Klienboy and Others v Contro Cupboards (J 2583/06) [2007] ZALC 173 (15 June 2007)

Klienboy and Others v Contro Cupboards (J 2583/06) [2007] ZALC 173 (15 June 2007)

The court found that, even accepting the Respondent's version that the Applicants engaged in unprotected strike action, the lockout ceased to be protected once the Applicants unconditionally tendered their services on 5 December 2006. The Respondent's continued exclusion of the Applicants from the workplace was not in response to a strike, but rather to facilitate disciplinary proceedings, which is not a purpose recognised by the definition of 'lockout' in the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent's conduct amounted to an unprotected lockout and a breach of the Applicants' employment contracts and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Accordingly, the Applicants were entitled to...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 173
Parties
Applicant: Modiba Kleinboy and 20 Others; Respondent: Contro Cupboards
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Case Number
J 2583/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Payment of Remuneration Following Alleged Unprotected Lockout
Outcome
Application granted. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicants remuneration for the period of exclusion.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unprotected Lockout, Remuneration Claim, Strike Action, Employment Contract Breach
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unprotected Lockout Remuneration Claim Strike Action Employment Contract Breach

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modiba Kleinboy and 20 Others

Applicant

Contro Cupboards

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Payment of Remuneration Following Alleged Unprotected Lockout

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lockout imposed by the Respondent after the Applicants' unconditional tender of services was protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to remuneration for the period they were excluded from the workplace.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's conduct constituted a breach of the employment contract and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, even accepting the Respondent's version that the Applicants engaged in unprotected strike action, the lockout ceased to be protected once the Applicants unconditionally tendered their services on 5 December 2006. The Respondent's continued exclusion of the Applicants from the workplace was not in response to a strike, but rather to facilitate disciplinary proceedings, which is not a purpose recognised by the definition of 'lockout' in the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent's conduct amounted to an unprotected lockout and a breach of the Applicants' employment contracts and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Accordingly, the Applicants were entitled to...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicants remuneration for the period of exclusion.

Orders

  • The Respondent is ordered to pay each of the Applicants the remuneration for the period 5 December 2006 to 16 March 2007.
  • The amounts referred to are to be paid within fourteen (14) days of this order.