Imperial Cargo (Pty) Ltd v DETAWU and Members (J2689-17) [2017] ZALCJHB 389 (25 October 2017)

Imperial Cargo (Pty) Ltd v DETAWU and Members (J2689-17) [2017] ZALCJHB 389 (25 October 2017)

The court found that three of the four demands raised by the respondents are substantive issues regulated by the Main Agreement and must be negotiated at sectoral level, rendering strike action over those demands unprotected. The second demand, concerning the scheduling of weekend trips, was found to be a work practice specific to the applicant and not a substantive issue, and thus strike action over this demand is protected. The demands are severable, and the presence of impermissible demands does not render the strike unprotected in respect of the permissible demand. The application to interdict the strike was dismissed, but the respondents must issue a fresh strike notice if they wish...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 389
Parties
Applicant: Imperial Cargo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: DETAWU and Members
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2017
Case Number
J2689-17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict Against Strike Action
Outcome
Application dismissed; strike action in respect of the second demand is protected, and respondents must issue a fresh strike notice if they proceed.
Judges
B Whitcher
Legal Topics
Protected Strike, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Substantive Vs Procedural Demands, Bargaining Council Jurisdiction, Strike Notice Requirements
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Strike Collective Agreement Interpretation Substantive Vs Procedural Demands Bargaining Council Jurisdiction Strike Notice Requirements

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperial Cargo (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

DETAWU and Members

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict Against Strike Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intended strike action in respect of all or any of the respondents' demands is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the demands raised by the respondents are substantive issues regulated by the Main Agreement and thus subject to sectoral bargaining.
  3. 3 Whether any of the demands are severable and can be pursued independently in protected strike action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that three of the four demands raised by the respondents are substantive issues regulated by the Main Agreement and must be negotiated at sectoral level, rendering strike action over those demands unprotected. The second demand, concerning the scheduling of weekend trips, was found to be a work practice specific to the applicant and not a substantive issue, and thus strike action over this demand is protected. The demands are severable, and the presence of impermissible demands does not render the strike unprotected in respect of the permissible demand. The application to interdict the strike was dismissed, but the respondents must issue a fresh strike notice if they wish...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; strike action in respect of the second demand is protected, and respondents must issue a fresh strike notice if they proceed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Respondents must issue a fresh notice of the commencement date of the strike if they decide to proceed.