Joy Global (South Africa) Provident Fund and Another v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others [2005] ZAGPHC 366; 11817/05 (4 August 2005)

Joy Global (South Africa) Provident Fund and Another v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others [2005] ZAGPHC 366; 11817/05 (4 August 2005)

The High Court retains jurisdiction to grant an interdict in labour disputes where the applicants seek to enforce common law rights not expressly derogated by the Labour Relations Act. The respondents' demands are unlawful as the employer is contractually and legally incapable of acceding to them. The applicants are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 366
Parties
Applicant: Joy Global (South Africa) Provident Fund; Applicant: Another; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa; Respondent: Others
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2005
Case Number
11817/05
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Interdict granted restraining respondents from breaching fund membership obligations and interfering with contractual relationships; no costs order.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Strike Interdict, Common Law Rights, Jurisdiction of High Court, Contractual Obligations, Protected Strike, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Interdict Common Law Rights Jurisdiction of High Court Contractual Obligations Protected Strike Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joy Global (South Africa) Provident Fund

Applicant

Another

Applicant

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa

Respondent

Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant an interdict in a labour dispute involving strike action where common law rights are asserted.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' strike action and demands are unlawful and in breach of contractual obligations.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining respondents from breaching fund membership obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court retains jurisdiction to grant an interdict in labour disputes where the applicants seek to enforce common law rights not expressly derogated by the Labour Relations Act. The respondents' demands are unlawful as the employer is contractually and legally incapable of acceding to them. The applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining the respondents from breaching their obligations to the Fund and from interfering with the contractual relationship between the Fund and the employer. The order does not derogate from the employees' statutory rights to strike at the proper time and under permissible circumstances. Each party is to bear its own costs, considering the...

Court Disposition

Interdict granted restraining respondents from breaching fund membership obligations and interfering with contractual relationships; no costs order.

Orders

  • The individual respondents are interdicted and restrained from breaching their obligations to the Fund by withdrawing during employment.
  • The first respondent and each individual respondent are interdicted from instigating, inciting, or encouraging breaches and from interfering with the contractual relationship between the Fund and the employer.