Apadile and the persons listed on Annexure W1
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J504/97
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Relief
- Outcome
- Interim relief granted in favour of the applicant.
- Judges
- E Revelas
- Legal Topics
- Protected Strike, Picketing Rules, Interim Relief, Balance of Convenience
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Impala Platinum (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
National Union of Mineworkers
Respondent
J Apadile and the persons listed on Annexure W1
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conduct of the respondents during the protected strike justified the granting of interim relief.
- 2 Whether the picketing rules set by the CCMA were adhered to by the respondents.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant in granting urgent relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, while participating in a protected strike, failed to comply with picketing rules established by the CCMA. Their conduct included intimidation and obstruction, which disrupted mine operations and posed a significant risk of a chemical leak, endangering human life. The urgency and seriousness of the situation justified the granting of interim relief. The balance of convenience clearly favoured the applicant, and the lack of formal opposition or attendance by the respondents further supported the decision to grant the order without adherence to standard procedural requirements.
Court Disposition
Interim relief granted in favour of the applicant.
Orders
- The respondents are interdicted from intimidating temporary workers and obstructing access to the mine.
- The respondents are ordered to comply with the picketing rules set by the CCMA.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
2
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Held at Johannesburg
Case No : J504/97
In the matter between :
IMPALA PLATINUM (PTY ) LTD Applicant
and
NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS Respondent
J APADILE AND THE PERSONS LISTED
ON ANNEXURE âW1â ATTACHED TO THE
INTERIM ATTACHED TO THE INTERIM ORDER Second to Further
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
On 4 August 1997, at approxiametly 11h00, Mr Le Roux of the Applicantâs attorneys of record and Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Van As came to my house to bring an urgent application in respect of which I had granted an order that same night. Due to the fact it was late at night no recording services could be obtained and there is no formal record in this matter.
Before granting the order, I listened to the evidence of a Ms Tiendero and a Mr Stevens, both of the Applicantâs management.
In this matter a wage dispute was referred to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) which remains unresolved. The ensuing strike embarked upon by the Respondents was a protected strike. The CCMA was approached on 4 August 1997, earlier during the day, to set down rules for picketing. According to Ms Tiendero, the First Respondent could not send someone on its behalf to attend this matter. Ms Tiendero then approached Mr L Shear of the CCMA about the picketing rules. He set down some picketing rules apparently as an interim measure.
As I understood Mr Stevens there was no peaceful picket on the mines premises. Picketing rules werenât adhered to despite discussions. Several of the individual Respondents intimidated temporary workers and prevented them from attending to their duties. Vehicles were not allowed access to the mine and generally the disruptions were of such a nature that the mine could not function normally and there was a great possibility of a chemicals leak. Mr Stevens testified that the Applicantâs main concern was the fact that dangerous chemicals are used at its mine and that the actions of several of the individual Respondents could possibly lead to a leak of these chemicals which could cause harm to human life and the general operation of the mine. After hearing the evidence under oath I was of the view that the circumstances I granted warranted interim relief. I regarded the matter as serious enough in the circumstances. I felt that the balance of convenience clearly favoured the Applicant. I was also satisfied, that in the time available to the Applicantâs attorneys of record and the Applicant, no papers could be settled and served in accordance with the rules of the Labour Court. --------------------------- JUDGE E REVELAS LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Dated at Johannesburg on this 8th day of August 1997
As I understood Mr Stevens there was no peaceful picket on the mines premises. Picketing rules werenât adhered to despite discussions. Several of the individual Respondents intimidated temporary workers and prevented them from attending to their duties. Vehicles were not allowed access to the mine and generally the disruptions were of such a nature that the mine could not function normally and there was a great possibility of a chemicals leak.
Mr Stevens testified that the Applicantâs main concern was the fact that dangerous chemicals are used at its mine and that the actions of several of the individual Respondents could possibly lead to a leak of these chemicals which could cause harm to human life and the general operation of the mine.
After hearing the evidence under oath I was of the view that the circumstances I granted warranted interim relief. I regarded the matter as serious enough in the circumstances. I felt that the balance of convenience clearly favoured the Applicant. I was also satisfied, that in the time available to the Applicantâs attorneys of record and the Applicant, no papers could be settled and served in accordance with the rules of the Labour Court.
---------------------------
JUDGE E REVELAS
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Dated at Johannesburg on this 8th day of August 1997